The Ebner Effect on Cannabis seed

Advanced Techniques
, , ,
41

Thank you for that.
Great link.
If what I believe to be true, that this device scrambles the receptors that access genetic instruction, maybe the idea of prehistoric expressions being accessed is not so far fetched. After all that is stored in the DNA somewhere. This device may suppress the evolutionary directive that overlooks that info during it’s growth sequencing.
And indeed I am documenting faster, higher germination rates. Though, I am happy to say, there is activity from the control group. More on that later.

But back to your link! What a goldmine!
Thanks again!
More later…

4 Likes
42

Thanks Larry!
It’s been a fun ride for me so far.
And as we shall see, the germination rate has a 75% to 25% advantage and of that a 2-3 day to, for the control, 14 day time advantage as well.
I’m busy atm but will try to post pics later.
Fun!

2 Likes
43

As mentioned above, here is “F” from the control group.

And here is “C”
C looks lethargic and weak. Doubtful of this one.

Here is leaf deformation on #1. Anecdotally, I have not seen this before on cannabis.

image.png818×262 333 KB

One of the beauties of the biodynamic method is that it sets reasonable time frames.
And teaches patience.
If using short germinating seeds, following the method of;
-Start germinating 2 days before New Moon, sprout by Full Moon-
If these seeds don’t sprout, toss and start over.

Another prime biodynamic germination date is 2 days before the Full Moon.
Generally this is reserved for long germinating seeds and tubers but may be beneficial to old seed.
Another experiment for another time.

6 Likes
44

I wanted to mention the visuals I used to determine a sprouted seed was ready to plant.
My goal was to plant a seed as soon as the seed coat has cracked, before the radicle extends much.
Supposedly the seed’s energy is reserved until it has access to nutrients. But, having only 2 times daily available to me for this experiment, I missed this on #'s 1, 3 and 2 and the radicles extended 2mm from the seed coat.
The sprouting of the control group was so slow by comparison, I planted every seed as it cracked.
What I am seeing is contrary to the expected results.
Next time I will wait for radicle extension of at least 2mm before planting.

2 Likes
45

What “receptors” are you talking about? mRNA polymerase? mRNA itself? ribosomes? tRNA?

It is far fetched because “all of that” isn’t stored in the DNA. Whether expressed or not the DNA is under constant evolution. This happens at different speeds in the genome, and among the determining factors is if the gene is functional and what purpose the resulting protein serves if so. If evolution occurs by silencing a gene, that gene will undergo random mutation into nonfunctionality; it won’t simply remain intact hidden in non-coding DNA. If the gene is functional, it will have changed from its ancestral type through evolution as well, though under selective pressures on whatever alterations it exerts on the emergent phenotype of the organism. Some genes are more closely similar to their ancestral type than others due to the specificity of their function. Regardless, the ancestral genome is very different and cannot be resurrected through differential gene expression.

2 Likes
46

You speak so positively of things science only postulates about.
There is no way man has come anywhere near to unlocking the secrets in these basic structures.
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle guarantees that.
“It has since become clearer, however, that the uncertainty principle is inherent in the properties of all wave-like systems.”
link
As if a helix isn’t wave like structure.
DNA has to have the memory of its previous forms, as nothing is ever lost.
As for the receptors, the cell receives it’s instructions. How that process works is still theoretical.

"Much of the study of genetics is theoretical, in that it uses the analysis of observed data and the development of models to define theories and mechanisms for how inheritance works, experimental verification may or may not be possible. A lot of the field is observational, attempting to further our understanding of nature. ". link

That’s all I’m trying to do here.
edit
You seem intent on trashing this thread, rather than let it stand on its own merit.
That’s not what the guarantee of conduct was I agreed to when I joined.
Why don’t you chill and see what happens?

2 Likes
47

From the link you sent:

Anyone reading this book cannot fail to realize the importance of self-generated electric fields and currents in the energetics and control of metabolism in plants. We should therefore not be too surprised to find that externally applied fields also have effects.

Truly the electromagnetic interactions in living systems is only now being appreciated and understood.

