bulbs and planting depth
 

There is some interesting information out there, and this is
experimentation, not hearsay. Some bulbs *do* pull themselves to the
required depth:

http://www.physorg.com/news115908314.html

M. Reed

not a thorough experimentation, Monique bulbs and planting depth
 

monique wrote:
There is some interesting information out there, and this is
experimentation, not hearsay. Some bulbs *do* pull themselves to the
required depth:

http://www.physorg.com/news115908314.html

M. Reed

--- quoting from that reference ---
Leopold mused, "I have some lily bulbs that were in the ground for
nearly a decade, and I was astonished to find the bulbs moved
themselves over a foot into the ground!". The research findings may
help commercial and amateur gardeners in their quest for more
effective bulb planting and growing techniques.
--- end quoting ---

That was a good research report Monique, but it was too biased of an
experiment
to that of only one hypothesis --- contractile roots and not looking
at other possible
locomotions.
It did not exclude other possible "better explanations". The Cornell
team used
vermiculite ( I thought it was banned because of asbestos containing
hazard) but
vermiculite is a very easily movable medium. So the Cornell team has
biased
reporting because of a lack of testing in clay soil. To the other
hypothesis that
the action and reaction of shoots and leaves moving upwards would tend
to move
the bulb downwards.

So the Cornell team needs to repeat the experiment open to other
hypothesis and
not just a singular hypothesis upon entering the experiment --- that
the roots are
contractile.

It maybe the case that there are two locomotions driving bulbs
deeper-- one of
contractile roots but a second one of action-reaction of leaves
shooting upwards.
And the factor of the soil involved because if a clay soil is involved
contractile roots
may have a tough time of getting deeper.

The Cornell team mentioned that alot of other plants have the ability
to move deeper
and some of those do not have bulbs involved. So it maybe the case
where two
hypotheses are in action and for which the Cornell team failed to have
"other hypotheses"
under experimental test.

I do not doubt their results, only complaining that they have too
narrow of a test
window, and not allowing for other factors such as leaf motion upwards
and the
factor of the soil type, so that a clay soil may prevent contractile
roots from making
the bulb go deeper but that the leaf upward motion may just penetrate
through the
clay layers.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

not a thorough experimentation, Monique bulbs and planting depth
 

not a thorough experimentation, Monique bulbs and plantingdepth
 

Sean Houtman wrote:
wrote in news:57e45678-5250-448e-b891-
:

It maybe the case that there are two locomotions driving bulbs
deeper-- one of
contractile roots but a second one of action-reaction of leaves
shooting upwards.
And the factor of the soil involved because if a clay soil is involved
contractile roots
may have a tough time of getting deeper.



It is easier to pull a rope than push it.

Sean

Never studied physics, eh, Sean. Newton would not be calm when
someone calls one of his laws as pushing a rope rather than pulling.

And funny, because, maybe that is what a biologist thinks of when
reading Newton's law of every action has an equal and opposite
reaction, in that you, Sean thinks of a rope being pushed or pulled.

So definitely, biophysics was not one of your talents, Sean.

not a thorough experimentation, Monique bulbs and planting depth
 

not a thorough experimentation, Monique bulbs and plantingdepth
 

In article ,
wrote:


Sean Houtman wrote:
wrote in news:57e45678-5250-448e-b891-
:

It maybe the case that there are two locomotions driving bulbs
deeper-- one of
contractile roots but a second one of action-reaction of leaves
shooting upwards.
And the factor of the soil involved because if a clay soil is involved
contractile roots
may have a tough time of getting deeper.

It is easier to pull a rope than push it.

This is a wonderfully concise and astute reply. Too bad the recipient
doesn't understand it.

Never studied physics, eh, Sean. Newton would not be calm when
someone calls one of his laws as pushing a rope rather than pulling.

And funny, because, maybe that is what a biologist thinks of when
reading Newton's law of every action has an equal and opposite
reaction, in that you, Sean thinks of a rope being pushed or pulled.

So definitely, biophysics was not one of your talents, Sean.

Here are some experiments for Mr. Plutonium to try:

(1) Stand on the ground and push upwards on the air with your hands. How
far do your feet sink into the ground? Now think about how Newton's
laws are demonstrated by this experiment and how it relates to your
ideas about plant growth.

(2) Crouch down on the ground and slowly stand up. How far do your feet
sink into the ground? Now think about how Newton's laws are demonstrated
by this experiment and how it relates to your ideas about plant growth.

Plants don't really push out of the ground. They stay in place and the
growing structures elongate or add tissue at the growing points at the
ends/edges. Applying equal force to the air and to the ground will move
more air than ground.

not a thorough experimentation, Monique bulbs and plantingdepth
 

wrote:
In article ,
wrote:


Sean Houtman wrote:
wrote in news:57e45678-5250-448e-b891-
:

It maybe the case that there are two locomotions driving bulbs
deeper-- one of
contractile roots but a second one of action-reaction of leaves
shooting upwards.
And the factor of the soil involved because if a clay soil is involved
contractile roots
may have a tough time of getting deeper.

It is easier to pull a rope than push it.

This is a wonderfully concise and astute reply. Too bad the recipient
doesn't understand it.

Never studied physics, eh, Sean. Newton would not be calm when
someone calls one of his laws as pushing a rope rather than pulling.

And funny, because, maybe that is what a biologist thinks of when
reading Newton's law of every action has an equal and opposite
reaction, in that you, Sean thinks of a rope being pushed or pulled.

So definitely, biophysics was not one of your talents, Sean.

Here are some experiments for Mr. Plutonium to try:

(1) Stand on the ground and push upwards on the air with your hands. How
far do your feet sink into the ground? Now think about how Newton's
laws are demonstrated by this experiment and how it relates to your
ideas about plant growth.

(2) Crouch down on the ground and slowly stand up. How far do your feet
sink into the ground? Now think about how Newton's laws are demonstrated
by this experiment and how it relates to your ideas about plant growth.

Plants don't really push out of the ground. They stay in place and the
growing structures elongate or add tissue at the growing points at the
ends/edges. Applying equal force to the air and to the ground will move
more air than ground.

Well, it is too bad that neither Sean nor Monique know enough physics
to even discuss it. Newton's third law F_ab_ = -F_ba_.
The fact that both Monique and Sean are able to stand up on a floor
and walk across the floor because the floor itself applies an equal
force
on your weight, and, is not what Sean thinks of as push and pull of a
rope.
The amount of force that a bulb leaf applies to the bulb as it is
growing
out of the ground is an equal and opposite force to the movement of
the
leaf stem. And the speed of growth motion of tulip leaves is a rapid
speed. So both of you,
Monique and Sean, is the time to stop with your blabbering blubbering
and actually repeat the experiment done by Cornell and do it better
and more thorough. Show whether Newton's 3rd law has any role. It
may and may not. But your blabbering opinions is not what is going to
matter.

As I said, the Cornell experiment was not thorough for they used
vermiculate
a very light substance, almost like shredded package styrofoam
consistency.
When they should have tried it in clay soil. And here, it may take 3
or more
years to get the results. It may involve frost in some key role that I
am not
aware of at the moment. I know that frost lifts dense objects like
rocks
to the near surface, but maybe frost has some action that moves bulbs
deeper.

So the Cornell experiment was only a first try experiment, but now we
need
more thorough ones.

I would be surprized if Newton's third law had nothing to do with
bulbs
getting deeper. But you have to do the experiment to find out.

I am filled to the gills in experiment so I won't be repeating the
Cornell one.

not a thorough experimentation, Monique bulbs and planting depth
 

Thanks for the informative comments over the post. all are exploring very well
Nice job..