[compost_tea] Re: Full moon & foliar spraying
Evan said;
"I'm still not exactly sure what you're saying."
Evan said originally;
"I remember being taught this in school in regards to the tides.
However, if it was the extra gravity from the moon, plants would actually b=
e growing down."
To me this implies that the moon's gravity [extra] is added to, rathar than=
subtracted from (or skewed from) the earth's.
Tim said;
"One small point; I believe that, when the gravitational influence of the m=
oon upon the earth is discussed and taught, it is the moon's gravitaional p=
ull which is meant and not a multiplied gravitaional force down, so indeed =
if plants are so affected, it would be in an upwards or angling upwards dir=
ection. I believe this is a
component of Newtonian physics, that there is a gravitational attraction or=
pull between two bodies. [The greater the mass of the bodies, the greater =
the force?]"
That is all. Pure common sense, no great implications. I just saw a stateme=
nt which did not add up (pun intended)
Tim
For folks interested I've posted 'One Straw Revolution' in the files sectio=
n.
--- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, "evanfolds" <evan_at_...> wrote:
>
> Thanks. Love the quote. The concept of belief is a powerful thing.
>
> I'm still not exactly sure what you're saying. If the pull of the Earth i=
s stronger than the moon, the plant cannot grow up. In other words, it is n=
ot the gravity pulling it up. If a stronger and a weaker person are pulling=
on a rope in a tug of war, it goes to the side of the stronger. There is n=
o offsetting of forces. I offer this simply to have us think about what we =
might be missing in working with only the forces we can experience and meas=
ure. It's only half the story.
>
> Evan
> www.VortexBrewer.com/microbe
>
> --- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, "ryzhomer" <thegoodjob_at_> wrote:
> >
> > I was simply commenting on what I perceived as a
> > lack of logic in the apparent assertion that the gravitational influenc=
e of the moon is one of addition to the earth's (eg. plants growing downwar=
ds) rather than subtraction (pulling on) from or skewing of the earth's gra=
vitational force. Period.
> >
> > It is your turn first to answer my questions. ;> said Socrates to Euthy=
phro
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matte=
r if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own com=
mon sense." ~Buddha
> >
> > --- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, "evanfolds" <evan_at_> wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree that one must apply their own logic to things. But I imagine =
Buddha understood that everyone can apply their own logic in their own way.=
We can only apply logic and reason in its literal use towards what makes s=
ense to our senses, or what can be measured and controlled. But this is onl=
y half the story.
> > >
> > > For instance, in the post after yours Jason used the concept of the s=
cientific method to define the idea of "rational thought". This is consider=
ed logical, its what we're taught in school. But it makes an equation out o=
f Nature, and she is dynamic and operating beyond our ability to experience=
completly. The further we look into Nature the less we know. Call that fai=
th.
> > >
> > > Consider that the scientific method operates by denying, not proving.=
That is also the case in logic with deducative reasoning. There is no intu=
ition, no imagination, no inspiration. And this is what makes us human.
> > >
> > > Consider that a hypothesis, becomes a theory, and can only become a l=
aw if the experiment happens the same way every time. When was the last tim=
e you looked into a microscope and saw the same thing you saw your last ses=
sion? Nothing in Nature happens the same way twice.
> > >
> > > Nature doesn't work in straight lines and data points, but ordered ch=
aos and spirals. We have established a means of defining truth in regards t=
o natural systems that is counterintuitive to how she works.
> > >
> > > Tim, I'm curious, what did you mean by this? "Even in areas of microb=
ial nutrient loops I am still a great believer in logic."
> > >
> > >
> > > Evan
> > > www.VortexBrewer.com/microbe
> > >
> > > --- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, "Tim Wilson" <thegoodjob_at_> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hey Jeff;
> > > >
> > > > Did you post something? I don't see anything.
> > > >
> > > > Also, to avoid confusion (if any), I am neither knocking nor suppor=
ting the moon's effect on plant growth. I was simply commenting on what I p=
erceived as a lack of logic in the apparent assertion that the gravitationa=
l influence of the moon is one of addition to the earth's (eg. plants growi=
ng downwards) rather than subtraction (pulling on) from or skewing of the e=
arth's gravitational force. Even in areas of microbial nutrient loops I am =
still a great believer in logic.
