Plant and Snowflake Growth

[Jade]

I'm not sure if this is an original idea, but here it goes-

 

 

I believe woody plants and snowflake dendrites are 3D solid copies of electric field lines of force created by like charged particles flowing through the plant and snowflake.

 

 

This is a long story which started 12 years ago when I was doing electric field lines of force research and I just wanted to see if anybody is interested.

 

Jade

[Microscope.com]

I'd be interested in hearing more on your theory.

[mississippichem]

The structure of snowflake ice crystals has already been explained by molecular dynamics arguments, namely hydrogen bonded networks.

 

Electric field lines are not physical, they are convenient book keeping representations of the field and are often used to supplement drawings of equipotential surfaces.

Edited December 28, 2011 by mississippichem

[iNow]

Also, magnetic field lines don't generally come in Fibonacci sets... wherein plants generally do.

 

 

 

 

(h/t swansont)

[Jade]

I'd be interested in hearing more on your theory.

 

Here's a PP I did a couple years ago.

 

Jade

[ewmon]

I believe woody plants and snowflake dendrites are 3D solid copies of electric field lines of force created by like charged particles flowing through the plant and snowflake.

It should be easy to prove/disprove experimentally. I'm an EE, and I haven't heard of any plants emitting electric fields or growing strangely among electric fields.

[Jade]

It should be easy to prove/disprove experimentally. I'm an EE, and I haven't heard of any plants emitting electric fields or growing strangely among electric fields.

 

This PP shows an effect. 10 VDC either stunted or killed the roots.

Might not be what it seems, but it was a very limited experiment.

Jade

[ewmon]

This PP shows an effect. 10 VDC either stunted or killed the roots.

Might not be what it seems, but it was a very limited experiment.

Interesting. I wonder how plants would grow within a very strong electric field (>>10vdc) without being part of the circuitry. Or whether a passive instrument, such as an unpowered micro-volt meter, would detect voltage between different parts of vegetation (perhaps from the roots to the top of a tall tree).

[Jade]

Interesting. I wonder how plants would grow within a very strong electric field (>>10vdc) without being part of the circuitry. Or whether a passive instrument, such as an unpowered micro-volt meter, would detect voltage between different parts of vegetation (perhaps from the roots to the top of a tall tree).

 

I only have a 10 VDC supply. I got the impression the root tip had to be very close to the charged surface to have an effect. So yes more voltage might be good.

 

Here's more evidence. The sprouted seeds are showing voltage. When the seed absorbs water, chemical activity begins which is also probably producing electricity.The meristem cells at the root tip and the shoot tip do a lot of cell division causing the plant to grow and are also a likely source of electricity. I don't think the plant produces enough electricity however to cause the field effect around plants which cause them to be repulsive to each other. I think there is an outside charged particle attracted to the roots, internally reflected through the plant and exiting the shoots and leaves or needles. If all the particles have the same charge, they are repulsive to one another and could cause plant to plant repulsion.

[Jade]

The structure of snowflake ice crystals has already been explained by molecular dynamics arguments, namely hydrogen bonded networks.

 

Electric field lines are not physical, they are convenient book keeping representations of the field and are often used to supplement drawings of equipotential surfaces.

 

The 3D solid copy of electric field lines of force are created in plants by confined charged particles (gravitons) flowing through the plant. The soft growing tips of the plant change direction finding the path of least resistance between the combination of the earths electric field and neighboring branches electric field. Lignin stiffens the branch to form the 3D solid copy of the plants electric field lines of force. All branches want to grow vertical and directly away from gravity (geotropism). If the branch is curving it is because of an electric field influence. If branches were just "reaching for sunlight" then at the northern latitudes the plants would lean south.

 

Here's my theory on snowflake growth and electromagnetic gravitation.

Snowflake and Gravity Theory.ppt

[mississippichem]

The 3D solid copy of electric field lines of force are created in plants by confined charged particles (gravitons) flowing through the plant. The soft growing tips of the plant change direction finding the path of least resistance between the combination of the earths electric field and neighboring branches electric field. Lignin stiffens the branch to form the 3D solid copy of the plants electric field lines of force. All branches want to grow vertical and directly away from gravity (geotropism). If the branch is curving it is because of an electric field influence. If branches were just "reaching for sunlight" then at the northern latitudes the plants would lean south.

