Further inspection of moonlight on metabolic processes

  • 7 Replies
  • 7466 Views
*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8710
  • Semper vigilans
Further inspection of moonlight on metabolic processes
« on: March 03, 2010, 01:02:39 PM »
Sorry for the "vacation" so to speak but I return to the FES with hopefully what you will find to be a much more advanced addition to my previous research on the biological effects of moonlight. In the other thread, I have a very broad scope of things underlined and there were also many advanced effects on a cellular level. I was able to research such occurences yet only had the resources and ability to test vital signs of myself and others (which I will post in the near future). However, relying on others' research for ceullar events does NOT suffice! With this thread I hope to shed some more light on the harm to metabolic processes through once again my own independent research.

I hope to discuss CAM plants on a later date but I devised such an elegantly simple procedure to show the taxing results of moonlight. In the experiment such factors were put into to play so that exemption of minimal practice could be taken into account. Sunlight, artificial light imitating both celestial bodies and moonlight were used in the experiment. I only tested dicots in this instance for the uniformity is much greater in samples of given stem tissue. So much of programmed predictability, that environment influences could easily be observed.

In addition to CAM plants, I would also like to discuss photoperiodicity in more detail on a later date. Goldenrods have been found to rely on flowering during a time when the day is dominated slightly by more darkness. Darkness that, without interuption will not hinder the growth of the goldenrod plant. However, it has been shown again and again that exposure to a full moon intensely illuminating the scenery with naught but minimal cloud cover, will initiate an interruption of severe consequence that in turnn, the plant will not flower. I have interesting reactions and results recorded from such events and surprising phtochrome findings. However, this was not the focus of my own experiment in this particular thread and I will now shift focus.

My friends the key to observing the stress of plants is simple: COLLENCHYMA

One previous study of the Rural University of Pernambuco showed this reading of collenchyma with no liming in toxic conditions
Quote
The results showed that the structural changes observed in maize leaves were not only a response to the Cd-induced stress but also a cellular mechanism to reduce the free Cd<sup>+2</sup> in the cytoplasm. However, this mechanism seems to be efficient only up to a Cd concentration in leaves between 27 and 35mgkg<sup>−1</sup> for soils without and with liming, respectively. The cellular response varied with both the Cd concentration in soil and liming. For limed soil, Cd was preferentially accumulated in the apoplast while for unlimed soils Cd was more evenly distributed into the cells. The ability of Cd accumulation depended on the leaf tissue considered. The apoplast collenchyma presented the highest Cd concentration followed by the endodermis, perycicle, xylem, and epidermis. On the other hand, symplast Cd accumulated mainly in the endodermis, bundle sheath cells, parenchyma, and phloem. Based on the structural changes and growth reduction, the critical toxic concentration of soil Cd to maize plants is between 5 and 10mgkg<sup>−1</sup>.
As one can see, collenchyma was known to present the highest Cd concentration. Other experiments point to collenchyma production in plants as a response to stress induced by being subjected to harmful wind conditions. This is common knowledge among active researchers of plants even plants that grow too fast are forced to collenchyma production:
Quote
In many rapidly growing organs (i.e. leafstalks), the outer epidermal wall is supported by a thickened inner epidermal wall and by thick-walled subepidermal collenchyma tissue. Owing to the turgor pressure of the cells the peripheral walls are under tension, while the extensible inner tissue is under compression. As a corollary, the longitudinal tensile stress of the rigid peripheral wall is high whereas that of the internal walls is lowered. The physical stress between the tissues has been described by Sachs in 1865 as 'tissue tension'. The term 'tissue stress', however, seems to be more appropriate since it comprises both tension and compression. Hitherto no method has been developed to measure tissue stresses directly as force per unit cross-sectional area. One can demonstrate the existence of tissue stresses by separation of the tissues (splitting, peeling) and determining the resulting strain of the isolated organ fragments. Based on such experiments it has been shown that rapid growth is always accompanied by the existence of longitudinal tissue stresses.

In my experiment, the knowledge that collenchyma growth is a plant's response to stress was vitally stressed. The sample prepared from moonlight exposure was very hard to make presentable as a picture. A precise razor-like device had to be used multiple times along with advanced multiples (Didn't want lignin of fibers hogging the color!)


