What are the Effects of MUSIC on plants? Study...

[Mountain]

Going back to the OP and the effect of music on plants has anyone contacted Biowave Industries yet and bend their ear? The small unit for like up to 1.5 acres is $2,400. Seems if anyone would know what the story is regarding music it would be them. Looks like a different technology than Sonic Bloom.

I can just see it now...a indoor grower gets a unit and lives in high density population area and all of a sudden the plants in the yards surrounding him start to take off like never before!

 

[mean mr.mustard]

Because we focus on our central nervous system, we attribute most of our processes to it.

Plants do not, yet they function in reaction to their environment.

I don't see an off topic point, but I'd be happy to PM if you are truly interested.

I don't disagree with satisfied plants being happy.

We're happy when our needs are met.

Depending on the basis of which we judge these factors of satisfaction, plants and science and conciousness all belong in this thread.

Do I think that plants see light and decide after contemplation to grow towards it? No I do not.

 

[DocLeaf]

Do I think that plants see light and decide after contemplation to grow towards it? No I do not.

Considering that plants do not grow under (or towards) the green end of the light spectrum, then 'Yes' we'd think so.

Hope this helps

 

[mean mr.mustard]

If you were careful to say "sense" instead of "see" and "chemical reaction" instead of "contemplation" then you'd get a few to agree with you.

​

 

[Weird]

let me please if you would define the truth of quantum mechanics in gardening because they indeed exist

the first has to be the definition of quantum and its relativity to our own being

quantum or the "unseen" is what exists outside the perception of the average being

there will always be something beyond our perception whether it be in the microcosm or macrocosm

thankfully our intelligence allows us to see the cause and effect of the unseen

I illustrated this to my son by giving him an example of seagulls coasting in the wind at the beach

we don't see the air, yet when the wind blows we learn of its existence

we are exposed to the cause and effect of the unseen all day yet many question some very rudimentary and base relationships that exist to the observer of cause and effect

mathematically it would be as simple as solving algebraic statements

is there a cause and effect to music in the grow?

well lets be honest, even if we were to break this down to pure chemical. electrical, magnetic forces we don't know enough about the earths organisms alone let alone the alleopahtic relationships to measure all of the reactions between plant and man and their intertwined environment

but cause and effect explains much of the "benefits" in very simple terms let alone some hidden interactions science has yet to unravel

my thoughts off the top of my head cause and effect of music

music = vibration

could this vibration be enough to cause cell stress and subsequent cell strengthening such as when you use a fan?

music = a happy grower who possibly spends more time in the room, which has sub sequential benefits like greater observation which in turns leads the greater care

music = might represent the type of grower who is trying to give his plants "intangible" benefits because he does not want to fix what is not broken and wants to add a positive dynamic. aka a positive attitude

music = CO 2 boost . I know your like WTF dude i aint buying it

WAIT ..

music might sooth a grower get them smoking alot of weed with their plants exhaling CO2 and possibly other chemical triggers int eh exhaled cannabis smoke ( i know its like eating hamburger in front of cows but flowers like to get smoked)

even simply spending more time in your grow leads to better maintenance and better plants

so ask yourselves in your grows when there is music are there happier plants?

cause i think i see a connection

 

[Richard Head]

edited by the editor

 

[zeppelindood]

This is not good news for my plants... I pump Zeppelin in their rooms 24/7

 

[Mountain]

This is not good news for my plants... I pump Zeppelin in their rooms 24/7

I love Zepp and seems your plants not having a problem with what you're doing

 

[TheGreenBastard]

Plato and Aristotle both believed the heart to be the seat of the emotional soul and the liver to be the seat of the natural or vegetative soul, and that these two organs governed the others' functions. Aristotle postulated that the brain was used to cool the blood...

I logically deduce they were guessing.

What established method of reasoning do you think they were using exactly?

A precursor to the modern scientific method. Simply because they were wrong doesn't mean they were guessing, they tried to explain their universe as best they could given their limited understanding. We are no longer inhibited by a lack of knowledge on this particular subject, we have vast understanding in both the macro and micro structures/functions of plant life and biology in general.

I would rather be wrong while using reason and pre-established knowledge than be right based on meta-physical voodoo.

 

[TheGreenBastard]

Just because things do not have a current scientific explanation doesn't mean its not so. Better to leave yourself open to all manner of explanations certainly more interesting.

Future scientific explanations are based on current ones, I'm not closing myself to any manner of explanation unless it cannot be proven. I'm not dismissing the possibility of sound waves effecting plants, though I'm certainly not embracing it. As for things like emotion and hearing, utter bullshit; based on current, and most likely future evidence.

 

[TheGreenBastard]

So if plants have no brain why do they perform logically?

