reply on plants

["Rauber, Joel Phys" <RAUBERJ@mg.sdstate.edu>]

Marlows original post regarding plants:

> > I would imagine the plants are doing pretty much the same thing they do
> > at the Earth's surface  --  growing stems and leaves in the direction in
> > which the electrochemical surface forces are exerted on them, and sending
> > out roots in the opposite direction.

> That is exactly what I said they would do.  Where is the error??
> Unless I am misreading your report, the plants put out leaves and stem in 
the
> direction in which the aluminum support surface was pushing on them, and
> roots in the opposite direction.

And that direction is tilted at an angle inwards as described in an inertial 
frame.
I see that my original "Marlow is wrong" statement  was based on misreading 
what Marlow wrote here, My apologies!!
I read "electrochemical surface forces" as "electro-magnetic radiation" 
thinking Marlow was referring to the light.  I'm wrong! I read it fast and 
jumped to conclusions to quickly.  (Remember kids, read the problem 
 carefully!!)

I retract my statement that Marlow's interpretation of the experiment was 
wrong regarding this example. So again we simply have two equivalent 
versions of explaining the same experiment. Analyze in an inertial frame 
(Marlow version and my version) or Analyze in a non-inertial frame (My 
version).  And the debate continues.