In the picture you can clearly see this is the vascular bundle of a dicot stem in this case towards perenchyma formation nearer to medulla or pith would be Amaranthus. Everything is as it should be. Clearly the vessel elements of xylem are relatively large and healthy for water transport, the band of procambium reaching across between vascular tissues also appears strong (and will eventually turn to beautiful secondary growth!), the phloem is in good shape above the procambium and in the cortal region, scherenchyma fibers took up the red dye (L factor) and is extremely strong. The rest of the cells for the most part are the average perenchyma. Look upon the surface however, and you willl quickly see the problem. Epidermal tissue takes the outermost layer but what is below it?
FIVE LAYERS OF COLLENCHYMA
The key indicator is the excreted cell walls. In this plant, normal growth only yields 2 ( maybe 3) layers of collenchyma. This is made even more important since plants have such a predictable life growth and the green house used was climate controlled and protected from wind and other environment facotrs that could factor into upsetting the control. This theme was consistent throughout the 3 runs of the experiment completed and obviously shows moonlight alone results in damage to plants.
Collenchyma's preciseness is also due to the large amount of energy required for the cell types production following the exodus from meristematic beginnings. This comparatively large amount of energy required to make these specific cells takes a heavy toll on the overall metabolic state of the plant. Therefore, if it can be avoided, a plant will always make as few collenchyma as possible.




Reference List
Cunha K, Nascimento C, Pimentel R, Ferreira C. Cellular localization of cadmium and structural changes in maize plants grown on a cadmium contaminated soil with and without liming. Journal of Hazardous Materials [serial online]. December 15, 2008;160(1):228-234.
Kutsehera U. Tissue stresses in growing plant organs. Physiologia Plantarum [serial online]. September 1989;77(1):157-163.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2010, 01:06:35 PM by Ichimaru Gin :] »
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8710
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Further inspection of moonlight on metabolic processes
« Reply #1 on: March 03, 2010, 01:03:59 PM »
Well now, don't go thinking that I had forgotten about the role of animals! In this experiment I observed the reaction of Hydra to food. I wanted a relatively primitive animal to experiment with becuase there would be fewer chance that the evolution had put together as advanced natural defences.
Well then, one might ask, why didn't I observe sponges if primitive evolutionary stages were so important? There is a very good reason. It is increasingly argued whether sponges are in fact animals. The reason being the required mobility in classification. Porifera indeed move yet only truely are independent mobile while in larval sponge state relying on cilia. As such, I picked what is slightly more advanced (not much though!) animal that would create an easily observable reaction.

The cnidarians have a great reaction to food because they are in fact one of the first carnivores to arise and hence show early predatory behavior. While most cnidarians exist as polyps and medusae, the Hydra is unique in consistantly staying as a polyp for the great, great, great majority of time. Some (the majority actually) even say that they only exist as a polyp form class. The hydra has an interior gut cavity used for digestion which is interesting because of early specialization. The 2nd specialization of cells is within the cnidocyte used on the epidermis to act as a harpoon and the effective nematocyte which both are used to aquire nutrition from prey.

In short, they actively stalk their food.

However look what happened to the Hydra I subjected to moonlight:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank"> (I apologize for not having the highest quality of video though this semms to be sufficient. It's not easy filming under a microscope with the cheapest of video recorders!)
The Hydra is completely metabolically crippled! This reactions inside of the body were so slow that no prey were able to be caught! It's usually easy pickings of smaller invertebrates among the leaves and filaments of freshwater algea and plants proved to be too much for the Hydra. 7 out of the 12 Hydra even broke down so much that their tentacles dissociated from their bodies. Those not exposed were as active as usual and ate happily!

Thus moonlight once again shows biological harm to those species not adapted to its character

The experiment took a total of 7 days and nights. It was taken in a climate controlled green house. Temperature data should verify little change at all in environment. As it was inclosed, the space was also from of variance in stress due to wind. (No fans present in building either). Plants were divided into 5 groups of which each had 12 plants. The first was a control group left untouched other than watering and nutrition. the 2nd was subjected to only sunlight by being covered by a pot every night. The 3rd was subject to only moonlight by being covered by a pot every day. The 4th and 5th were isolated in a corner and covered broadly (from a distance though blocking all window views) by a thick screen and only subject to artificial light of a lamp. The 4th was covered with a pot during the day, the 5th during the night. The sunlight only produced the number of rows of collenchyma as the control but were reduced in thickness. The moonlight only had many more rows and the 4th and 5th had similar results to the sun only group however, the thinning was much less noticeable. The plants were developed to have functional emergent cotyledons as photosynthetic functioning rose to optimum levels prior to experimentation (grown on same timetable).