Are you suggesting they do? I had never said they performed logically, only that our conclusions about them must be based on logic. Plants have evolved over millions of years to adapt to their environment, they never made a conscious decision to develop from photosynthetic protists. This was simply the the act of natural selection choosing the best structures such as roots and cuticles for life on land.

 

[Richard Head]

edited by the editor

 

[TheGreenBastard]

I think this is what it comes down to.

Life is easier if we can live in the world we knew yesterday, but advances take us into uncharted, uncomfortable territory.

What advances are you referring to? It seems you are the one living in the world we knew yesterday suggesting ridiculous notions that have no scientific basis, this is a characteristic of the pre-enlightened world. In this post-modern era we cannot accept these as possibilities without some form of evidence.

 

[TheGreenBastard]

I highly reccomend checking out the work of Dr. Masuro Emoto from Japan. He conducted many experiments and has spent the majority of his life researching the effects of emotion, thought/intent, music, prayer and more on the crystalline structure of water. I have read his recent book titled "The Hidden Messages in Water". Here is a short video showing some of his photographs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1-0ulKgmio&feature=related
In a nutshell he found that water exposed to "positive" words or phrases(taped to a jar of water) formed organized some might say beautiful crystallin structures. water exposed to "negative" words of phrases did not form a crystalline structure at all. Similar results found when water subjected to classical music tended to form highly organized crystals while water exposed to heavy metal again did not crystalize. Water from the polluted fujiwara dam did not show crystalline structure. After I believe ~1hr. being prayed upon by a monk of group of monks(don't recall) (chanting as well I believe) it then formed organized crystals.
debunk his research all you want, or try replicating his rice experiment for yourself like countless others. THIS HAS BEEN REPLICATED MANY MANY TIMES. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTz-cYk9Wu4&feature=related

Also for green bastard and those who share his Science trumps all ideology, Check out the film, "What the Bleep do we Know" features interviews with many university professors, PHd's, quantum phyisicists and well respected academics as well as various spiritual teachers, "gurus" whatever. Just because science can not currently explain something does not make it any less true or real. and as was already pointed out science has found itself to be "wrong" for years in many instances...

I'd seen that years ago, I'll agree that it is interesting, though it has not been proven. The day you can prove how or why these structures formed the way they did I would be much more willing to accept it. I find it detrimental to accept anything which has no apparent logical basis. As I have said I'm not denying the possibilities though I'm certainly not ready to accept it as fact.

Remember, correlation does not imply causation.

 

[TheGreenBastard]

Each of those is just a different sound wave(ie, different frequency and amplitude), so they'll have different energy and vibrations associated with them. As for lyrics, do you really think that saying, with the exact frequency and amplitude, "F*** you plants" vs "I love you plants" (or whatever lyrical differences)would make a difference? I don't.

mean mr.mustard,

phototropism is no more associated with consciousness than the fact that you tan when exposed to uv. It's just chemical reactions.


As to people saying that us 'science' guys need to be more open minded...Scientists have no problem saying "we dont' know"(ie, pre big bang). We can also admit we're wrong when we are presented with credible evidence. However, no true scientist goes about claiming a truth without evidence, which is what we have going on here.

Remember that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. So I ask, does anyone have any evidence that plants have emotion/thought capabilities?

lol at youtube video experiments as evidence.

Certainly. We are all just a combination of subatomic particles. However, we must draw a line somewhere between basic chemical reactions and the extreme complexities of the central nervous system. Basically, when I think of consciousness, I think of the ability to make choices. You don't choose to darken your skin. Plants don't choose to move towards light.

I agree that people could benefit from being open minded. That doesn't mean people should believe without evidence though.

elbarracho seems to believe plants have emotions. I actually thought you were on board with that view too, but after rereading your posts I now see that you just like to argue/debate.

Do you personally believe that plants have emotions and/or are conscious?

This thread has gotten off topic. I will post no more about scientists, consciousness, etc in this thread. PM me if you want to continue this convo

I'm happy to see their are some intelligent people on this thread.

 

[TheGreenBastard]

Just because things do not have a current scientific explanation doesn't mean its not so. Better to leave yourself open to all manner of explanations certainly more interesting.

Future scientific explanations are based on current ones, I'm not closing myself to any manner of explanation unless it cannot be proven. I'm not dismissing the possibility of sound waves effecting plants, though I'm certainly not embracing it. As for things like emotion and hearing, utter bullshit; based on current, and most likely future evidence.

So if plants have no brain why do they perform logically?

Are you suggesting they do? I had never said they performed logically, only that our conclusions about them must be based on logic. Plants have evolved over millions of years to adapt to their environment, they never made a conscious decision to develop from photosynthetic protists. This was simply the the act of natural selection choosing the best structures such as roots and cuticles for life on land.

