Lunar Danger! James and Ichi are the only ones?

Excess collenchyma growth means mechanical stress. How is acknowledging stress to the plant a poor conclusion?

Excess collenchyma growth means mechanical stress. How is acknowledging stress to the plant a poor conclusion?

Mechanical stress?  So the moonlight was thrashing the plants around?

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 29, 2010, 07:35:17 PM

Excess collenchyma growth means mechanical stress. How is acknowledging stress to the plant a poor conclusion?

Mechanical stress?  So the moonlight was thrashing the plants around?

The moonlight caused mechanical stress on the plants.

Quote from: jackofhearts on May 29, 2010, 07:38:45 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 29, 2010, 07:35:17 PM

Excess collenchyma growth means mechanical stress. How is acknowledging stress to the plant a poor conclusion?

Mechanical stress?  So the moonlight was thrashing the plants around?

The moonlight caused mechanical stress on the plants.

...so the moonlight thrashed the plants around...?

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 29, 2010, 07:44:27 PM

Quote from: jackofhearts on May 29, 2010, 07:38:45 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 29, 2010, 07:35:17 PM

Excess collenchyma growth means mechanical stress. How is acknowledging stress to the plant a poor conclusion?

Mechanical stress?  So the moonlight was thrashing the plants around?

The moonlight caused mechanical stress on the plants.

...so the moonlight thrashed the plants around...?

It caused mechanical stress on the plants. There was no visible "thrashing" observable from the unaided eye.

Observable from the 'unaided eye'?  Implying we could see plants being thrashed around with special instruments?

Implying there can stresses impossible to observe with plain eyesight. I do not like using the term thrash since it can be loosely applied.

You're saying that light from the moon caused physical/mechanical damage to a plant?  That's impossible.  Moonlight is exactly that: light.  What kind of physical damage could it possibly do to a plant?

Such questions are what make it ever the more frightening.

Such questions are what make it ever the more frightening.

You are unbelievably stupid sometimes.  How do you attribute physical harm to a plant from an increase in a type of cell?

Excess collenchyma growth means mechanical stress. How is acknowledging stress to the plant a poor conclusion?

Normally that's what it means.  However when no mechanical stress is observed then the only conclusion you can draw is that moonlight caused excess collenchyma growth.  
Since the plant didn't seem damaged and wasn't visibly shaken, then it didn't have any mechanical stress thus the excess growth of Collenchyma was due to another factor.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 29, 2010, 07:35:17 PM

Excess collenchyma growth means mechanical stress. How is acknowledging stress to the plant a poor conclusion?

Normally that's what it means.  However when no mechanical stress is observed then the only conclusion you can draw is that moonlight caused excess collenchyma growth.  
Since the plant didn't seem damaged and wasn't visibly shaken, then it didn't have any mechanical stress thus the excess growth of Collenchyma was due to another factor.

I'm pretty confident moonlight doesn't mechanically stress plants, because last I checked, light couldn't do that.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 29, 2010, 08:15:54 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 29, 2010, 07:35:17 PM

Excess collenchyma growth means mechanical stress. How is acknowledging stress to the plant a poor conclusion?

Normally that's what it means.  However when no mechanical stress is observed then the only conclusion you can draw is that moonlight caused excess collenchyma growth.  
Since the plant didn't seem damaged and wasn't visibly shaken, then it didn't have any mechanical stress thus the excess growth of Collenchyma was due to another factor.

I'm pretty confident moonlight doesn't mechanically stress plants, because last I checked, light couldn't do that.

Exactly.
So thus the only conclusion is that something else caused the excess growth of collenchyma.

Quote from: jackofhearts on May 29, 2010, 08:17:48 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on May 29, 2010, 08:15:54 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 29, 2010, 07:35:17 PM

Excess collenchyma growth means mechanical stress. How is acknowledging stress to the plant a poor conclusion?

Normally that's what it means.  However when no mechanical stress is observed then the only conclusion you can draw is that moonlight caused excess collenchyma growth.  
Since the plant didn't seem damaged and wasn't visibly shaken, then it didn't have any mechanical stress thus the excess growth of Collenchyma was due to another factor.

I'm pretty confident moonlight doesn't mechanically stress plants, because last I checked, light couldn't do that.

Exactly.
So thus the only conclusion is that something else caused the excess growth of collenchyma.