Thickness data:
1st [control] to 2nd group (u|m)
Quote
Group   N    Missing    Median      25%        75%      
Col 1   21   0   16.000   15.000   17.000   
Col 2   21   0   13.000   12.000   14.000   

Mann-Whitney U Statistic= 9.000

T = 663.000  n(small)= 21  n(big)= 21  (P = <0.001)

The difference in the median values between the two groups is greater than would be expected by chance; there is a statistically significant difference
statistical significance
Control to 3rd:
Quote

Data source: Data 1 in Notebook 1

Group   N    Missing    Median      25%        75%      
Col 1   21   0   16.000   15.000   17.000   
Col 3   21   0   18.000   17.750   19.250   

Mann-Whitney U Statistic= 418.000

T = 254.000  n(small)= 21  n(big)= 21  (P = <0.001)

The difference in the median values between the two groups is greater than would be expected by chance; there is a statistically significant difference  (P = <0.001)
statistical significance
Control to 4th:
Quote
Data source: Data 1 in Notebook 1

Group   N    Missing    Median      25%        75%      
Col 1   21   0   16.000   15.000   17.000   
Col 4   21   0   15.000   14.000   16.000   

Mann-Whitney U Statistic= 126.000

T = 546.000  n(small)= 21  n(big)= 21  (P = 0.014)

The difference in the median values between the two groups is greater than would be expected by chance; there is a statistically significant difference  (P = 0.014)
statistical significance
Control to 5th:
Quote
Data source: Data 1 in Notebook 1

Group   N    Missing    Median      25%        75%      
Col 5   21   0   15.000   14.000   16.000   
Col 1   21   0   16.000   15.000   17.000   

Mann-Whitney U Statistic= 302.500

T = 369.500  n(small)= 21  n(big)= 21  (P = 0.034)

The difference in the median values between the two groups is greater than would be expected by chance; there is a statistically significant difference  (P = 0.034)
Statistical significance
Just for kicks- 4th to 5th:
Quote
Data source: Data 1 in Notebook 1

Group   N    Missing    Median      25%        75%      
Col 4   21   0   15.000   14.000   16.000   
Col 5   21   0   15.000   14.000   16.000   

Mann-Whitney U Statistic= 238.000

T = 434.000  n(small)= 21  n(big)= 21  (P = 0.652)

The difference in the median values between the two groups is not great enough to exclude the possibility that the difference is due to random sampling variability; there is not a statistically significant difference  (P = 0.652)
no statistical significance
« Last Edit: March 08, 2010, 06:10:19 PM by Ichimaru Gin :] »
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8710
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Further inspection of moonlight on metabolic processes
« Reply #2 on: March 03, 2010, 01:04:55 PM »
My 1st thread on the subject:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34082.0

Data from sigma stat 3.5

Temperature data:
Quote

Group   N    Missing    Median      25%        75%      
Col 1   21   0   293.460   293.095   293.755   
Col 2   21   0   293.440   293.088   293.550   

Mann-Whitney U Statistic= 194.500

T = 477.500  n(small)= 21  n(big)= 21  (P = 0.521)

The difference in the median values between the two groups is not great enough to exclude the possibility that the difference is due to random sampling variability; there is not a statistically significant difference  (P = 0.521)
Temperature is not statistically significant

Temperature readings were taken 3 times each morning and 3 times each evening

Layers present of collenchyma
Sun only plants against control group:
Quote
Group   N    Missing    Median      25%        75%      
Col 1   12   0   2.000   2.000   3.000   
Col 2   12   0   2.000   2.000   2.500   

Mann-Whitney U Statistic= 66.000

T = 156.000  n(small)= 12  n(big)= 12  (P = 0.687)

The difference in the median values between the two groups is not great enough to exclude the possibility that the difference is due to random sampling variability; there is not a statistically significant difference  (P = 0.687)
No statistical significance
Moon only plants against control group:
Quote
Group   N    Missing    Median      25%        75%      
Col 1   12   0   2.000   2.000   3.000   
Col 2   12   0   5.000   4.000   5.000   

Mann-Whitney U Statistic= 142.000

T = 80.000  n(small)= 12  n(big)= 12  (P = <0.001)

The difference in the median values between the two groups is greater than would be expected by chance; there is a statistically significant difference  (P = <0.001)
STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Artificial (Day) against control:
Quote
Group   N    Missing    Median      25%        75%      
Col 1   12   0   2.000   2.000   3.000   
Col 3   12   0   2.000   2.000   3.000   

Mann-Whitney U Statistic= 78.000

T = 144.000  n(small)= 12  n(big)= 12  (P = 0.705)

The difference in the median values between the two groups is not great enough to exclude the possibility that the difference is due to random sampling variability; there is not a statistically significant difference  (P = 0.705)
No statistical significance
Artificial (Night) against control:
Quote
Group   N    Missing    Median      25%        75%      
Col 1   12   0   2.000   2.000   3.000   
Col 4   12   0   2.000   2.000   3.000   

Mann-Whitney U Statistic= 72.000

T = 150.000  n(small)= 12  n(big)= 12  (P = 0.972)

The difference in the median values between the two groups is not great enough to exclude the possibility that the difference is due to random sampling variability; there is not a statistically significant difference  (P = 0.972)
No statistical difference
[reserved for further discussion]
« Last Edit: March 08, 2010, 06:14:04 PM by Ichimaru Gin :] »
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12089
Re: Further inspection of moonlight on metabolic processes
« Reply #3 on: March 03, 2010, 01:28:25 PM »
Fascinating! I can't wait to read more about this.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8710
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Further inspection of moonlight on metabolic processes
« Reply #4 on: March 08, 2010, 01:10:49 PM »
Additional comparison of temperature (this time on a day-to-day basis) 1 Vs. 2:
Quote