I think this is what it comes down to.

Life is easier if we can live in the world we knew yesterday, but advances take us into uncharted, uncomfortable territory.

What advances are you referring to? It seems you are the one living in the world we knew yesterday suggesting ridiculous notions that have no scientific basis, this is a characteristic of the pre-enlightened world. In this post-modern era we cannot accept these as possibilities without some form of evidence.

I highly reccomend checking out the work of Dr. Masuro Emoto from Japan. He conducted many experiments and has spent the majority of his life researching the effects of emotion, thought/intent, music, prayer and more on the crystalline structure of water. I have read his recent book titled "The Hidden Messages in Water". Here is a short video showing some of his photographs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1-0ulKgmio&feature=related
In a nutshell he found that water exposed to "positive" words or phrases(taped to a jar of water) formed organized some might say beautiful crystallin structures. water exposed to "negative" words of phrases did not form a crystalline structure at all. Similar results found when water subjected to classical music tended to form highly organized crystals while water exposed to heavy metal again did not crystalize. Water from the polluted fujiwara dam did not show crystalline structure. After I believe ~1hr. being prayed upon by a monk of group of monks(don't recall) (chanting as well I believe) it then formed organized crystals.
debunk his research all you want, or try replicating his rice experiment for yourself like countless others. THIS HAS BEEN REPLICATED MANY MANY TIMES. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTz-cYk9Wu4&feature=related

Also for green bastard and those who share his Science trumps all ideology, Check out the film, "What the Bleep do we Know" features interviews with many university professors, PHd's, quantum phyisicists and well respected academics as well as various spiritual teachers, "gurus" whatever. Just because science can not currently explain something does not make it any less true or real. and as was already pointed out science has found itself to be "wrong" for years in many instances...

I'd seen that years ago, I'll agree that it is interesting, though it has not been proven. The day you can prove how or why these structures formed the way they did I would be much more willing to accept it. I find it detrimental to accept anything which has no apparent logical basis. As I have said I'm not denying the possibilities though I'm certainly not ready to accept it as fact.

Remember, correlation does not imply causation.

Dude, your harshness is hurting my emotions....

Well, at least that is something I can believe.

Plato and Aristotle both believed the heart to be the seat of the emotional soul and the liver to be the seat of the natural or vegetative soul, and that these two organs governed the others' functions. Aristotle postulated that the brain was used to cool the blood...

I logically deduce they were guessing.

What established method of reasoning do you think they were using exactly?

A precursor to the modern scientific method. Simply because they were wrong doesn't mean they were guessing, they tried to explain their universe as best they could given their limited understanding. We are no longer inhibited by a lack of knowledge on this particular subject, we have vast understanding in both the macro and micro structures/functions of plant life and biology in general.

I would rather be wrong while using reason and pre-established knowledge than be right based on meta-physical voodoo

Each of those is just a different sound wave(ie, different frequency and amplitude), so they'll have different energy and vibrations associated with them. As for lyrics, do you really think that saying, with the exact frequency and amplitude, "F*** you plants" vs "I love you plants" (or whatever lyrical differences)would make a difference? I don't.

mean mr.mustard,

phototropism is no more associated with consciousness than the fact that you tan when exposed to uv. It's just chemical reactions.


As to people saying that us 'science' guys need to be more open minded...Scientists have no problem saying "we dont' know"(ie, pre big bang). We can also admit we're wrong when we are presented with credible evidence. However, no true scientist goes about claiming a truth without evidence, which is what we have going on here.

Remember that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. So I ask, does anyone have any evidence that plants have emotion/thought capabilities?

lol at youtube video experiments as evidence.

Certainly. We are all just a combination of subatomic particles. However, we must draw a line somewhere between basic chemical reactions and the extreme complexities of the central nervous system. Basically, when I think of consciousness, I think of the ability to make choices. You don't choose to darken your skin. Plants don't choose to move towards light.

I agree that people could benefit from being open minded. That doesn't mean people should believe without evidence though.

elbarracho seems to believe plants have emotions. I actually thought you were on board with that view too, but after rereading your posts I now see that you just like to argue/debate.

Do you personally believe that plants have emotions and/or are conscious?

This thread has gotten off topic. I will post no more about scientists, consciousness, etc in this thread. PM me if you want to continue this convo

I'm happy to see their are some reasonable people on this thread.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

We are no longer inhibited by a lack of knowledge on this particular subject, we have vast understanding in both the macro and micro structures/functions of plant life and biology in general.

I don't think there is a vast understanding at all.... hence this thread coming up without much research for or against.