Any idea what exactly the FE'ers claim moonlight is?  They probably don't agree with RE'ers in that it's just reflected sunlight, I'm guessing.

Quote from: jackofhearts on May 29, 2010, 08:17:48 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on May 29, 2010, 08:15:54 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 29, 2010, 07:35:17 PM

Excess collenchyma growth means mechanical stress. How is acknowledging stress to the plant a poor conclusion?

Normally that's what it means.  However when no mechanical stress is observed then the only conclusion you can draw is that moonlight caused excess collenchyma growth. 
Since the plant didn't seem damaged and wasn't visibly shaken, then it didn't have any mechanical stress thus the excess growth of Collenchyma was due to another factor.

I'm pretty confident moonlight doesn't mechanically stress plants, because last I checked, light couldn't do that.

Exactly.
So thus the only conclusion is that something else caused the excess growth of collenchyma.

Extremely unlikely since the plants were in a controlled greenhouse. They weren't even touched by anyone during the experiment.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 29, 2010, 08:20:24 PM

Quote from: jackofhearts on May 29, 2010, 08:17:48 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on May 29, 2010, 08:15:54 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 29, 2010, 07:35:17 PM

Excess collenchyma growth means mechanical stress. How is acknowledging stress to the plant a poor conclusion?

Normally that's what it means.  However when no mechanical stress is observed then the only conclusion you can draw is that moonlight caused excess collenchyma growth. 
Since the plant didn't seem damaged and wasn't visibly shaken, then it didn't have any mechanical stress thus the excess growth of Collenchyma was due to another factor.

I'm pretty confident moonlight doesn't mechanically stress plants, because last I checked, light couldn't do that.

Exactly.
So thus the only conclusion is that something else caused the excess growth of collenchyma.

Extremely unlikely since the plants were in a controlled greenhouse. They weren't even touched by anyone during the experiment.

So your claiming, then, that light causes mechanical stress to plants?  Review carefully before answering lest you sound like an idiot when you respond.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 29, 2010, 08:20:24 PM

Quote from: jackofhearts on May 29, 2010, 08:17:48 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on May 29, 2010, 08:15:54 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 29, 2010, 07:35:17 PM

Excess collenchyma growth means mechanical stress. How is acknowledging stress to the plant a poor conclusion?

Normally that's what it means.  However when no mechanical stress is observed then the only conclusion you can draw is that moonlight caused excess collenchyma growth. 
Since the plant didn't seem damaged and wasn't visibly shaken, then it didn't have any mechanical stress thus the excess growth of Collenchyma was due to another factor.

I'm pretty confident moonlight doesn't mechanically stress plants, because last I checked, light couldn't do that.

Exactly.
So thus the only conclusion is that something else caused the excess growth of collenchyma.

Extremely unlikely since the plants were in a controlled greenhouse. They weren't even touched by anyone during the experiment.

It's also extremely unlikely that moonlight caused the stress because, as I recall, you didn't expose the plants to real moonlight.  You used a lamp to simulate moonlight, didn't you?  Of course you never analyzed the spectrum or intensity of the lamp or real moonlight in order to determine if they were analogs either, so I'm not really sure what conclusions can be properly drawn about the effects of moonlight.

Um, yes I did expose a group to only REAL moonlight. Please reread my experiment.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 29, 2010, 08:20:24 PM

Quote from: jackofhearts on May 29, 2010, 08:17:48 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on May 29, 2010, 08:15:54 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 29, 2010, 07:35:17 PM

Excess collenchyma growth means mechanical stress. How is acknowledging stress to the plant a poor conclusion?

Normally that's what it means.  However when no mechanical stress is observed then the only conclusion you can draw is that moonlight caused excess collenchyma growth. 
Since the plant didn't seem damaged and wasn't visibly shaken, then it didn't have any mechanical stress thus the excess growth of Collenchyma was due to another factor.

I'm pretty confident moonlight doesn't mechanically stress plants, because last I checked, light couldn't do that.

Exactly.
So thus the only conclusion is that something else caused the excess growth of collenchyma.

Extremely unlikely since the plants were in a controlled greenhouse. They weren't even touched by anyone during the experiment.

Ummm...
I'm implying that Moonlight causes Collenchyma growth without causing mechanical stress.

And, as you said, they were never touched so how can you have mechanical stress on a plant when
a) it requires a physical impact.
b) the light had to go through glass first, which is solid.
c) there was no signs of physical movement

?

