Bates and accommodation

[Mike82]

What do you guys believe regarding the orthodox view of accommodation and Bates' view? Is it the extraocular muscles or the ciliary?
    I've read that more modern equipment shows that the ciliary muscle changes the shape of the lens, is that true?
What do you guys think? Was Bates right or wrong, and does it matter? (I personally think the first question should be "Do his methods work? We'll discuss the details later") heheh.
-Mike

[David]

See here for past discussions on this:

http://www.iblindness.org/forum/index.ph...269.0.html

http://www.iblindness.org/forum/index.ph...,61.0.html

David

[otis]

Subject:  The effect of accommodation on the
eye.

What do you guys believe regarding the orthodox view of accommodation and Bates' view?

I believe that Bates said that "accommodation" by
ANY METHOD has a profound effect on the eye.  I agree
with Bates -- and to not care how that is accomplished.
Only that the eye's refractive STATE is profoundly affected.
(and proven to do so).

Is it the extraocular muscles or the ciliary?

In science, it is only necessary to prove the effect. 
It is not necessary to speculate on the mechanism.

    I've read that more modern equipment shows that the ciliary muscle changes the shape of the lens, is that true?

I think it is strongly proven that the total power of the
eye (about 60 dioters) is ALWAYS changed by micro-blur
sensed at the surfact of the retina.  Thus if your
eyes have a power of 60 diopters (at distance), and
you look at an object at 13 inches (-3 diopters), you
entire eye will change its power to 63 diopters, as
a result of responding to micro-blur at the surfact
of the retina.  That change COULD be by change in
"shape" or any other change.  But the absolulte
power must necessarily change as stated.

What do you guys think?

I think the above statement is accurate.  You
could say that this proven change supports
Bates.

Was Bates right or wrong, and does it matter?

It matters that changes in accommodation (for the long-term)
profoundly affect the total power of the eye.

(I personally think the first question should be "Do his methods work?

Good point.  What I suggest is that the person read his
Snellen, and (with the equipment) confirm his refractive
status.  Then, assuming a self-confirmed 20/60, he
should work to clear to pass the DMV test as a
minimum.  If he does, then he can say that
Bates "worked for me".

We'll discuss the details later") heheh.

Always good to share concepts and methods.

Otis


-Mike