I'm not dismissing the possibility of sound waves effecting plants, though I'm certainly not embracing it. As for things like emotion and hearing, utter bullshit; based on current, and most likely future evidence.

You certainly see why I'm saying that casting derision is the first step in denial of real research or any acceptance of what that research may find.

I contend that there are happy plants... that leads me to believe the possibility of other senses being applicable to plants in their own way ie. phototropism, ethylene enhancement by vibration, etc.

Are you suggesting they do? I had never said they performed logically, only that our conclusions about them must be based on logic. Plants have evolved over millions of years to adapt to their environment, they never made a conscious decision to develop from photosynthetic protists. This was simply the the act of natural selection choosing the best structures such as roots and cuticles for life on land.

I certainly do. Evolving over millions of years of adaptation to being functional today screams logic. Illogical plants are dead species... right?

I'm going to assume you are one who believes life is a random chance occurrence.

What advances are you referring to? It seems you are the one living in the world we knew yesterday suggesting ridiculous notions that have no scientific basis, this is a characteristic of the pre-enlightened world. In this post-modern era we cannot accept these as possibilities without some form of evidence.

Slow down Mr. Cart Before The Horse.

You were postulating that the lack of a nervous system is reason enough that plants can't be affected by music.

An advance in science has shown us that our central nervous system is responsible for our perceived appreciation (benefit) of music.

You've taken that to mean that a lack of a central nervous system prevents any subject (even a plant) from being affected by music... that's where I feel the advance is slowing us down or preventing possible further comprehension.

Call it metaphysical voodoo, or ridiculous notions, or hippie bullshit... I'll not leap to any conclusion because I've seen evidence.

Perhaps it's because I'll consider it evidence and not cast it aside, and strive for understanding possibilities.

I don't like looking through shut doors.

I'm happy to see their are some intelligent people on this thread.

I would hope this isn't pointed towards me because your spelling is not reflective of a college education.

I would venture that your intellect is rather bland, but I'm sure you take mine as nonfunctional

 

[DocLeaf]

We did this test years ago at horticultural college. It works 100% (just test it, with a 'control', in isolation)

The real question is,, do some plants/species/varieties prefer certain types of music over others ?

Moreover can a specific line be tailored towards a specific genre of music with inbreeding?

Many questions remain unanswered...

Hope this helps

 

[TheGreenBastard]

We did this test years ago at horticultural college. It works 100% (just test it, with a 'control', in isolation)

The real question is,, do some plants/species/varieties prefer certain types of music over others ?

Moreover can a specific line be tailored towards a specific genre of music with inbreeding?

Many questions remain unanswered...

Hope this helps

I believe the biggest question is how, even if their is a definite effect. (Also, 100% seems like hyperbole.)

 

[Weird]

effect of sound stimulation on cell cycle of chrysanthemum research paper



Abstract

Plant growth can be considered as the sum of cell proliferation in the meristems and the subsequent elongation of cells. The continuous proliferative capacity of plant cells is crucial for the production of new organs and thus has a significant impact on plant architecture. Now it had been found that the relationship between environmental factors and growth of plant was very close. And in this paper, the effect of sound stimulation on the cell cycle of chrysanthemum was studied to further explore the mechanism of biological effect of sound stimulation.

# 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Sound stimulation; Cell cycle; Environmental factors; Chrysanthemum

1. Introduction
Since their immobility, plants are inevitably affected by environmental stresses. The relationship between environmental stress and plant development is one of the important research fields focused by biologists and physicists. Now it was found that plants could respond to the environmental factors of wind, rain, touch, electric field and ultraviolet radiation and alter its physiological condition to adapt to the change of environment [1/3]. (* same shit i said in my first post and low and behold science backs up casual observation)

Plant growth can be considered as the sum of cell proliferation in the meristems and the subsequent elongation of cells. The continuous proliferative capacity of plant cells is crucial for the production of new organs and thus has a significant impact on plant architecture. The alteration of cell cycle is very close to the growth and development of plant. Now the regulation of cell cycle about mammal and yeast has been widely studied, but the research on the cell cycle about plant is relatively lacking. It had been found that the cell cycle in higher plant was regulated by many inner and outer factors. Tang [4] reported that the number of cell and the proportion of cell in S phase increased under the stimulation of low frequency
electromagnetic field. It had been found that the sound wave with some strength and frequency could accelerate the growth of plant [5], but the mechanism of promotion was still not clear. In this paper, we cultured the seedling of chrysanthemum under sound wave. The change of cell cycle under the stimulation of sound was measured to explore the influence of sound wave on the growth and cell cycle of plant. We have chosen chrysanthemum as the experimental system because of the single hereditary character.