 

Here's my theory on snowflake growth and electromagnetic gravitation.

 

Please google hydrogen bonded networks in solids, namely ice. You are way off base here.

 

Mods, Experts:

 

Can we get this moved to speculations? I've already been discussing and will recuse myself of any paper pushing action.

Edited January 4, 2012 by mississippichem

[hypervalent_iodine]

Moved. Jade, please be aware that the science sub forums are for mainstream, accepted science only.

[Jade]

Moved. Jade, please be aware that the science sub forums are for mainstream, accepted science only.

 

Yes, I understand. My theories are definitely not mainstream. I originally thought of posting directly to Speculation.

 

However, as Albert Einstein once said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge".

 

And from what I see on the Science channel, I don't think the science community has forgotten that.

 

My goal was and still is to have some good discussions about plants, snowflakes, gravity, DM/DE, tornadoes, lightning, stream sinuosity and the plant experiments I am doing.

 

Thanks

[Jade]

Please google hydrogen bonded networks in solids, namely ice. You are way off base here.

 

Mods, Experts:

 

Can we get this moved to speculations? I've already been discussing and will recuse myself of any paper pushing action.

 

I googled "hydrogen bonded networks in ice" and found 2002 research from Japan. They used computer simulation (Molecular Dynamics) to get an algorithm which successfully described the snowflake in the early stages.

 

However, I don't know if their model can predict dendrite to dendrite repulsive field effect.

Likewise, plant growth processes have chemical explanations, but fail to explain branch to branch or tree to tree repulsive field effect.

 

It is possible I am way off base, the problem is the upward flowing charged particles are necessary to solve several of my theories listed previously.

[Ringer]

Likewise, plant growth processes have chemical explanations, but fail to explain branch to branch or tree to tree repulsive field effect.

 

It is possible I am way off base, the problem is the upward flowing charged particles are necessary to solve several of my theories listed previously.

 

 

How would these effects take into account different types of branching, flowering, etc. Some plants have alternating branching patterns while some are directly across from each other. If the growth of branches were directed by magnetic fields wouldn't the branching patterns be more regular? How does it take exceptions to plants that grow on each other such as ivy plants and trees and plants that branch into each other a limited amount.

 

It's easy enough to use chemical explanations to show why branches and plants don't grow into each other very much. Auxin is a photosensitive chemical that promotes growth in the stems and branches of plants. Auxin flows away from the direction of the sunlight, this causes them to bend in certain directions towards a light-source. Since they are growing in the same direction they won't run into each other as much. Even with this they run into each other sometimes, but since this would limit the amount of sun given to the photosynthetic parts to the shorter plant it would not be able to make the necessary energy to continue branching that way.

 

Now I can't download your ppt at the moment, but did you make sure it was the EM field affecting the root with proper controls? If the charge was put in the soil it could have limited the amount of water by electrolysis or otherwise harmed the soil. If it was in the plant itself it could affect the amount of adhesion to the xylem of the plant necessary for water movement.

[Jade]

How would these effects take into account different types of branching, flowering, etc. Some plants have alternating branching patterns while some are directly across from each other. If the growth of branches were directed by magnetic fields wouldn't the branching patterns be more regular? How does it take exceptions to plants that grow on each other such as ivy plants and trees and plants that branch into each other a limited amount.

 

It's easy enough to use chemical explanations to show why branches and plants don't grow into each other very much. Auxin is a photosensitive chemical that promotes growth in the stems and branches of plants. Auxin flows away from the direction of the sunlight, this causes them to bend in certain directions towards a light-source. Since they are growing in the same direction they won't run into each other as much. Even with this they run into each other sometimes, but since this would limit the amount of sun given to the photosynthetic parts to the shorter plant it would not be able to make the necessary energy to continue branching that way.

