Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 175 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Visit Stack Exchange
3 replaced http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/ with https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/
source | link

Since our eyes evolved in a constant 1G environment, and the fact that the vitreous humour only weighs a few grams, the orientation of our eyes while doing any activities should not be a factor what so ever. If anything, lying on your back could possibly aid in that the mass of the vitreous humour is more evenly spaced out on the photo-receptors as opposed to graduated when standing/sitting upright.

Of course, once we get outside the constant 1G, walking/running speed environment, all bets are off.

As all the related questions have shown (Does watching television damage the eyes?Does watching television damage the eyes? and http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1092/is-it-harmful-to-your-eyes-to-read-in-dim-lightIs it harmful to your eyes to read in dim light?), the eye is a versatile and resilient organ. Most of these questions are the result of misrepresentations of other physiological effects, that have grown into "old-wives-tales".

Since our eyes evolved in a constant 1G environment, and the fact that the vitreous humour only weighs a few grams, the orientation of our eyes while doing any activities should not be a factor what so ever. If anything, lying on your back could possibly aid in that the mass of the vitreous humour is more evenly spaced out on the photo-receptors as opposed to graduated when standing/sitting upright.

Of course, once we get outside the constant 1G, walking/running speed environment, all bets are off.

As all the related questions have shown (Does watching television damage the eyes? and http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1092/is-it-harmful-to-your-eyes-to-read-in-dim-light), the eye is a versatile and resilient organ. Most of these questions are the result of misrepresentations of other physiological effects, that have grown into "old-wives-tales".

Since our eyes evolved in a constant 1G environment, and the fact that the vitreous humour only weighs a few grams, the orientation of our eyes while doing any activities should not be a factor what so ever. If anything, lying on your back could possibly aid in that the mass of the vitreous humour is more evenly spaced out on the photo-receptors as opposed to graduated when standing/sitting upright.

Of course, once we get outside the constant 1G, walking/running speed environment, all bets are off.

As all the related questions have shown (Does watching television damage the eyes? and Is it harmful to your eyes to read in dim light?), the eye is a versatile and resilient organ. Most of these questions are the result of misrepresentations of other physiological effects, that have grown into "old-wives-tales".

    Notice added Theoretical Answer by Sklivvz
2 Grammar freak was here.
source | link

Since our eyes evolved in a constant 1G environment, and the fact that the vitreous humourvitreous humour only weighs a few grams, the orientation of our eyes while doing any activities should not be a factor what so ever. If anything, lying on your back could possibly aid in that the mass of the vitreous humourvitreous humour is more evenly spaced out on the photo-receptors as opposed to graduated when standing/sitting upright.

Of course, once we get outside the constant 1G, walking/running speed environment, all bets are off.

As all the related questions have shown( (http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/404/does-watching-television-damage-the-eyesDoes watching television damage the eyes? and http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1092/is-it-harmful-to-your-eyes-to-read-in-dim-light  ), the eye is a versatile and resilient organ. Most of these questions are the result of miss-representationsmisrepresentations of other physiological effects, that have grown into "old-wives-tales".

Since our eyes evolved in a constant 1G environment, and the fact that the vitreous humour only weighs a few grams, the orientation of our eyes while doing any activities should not be a factor what so ever. If anything, lying on your back could possibly aid in that the mass of the vitreous humour is more evenly spaced out on the photo-receptors as opposed to graduated when standing/sitting upright.

Of course, once we get outside the constant 1G, walking/running speed environment, all bets are off.

As all the related questions have shown( http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/404/does-watching-television-damage-the-eyes and http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1092/is-it-harmful-to-your-eyes-to-read-in-dim-light  ), the eye is a versatile and resilient organ. Most of these questions are the result of miss-representations of other physiological effects, that have grown into "old-wives-tales".

Since our eyes evolved in a constant 1G environment, and the fact that the vitreous humour only weighs a few grams, the orientation of our eyes while doing any activities should not be a factor what so ever. If anything, lying on your back could possibly aid in that the mass of the vitreous humour is more evenly spaced out on the photo-receptors as opposed to graduated when standing/sitting upright.

Of course, once we get outside the constant 1G, walking/running speed environment, all bets are off.

As all the related questions have shown (Does watching television damage the eyes? and http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1092/is-it-harmful-to-your-eyes-to-read-in-dim-light), the eye is a versatile and resilient organ. Most of these questions are the result of misrepresentations of other physiological effects, that have grown into "old-wives-tales".

    Bounty Ended with 50 reputation awarded by Community
1
source | link

Since our eyes evolved in a constant 1G environment, and the fact that the vitreous humour only weighs a few grams, the orientation of our eyes while doing any activities should not be a factor what so ever. If anything, lying on your back could possibly aid in that the mass of the vitreous humour is more evenly spaced out on the photo-receptors as opposed to graduated when standing/sitting upright.

Of course, once we get outside the constant 1G, walking/running speed environment, all bets are off.

As all the related questions have shown( http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/404/does-watching-television-damage-the-eyes and http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1092/is-it-harmful-to-your-eyes-to-read-in-dim-light ), the eye is a versatile and resilient organ. Most of these questions are the result of miss-representations of other physiological effects, that have grown into "old-wives-tales".