Ichy's Moonlight Effect Experiment Horribly Flawed

So you don't have any new arguments? I already shot down everything you have said already. Don't seem too desperate now.

I don't need new arguments as you've not shot down anything. I have no need to be desperate. Your design is horrible. You will not get the experiment published. Your failure to publish is the ultimate indication of your errors.

Yes, I'm sure in a climate controlled greenhouse, the temperature under the pot had such a staggering difference  How dare I take room temperatures but ignore the temperature of the soil, pot, floor, water I fed to the plants..etc. (It's even worse since they have nothing to do with collenchyma!)

Obviously you don't know that the differences won't exist or that they will have nothing to do with collenchyma. You're dealing with a previously unobserved effect and applying results from previous experiments that did not consider moonlight. Clearly you should block the effect and could easily do so. Such a failure is the result of arrogance, laziness, or both.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on September 04, 2010, 02:44:06 PM

Yes, I'm sure in a climate controlled greenhouse, the temperature under the pot had such a staggering difference   How dare I take room temperatures but ignore the temperature of the soil, pot, floor, water I fed to the plants..etc. (It's even worse since they have nothing to do with collenchyma!)

Obviously you don't know that the differences won't exist or that they will have nothing to do with collenchyma. You're dealing with a previously unobserved effect and applying results from previous experiments that did not consider moonlight. Clearly you should block the effect and could easily do so. Such a failure is the result of arrogance, laziness, or both.

This again is one of the times where I get the feeling Clocktower reads nothing anyone else posts in the thread yet continues to argue.

Quote from: ClockTower on September 04, 2010, 01:54:15 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on September 04, 2010, 08:39:55 AM

Sorry but you cannot make up a conclusion about two variable interactions based on an experiment set up testing one.

I disagree. Data can be reused. Please provide a reference that supports your claim.

Regardless, rejecting a non-conclusive result is not very interesting to most of us. Let's agree that the experiment did not validate the hypothesis.

Sorry but this clearly shows how flawed your own idea of an experiment and interpretting results is.  I plan to stick with scientific conventions but feel free to run free with your own experiments.

So you can't provide a reference to support your claim. How typical of FEers! Why would you even spend effort to assail an experiment with a non-conclusive result?

It was conclusive. Thank goodness for Sigma stat 

Quote from: ClockTower on September 04, 2010, 03:23:27 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on September 04, 2010, 02:44:06 PM

Yes, I'm sure in a climate controlled greenhouse, the temperature under the pot had such a staggering difference   How dare I take room temperatures but ignore the temperature of the soil, pot, floor, water I fed to the plants..etc. (It's even worse since they have nothing to do with collenchyma!)

Obviously you don't know that the differences won't exist or that they will have nothing to do with collenchyma. You're dealing with a previously unobserved effect and applying results from previous experiments that did not consider moonlight. Clearly you should block the effect and could easily do so. Such a failure is the result of arrogance, laziness, or both.

This again is one of the times where I get the feeling Clocktower reads nothing anyone else posts in the thread yet continues to argue.

non-responsive. Does attacking the poster help your ego or something. Let's deal with the facts. These effects, that you're trying to argue away, can be easily blocked by experimental design. Why didn't you do that?

It was conclusive. Thank goodness for Sigma stat 

Be specific. What was conclusive? What conclusion can you draw from that significance?

None of them replicated it :[. They were more interested in helping me submit my findings correctly to an article than reviewing them to be honest.

I suggest then that not one of them were impressed. I'd surely have one of my LA the next day on it if I thought it had a chance if I were they.

LAs are a rarity for such small schools. Anyways everything you have just said is speculative.

Quote from: ClockTower on September 04, 2010, 03:23:27 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on September 04, 2010, 02:44:06 PM

Yes, I'm sure in a climate controlled greenhouse, the temperature under the pot had such a staggering difference   How dare I take room temperatures but ignore the temperature of the soil, pot, floor, water I fed to the plants..etc. (It's even worse since they have nothing to do with collenchyma!)

Obviously you don't know that the differences won't exist or that they will have nothing to do with collenchyma. You're dealing with a previously unobserved effect and applying results from previous experiments that did not consider moonlight. Clearly you should block the effect and could easily do so. Such a failure is the result of arrogance, laziness, or both.

This again is one of the times where I get the feeling Clocktower reads nothing anyone else posts in the thread yet continues to argue.

ClockTower is right.  By covering the pots during the day, you provide an environment inside the covered pot where heat from the sunlight would be trapped.  What kind of pots did you use?  Clay?  Plastic?  Glass?  Recycled Newspaper?  What color were they?
The pots you used could have been an excellent insulator and heat absorber resulting in the plant being in a warm environment during the day when it's covered and the greenhouse temperature at night.  At night the air temperature would have dropped and without the thermal warming from the sun, the pot would not have gotten warm and thus kept a stable temperature.

There weren't enclosed, just blocked from certain sources. The climate was keep constant within the room.
Anyways, none of that has anything to do with collenchyma growth.

There weren't enclosed, just blocked from certain sources. The climate was keep constant within the room.
Anyways, none of that has anything to do with collenchyma growth.

So only one thing can ever possibly cause collenchyma growth?

There weren't enclosed, just blocked from certain sources. The climate was keep constant within the room.
Anyways, none of that has anything to do with collenchyma growth.

You said you put an empty pot over top of the plants.  That's enclosed.

The 3rd was subject to only moonlight by being covered by a pot every day.

Covered by a pot means enclosed.  Unless you suspended a pot over the plant, but that would invalidate your experiment even more by providing uneven coverage.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on September 04, 2010, 03:14:25 PM

None of them replicated it :[. They were more interested in helping me submit my findings correctly to an article than reviewing them to be honest.

So none of them agreed that your conclusion was valid?

I found a old article which says in its Abstract - A second group of Datura stramonium plants was placed in total darkness to determine the effect of such treatment on the quantity of wall thickening in the collenchyma tissue. Measurements indicated that when plants were placed in the dark for extended periods a great reduction of wall thickening resulted. It is suggested that reduction of wall material was due to its utilization as substrate for respiratory processes which occur in the plant under such extreme conditions.
 So, if plant would have been in total darkness then the Collenchyma would have been decreased. But it didn't. Then I found  Introductory Botany which in page 95 says that Collenchyma provides support. And that Support is crucial function on plants, in part because it allows plants to grow upward, thus enabling them to compete with other plants for available sunlight in a plant-crowded area.
 As Ichi didn't put his plants in total darkness but exposed them to the moonlight then I can deduce that the excess collenchyma in Ichi's experiment was only the result of the plant seeking the light and trying to grow in the direction of feeble moonlight that was the only light provided to them.
 

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on September 04, 2010, 03:14:25 PM

None of them replicated it :[. They were more interested in helping me submit my findings correctly to an article than reviewing them to be honest.

So none of them agreed that your conclusion was valid?

He said that they were more interested in helping him submit his work to an article than to replicate it.

There is nothing wrong with a Professor helping a student get scientific recognition instead of spending the time to do it himself.
The professor obviously knew Ichi and therefore probably assumed he took accurate results.

Just for clarification, anyone mind telling me which group of plants were observed to grow excess amounts of collenchyma?

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36906.0

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).