> > > >
> > > > Was it Buddha or someone like that who said [something like] not to=
believe anything anyone says unless you can apply your own logic to it?
> > > >
> > > > Tim
> > > >
> > > > --- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, Jeff Lowenfels <jeff_at_> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Plant A Row For The Hungry...and read "TEAMING WITH MICROBES: THE=
ORGANIC GARDENER'S GUIDE TO THE SOIL FOOD WEB."
> > > > >
> > > > > On Nov 4, 2011, at 6:59 AM, "evanfolds" <evan_at_> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I sent this weeks ago, strange.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Newtonian phsyics is only a stepping stone of our attempts to u=
nderstand our surroundings, a thoughtform to make our existence easier to u=
nderstand. People do this. We do it with compsot tea. Newtonian physics bre=
aks down towards the speed of light, which is where Einstein comes in. But,=
again, the more we look into it, the less we know.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What I mean, Tim, is that whatever gravitational pull there is =
from the moon would have no effect on Earth activities, as it would be non-=
existent relative to the force occuring from the Earth. Otherwise, why woul=
d a rock not fall up when you drop it? In other words, the moon cannot pull=
a plant up, or a tide. It is another force alltogether, one that we do not=
collectively recognize, which is the focus of much of our work. The plant,=
and all living systems, are affected by levity, or the force that works op=
posite of gravity. There are always opposing forces in Nature. The workings=
of Nature are towards balance, the more we can get into resonance with thi=
s in our gardening and compost tea brewing, the better resutls we will have=
..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > evan
> > > > > > www.VortexBrewer.com/microbe
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, "Tim Wilson" <thegoodjob_at_> =
wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > These are interesting thoughts Evan and of course there are m=
any unexplained events and phenomena on this earth and universe. One small =
point; I believe that, when the gravitational influence of the moon upon th=
e earth is discussed and taught, it is the moon's gravitaional pull which i=
s meant and not a multiplied gravitaional force down, so indeed if plants a=
re so affected, it would be in an upwards or angling upwards direction. I b=
elieve this is a component of Newtonian physics, that there is a gravitatio=
nal attraction or pull between two bodies. [The greater the mass of the bod=
ies, the greater the force?]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Salutations,
> > > > > > > Tim
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, "evanfolds" <evan_at_> wrote=
:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Interesting thread. The concept of "sow by the moon" is a r=
emnant of ancient planting calendars when people recognized the influence o=
f celestial cycles and the subtle energies they put into play. We lost most=
of this when the Catholic church yoked us to the Gregorian calendar so we =
would follow the sun through the sky.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As an aside, it is interesting to note all the upheaval and=
transition in the world with natural disaster and the Occupy events croppi=
ng up considering the end of the ancient calendar is projected to occur on =
October 28th of this year. Not proof, but certainly serendipity. Most have =
become fixated with December 21st, 2012 with the end of the calendar, but t=
his has more to do with Hollywood and a surface view of the articulation of=
the ancient calendar than anything. Look into the work of Carl Calleman an=
d read his book Solving the Greatest Mystery of Our Time: The Mayan Calenda=
r. I think you will be interested in what you find. We live in intersting t=
imes indeed.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There are forces at work that we cannot experience with our=
senses, but that influence us none the less. Things we don't have to pay a=
ttention to in order to grow plants, but when we do open doors we have neve=
r walked through. This is seen in the concepts of living water, frequency f=
arming, homeopathy, etc. It is also seen in wireless technology or the infr=
ared frequencies pests use to find food in unhealthy plants. The materialis=
tic view of why the waxing moon affects plant growth is that it is the extr=
a suns rays bouncing off the moon or that gravity is pulling the plant up q=
uicker. I remember being taught this in school in regards to the tides.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > However, if it was the extra gravity from the moon, plants =
would actually be growing down. And, while I have no "proof" the argument t=
hat the moon reflects more sun to help plants grow seems a bit far fetched =
to me. My mind goes to trying to grow a plant with a cheap fluorsecnet lamp=
indoors. Without enough light plants get leggy and fall all over themselve=
s, it does not result int he vigor associated with sowing by the moon.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Think about it, why does a plant grow up against the forces=
of gravity? This is agaisn the 2nd "Law" of Thermodynamics, or entropy. Fu=