4 Likes
48

I am not intending to trash the thread. I am trashing the notion of resurrecting ancestral types with electricity. If that’s all the thread is really looking for, then I guess I am trashing the thread.

No, this is not a “wave like system.”

Heisenberg’s uncertainty principal applies to the physics of particles, not genetic inheritance.

DNA does not have a memory of its previous iterations.

The cell “receives instructions” via DNA being transcribed to RNA, some of which is translated to proteins; the coalescence of the functions of the expressed RNA and protein molecules are what compose an organisms phenotype. Some of the particulars may be hypothetical, but this basic fact is not.

Yes, I agree the electrophisiology of plants is underappreciated and is a significant phenomenon. But I object to mixing that notion with this “ancestral revival” nonsense. The fundamentals of the genetic theory of inheritance are established fact, despite (as is always the case in any scientific field) not being able to explain everything about it yet.

What did I mention that “science only postulates about”? I have said nothing controversial.

3 Likes
49

Your position is noted.
My position is that electromagnetic stimulus overrides/alters the chemical/molecular processes, at least as they are understood now.
Whatever the outcome of my trial is, it still won’t prove one way or another if “prehistoric” expressions are possible in cannabis as no one alive has knowledge of cannabis’ earlier, “prehistoric” forms.
But it is sad to see how “knowledge” dampens the investigative spirit.
Aren’t you curious?
My old man used to say " Don’t let what you know stop you from finding out."
Maybe that wasn’t the best thing to tell a teenager but I “knew” what he meant.

3 Likes
50

Knowledge ensures your aren’t wasting your time wading through bullshit. There simply is no way to achieve the conspiracy theory interpretation of the Ebner effect, whereby ancient and amazing genotypes are revived magically from hidden genetic memories.

Luckily… I found the horses mouth:

"Only recently have reports become more frequent on the possible effects of gravitation and magnetic fields on biological systems. Thus, for example, Goodman and Henderson [Bioelectromagnetics, 7: 23-29, 1986] have found indications that a correlation exists between electromagnetic fields and the rate of transcription in biological material, the rate being influenced favourably by the applied electromagnetic field so that enhanced transcription results…

All in all, the fish treated by the method of this invention are substantially more vital than the untreated comparison fish and reach adulthood earlier. For the fish breeder this means a reduction in the consumption of medicaments and antibacterial agents, even to the extent of dispensing with such substances completely, a perceptibly more efficient utilisation of the fish feed employed, and a shortened rearing phase. These are advantages which no other expedient at present known is able to afford.

The mechanism on which the method of this invention is based is at present not known and will require elucidation in the future."

So in reality this is a way to rear fish faster and with improved health. In this way it can be used by a breeder to reduce breeding cycle times and improve progeny production. It has literally nothing to do with genetic inheritance.

US Patent for Method of breeding fish Patent (Patent # 5,048,458 issued September 17, 1991) - Justia Patents Search -the specific patent relevant to this discussion
Guido Ebner Inventions, Patents and Patent Applications - Justia Patents Search -all of Ebners patents

So, that could still be a cool effect. Just go into your study looking for the right things.

4 Likes
51

Im not a geneticist, but Im pretty sure genes cannot be “reverted” the way you use ‘UNdo’ in a Paint program, or recover deleted files from a hard disk. Genetic information is not digitally stored or ‘layered’ or kept in little locked boxes that can be opened with the correct key. The old version of a gene is not “saved” or “backed up” somewhere. The gene is altered irreversibly. The chemical makup changes when a mutation occurs and thats it. There are no backups kept on file for you to easily or not easily undo or restore.

Just consider for a moment all the mutations that have occurred over just the last million years or so. We will stick to short time periods here :wink:

There is simply no “storage space” in the gene for that much information and no mechanism to do it any way.

Using this technique, you might be able to mutate or change the gene from its existing state so that it was like an older version, but that will be a brand new thing - NOT - a recovery of an old thing. Its like taking a car that was junked and crushed, and burned, then applying some voltage and hoping to get a 1920’s model T back, when the car that was originally crushed was a 1980 pinto.

The pinto has no memory of the model T.

At best, this technique may, possibly, perhaps, alter/damage something in the seedling that results in something new that is viable. But thats really really long odds.