 

Now I can't download your ppt at the moment, but did you make sure it was the EM field affecting the root with proper controls? If the charge was put in the soil it could have limited the amount of water by electrolysis or otherwise harmed the soil. If it was in the plant itself it could affect the amount of adhesion to the xylem of the plant necessary for water movement.

 

I believe branching occurs because of internal particle pressure, which would occur when the plant roots attract more and more charged particles as they grow. The extra particles force a new branch to start. The particles are contained in the roots and stems veins by Total Internal Reflection just like fiber optics. When branching occurs sometimes cankers grow, and I think this is evidence of the veins and particles flowing in a whirling pattern. The 3D solid copy of electric field lines of force are only for woody plants and snowflakes. Plants or branches which do not harden behind the growing point cannot form a solid copy. The model is simple, but plants are not. Chemical reactions and genetics also play a role.

 

Likewise as a snowflake grows, more and more charged particles are reflected by the ice crystals into the dendrites. As more particles are forced into the dendrite, branching occurs. As the snowflake tumbles, dendrite growth occurs in different directions. The charged particles are reflected and concentrated in the dendrite direction by the snowflakes central ice crystal lattice and cause the water vapor to polarize and align as it freezes into position forming a stem or branch. Again the dendrites are repulsive to each other and don't cross. Observing snow falling on windless days I've noticed the flakes don't come down together. They may tumble towards each other occasionally, but they quickly separate and seem to evenly space themselves out. This suggests snowflake to snowflake repulsion just like plants.

 

I believe these charged particles form the earth's electric field. So they are everywhere, but are concentrated in the plants and snowflakes. The particles also would be reflected in flowing water such as streams. Water flows downhill, but the particles would be flowing upstream and causing a counter flow resistance causing stream sinuosity in slow moving water.

 

The upward flowing charged particles also give a plausible explanation for active water transport in plants. In Aspen trees, growth and branching occurs without leaves in the winter. I believe the aspen tree is in a high chemical and electric energy level when this growth occurs. As the trees energy levels drop, abscission follows. Many of the new shoots have grown into high electric pressure spaces occupied by bigger branches. The high electrical pressure causes decreased charged particle flow and death. And the yard is covered with twigs. Similar to my experiments.

 

When I say EM fields I mean electric field not magnetic field. Sorry

 

Auxin (IBP?) does definitely promote plant growth. It also is an acid or proton donor (+) which means it also has an electrostatic effect.

 

Auxin is photosensitive is it also sensitive to gravity? I don't believe plants are growing towards sunlight but rather are growing away from gravity or geotropism (being repulsed). The trees in the northern latitudes are growing perpendicular to the earth even though sunlight is always hitting them at an angle.

 

The roots in some of the experiments came into contact with either a positive or negative plate or wire but not both at the same time. It is possible however with the high humidity necessary for roots to grow in air that current could flow occurred in unexpected places. The soil was never intentionally charged.

 

I built a new test chamber last summer (see picture). I wanted to control the humidity better and limit the presence of liquid water. I didn't run any tests with voltage but was trying to better demonstrate geotropism and find evidence of the charged particles. I did learn that the roots were attracted to humidity concentrations and that when the roots meristem cells were removed, geotropism and growth stopped. I believe the high rate of cell division in the meristem cells is producing a charge which electrostatically attracts water molecules. (see picture)

 

How would these effects take into account different types of branching, flowering, etc. Some plants have alternating branching patterns while some are directly across from each other. If the growth of branches were directed by magnetic fields wouldn't the branching patterns be more regular? How does it take exceptions to plants that grow on each other such as ivy plants and trees and plants that branch into each other a limited amount.

 

It's easy enough to use chemical explanations to show why branches and plants don't grow into each other very much. Auxin is a photosensitive chemical that promotes growth in the stems and branches of plants. Auxin flows away from the direction of the sunlight, this causes them to bend in certain directions towards a light-source. Since they are growing in the same direction they won't run into each other as much. Even with this they run into each other sometimes, but since this would limit the amount of sun given to the photosynthetic parts to the shorter plant it would not be able to make the necessary energy to continue branching that way.

