gustard33

Hi all, apart from patch clamps and measuring the potential difference between he vacuole of a cell and outside the cell wall with electrodes - is there a way of measuring potential difference in plants in response to external stimuli ? Preferable non invasive or something that wont damage/kill cells - Id like to measure relatively rapid potential differences if such are present, ideally in the field without the need to take the plant to the lab - tall order I know ! cheers, Augustine

Of course it exists. The concept we have invented is finity.And to those who say prove it - prove infinity doesnt exist.

The best evidence Ive seen for life in space come from two sources, Firstly a meteorite which contained bacteria like structures : http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/marslife.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6660045/Bacteria-from-Mars-found-inside-ancient-meteorite.html Though scientists are divided on the origin of the bateria. Still bacteria is hardly little green men with rayguns. The other is far more strange and is known as the Red rain of Karrela and is very contraversal but possibly interesting : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_rain_in_Kerala Then of course there is the welll known life in space , on the third giant mud ball floating round the sun - thats enough to keep me amazed for now !

Hello there, I am considereing a phd combining sound art with Biology. I have however a couple of questions. Firstly the experiments that showed plants responded differently to music by different people . Is this experiment backed up, duplicated ? Or is it pseudo science ? There are however other well researched studioes that do show plants respond to sound, (namely 5000hz/50000hz) - What is the mechanism that plants use to respond to sound ? Second issue : Plant electrophysiology - is this pseudoscience or is there definately minute electrical signals in plants ? any info/links/advice/papers in this area would be much appreciated, Cheers, Gus

Thanks - another thing I dont understand is that I dont understand why just because you double the atmospheric CO2 that means it automatically doubles the oceans CO2. Is this a given ? We are pumping lots of CO2 into the atmosphere - it doenst make sense that it has to see a reflected rise in ocean automatically and immediately - maybe there will simply be no equilibrium. There just seems to be a logical fallacy there - either the ocean will absorb the escess CO2 or it wont. If it is saturated then surely it will just stay in the atmosphere making the 50 times figure inaccuirate.

I find this statement quite hard to understand. I cant see how he gets from Atmospheric doubling to 50 times the amount of CO2. If the ocean has 50 times the amount of CO2 then surely doubling the atmospheric CO2 would just double the oceanic CO2 not multiply it by 50. Not even that actually as the oceans absorb more the figure would be less. Plus it seems unlikel;y that pumping CO2 into the air very quickly would suddenly, magically, cause the oceans to double their CO2 . Also the ocean can absorb different amounts depending on its temperature - so the more CO2 in the atmosphere or ,even if you do not accept AGW, the warmer it gets - the less the oceans can absorb .Then he arrives at this figure of 51 - Im really confused can someone explain this to me ?