Far far more likely is it will just damage the seedling - like hard radiation, or chemicals, or or or any other mutagenic factor that damages the genome, or cell structures, and causes damage. Most mutations are failures. Like 99.999999999999999%. The successes are few and far between and take thousands of years to develop into a successful form that can be inherited, so I think your odds are really low.

But - good luck anyway. At the very worst, you will ave some fun. :slight_smile:

3 Likes
52

I knew I had read something about this recently. I was looking for ways to move 50 micro droplets around in hi-pressure aeroponic systems, but was concerned about the effects of voltage on the roots.

As it turns out, the correct strength electric field can sometimes help with growth - sometimes. Also note the “correct strength”.

Too much and you kill the plant. Too little and nothing happens. The range from “nothing happens” to “dead” is very small as it turns out.

There is zero information on genetic anything.

http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/content/25/11/1355.3.abstract

etc etc.

5 Likes
53

I wanted to make this clear - you may get lucky. Your device is kind of sort of almost similar to some of the experiments I read about - charged plates separated by a space, with the roots/seeds between them or something similar.

In some cases it did help the plant growth, so its possible you may see some beneficial effects.

However, as I said above, the range that is effective and safe is very narrow and very low. I decided that it just wasnt possible to have that fine a control over the fields/current to do what I want. I forget exactly, but the voltage range was micro-volts and the safe current was similarly super low. Here is what I posted in my HPA thread on this.

I did a little searching last night on the effects of static charge on plant growth and the results were all over the place.

There are a ton of people selling snake oil ‘electric field generators’ or magnetic field generators’ of various types that are guaranteed to improve your plants growth. Some of them claiming that these are secrets handed down from the Mayans or pyramids, or some other BS.

Then there are some Science Fair projects that talk about radial or parallel electric fields increasing growth up to 37%!! No details on exactly what or how to generate a radial vrs parallel field. But not much in the way of scientific method, controls, etc.

Then there seems to be about an equal number of university studies that show mixed results - but the experimental techniques are all over the place.

One study suggested that it was “well known” that currents applied to a plant that were above 0.00001 amps reduced growth rates and the health of the plant, but currents between that level and .00000001 amps increases growth rate and the health of the plant, but currents below that level did nothing.

Maybe your device will generate currents in the ‘good range’. Thats what experimenting is all about though, so again, I wish you luck.

1 Like
54

First image of a single strand of dna revealing, dense wave structure.

That dense wave structure particle of dna has a natural frequency and the ability to resonate, all top considerations for my statement concerning Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.

With dna sequencing still in it’s infancy, that statement is totally presumptuous on your part.
Science doesn’t know.
Your strident denial of this possibility is based upon your belief that a scientific theory is scientific law. If so, you are in error.

Inheritable traits are genetic copies, memories from a pre existing lifeform. No one fully understands this process, only observable results.
The only way this experiment could contribute to this is IF the test group showed observable differences and IF both groups developed a male and female whose seeds had those same traits.
At the moment, the only observable differentiator between the two is the speed and rate of germination. Will this become an inheritable trait? If so, this device just gave evidence of genetically altering that lifeform.

Postulations are statements of beliefs that are made, based on available evidence.
Since none of the phenomena we are talking about is currently observable in it’s natural state, scientific theories, hypotheses are just ways we have of talking about this phenomena.

I’m a sculptor by trade and know that once a medium, clay, stone, dna, whatever obtains a certain form, there is nothing to stop it from obtaining that form again.
Wherever the information comes from that enters our universe and forms reality must pass through a series of molds first. Atoms, molecules, rocks, lifeforms everything has a mold and it’s as if some Great Sculptor is busy banging out the universe.
It is hubris to “know” what potential Man has in altering those molds.

3 Likes
55

Lol
You guys make me appreciate what Galileo must’ve felt like.
Consider Galileo’s first crude telescope peering into the vast Heavens as the totality of our knowledge about the genetic structure peering into the equally vast universe of dna and you have my argument.