 

Now I can't download your ppt at the moment, but did you make sure it was the EM field affecting the root with proper controls? If the charge was put in the soil it could have limited the amount of water by electrolysis or otherwise harmed the soil. If it was in the plant itself it could affect the amount of adhesion to the xylem of the plant necessary for water movement.

 

The site isn't letting me add the pictures.

[Ringer]

I believe branching occurs because of internal particle pressure, which would occur when the plant roots attract more and more charged particles as they grow. The extra particles force a new branch to start. The particles are contained in the roots and stems veins by Total Internal Reflection just like fiber optics. When branching occurs sometimes cankers grow, and I think this is evidence of the veins and particles flowing in a whirling pattern. The 3D solid copy of electric field lines of force are only for woody plants and snowflakes. Plants or branches which do not harden behind the growing point cannot form a solid copy. The model is simple, but plants are not. Chemical reactions and genetics also play a role.

 

But roots are not where the primary food source of plants are. Although some plants may store things like starch underground it is not where they are made. I'm not sure about what you mean by the veins flowing in a whirling pattern, what is inside of them flows in a pattern or they are organized this way?

 

Also, since wood is a product of secondary xylem it should have the electrical properties of the vascular tissue, wouldn't running a current through it cause a charge and allow the wood to become magnetized? I don't know a whole lot about EM but if the vascular tissue of trees can affect charged particles in the way you are suggesting we should be able to measure it's ability to affect EM fields.

 

Likewise as a snowflake grows, more and more charged particles are reflected by the ice crystals into the dendrites. As more particles are forced into the dendrite, branching occurs. As the snowflake tumbles, dendrite growth occurs in different directions. The charged particles are reflected and concentrated in the dendrite direction by the snowflakes central ice crystal lattice and cause the water vapor to polarize and align as it freezes into position forming a stem or branch. Again the dendrites are repulsive to each other and don't cross. Observing snow falling on windless days I've noticed the flakes don't come down together. They may tumble towards each other occasionally, but they quickly separate and seem to evenly space themselves out. This suggests snowflake to snowflake repulsion just like plants.

 

I don't know enough about snowflakes to comment other than the pattern, IIRC, is fairly well explained by the nature of hydrogen bonding.

 

I believe these charged particles form the earth's electric field. So they are everywhere, but are concentrated in the plants and snowflakes. The particles also would be reflected in flowing water such as streams. Water flows downhill, but the particles would be flowing upstream and causing a counter flow resistance causing stream sinuosity in slow moving water.

 

Why would they be in woody plants specifically? Why not would it not be in herbaceous vascular plants since it the transportation only needs vascular tissues? What specific particles are coming from Earth's electric field. Why is it only snowflakes and woody plants would be affected by these particles?

 

The upward flowing charged particles also give a plausible explanation for active water transport in plants. In Aspen trees, growth and branching occurs without leaves in the winter. I believe the aspen tree is in a high chemical and electric energy level when this growth occurs. As the trees energy levels drop, abscission follows. Many of the new shoots have grown into high electric pressure spaces occupied by bigger branches. The high electrical pressure causes decreased charged particle flow and death. And the yard is covered with twigs. Similar to my experiments.

 

But water transport in plants isn't active. Transpiration causes roots to take up water through adhesion and cohesion without the use of chemical energy so it is a passive transport system. From what I have read only the roots grow in the winter in Aspens, even so many plants grow, albeit very slowly, in the winter. Abscission is also caused by hormones, ethylene IIRC, and can even be caused by spraying this hormone on plants without anything extra.

 

What is a high electric pressure area? Somewhere with a greater charge?

 

When I say EM fields I mean electric field not magnetic field. Sorry

 

Isn't electricity part of magnetism? Why would there be a duality?

 

Auxin (IBP?) does definitely promote plant growth. It also is an acid or proton donor (+) which means it also has an electrostatic effect.

 

Yes, it's a carboxylic acid and cytokinins have an alcohol group that can act as an acid, and they both promote plant growth. But abscisic acid has a carboxylic acid and alcohol group as well and it plays an important role in plant dormancy. Also, auxin has the opposite effect on growth in roots and is found in more plants than just woody ones with the same effects. If it were to be these charged particles affecting growth it would not be just in woody plants.

