Now what if I told you that this has helped me come up with my own unified theory on life.

 

Obviously, you have made a deal with Satan. Please stop before an earthquake destroys your area.

For one, there is more than one type of structural defect that can cause myopia.

 

true, but irrelevant, they all result in a focal point occuring before the retina and thats all. none i am aware of result in a more sensitive retina(although some result in a less sensitive retina)

 

Secondly, Since the eyeball is longer in some cases, wouldn't the retina be longer as well?

 

no. and that would not allow the retina to determine more detail either.

I am sure this article has been posted in the past, but always relevant

 

http://www.jonstarbuck.co.uk/archives/646

no. and that would not allow the retina to determine more detail either.

 

That doesn't make sense to me. Why would the retina be the same size? It's tissue like anything else, if the eyeball is longer than wouldn't there be more retinal tissue?

if anything it'd just be stretched out, there wouldn't be any extra detail capable of being resolved on it. if anything its going to be less as the sensors are more dispersed. not thtat the size of eyball is significantly different from anyone elses

if anything it'd just be stretched out, there wouldn't be any extra detail capable of being resolved on it. if anything its going to be less as the sensors are more dispersed. not thtat the size of eyball is significantly different from anyone elses

 

Okay then. I had read something on wiki and I must have misinterpreted it.

It's said and done. It's true and it happened. It wasn't like I planned this, my curiosity led to this discovery. Now my question is: Could this be the same way the ancient mayans viewed the stars?

are you proposing they studied astronomy by being nearsighted? notice acontradiction there?

are you proposing they studied astronomy by being nearsighted? notice acontradiction there?

 

That's exactly what I'm suggesting. How else were they able to view the stars and come up with a calendar that's far more advanced than ours, depending on the critic, one can suggest that it foretells the future.

The Maya calendar is not more advanced than ours. And it doesn't require any special insight to come up with, just lots of routine observation.

The Maya calendar is not more advanced than ours.

 

It is more accurate than the Gregorian calendar which we use today.

It is more accurate than the Gregorian calendar which we use today.

 

Think about that for a minute. We know how accurate the various calendars are, because our measurements and observations are vastly more precise than those of the Maya (or Pope Gregory). This is because we have so much better tools than they did, and vastly more extensive understanding of astronomical events. All the Maya could do was measure angles by hand and look at the sky with the naked eye. Given that, the accuracy of their measurements was extremely impressive, but it still shows its limitations.

Think about that for a minute. We know how accurate the various calendars are, because our measurements and observations are vastly more precise than those of the Maya (or Pope Gregory). This is because we have so much better tools than they did, and vastly more extensive understanding of astronomical events. All the Maya could do was measure angles by hand and look at the sky with the naked eye. Given that, the accuracy of their measurements was extremely impressive, but it still shows its limitations.

 

I'm not saying you are wrong, but why are we still unable to come up with a system that does not use a leap year?

I'm not saying you are wrong, but why are we still unable to come up with a system that does not use a leap year?

 

Because days don't divide into years evenly.

Because days don't divide into years evenly.

 

Ok, so the Gregorian calendar isn't as accurate as the Mayan system.

We could adjust the length of days, but then noon would be in the middle of the night half the time. Days would no longer match up with the rotation of the earth.

Ok, so the Gregorian calendar isn't as accurate as the Mayan system.

It's still more accurate than the 365-day year that used 18 months of 20 days and 1 month of 5 days the Mayans had. They didn't account for the extra quarter day per year like Pope Gregory did, so how is the Mayan calendar more accurate?

Ok, so the Gregorian calendar isn't as accurate as the Mayan system.

 

No, there aren't an even number of days in a year even in pre-Colombian Mexico. That comes from the Earth's rotation and its revolution around the Sun, not what anybody decided.

I'm not going to argue anymore...the mayans used a day-to-day calendar not a year-to-year calendar which we use today, they were able to predict eclipses within the minute just by using what they were given by God. Pretty good for a primitive culture.

A day-to-day calendar? What exactly is that?

 

I mean, I can say "the day starts when the sun comes up" and I'll have a pretty awesome day-to-day calendar, unless I happen to live in the Arctic circle.

I'm not going to argue anymore...the mayans used a day-to-day calendar not a year-to-year calendar which we use today, they were able to predict eclipses within the minute just by using what they were given by God. Pretty good for a primitive culture.

It was pretty astounding for their culture, agreed, but not more accurate than what we have today, that's just wrong. And which Mayan "God" are you talking about?

They made the calendar based on "days" They observed the stars on day 1...recorded....day 2....so on and so on. They observed when day 1 repeated and put that as the year. It's a really unique way of recording, interesting for anyone willing to learn about the past.