3 Likes
56

Do you have any links?
Ebner’s kid sells a version for around 500 euros here:
https://fios-greenbox.net/

Also from the site is this:
"The book “The Primeval Code” by the Swiss author Luc Bürgin attracted a lot of attention in 2008. Apparently, two biologists had made an astounding discovery: Strong crops that were exposed to DC electric fields then showed a higher yield and more resistance to pest infestation. Guido Ebner, son of one of the two discoverers, has continued to pursue the research and has developed a “Greenbox” with which the “primeval code” can also be used at home.

By Daniel Ebner, Switzerland

Of the physical conditions that drive the evolution of biological forms, temperature, pressure, and electromagnetic radiation have all been scientifically studied. On the other hand, far less consideration has been given to static physical fields such as gravity and magnetic and electric fields in previous work. Their impact on biological evolution is therefore still largely unknown.

But while investigations with magnetic fields and gravity are gradually moving into the focus of biologists, research on static electric fields remains very rare. This is probably due to the doctrine that an electric field in a medium filled with charge carriers is shielded by the formation of an electrical double layer.

The biological E-field effect

Nevertheless, we have made it possible to expose biological material to electric fields that exceed the natural field strength of the atmosphere by several orders of magnitude. It has surprisingly been found that organisms, but also isolated biological material respond to static electric fields. The promising results can be summarized under the following points.

We noticed that

  1. the rate of growth is changed, usually increased;

  2. the composition of a population within a community changes;

  3. morphogenesis changes in the germination phase;

  4. stress situations are better overcome;

  5. the fertilization and germination rate is increased.

These findings suggest that a static electric field interferes with the kinetics of the cellular distribution of a cell and influences the competitive pressure of the species.

Reproducible results

In raum & zeit 152 (March / April 2008), the two biologists Guido Ebner and Heinz Schürch from Basel presented the results of their investigations on physiological and phenotypic influences on organisms during their development under a strongly increased static electro field. In various plants such as fern, cress, wheat and corn, but also in the breeding of rainbow trout they showed phenotypic (the appearance regarding) changes. These were reproducible, as shown by corresponding experiments at the Guido Ebner Institute GEI in Basel and at other institutes in Germany. Reproducible results were also obtained from experiments with potatoes, peas, tomatoes and radishes.

Professor Rothe, emeritus professor of the Institute for General Botany in Mainz, said at raum & zeit: "The morphological changes are amazing, even if our results were not as spectacular as those of Ebner and Schürch. We found a 50 percent higher germination rate for corn. […] “And he continued:” Under the same conditions, the experiments are reproducible, even if not every plant reacts the same, that is, the mean deviation is reproducible. "
Plant specific changes

Explanations for the observable, phenotypic and physiological changes are still in the dark. As ingredient analyzes have shown, the protein fractions are different in wheat compared to untreated control plants and increased in amount after germination in the static electro field.

In corn, the analysis revealed no deviations of ingredients between E-field-exposed and non-exposed controls; here alone, the 40 percent surplus alone is astonishing. This clearly shows that no unwanted protein products and no toxic ingredients are produced by exposure to a static electro field.
hypotheses

There are several hypotheses to explain the observed phenomena. Professor Rothe said that under the influence of the E-field, there may be changes in the chromatin (material from which the chromosomes exist). Also, the methylation rate of the histones around which the DNA is wrapped should be examined to see if it alters and thus changes the surgical reading of the DNA. Furthermore, the spatial arrangement of the DNA can also be altered and / or the increased amount of DNA found by the biologist Jens Stark can indicate a stronger mitochondrial growth.

These cellular studies have not been done yet. The infrastructure for this is still missing at GEI, and most other institutes have not yet undertaken these investigations. Here probably “fear of contact” in front of a phenomenon for which there is still no satisfactory academic explanation, play a role.

What we know so far is that

the phenotype changes due to changing environmental conditions within one generation ;
higher electrical potential differences on the body's own membranes shift protein fractions inside the cells ;
Gene mutations due to altered electric field strengths do not occur.

From this we conclude that although gene expression changes, the gene information remains unchanged.

There are now two explanations.