 

Auxin is photosensitive is it also sensitive to gravity? I don't believe plants are growing towards sunlight but rather are growing away from gravity or geotropism (being repulsed). The trees in the northern latitudes are growing perpendicular to the earth even though sunlight is always hitting them at an angle.

 

It's not specifically sensitive to gravity, though it is released by amyloplasts that sense gravity in the root. Part of the reason larger plants tend to grow straight up is that it is a lot more stable to grow, more or less, straight for something large. Also, new secondary xylem is produced every year, since xylem are dead cells they will not be affected by auxin. So any bending that happened before this growth is covered over and over again. But when those trees are first growing you can get them to bend and there are some trees that will have a slight bend at the top due to the suns angle.

 

The roots in some of the experiments came into contact with either a positive or negative plate or wire but not both at the same time. It is possible however with the high humidity necessary for roots to grow in air that current could flow occurred in unexpected places. The soil was never intentionally charged.

 

If the charged particles come from the root why would you not charge the soil to some degree?

 

Is there an overview or pictures in your ppt of your experimental set up (I apologize, I haven't had time to look at them).

 

I built a new test chamber last summer (see picture). I wanted to control the humidity better and limit the presence of liquid water. I didn't run any tests with voltage but was trying to better demonstrate geotropism and find evidence of the charged particles. I did learn that the roots were attracted to humidity concentrations and that when the roots meristem cells were removed, geotropism and growth stopped. I believe the high rate of cell division in the meristem cells is producing a charge which electrostatically attracts water molecules. (see picture)

 

I would assume the reason for geotropism stopping would be amyloplasts that are gravotropic are located in the root meristem or root cap, I can't remember which. If it is the high rate of cell division causing electrostatic attraction the stematic meristem would have the same effect. I suppose you could test this by finding a very sensitive instrument to measure the charge in these places and compare them to places of little or no cell division under similar circumstances.

 

 

[Edtharan]

Snowflakes are a type of structure called a Diffusion Limited Aggregate. That is the particles that form them diffuse into the structure, but the current structure that exists limits where the new particles can attach.

 

You can reproduce these in computer simulations where you have full control over what forces are exerted on the particles, and it turns out that you don't need to have any force other than Brownian motion and Adhesion.

 

So you don't need planetary electric fields to make snowflakes. As these are not required, then it is not necessary to propose their existence.

[Jade]

Snowflakes are a type of structure called a Diffusion Limited Aggregate. That is the particles that form them diffuse into the structure, but the current structure that exists limits where the new particles can attach.

 

You can reproduce these in computer simulations where you have full control over what forces are exerted on the particles, and it turns out that you don't need to have any force other than Brownian motion and Adhesion.

 

So you don't need planetary electric fields to make snowflakes. As these are not required, then it is not necessary to propose their existence.

 

The DLA pictures I googled appear "almost' plantlike. Limiting where the particles can attach partially mimics what I'm saying about repulsion between branches except there is no symmetry as displayed by both plants and snowflakes.

 

The computer simulations also lack symmetry.

 

The "Lichtenburg figures" (which are created with electrical forces) however do very closely model plant growth.

 

But roots are not where the primary food source of plants are. Although some plants may store things like starch underground it is not where they are made. I'm not sure about what you mean by the veins flowing in a whirling pattern, what is inside of them flows in a pattern or they are organized this way?

 

Also, since wood is a product of secondary xylem it should have the electrical properties of the vascular tissue, wouldn't running a current through it cause a charge and allow the wood to become magnetized? I don't know a whole lot about EM but if the vascular tissue of trees can affect charged particles in the way you are suggesting we should be able to measure it's ability to affect EM fields.

 

 

 

I don't know enough about snowflakes to comment other than the pattern, IIRC, is fairly well explained by the nature of hydrogen bonding.

 

 

 

Why would they be in woody plants specifically? Why not would it not be in herbaceous vascular plants since it the transportation only needs vascular tissues? What specific particles are coming from Earth's electric field. Why is it only snowflakes and woody plants would be affected by these particles?

