squiggly
- 3,277
- 263
Hadn't seen this till now for some reason--since I see you've numbered you questions I'll number my responses.
1. As for what it is that's being done wrong--I have addressed this previously in this thread. This is actually why I first posted, it's where the entire argument started. The point was that plants don't care about wattages they care about light. That was exhaustively poured over earlier in the thread and I invite you to go back and read that if you'd like a more detailed answer here. I was not condescending or indecent in any respect during any of this discourse. I merely replaced my previously well founded and argued concept as "shit science" so that I didn't need to repeat over and over again what I'd already said--as I've repeatedly said in this thread, I also do not believe that what the community already does is wrong so much as what it is not doing which it easily could be. I'm not arguing that we should change everything, I'm arguing that we should start something.
2. I didn't dismiss them--but I'm not going to essentially write a research paper on those figured by going around trying to find solid science with which to back them up. If you have the sources for this figures as they relate to cannabis--I'd be happy to take a look at them and tell you what I think. I do know where a few of them come from and that it is not a scientific place--and that it could be filled with erroneous conclusions. Even if the concept or figure stands up to scientific testing--it has not yet done so and thus we cannot say anything about that value versus a different one. Something else to consider is that many of these values and their optimal levels actually affect each other. Your altitude, pressures, air concentrations (of more than just co2) and a bazillion other factors like this can alter any one of those values.
The point of doing science is to try and isolate some of these changes out, and see if we can't get down to the nitty gritty of what's happening.
3. Don't have the time to do this now--but you can be sure you'll see something on this from me at a later date. I am pretty busy with school at the moment--it is finals week. I need to worry about my actual research right now rather than my hypothetical hobby research. Designing a good experiment is not only a long and arduous process--but it is also an iterative one. The point is not for me to come here and give you some perfect answer right away, I may get some things wrong to begin with (perish the thought, I know)--but rather the idea is to find a better way to do things together--by asking some simple sense-based question about what it is that we're after.
4. This is a better, but not perfect, analogy. I think it goes about halfway to actually explain what's going on. In some ways a car is like a living breathing thing, but in other ways it falls short. In a way, many times you can simply get into a car and drive it--and I'd argue that's exactly what many people do in terms of growing their pot, but that isn't going to make them a world class driver. We may also have some world class drivers around--but if it were as simple as telling someone how to be a world class driver, then everyone would be Jeff Gordon or Schumi. On the other hand, some things which you do need to know about a car to drive it are:
What type of fuel it takes, how to steer it, which pedal is the accelerator and which the brake. How to use a turn signal, what the speed limit is, how long it takes to stop, how fast a turn of a specific degree can be navigated, how to service the vehicle when it breaks down, what kinds of parts it needs, which are more likely to need replacement first?
I've trailed off a bit but you see where this is going. A car isn't just this thing you get in and drive. It's a bit more complex than that. Even by trying to liken growing a plant to driving a car for simplicities sake--you have opened the argument to an entirely new level of complexity which you did not expect.
All that said, I think as an analogy it still doesn't really stand up--a living thing is so much more complicated than a car and it requires constant maintenance during every part of the day. There is no way to compare this with a vehicle.
5. My answer is I don't know yet--but I'll go further and say that, to my satisfaction, no one else does either. That's what this is about. I believe we can do better. It nearly makes me furious that you seem convinced we can't--when all I'm doing is suggesting the possibility.
I don't think we should be discussing our belief's though except as far as they give context to what our actions are. It's important that you and I both understand that my belief may be correct or incorrect. I feel as though I've gone a long way towards demonstrating that my belief is feasible--and that all the nay sayers have done very little in the way of showing that it is unreasonable. If you want to "convince" me of something, this is what you should be after--but it is going to be tough and you're going to probably have to know some things which I don't believe anyone knows yet.
I'd love it if you proved me wrong and saved me the trouble of all of that science of course, but I just don't see that happening.
6. Now this I'm absolutely on board with.
I'd love it if all the "giants" would stop trying to throw jabs at me and would instead allow me to stand on their shoulders for a moment. It's worth noting that the shoulders Newton stood on were those of fellow scientists, not hobbyists convinced of their omniscience in terms of how the "feel" or "think" about how the natural world works. Many of them got things wrong still. Science isn't perfect--but the cool thing about it is that we can determine our accuracy and precision in our measurement. That is simply something which can't be done outside of a scientific context--this is why science arose as people become more involved with the world around them.
What's frustrating me SO MUCH is that I can't for the life of me find what it is about what I've been saying that is so bad that people would want to fight it rather than embrace it.
I swear I feel like I'm in the 16th century trying to convince some king to let me pump the air out of a vacuum chamber because he's afraid that I might pump all of the God out and commit blasphemy.
If I were attacking other science right now--I'd understand this kind of resistance, but as it is I'm merely suggesting that there is a total vacuum of science and that there should not be.
Get your minds right people--I'm not trying to take away your hobby or your expertise, I'm merely trying to stir the pot and maybe add a few new ingredients to the soup--this isn't about reinventing the wheel.
I'm not some madman. I just think we can find some interesting stuff about the plant if we do careful science--is that really so fucking hard to believe?
There's people who think this shit cures cancer and you're surprised that we might find something cool if we use a TRIED AND TRUE PROCESS WHICH HAS GROWN OUR SOCIETY BY LEAPS AND BOUND IN THE LAST 50 YEARS ALONE.
If you think science is so useless--log off your internet, turn off your computer, throw away all of your lightbulbs, dismantle your hydro systems, turn off your water, gas, and electricity, shut down your cell phone, take off your mass produced clothing, and go run naked into the woods like the hippy-scientist you are.
The point is there is no reason to believe that growing cannabis is impervious to the discovery and wonder which follows science everywhere it goes. There is every reason, in fact, to believe precisely the opposite.
If you don't believe that--cool. I don't care.
Peace.