Epigenetic effect:

A static electro field influences the gene interrogation by means of influenza and thus leads to altered genetic expression. This means that switch molecules, proteins, and other signal substances that determine in the cell whether and when genes are turned on or off, are re-activated or deactivated. This influence is reversible. Eventually, the chromosome winding is also changed by the polarity enhancement.

bifurcation

A bifurcation is a qualitative state change in systems under the influence of a parameter such as a static electric field. In Fig. XY the parameter is shown as lambda. The two solid lines represent the development lines of the two achievable states, the dashed line indicates a potential further development that has not yet been realized. If a parameter reaches the threshold value, suddenly two stable states can arise, one of which represents the continuous development of the previous state, while the other represents a completely new, different stable state. The plant can change from one state to another. So it is possible that two products can originate from the same original form.
Investigations in the laboratory

Jens Stark carried out a project on the topic of “Primeval Code” for the final course at the Natural Science and Technology Academy (NTA) in Isny, Baden-Württemberg. The aim of his research was to fundamentally support - or refute - the controversial laboratory experiments with a thoughtful investigation. For his experiments, the researchers used cress seeds.

According to the book “The Prehistoric Code” by Luc Bürgin, Jens Stark used 800 cresses twice, with one group acting as a control. The other was exposed to an E field of 1500 volts / centimeter during germination and then seeded. Although the experiment had to be stopped because of fungal infestation, but this yielded an interesting result. Because the sprouted seedlings proved to be far more resistant. There were about six times more E-field cress plants in better condition than in the control cress.

The second attempt with two times 500 seeds got even more exciting. Jens Stark: " The DNA quantification yielded a difference of more than 30 percent! What this increased amount of E-field cress is due to, remains a mystery at the moment, because the watercress was without water in the E-field and thus there was probably no cell activity, such as division, in the dry cress seed. “(Quote from the” prehistoric code ")

Finally, another surprise followed: " In protein determination, we were able to measure significant differences between the two groups. Here, too, the E-field organisms had a significantly higher concentration, “Bürgin Stark quotes in the” Prehistoric Code ". Since there were no differences in the morphological comparison, the cause of this increased protein production remains in the dark.
Field trials in Bavaria

Thanks to the financial support of the Bavarian agricultural cooperative "Verein Forum Bioenergetik e. V. "In 2008, we were able to produce different types of grain in three fields with farmers in Germany. The seeds had previously been exposed to a 1250 volt / centimeter electrostatic field.

In the case of wheat and corn, the harvest volume was significantly higher. The electro-statically treated summer wheat yielded a field yield of a respectable 20 percent compared to the control area - without any use of pesticides and herbicides. Sowing was at the end of March 2008, harvested in late June. The two fields were each about half a hectare in size. The growth of E-field plants was lower overall than that of the untreated control group, but the yield per plant was significantly higher. In the field of cereals also other sedges and grass species formed, which arose as green plants between the wheat plants. This led to difficulties in mechanical harvesting with the combine harvester, which was obstructed by the green plants and had to be cleaned several times.

Smaller, but more income

For e-field maize, the additional yield compared to the control group after the harvest could even be estimated at 35 to 38 percent. Also in this case the E-field plants were smaller, but the yield per stem was significantly higher. Partly formed the individual plants also several stems. In addition, the E-field sprouts averaged three to five pistons per plant, in some cases up to nine! Sown in early May, harvested in late September. In contrast to wheat, pesticides were used in maize for pest infestation in both groups.

The trials in Bavaria with pickled corn have been repeated annually since the first attempt in 2008. The additional yield compared to the untreated maize seeds used was between 35 and 40 percent each year. However, an improvement in resistance to fungi and corn borers was undetectable.

In the fall of 2012, we used half of the seed for one hectare of winter wheat as controls and half as seeds under a static electric field. Sowing took place in the 3rd week of November 2012. The strong moisture and cold that started in late December increased the plants. Resistance was required. In March, we realized that the controls will not survive and the loss becomes too great. We decided to reschedule and sow summer wheat.

Higher protein content

The analysis of the winter wheat crop harvested in June 2013 showed a significantly increased protein content of 14.4 g / hl (unit?) Compared to 10.6 g / hl of control (summer wheat), an increase of 36 percent , This in turn resulted in the baking quality of the flour obtained from this wheat being of category A1 (very good).