Seriously ichi, you're asking us to believe that moonlight caused plants to be hit violently as though by a raging wind yet have no physical injury and be protected by glass.  Also that sunlight causes the movement to be nullified AFTER it's occurred.

The moonlight caused mechanical stress on the plants.

Moonlight occurs during the day.

Ergo all plant life dies?

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 29, 2010, 07:44:27 PM

The moonlight caused mechanical stress on the plants.

Moonlight occurs during the day.

Ergo all plant life dies?

Ergo, moonlight isn't harmful.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 29, 2010, 08:15:54 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 29, 2010, 07:35:17 PM

Excess collenchyma growth means mechanical stress. How is acknowledging stress to the plant a poor conclusion?

Normally that's what it means.  However when no mechanical stress is observed then the only conclusion you can draw is that moonlight caused excess collenchyma growth.  
Since the plant didn't seem damaged and wasn't visibly shaken, then it didn't have any mechanical stress thus the excess growth of Collenchyma was due to another factor.

I'm pretty confident moonlight doesn't mechanically stress plants, because last I checked, light couldn't do that.

You mean last time you checked your globularist biology textbook?

You mean last time you checked your globularist biology textbook?

Feel free to quote any Biology textbook that dictates the shape of the earth.

Um, yes I did expose a group to only REAL moonlight. Please reread my experiment.

Well, it took me a while, but I found it.

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).

By covering the moonlight only group, you denied that group sunlight that is required to perform photosynthesis.  By the way, what phase was the moon during this "experiment"?  You do realize that the phase of the moon can change significantly over the course of 7 days, don't you?  How much moonlight was filtered or reflected away by the greenhouse glass?  Were there any periods when the moon was blocked from the view of the plants by any obstacles?  Was there lunar exposure all night, or just part of each night? 

I'm sorry, but unless you properly document your experiment, I can't see how you can conclude anything about the moon only group except that you essentially starved those plants for a week by not allowing them to conduct photosynthesis.

The Earth's annual orbit around the Sun and its daily rotation on its own axis are also important in determining patterns of solar radiation and their effects on climate (figure 58.1b).

Biology, 8th edition
Raven, Johnson, Losos, Mason, Singer

Quote from: jackofhearts on May 29, 2010, 08:17:48 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on May 29, 2010, 08:15:54 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 29, 2010, 07:35:17 PM

Excess collenchyma growth means mechanical stress. How is acknowledging stress to the plant a poor conclusion?

Normally that's what it means.  However when no mechanical stress is observed then the only conclusion you can draw is that moonlight caused excess collenchyma growth. 
Since the plant didn't seem damaged and wasn't visibly shaken, then it didn't have any mechanical stress thus the excess growth of Collenchyma was due to another factor.

I'm pretty confident moonlight doesn't mechanically stress plants, because last I checked, light couldn't do that.

You mean last time you checked your globularist biology textbook?

Do you know of any planar biology textbooks that you can recommend?

I'm sorry but what does lack of sunlight have to do with excess collenchyma  .

Quote

The Earth's annual orbit around the Sun and its daily rotation on its own axis are also important in determining patterns of solar radiation and their effects on climate (figure 58.1b).

Biology, 8th edition
Raven, Johnson, Losos, Mason, Singer

No I said:

Feel free to quote any Biology textbook that dictates the shape of the earth.

Try again?

Quote from: jackofhearts on May 29, 2010, 08:17:48 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on May 29, 2010, 08:15:54 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on May 29, 2010, 07:35:17 PM

Excess collenchyma growth means mechanical stress. How is acknowledging stress to the plant a poor conclusion?

Normally that's what it means.  However when no mechanical stress is observed then the only conclusion you can draw is that moonlight caused excess collenchyma growth.  
Since the plant didn't seem damaged and wasn't visibly shaken, then it didn't have any mechanical stress thus the excess growth of Collenchyma was due to another factor.

I'm pretty confident moonlight doesn't mechanically stress plants, because last I checked, light couldn't do that.

You mean last time you checked your globularist biology textbook?

Oof.  That one hurt.  

You mean you don't believe anything we learn in school is correct?  If you wanna attack 'globularist' science textbooks, then okay.  But stop pretending that EVERYTHING IS WRONG just because you hate the world.

I'm sorry but what does lack of sunlight have to do with excess collenchyma  .

Everything