From Better Eyesight, May 1921:
Q. Why is it that when I look at an electric light half a mile away it looks as if there were ten or a dozen rays of light going in all directions? R. R. T.
A. Because when you look at an object half a mile away you strain to see it, and under the influence of the strain you imagine rays of light going in all directions so vividly that you seem to see them. It is dor [due?] the same reason that the stars twinkle. If you could look at the light, or at the stars, without effort, there would be no twinkling.
Now, can someone think of a reason why Quackenbush excluded the sentences in bold
? Is there some newer, better information on the matter?
This interests me much, because as a child, when I had perfect vision, I didn't see the stars twinkle. It annoyed me very much to read from a book "the reason the stars twinkle". It was something really akward like the light reflecting from the eye to the star and back. I guess it was a scientific book for children. But the explanation didn't make any sense and even worse, I didn't see the stars twinkle. That was my first big WTF moment concerning vision. "Is there something wrong with me?", I thought.
So, am I wrong? Was Bates wrong? Is there someone 20/10 rated who can verify this?
If I'm right, we need to change the words for Twinkle Twinkle, Little Star for not encouraging childen to worsen their eyesight.