The overall resulting surplus of field wheat was 1/3 per hectare, that is a good 30 percent. In addition, the plants are more resilient and have survived the fierce, humid and cold weather conditions of the first half of 2013.

The box for experiments at home

Upon request and because of all the many inquiries that were addressed to the Guido Ebner Institute, we decided to produce a small test box for home use. This box is called “FIOS Greenbox”. FIOS stands for “Food in Open Source”. Open Source is a well-known technology in software development. It says that nobody can have a private claim to the technology or the software, but everyone can participate in the development and improvement.

The FIOS Greenbox is a tool to increase the fertility (reproductive power) via the static electric field and to bring in an improved harvest. The seed stays in the user’s hand.

The FIOS Greenbox is made from known standard materials used in our research. Currently we are producing a first series of 100 pieces. More series will follow, if the demand is big enough. The advantage is that now standardized experiments can be carried out in allotments or as small approaches to farmers.

The FIOS Greenbox consists of a Plexiglas housing, a drawer and two perforated plates as poles, with the negative pole at the top and the positive pole at the bottom. The also integrated high voltage source is operated from the outside with a supplied 12 volt voltage converter. This can be optionally connected to a 220 or 110 volt outlet. But it is also possible to hang the device to a solar panel with a downstream 12-volt battery or a car battery.
Easy to use

Operating the FIOS Greenbox is easy. Remove the drawer and moisten a single flow cloth with drinking water or water from a running water. Sterilized, deionized, distilled or wastewater should not be used. Then the user places the moistened flow cloth in the drawer and spreads the plant seeds as single as possible over it and closes the drawer. If you select the power supply unit head for the power supply, you can use the yellow round screw head to set the output values ​​(= input values ​​for the box) 12 V, 9 V, 6 V, 3 V and 0 V using a key provided. This results in field strengths between the plates in the box of 1500 volts / centimeter, 1250 V / cm, 750 V / cm and 500 V / cm respectively (?). Last but not least, the AC adapter is plugged into the 220V or 110V AC outlet in the US or Canada.

The seeds are left in the static electric field until the seedlings show first shoots. Then the user plants the germinated seed into a balcony trough, pot or prepared garden bed. For the first attempt we send together with the FIOS Greenbox cress seeds, which should drive out within 2 to 3 days. From the experience of our previous applications, we have compiled a small compilation of the static field strengths in the following table:

The cost of a FIOS Greenbox is € 440 or CHF 460 plus shipping and VAT. We wish all users much success and enjoyment in the tests with the FIOS Greenbox and would be very happy to receive a lot of feedback on our forum www.fios-greenbox.net/forum ."

So while this device operates at an organism’s genetic level by allowing different genetic manifestations to occur, which was my original contention before getting caught up in GH’s assumptions, apologies to all for suggesting this device might alter the plants dna, but MicroDoser and I now have our answer.

3 Likes
57

The “particles” Heisenberg is talking about are quantum particles - quarks, photons, electrons, etc - not strands of DNA. A quantum particle is many orders of magnitude smaller than even an atom, much less a huge molecule like DNA. The Uncertainty Principle has absolutely nothing to do with DNA structure and does not apply here.

Other than that, Im done here, but I still wish you good luck.

5 Likes
58

I will say that I’m all for these types of experiments and exploring contradictions in the state of the art. I applaud you for this. But, I will also say that in order to be successful with producing reliable and repeatable results, you do need to draw on a great deal of expertise from a wide-breadth of knowledge and experience(s).

Reverting to the “non-believer” argument (e.g. Galileo) in science will only be detrimental toward your end-goal. Outside observers will be looking at things like the sample size, repeatability, environmental variables, experimental method, state-of-the-art / predictability, etc.

If you are looking to prove something, I assume you are, your sample size should be increased at some point. The sample size that you are currently running will not produce results that will have any statistical significance.

It may, however, allow you to generate more postulates and narrow down the traits of significance for further experiments. But, for that to work, you’ll need to retain duplicates of your original sample for a on-going trials to mitigate natural phenotype variation. E.g. use of clones, for instance.