rther evidence that what we tell ourselves is true is really only half the =
story in regards to natural systems. As Viktor Schauberger observed, we cre=
ate fables about how Newton pondered gravity by getting hit in the head by =
an apple, but spend no time telling ourselves how the apple got up there in=
the first place.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Plants retain an etheric body that provides a different set=
ting than physical inanimate matter. Same with all living organisms. Animal=
s and humans retain an astral body that relegates emotion and instinct, and=
humans are unique in possesing an ego, evidence in our ability of self-ref=
lection.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Plants have only the physical and etheric body. For this re=
ason they are still completely immersed in the influence of the cosmic real=
m. Animals are less so, and humans are almost completly disconnected from t=
his influence, which is why most will not allow themselves to even entertai=
n the idea that subtle energies hold sway to begin with. We have adopted an=
entirely materialistic view of life, and it cripples us.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It is the levity that compliments gravity that creates thes=
e phenomenon. Nature is not a one way street, but dualistic. We find oursel=
ves in the middle to create a trinity. Nature strives towards balance and h=
umans tip the scale if we are unconscious of our influence. Levity is how f=
ish climb waterfalls, or why plant sap rises higher on a full moon. We can =
all attest to the strange energies and activity associated by the full moon=
in people. If the moon has such an effect on people and plants, why not th=
e other celestial bodies?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is really all BioDynamics is tapping into. The prepera=
tions BD500-508 were articulated by Steiner to influece the higher energy b=
odies, not materialsitic fertilizers. This is why they have such a profound=
effect used in such small amounts, especially when potetnized by a vortex =
in water. The living water can then carry the frequency message to the fiel=
d or garden. This is water's major role in natural systems and why rivers m=
eander, rain drops spiral, or waves curl,etc. Read The Agriculture Course, =
Steiner provides a much more compelling argument than I can here. There are=
several planting calendars that can be used for these purposes. See www.St=
ellaNatura.com or the work of Maria Thune.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It would be interesting to perform brewing experiments time=
d to celestial events. We are actually preparing some studies to begin inve=
stigating this in order to incoroprate into brewing and feeding schedules. =
There's no telling what we'll find unless we open our minds and look for it=
.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Evan
> > > > > > > > www.VortexBrewer.com/microbe
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, "Richard" <tzaddi_at_> wro=
te:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > From my own personal experience and research I know that =
harvesting on the new moon is desirable for plants which will eventually be=
dried and or cured. As reflected in Ian's reference, the water content of =
a plant is at it's lowest during a New Moon and highest during a Full Moon.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The indication is that leading up too a Full Moon a plant=
is taking up and retaining water and inversely giving up water from the wa=
ning moon until the start of waxing right after a New moon.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Richard
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, "RTS Friction - Carru=
thers" <home_at_> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Came across a very informative web article by Nutri-Tec=
h Solutions, no longer have the URL address but if you google :
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Mulder's Chart Hydroponics Nutri-Key and Triacontrol it=
should lead you to the article. Below is a snippet from it, there is loads=
more interesting info
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > that our group members will find rewarding.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Rgds
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Ian C
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "Any of the six days leading up to a full moon are prim=
e times for foliar fertilising, while results will poor during any of the 6=
days leading up to a new moon. This is not some sort of cosmic hippy theor=
y the moon governs the movement of water (think of tides). The plant is 94%=
water. Further, a full moon supplies the plant with an extra period of lig=
ht. When a full moon is reflecting the suns rays back earth, the photosynth=
etic processes of plants will continue to operate. Fluid movement in the pl=
ant more vigorous under full moon influence and foliar nutrients are more e=
fficiently translocated. Compare the sap flow by pruning on a full moon com=
pared to a new moon."
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Received on Mon Nov 07 2011 - 23:41:06 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Feb 07 2012 - 13:58:13 EST