Group Name    N    Missing   Mean   Std Dev   SEM   
Col 3   6   0   293.557   0.267   0.109   
Col 4   6   0   293.213   0.445   0.182   

Difference   0.343

t = 1.620  with 10 degrees of freedom. (P = 0.136)

95 percent confidence interval for difference of means: -0.129 to 0.816

The difference in the mean values of the two groups is not great enough to reject the possibility that the difference is due to random sampling variability. There is not a statistically significant difference between the input groups (P = 0.136).
No statistical significance
2 to 3:
Quote
Group Name    N    Missing   Mean   Std Dev   SEM   
Col 4   6   0   293.213   0.445   0.182   
Col 5   6   0   293.258   0.326   0.133   

Difference   -0.0450

t = -0.200  with 10 degrees of freedom. (P = 0.846)

95 percent confidence interval for difference of means: -0.547 to 0.457

The difference in the mean values of the two groups is not great enough to reject the possibility that the difference is due to random sampling variability. There is not a statistically significant difference between the input groups (P = 0.846).
No statistical significance
3 to 4:
Quote
Group Name    N    Missing   Mean   Std Dev   SEM   
Col 5   6   0   293.258   0.326   0.133   
Col 6   6   0   293.567   0.321   0.131   

Difference   -0.308

t = -1.650  with 10 degrees of freedom. (P = 0.130)

95 percent confidence interval for difference of means: -0.725 to 0.108

The difference in the mean values of the two groups is not great enough to reject the possibility that the difference is due to random sampling variability. There is not a statistically significant difference between the input groups (P = 0.130).
No statistical significance
4 to 5:
Quote
Group Name    N    Missing   Mean   Std Dev   SEM   
Col 6   6   0   293.567   0.321   0.131   
Col 7   6   0   293.243   0.313   0.128   

Difference   0.323

t = 1.766  with 10 degrees of freedom. (P = 0.108)

95 percent confidence interval for difference of means: -0.0846 to 0.731

The difference in the mean values of the two groups is not great enough to reject the possibility that the difference is due to random sampling variability. There is not a statistically significant difference between the input groups (P = 0.108).
No statistical significance
5 to 6:
Quote

Group Name    N    Missing   Mean   Std Dev   SEM   
Col 7   6   0   293.243   0.313   0.128   
Col 8   6   0   293.557   0.294   0.120   

Difference   -0.313

t = -1.787  with 10 degrees of freedom. (P = 0.104)

95 percent confidence interval for difference of means: -0.704 to 0.0774

The difference in the mean values of the two groups is not great enough to reject the possibility that the difference is due to random sampling variability. There is not a statistically significant difference between the input groups (P = 0.104).
No statistical significance
6 to 7:
Quote
Group Name    N    Missing   Mean   Std Dev   SEM   
Col 8   6   0   293.557   0.294   0.120   
Col 9   6   0   293.188   0.608   0.248   

Difference   0.368

t = 1.336  with 10 degrees of freedom. (P = 0.211)

95 percent confidence interval for difference of means: -0.246 to 0.983

The difference in the mean values of the two groups is not great enough to reject the possibility that the difference is due to random sampling variability. There is not a statistically significant difference between the input groups (P = 0.211).
No statistical significance
Duration change from 1 to 7:
Quote
Group Name    N    Missing   Mean   Std Dev   SEM   
Col 9   6   0   293.188   0.608   0.248   
Col 3   6   0   293.557   0.267   0.109   

Difference   -0.368

t = -1.359  with 10 degrees of freedom. (P = 0.204)

95 percent confidence interval for difference of means: -0.972 to 0.236

The difference in the mean values of the two groups is not great enough to reject the possibility that the difference is due to random sampling variability. There is not a statistically significant difference between the input groups (P = 0.204).
No statistical significance

Special thanks to Lord Wilmore, James, and the IL hall S. Aible Science Center
[reserved]
« Last Edit: March 08, 2010, 02:32:31 PM by Ichimaru Gin :] »
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Further inspection of moonlight on metabolic processes
« Reply #5 on: March 08, 2010, 02:46:01 PM »
Ichi, quite simply, you are a credit to modern science.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8710
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Further inspection of moonlight on metabolic processes
« Reply #6 on: July 16, 2010, 08:57:51 PM »
Check out my further discussion on youtube
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

bullhorn

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 582
Re: Further inspection of moonlight on metabolic processes
« Reply #7 on: August 11, 2010, 09:47:06 PM »
Very well put, I await your further studies brother.