Itchy's plant torture experiments

Since he posts deliberately in a thread where critics cannot respond, I wish to bring discussion of Ichimanga Gizz regarding the "harmful" effects of moonlight into the public arena.
Things Itchy should have made clear in his thread:
1. The schedule of exposure to various lighting types, including descriptions of what he used for lighting.
2. Temperatures.
3. Length of experiment times
4. Methods of ensuring a control.
5. Methods of excluding other harmful effects from the study.

That sounds fair.

Since you can't prove that plants have feelings, I suggest you change the title of the thread.

The part of the thread that says

[reserved for future discussion]

will satisfy such questions of detail. I will probably analyze the data on sigma stat over the weekend and include the various conditions.

The part of the thread that says

Quote

[reserved for future discussion]

will satisfy such questions of detail. I will probably analyze the data on sigma stat over the weekend and include the various conditions.

It is customary to set out your method at the beginning, rather than saying "Look at my amazing results! I crippled a water creature!" and wait for Wilmore to start clapping before outlining your methods. That's what a peer review panel would say.

It is also customary for a peer review panel to wait until a researcher's paper is finished.

THERMAL DETONATOR ISNT LETTING ICHI FINISH HIS RESEARCH. HES PUTTIN THE CART B4 THE HORSE!

It is also customary for a peer review panel to wait until a researcher's paper is finished.

Results != explanation of method.

THERMAL DETONATOR ISNT LETTING ICHI FINISH HIS RESEARCH. HES PUTTIN THE CART B4 THE HORSE!

a) I don't think he's preventing Ichi from doing anything.
b) Please re-read. Thermal Detonator just wants to see all of the procedure. I hate to pull out the age card, but I'm not quite yet out of high school, but no teacher would ever let me design an experiment without all the things TD listed.

Obviously your teachers aren't zetetics.

From a cursory glance of Ichi's thread, isn't he just showing that moonlight can be bright? For short-day plants, the light of the moon would prevent flowering, not any magical part of the light. I may have missed something where he used a regular light and none of this happened but if he did do this "control," where they exposed to the exact same environment except instead of moon light, he used an artificial light with the same spectra as moonlight?

It is also customary for a peer review panel to wait until a researcher's paper is finished.

It is also customary for a researcher to finish the paper before publishing it. 

Obviously your teachers aren't zetetics.

Depends on your definition, I guess. Seems like they would fit the bottom one?

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on March 04, 2010, 05:37:30 PM

It is also customary for a peer review panel to wait until a researcher's paper is finished.

It is also customary for a researcher to finish the paper before publishing it. 

I would hardly call posting it in a forum "publishing" it.  While technically you may be correct, this is just plain silly and you know it.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on March 05, 2010, 05:10:41 AM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on March 04, 2010, 05:37:30 PM

It is also customary for a peer review panel to wait until a researcher's paper is finished.

It is also customary for a researcher to finish the paper before publishing it. 

I would hardly call posting it in a forum "publishing" it.  While technically you may be correct, this is just plain silly and you know it.

It's called a metaphor, you knob. 

Quote from: John Davis on March 17, 2010, 12:30:13 PM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on March 05, 2010, 05:10:41 AM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on March 04, 2010, 05:37:30 PM

It is also customary for a peer review panel to wait until a researcher's paper is finished.

It is also customary for a researcher to finish the paper before publishing it. 

I would hardly call posting it in a forum "publishing" it.  While technically you may be correct, this is just plain silly and you know it.

It's called a metaphor, you knob. 

Smiley faces after insults are appreciated.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on March 05, 2010, 05:10:41 AM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on March 04, 2010, 05:37:30 PM

It is also customary for a peer review panel to wait until a researcher's paper is finished.

It is also customary for a researcher to finish the paper before publishing it. 

You are completely right, but i'm going to whine about it, because that's what i do.

EFA

Guys, keep low-content posts out of Flat Earth Debate. In future I won't hesitate to issue bans for this kind of thing. This board is moderated strictly, so don't post here if you can't stay within the rules.

Itchy and torture remind me of the fiction cartoon Itchy and Scratchy. On more relevant side I do think the more knowledge towards this experiment the less error.

I edited it a couple weeks back to include growth and temperature data, comparisons, and for each a statistical analysis

The problem with your expiriment ichy, apart from the obvious deffects of experimental precudure, no control and unfinished etc is that is proves nothing more than we already know of that moon, that it reflects sunlight. You offered that as a response to my question about eclipses that the moon was a light source. Well of course it is, it reflects sunlight, that's why we can see it. It not however in itself a heat source (as it would need to be in FET spotlight theory) as it's cold lump of rock. Now can you give an explanation for eclipses within FET or not?