As an example, saying something like “sample one is more vigorous than the control group” will not produce a provable result. Only a data point. You have not shown that the natural phenotype variation is controlled and that the sample size is significant. Any result may be interesting and deserving of further attention but it will not be provable as is.

Don’t ignore what others are commenting on but instead contemplate what and why they’ve made a comment. Every proof of significance, in the end, will have to endure a critical review by their peers. They will look for contradictions in the results. It is not out-of-spite, there is a purposeful high bar set in the scientific community simply because future research will need to rely on such proofs as being factual. Cold fusion is an example.

Further, overturning generally accepted fact or theories, as in the case with Galileo, is particularly difficult. Science relies on predictability of results based on what is already known. Being able to show how the state-of-art directly predicts your result makes for a strong argument. Otherwise, the Galileo’s of the world and the scientific community will have to “unwind the clock”, re-evaluate everything learnt, and “unprove” the proven up to that point to find and verify the errors in the state-of-the-art. A difficult and time consuming task. Then, you’ll have to deal with any politics of the time. It is in your interest to understand where and how holes will be poked into the theory otherwise they will come back later to haunt your results. Conflating terms across domains of expertise to support a theory will likewise be questioned. Don’t expect critiques to go away.

It’s cool that you are trying a neat experiment. It’s was difficult to write this since it sounds discouraging. Not my intent. Think of it this way. You wish to open our minds. Other folk wish to open your mind, as well.

12 Likes
59

DNA is not a wave system. Resonance frequencies of a molecule do not mean the object resonating is at all dependent on that physical property for its function. (If you want into get into another possibly pseudoscientific field, check out Inner Paths to Outer Space. It suggests resonance of DNA molecules are responsible for hallucinatory DMT communication with aliens). You are mixing irrelevant science to try to support a pseudoscientific ideal (of a return to ancestral genotype) which is the only aspect of your electroculture experiment I have attacked (though replicates are clearly insufficient for any conclusions, I think you already acknowledged that).

DNA sequencing is far from its infancy. Science doesn’t know everything, and doesn’t posit to. It is a field of discovery. But to discover new things, you need to build on a foundation of facts supported by evidence. I am not sure if you are attacking the central dogma of DNA>RNA>Protein? if so, then maybe you should read some biology books in addition to youtube.

Galileo worked off accumulated evidence. You seem to be ignoring or denying basic, foundational science if you are still trying to suggest the genetic affects (revival of ancestral genotypes, or removal of GMO alterations) claimed on the conspiracy sites. If, on the other hand, you have accepted those are incorrect and are now pursuing the increased growth and disease resistance potential that electroculture may affect, then we would be in agreement.

Actually, you could induce an epigentic change that may persist for one to a several generations after the parent organism experiences it. You will not have created a genetically altered lifeform. The DNA code will have remained the same (barring unrelated mutations that occur concurrently). An electrical current could induce actual genetic mutations, but at that point you are simply mutation breeding along the same lines as X-rays.

You aren’t making sense on the postulates thing. Genetic inheritance via DNA is not a hypothesis. It is Theory, capital T, as in factually supported by mountains of experimental and observational evidence over the last 74 years since its discovery as the “transformative principle” by Oswald Avery.

I am just calling out bad science, so as to prevent an unknowing person reading your thread from being mislead, as well as to improve your own methods. I, likewise, am not intending to discourage your or anyone’s spirit of discovery and experimentation.

8 Likes
60

Yeah, this. It has a similar appearance to a wave, but that is far from being a wave system as meant in particle physics, or physics in general.

The uncertainty principle states that the position and the velocity of a particle (which is a wave system in quantum physics) cannot both be measured exactly, at the same time, even in theory. In practice, the more accurate your reading of the position of a particle, the less accurate will be your reading of its velocity and vice versa.

It is a wave like structure, but it is not a wave system in the meaning that Heisenberg means in his principle. In physics, a wave is a disturbance that transfers energy through matter or space, with little or no associated mass transport. DNA is a double helix made from matter, not a disturbance through matter.

The uncertainty principle just puts limits on reading the velocity and position of a wave accurately, nothing more, nothing less.

6 Likes