[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Plant references
> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 11:19:03 -0800
> From: Thomas Barr
> I feel this way about it. Not everyone shares my
> thoughts and sometimes you simply do not have any
> work done on a certain question.
Exactly! That's the interpolation and extrapolation that I mentioned. And I
would think that these would be two of the more useful tools in the
investigative method, particularly in a field so barren of _specific_ data
due to basic lack of commercial appeal in the test subjects.
> I reviewed Diana Walstad's book again....She
> did a much better job presenting her case than
> any other before her...
Now _there's_ an understatement ;-)
> I would say generalizations are there but, they do
> have specific cases of application. Whether it can
> generalized across the board? Some yes, some no most
Some of the generalizations of which I'm thinking include things as baseline
functions. Pick a _really_ "over the top" example in lighting - we try to
pin down such minute details in Watts, PARs, Lumens, Lux or plain old
candlepowers until we begin to sound like a klatch of audiophiles comparing
specs that our *ears* can't even begin to appreciate as well as our
sensibilities or tastes seem to.
Strange thing is, as soon as we figure out just _precisely_ which lamp is
the *perfect* one for a *particular set of circumstances or group of
plants*, we actually "look" at them and declare them too "green" or too
"stark" or too "whatever". And don't use them.
And along the way, we seem to lose sight of light as an _art_ as well as a
science. Ask Hollywood the value of mood lighting. Ask a hospital, for that
matter. And where are the impressionists when you _really_ need them?
Sometimes I think our ever-more-precise-and-accurate electronic world drives
this need for Spock-like precision - remember the days of wind-up watches,
and "quarter 'till" covered anything from about ten before to 25 or so
before the hour? Now if you can't tell someone it's precisely 7:43 your
watch must be broken...
But before I go blathering off on a wilder tangent...
> I think figuring out what is not true, is
> generally easier than figuring out what is
> true. Eventually you rule out everything else.
> PO4 I approached that way.
Edison thought of it as eliminating all of the ways it can't work to get to
the way that does. In my own case, I tend to call it trial and error and
(OH - and _not_ to compare myself to Edison!)
>> But I would think that what plants _do_ with
>> that nutrition, or light energy, or whatever
>> would still be essentially the same...
> Pretty much and the same can be said for algae
> in most respects also...
Which is why I believe we need to expand our horizons a little in exploring
topics like nutritional manipulation. My experiences w/CO2 come from
hydroponic greenhouses. That's just one example. I don't suppose Mike and
Ken get their blood red plants _purely_ by finalizing a chance circumstance.
If we "follow the money" to the types of plants that _have_ been extensively
studied, we find that even their assumptions are initialized in conclusions
drawn from the general, then merely fine-tuned to the specific.
Even African Violet lovers.
They all use the same basic information. Surely our plants aren't that alien
to the vegetable world...