 

 

 

But water transport in plants isn't active. Transpiration causes roots to take up water through adhesion and cohesion without the use of chemical energy so it is a passive transport system. From what I have read only the roots grow in the winter in Aspens, even so many plants grow, albeit very slowly, in the winter. Abscission is also caused by hormones, ethylene IIRC, and can even be caused by spraying this hormone on plants without anything extra.

 

What is a high electric pressure area? Somewhere with a greater charge?

 

 

 

Isn't electricity part of magnetism? Why would there be a duality?

 

 

 

Yes, it's a carboxylic acid and cytokinins have an alcohol group that can act as an acid, and they both promote plant growth. But abscisic acid has a carboxylic acid and alcohol group as well and it plays an important role in plant dormancy. Also, auxin has the opposite effect on growth in roots and is found in more plants than just woody ones with the same effects. If it were to be these charged particles affecting growth it would not be just in woody plants.

 

 

 

It's not specifically sensitive to gravity, though it is released by amyloplasts that sense gravity in the root. Part of the reason larger plants tend to grow straight up is that it is a lot more stable to grow, more or less, straight for something large. Also, new secondary xylem is produced every year, since xylem are dead cells they will not be affected by auxin. So any bending that happened before this growth is covered over and over again. But when those trees are first growing you can get them to bend and there are some trees that will have a slight bend at the top due to the suns angle.

 

 

 

If the charged particles come from the root why would you not charge the soil to some degree?

 

Is there an overview or pictures in your ppt of your experimental set up (I apologize, I haven't had time to look at them).

 

 

 

I would assume the reason for geotropism stopping would be amyloplasts that are gravotropic are located in the root meristem or root cap, I can't remember which. If it is the high rate of cell division causing electrostatic attraction the stematic meristem would have the same effect. I suppose you could test this by finding a very sensitive instrument to measure the charge in these places and compare them to places of little or no cell division under similar circumstances.

 

 

Thank you for your responses.

From Wikipedia;

 

Statoliths: sensing gravity

In the root cap (a tissue at the tip of the root) there is a special subset of cells, called statocytes. Inside the statocyte cells, some specialized amyloplasts are involved in the perception of gravity by the plant (gravitropism). These specialized amyloplasts—called statoliths—are denser than the cytoplasm and can sediment according to the gravity vector. The statoliths are enmeshed in a web of actin and it is thought that their sedimentation transmits the gravitropic signal by activating mechanosensitive channels. The gravitropic signal then leads to reorientation of auxin efflux carriers and subsequent redistribution of auxin streams in root cap and root as a whole. The changed relations in concentration of auxin leads to differential growth of the root tissues. Taken together, the root is then turning, following the gravity stimuli. They are also found in the endodermic layer of the inflorescence stem. The redistribution of auxin causes the shoot to turn in a direction opposite that of the gravity stimuli.^{[citation needed]}

 

 

The above explanation for geotropism seems really clumsy and complicated. It can't explain why branches on the lower parts of trees actually point down. It also can't explain the field effect between branches or even other trees.

 

I used the Aspen tree example because they are in my yard. They do grow in the winter without leaves obviously. I think water transport is both active and passive (with leaves). Passive alone cannot move water to the top of the tallest trees.

 

I shouldn't have said veins, but rather xylem and phloem.

 

This plant growth theory applies to all plants, but only the woody plants have the ability to "harden with lignin" and hold the 3D solid copy of electric fields lines of force.

 

I don't know what the particles are. Gravitons are a theoretical particle causing gravitation but which haven't been found yet. If gravitation is caused by particles, then I'm theorizing that each mass is forcefully giving off identically charged particles and that gravitation is electromagnetic. Newton's and Coulomb's formula's are both based on 1/r2

and very similar.

 

If the earth is giving off charged particles, then they are flowing upwards and possibly causing the earth's electric field. See the above Snowflake and Gravitation ppt.

 

These particles and electric field would polarize the water in the soil and in the clouds.

