This is an Explanation of Existing Data…not a New Theory or Hypothesis

by Gerald Huth on August 5, 2006

It has taken me some time – too long a time – to formulate the terminology that describes this work. It is not a new scientific ‘theory’ or ‘hypothesis’ proposing new particles or ‘bands’ but rather is, finally, a rational explanation connecting the well characterized (Osterberg,1935) morphology of cone and rod receptors on the retina with known, and easily simulated, light refraction within the eye. A very simple geometric principle emerges that may be important in explaining many biological processes beyond vision. It is my view that the overall concept is irrefutable. And, accepted as an explanation, it opens many previously closed doors to furthering our understanding of the vision process. I have identified and reported a number of these.

As to peer review (or lack thereof)….when I first came upon this idea I dutifully submitted a summarizing ‘white paper’ to a nearby university vision/retina research group for comment. The word came back ‘this poor fellow…seems to have done a lot of work…but just doesn’t understand’…etc.. So much for peer review!

I ask anyone interested in the science of vision to simply look at the Osterberg data .you cannot miss it as it appears in almost every textbook or website on the eye and vision. Note the radically asymmetric distribution of cones and rods and ask yourself how that can be reconciled with the ‘ inverted arrow’ diagrams appearing in the same textbooks that portray a retinal image subtending a large angle of retinal surface…as if, the retina were a piece of photographic film! Now reconcile this with the idea that cones (that are thought to detect the ‘color image’) of which 99% are contained in one degree of retinal angle (Osterberg) and how….?


Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: