Scientists discovering the Charge Field in Botany

It appears they've finally realized that infrared light (heat, charge, etc.) plays a much larger role in photosynthesis than previously admitted. As though they're discovering the charge field, but certainly not admitting it. This research is along the lines of what I've been striving to experiment with recently, but I just lack the funds and space to really "dive in".

New type of photosynthesis discovered
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180614213608.htm

"Since chlorophyll-a is present in all plants, algae and cyanobacteria that we know of, it was considered that the energy of red light set the 'red limit' for photosynthesis; that is, the minimum amount of energy needed to do the demanding chemistry that produces oxygen. The red limit is used in astrobiology to judge whether complex life could have evolved on planets in other solar systems.

However, when some cyanobacteria are grown under near-infrared light, the standard chlorophyll-a-containing systems shut down and different systems containing a different kind of chlorophyll, chlorophyll-f, takes over.

Until now, it was thought that chlorophyll-f just harvested the light. The new research shows that instead chlorophyll-f plays the key role in photosynthesis under shaded conditions, using lower-energy infrared light to do the complex chemistry. This is photosynthesis 'beyond the red limit'."

They even state "textbook-changing" 6 times in the article. We can be sure zero textbooks will be changing anytime soon, but it's cute of them to say stuff like that.

I think what they're seeing is that to plant cells, the radius/energy difference between visible red light and infrared light isn't that much, and the plants adapt fairly easily or promote the action of the chlorophyll-f type processes, which appear to just take over for the -a type processes. I'm not sure of the efficiency difference, but of course heat is applied to all plants, be it from the Earth alone or from the sun or from other nearby matter. So it shouldn't have been such a mystery that heat photons could also help the conversion processes in plants.

It's why we use heat-mats to sprout them as well, and special R/B lights for sproutlings. Full-spectrum such as the sun emits is fine but some chlorophylls are more efficient than others, at varying wavelengths.

Jared Magneson wrote:It appears they've finally realized that infrared light (heat, charge, etc.) plays a much larger role in photosynthesis than previously admitted. As though they're discovering the charge field, but certainly not admitting it. This research is along the lines of what I've been striving to experiment with recently, but I just lack the funds and space to really "dive in".

New type of photosynthesis discovered
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180614213608.htm

"Since chlorophyll-a is present in all plants, algae and cyanobacteria that we know of, it was considered that the energy of red light set the 'red limit' for photosynthesis; that is, the minimum amount of energy needed to do the demanding chemistry that produces oxygen. The red limit is used in astrobiology to judge whether complex life could have evolved on planets in other solar systems.

However, when some cyanobacteria are grown under near-infrared light, the standard chlorophyll-a-containing systems shut down and different systems containing a different kind of chlorophyll, chlorophyll-f, takes over.

Until now, it was thought that chlorophyll-f just harvested the light. The new research shows that instead chlorophyll-f plays the key role in photosynthesis under shaded conditions, using lower-energy infrared light to do the complex chemistry. This is photosynthesis 'beyond the red limit'."

They even state "textbook-changing" 6 times in the article. We can be sure zero textbooks will be changing anytime soon, but it's cute of them to say stuff like that.

I think what they're seeing is that to plant cells, the radius/energy difference between visible red light and infrared light isn't that much, and the plants adapt fairly easily or promote the action of the chlorophyll-f type processes, which appear to just take over for the -a type processes. I'm not sure of the efficiency difference, but of course heat is applied to all plants, be it from the Earth alone or from the sun or from other nearby matter. So it shouldn't have been such a mystery that heat photons could also help the conversion processes in plants.

It's why we use heat-mats to sprout them as well, and special R/B lights for sproutlings. Full-spectrum such as the sun emits is fine but some chlorophylls are more efficient than others, at varying wavelengths.

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing. I think you are correct that this one of those discoveries that requires rewriting a few textbooks.

Found this that was related and made me think too of the C.F. since it might have a better C.F. explanation as well.
----

What Plants Can Live in Caves?
 Picture of a Moss Garden

Plants need sunlight to live and caves do not have sunlight except in their entrances, so how can plants live in caves? Well, they can't, in a manner of speaking. But, then again, they can.

At the entrance and the twilight zone of caves, there is a little light for plants to live in. The next time you are a cave entrance, look around you for plants. Trees or grasses may be growing at the entrance and even out of the rocks on the sides of the entrance. Mosses, ferns, and/or liverworts may be growing on the ground at the cave entrance or in the twilight zone. Mosses, ferns and liverworts grow in the cool, moist environment provided by the cave entrance. Since caves are usually a constant temperature and high humidity inside, the plants at the entrance can enjoy a more stable temperature and moist environment than plants out in the open. As you walk into the twilight zone, cyanobacteria, a bacteria that has chlorophyll, cause all the rocks facing the entrance to be a shade of green.

http://www.caveslime.org/kids/cavejourney/caveJourneyWhatPlants.html

....





Photosynthesis in the dark? Unraveling the mystery of algae evolution
April 24, 2017, Waseda University

The evolution of photosynthetic organisms began approximately 2.5 billion years ago when cyanobacteria came into existence and first used water molecules for photosynthesis. Credit: Waseda University

Scientists have long studied which of the three primary photosynthetic eukaryotes (red algae, green algae, and glaucophytes) has come into existence first to unravel the biological mystery of algae evolution by analyzing their genetic information.

Despite learning that the structure of cyanelles, an organelle unique to glaucophytes, is most similar to the ancestral cyanobacteria among other organelles, these studies have not conclusively resolved the branching position of glaucophytes and left the early branching history of the three primary photosynthetic lineages uncertain.

A recent study by Waseda University researchers indicated that the effect of respiration on photosynthesis in the glaucophyte Cyanophora paradoxa is surprisingly similar to the interaction between respiration and photosynthesis in cyanobacteria. These results suggest that cyanelles retain many of the characteristics observed in their ancestral cyanobacteria.

"From the view point of metabolic interactions, C. paradoxa is the primary symbiotic algae most similar to cyanobacteria," says Kintake Sonoike, a professor of plant and cell physiology at Waseda University. "Our findings provide valuable information for revealing how photosynthetic organisms evolved."

(https://phys.org/news/2017-04-photosynthesis-dark-unraveling-mystery-algae.html  ...more at link)

Indeed, we've all seen plenty of examples of plants living in low-light or low-insolation conditions. I think one critical factor here is the xylem vs. phloem consideration as Mathis has presented to us. That is to say, Earth's charge going UP does not contribute significantly to photosynthesis, on any wavelength. If that were the case, if the Earth's charge were strong enough to alone drive plants, they wouldn't need sunlight at all. Leaves wouldn't be (almost entirely) "sun-sensitive", meaning they wouldn't position themselves and move themselves, sans muscles, to best catch the sunlight, however weak.

So the Earth's heat is enough to push xylem, but not enough to ALSO contribute to photosynthesis in any sustaining way. Which tells us that phloem requires more energy. Nothing new, there. Just confirmation.

But it seems like this also helps prove Miles' take on the Xylem/Phloem conjecture, which so far I haven't been able to disprove.

I see your points from the paper.
So...what do you think of aquatic plants like Phytoplankton, Coral and Kelp? These too are dependent on sunlight but I wonder if ocean plant life may be able to use the Earth's field to some degree? I can't remember if Miles addressed this one.

I think underwater plants likely have a different ratio or propensity for infrared-photosynthesis than their airborne counterparts. We have an Index of Refection of 1.33 vs air at 1.0 right off the bat, which give us an angle to work with. A lot more insolation gets dispersed in the medium - that is to say, incoming sunlight is refracted over a much wider spectrum in the water than it is in the air. 1/3 wider, anyway. I don't think this means scattering in the Mathis-corrected Rayleigh sense, since it's just water. Charge is redirected, but not ultimately diminished.