Light that is REFLECTED from the moon is SUNLIGHT. Therefore plants will read it as such but in less intensity. Plants also however respond to heat. If there is no cloud cover at night of course your plants won't flower because no cloud cover = temperature drop - irregardless of how bright the moon is (plants need heat AND light). You don't need anything but basic biology and physics to work that out. So big deal sunlight is reflected from the moon. I think you are perhaps trying to prove the moon is an independent heat source (for the ludicrous spotlight theory), when it is obvious to the naked eye that it is a lump of cold rock. I could bore you with a detailed geological analysis of the moon but it would be a waste of time.

Am I insane or is this what these guys do - schoolboy level experiments that prove errrrr.....nothing....and to think he stated to me....a highly skilled geologist that this was strong evidence of the moon as a light source in itself.

Tell you what itchy...if you are so confident in your theory why not send it to Brian Cox Professor of astro physics at Cambridge University. Would be a terrific feather in your cap if you can impress him.

PMSL

Apologies to everyone else for being uppity.....but I get mad at amatuer science that hides itself without right to reply in a thread we all can't access.

There are controls clearly in place. The artificial lights corresponded to independent intensity. One group was also subject to normal, natural exposure to both sunlgiht and moonlight. Flowering also has nothing to with the species chosen. It is apparent none of you actually read it :[

There are controls clearly in place. The artificial lights corresponded to independent intensity. One group was also subject to normal, natural exposure to both sunlgiht and moonlight. Flowering also has nothing to with the species chosen. It is apparent none of you actually read it :[

I read it, but am completely purplexed as to the point of it. It doesn't prove anything. Tell me now in plain english what is the point of the experiment...to prove what aspect of FET? When I carry out geomorphic analysis and experiments the very first line of my reports states exactly the purpose of the experiment/ analysis - that's basic. The next paragraph decribes my control. How the hell is anyone supposed to understand what theory your are trying to prove if you don'tn state that. And when we ask you all we get is vague nonsense. And you are doing a very good job of avoiding the eclipse question. You obviously don't read posts properly either.

Sorry if I don't post in the exact order of your school reports. Also, my experiment has nothing to do with eclipses.

Sorry if I don't post in the exact order of your school reports. Also, my experiment has nothing to do with eclipses.

See you resort to insult because I'm about to rip the purpose of your experiment apart and incindently you referred me to that experiment of yours when I asked YOU the question about eclipses in relation to the spotlight theory...so you gave me a total irrelevant reference source...how stupid is that. .and STILL have offered no answer to the eclipse question. Your experiment is basic....and simply mirrors research done before. You still have not stated where it fits into FET theory. There are astro physical reasons why sunlight refelected from the moon has different properties. The effects on plant and animal life are well know....which is why you reference some of that research. I'm presuming you did that experiment to prove some aspect of FET theory....so instead of being idignant...debate this astounding research you promised me. In fact why not post your experiment in THIS forum so it can face proper scrutinised by everyone.

Because there are dull headed people like you that can't figure out the purpose of a straightfoward experiment. Anyways, what difference doest it make what forum it is in? You complain about it not being scrutinized yet here you are [attempting to] scrutinize it. Also, I never referred to the experiment to support eclipses. I simply referred to it as evidence of an independent light source.

Because there are dull headed people like you that can't figure out the purpose of a straightfoward experiment. Anyways, what difference doest it make what forum it is in? You complain about it not being scrutinized yet here you are [attempting to] scrutinize it. Also, I never referred to the experiment to support eclipses. I simply referred to it as evidence of an independent light source.

Yes but what is the light source? Is it reflected sunlight (which it is just 400,000 times less intense) or is it generating the light on its own. How does it fit into FET. Now if you recall you brought up the spotlight effect. I countered asking how eclipses are possible. You replied that you had strong evidence that the moon was an independent light source...but you haven't proved that at all. You have no exploration in that experiment of the temperature of the moon, or it's composition, to validate that it produces the light/ heat for itself or is reflecting it from elsewhere. It matters because the spotlight theory suggests the moon emits it's own heat and light (which isn't the case and proven so) which then begs the question how can an oclipse occur if the spotlights need to be in day and night possitions and can never be dark.....that's the point and that what any experiment trying to prove the moon is an independent light source needs to explore. Not that it lights up and has an effect on plants and life. All you have acknowledged if that light hits the earth from the moon but not why or how.

Decidedly nothing dull headed about the above.

Please read complementing research of our valued researcher James.

Please read complementing research of our valued researcher James.

No YOU tell me what YOUR view is....your conclusion. Start answering some questions. You did an experiment now face it flaws. Have a debate. Do you even have a view on whether the moon reflects or emits heat/ light. If so what it is.