It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I could never understand how a tree would know that it must evolve in order to increase it's survival rate. Trees do not talk to each other and, once their seeds have fallen, they have no way of knowing if their seedlings survived and produced even more seedlings.
They do not communicate with one another, as far as I know - atleast not in the conventional way we understand communication. So how does a tree know that it needs to develop a seed pod, shaped like a wing, in order to insure it's continued existence? Maybe it is 'told' to the tree using the very principles of this thread's topic.
It's also interesting that it seems that the primal aspects of the subject are initiated by the field generated, does this mean that in the past the earth had a far stronger magnetic/static field that has waned with time
Originally posted by flexy123
I will have to read more into this, it's really extremely interesting.
Originally posted by talklikeapirat
The difference between an electric -(static) field and an electromagnetic field is that without any flowing current no magnetism occurs, or no magnetic field is created.
Better explained here...
Electrostatics
I can understand the sceptisim very well, but many of the resulting effects of the experiments are effects we would deem positive; healthier, stronger plants, that require less fertilizers and herbicides, the lower mortality rates for the fish and the higher resistance to pathogens.
I think we are far from working 'hand in hand' with nature in many ways we conduct our businesses, or how we let others conduct them for us, brute force seems to be the general rule, even if it comes in the form of seemingly elegant high-tech solutions.
That's why i believe it is so important to gain a better understanding about the processes behind a phenomenon with such promising effects. We need to know more.
Originally posted by yampa
What I see is a form of electromagnetic radiation causing rapid growth mutations in previously stable species? I really don't want to eat that, thanks.
Also "As no currents flow in this apparatus, no perceptible loss of energy is observed. Hence energy is not a cost factor in this invention." - that is total rubbish. If the apparatus is not emitting charge photons at an accelerated rate or curvature, then it is not interacting with anything differently from background. Generating 10,000 volts absolutely consumes energy and if anything is causing mutations or accelerated growth, then it's the charge flood from this field. Feeding plants with an electric field is considerably more costly than using photosynthesis.edit on 7-4-2013 by yampa because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by dogstar23
I think you're mis-understanding the process, and, while I'm no electrician, it seems to me that you may be misunderstanding the part about the currents you're mentioning as well.
I can't speak much to that part, for lack of expertise, but as far as the process, it seems you think they are actually continuously exposing the plants to the static field as a form of nourishment or continuous mutation process. This is not the case. The seeds exposed to the field to germinate as an altered specimen,but are then raised as any normal plant.
For three days the corn grains are drawn into the air and water-sealed Petri dishes in an electric field, then continue to grow the seeds, like any other plant in a pot or in the greenhouse. The result after normal growing season is a corn with a particularly high number of pistons in a heap, where normally found only in maize is a piston.
One half of the inseminated eggs were then exposed to an electrostatic field for 4 weeks, the other half is left untreated. Both test groups are put into conventional fish tanks, where the fish naturally hatches under the same conditions.