squiggly
- 3,277
- 263
Hate to see legitimate science, which many people have poured years of research into, being likened to snake oil.
The question shouldn't be whether the principle works--it does. It's been tested and reproduced probably hundreds of times. Sound of the correct frequency is known to open stomata. Electromagnetic fields, and even electricity itself have also been shown to affect plant growth in various ways.
This system might not be what its cracked up to be--but the science behind it is solid.
Did you know that sound of the correct frequency, or a strong electromagnetic pulses at the correct frequency can incapacitate a human? The question is not whether or not the forces of nature and physics can change how a living thing responds to its environment. It only requires accepting that these conditions are a part of the environment itself in a very inclusive way to realize there's probably more to this than meets the eye (probably the reason people researched it to begin with).
As for the statement that science is comprised of only theories this is correct. Wasn't illustrated clearly but it is certainly the case. You'll have a hard time finding a scientific report claiming to have "proven" something. There are plenty of news reports which say "scientists prove _____," but its unlikely that's how it was stated in any scientific paper. Generally it'll be something like "the data suggests _____" , "the data supports the hypothesis."
There are three levels of scientific theory:
1. Theory
2. Principle
3. Law
A theory is accepted after being reproduced a few times over in separate groups and accepted by the community at large. It becomes a principle generally 10-20 years later after other theories have been built upon the suggestions of the theory--or after its been reproduced thousands of times and its no longer questioned much if at all.
It finally becomes a law once our understanding of the world becomes absolutely pivotal on its inclusion in science.
This is a generalization of the process, but that's basically how it works.
Despite all of this there are laws, such as the law of gravity, which we accept but do not understand. With gravity we don't know the carrier particle of the source (theorized graviton) nor do we know the particle which gives mass, or the acceptor particle of the force (theorized higgs boson).
We postulate these particles in all of physics, and it is for that reason that gravity is a law. But we haven't "proven" a thing about it. It isn't a "fact" that what goes up must come down. We won't know that until we've discovered said particles and found whether they are able to be manipulated in different ways.
In a round about way,we all understand that gravity is real or that the fire on a stove will burn you--but in science we don't ever take anything to be fact. That is the driving force of science. It is nothing but a never ending questioning of everything both known and unknown.
The question shouldn't be whether the principle works--it does. It's been tested and reproduced probably hundreds of times. Sound of the correct frequency is known to open stomata. Electromagnetic fields, and even electricity itself have also been shown to affect plant growth in various ways.
This system might not be what its cracked up to be--but the science behind it is solid.
Did you know that sound of the correct frequency, or a strong electromagnetic pulses at the correct frequency can incapacitate a human? The question is not whether or not the forces of nature and physics can change how a living thing responds to its environment. It only requires accepting that these conditions are a part of the environment itself in a very inclusive way to realize there's probably more to this than meets the eye (probably the reason people researched it to begin with).
As for the statement that science is comprised of only theories this is correct. Wasn't illustrated clearly but it is certainly the case. You'll have a hard time finding a scientific report claiming to have "proven" something. There are plenty of news reports which say "scientists prove _____," but its unlikely that's how it was stated in any scientific paper. Generally it'll be something like "the data suggests _____" , "the data supports the hypothesis."
There are three levels of scientific theory:
1. Theory
2. Principle
3. Law
A theory is accepted after being reproduced a few times over in separate groups and accepted by the community at large. It becomes a principle generally 10-20 years later after other theories have been built upon the suggestions of the theory--or after its been reproduced thousands of times and its no longer questioned much if at all.
It finally becomes a law once our understanding of the world becomes absolutely pivotal on its inclusion in science.
This is a generalization of the process, but that's basically how it works.
Despite all of this there are laws, such as the law of gravity, which we accept but do not understand. With gravity we don't know the carrier particle of the source (theorized graviton) nor do we know the particle which gives mass, or the acceptor particle of the force (theorized higgs boson).
We postulate these particles in all of physics, and it is for that reason that gravity is a law. But we haven't "proven" a thing about it. It isn't a "fact" that what goes up must come down. We won't know that until we've discovered said particles and found whether they are able to be manipulated in different ways.
In a round about way,we all understand that gravity is real or that the fire on a stove will burn you--but in science we don't ever take anything to be fact. That is the driving force of science. It is nothing but a never ending questioning of everything both known and unknown.