 

In a storm cloud, the charged particles and resulting electric field would cause the water molecules in each vapor drop to polarize and line up with the electric field turning the cloud into a dielectric surface (the top of the cloud would be positively charged and the bottom of the cloud would be negatively charged). This would cause a large charge separation and result in lightning or a tornado.

 

I think the same forces that cause a root to grow down, cause a storm cloud to "grow a root" and form a tornado until the electric energy is mostly transferred to the ground which causes the tornado to dissipate.

 

I may need to re post the ppt's using a different topic in Speculations because I've used up my quota here if you can't access them.

[Jade]

Here's a picture of an "electric tree". It's made by supercharging a plexiglass block and then touching a grounding point at the base.

 

The result of the extremely fast discharge is an electric tree. So here is a 3D solid copy of electric field lines of force made completely different from real plants and snowflakes

 

but ending up looking the same.

 

I started a new topic called "Roots Attraction to Water", but first needed to delete the original "Roots to Water" PP from this topic to fit under the memory cap.

Edited March 5, 2012 by Jade

[Bignose]

made completely different from real plants and snowflakes

 

but ending up looking the same.

 

Just because two things look alike isn't terribly good evidence that the phenomena controlling both of them are the same. As a good example: the Bohr model of the atom and the solar system look a lot alike. They looked so much alike that the Bohr model is still seen quite a lot, I think primarily because mankind likes that seeming symmetry of the very big and very small looking alike. But, I chose the word 'seeming' there because we know that the Bohr model is actually a pretty terrible model. And that the phenomena that govern the behavior of the atom and the behavior of the solar system are quite, quite different.

[Jade]

Your point is well taken. I wasn't trying to say the electric trees were a proof, rather their existence shows a 3D physical copy of electric field lines of force.

 

The possibility remains open however that real plants and snowflakes owe their shape to electric lines of force. And the evidence in trees is all around for everyone to see.

 

All plants and snowflakes are born into and grow immersed in the earth's electric field. Plant meristem cells have a high metabolic rate and probably produce more electricity than any of the other plant cells.

 

So the soft growing tips have a charge and are either repulsed or attracted to the earth's electric field.

 

 

But large tree trunks and large branches are showing a field effect to other trees and branches at several meters away.

 

Because of the field effect distance I think there are charged particles flowing into the roots, and then are total internally reflected upwards through the water in the vascular tissue and out through the the branch tips, leaves and needles.

 

Because the particles are all the same charge, all the branches are repulsive to each other, and they grow into areas where the electric field between branches cancels out to zero (except for the earths electric field which remains, but is altered slightly by the electric field from the concentrated charged particles flowing in the vascular tissue).

[mephox]

This is rather interesting. I would imagine that a test could be conducted by removing at least part of the earth's electromagnetic field around a potted plant by making a soft iron wire mesh cube (faraday cage) and placing a plant inside (also grounding the cube to an external ground) thus at least partially isolating the plant from any external influence - especially if potted in a PVC pot with no part of the soil or plant touching the faraday cube to see how well the plant grows.

 

Theoretically, since all plants have evolved in an minor magnetic field (compared to electromagnets at least) and, by your theory, either generate or thrive on electrical energy then the plant should either not grow at all - due to the lack of external electrical stimuli (my guess in the case of the theory being true) or grow wildly successfully because of the lack due to the lack (if an electrical field impedes its own generation of an electrical field when growing). If it grows at a normal rate compared to the control plants, then I do not believe this would be the case. It can be tested in a laboratory setting to some extent. And, while you cannot completely prevent a magnetic field, a Faraday cage can at least bend the field around the interior of the cage and minimize the effect of the field.

[Jade]

Thanks for your comments.

 

I'm only doing root experiments for now. You can see the test chamber at the Roots to Water topic.

 

Attached is my ppt showing roots being stunted or killed by 10 VDC.

 

I re-compressed it to reduce the file size.

 

I think a large tree's electric field "overshadows or dominates" a small trees electric field and limits growth, not lack of sunlight.

 

Just like a +3 charge overpowers a +1 charge.

Roots Affected by Electricity.ppt

[Bignose]

Is they are all charged that same, how can two trees grow into one another or even how could two leaves even touch each other?