cowell
Well-Known Member
I checked out your grow journal.. you're on your first grow, a month in.. and you are calling me a novice..You're a dick... but let's put you in your place... cause you obviously need it.
First off.. the link provided may be dated.. but how does that make it any less accurate? The law of conservation of mass was written in ancient greece, but still has yet to be disproven.. to make a claim that time has relevance when discussing scientific analysis is retarded. The only time that dated information is inaccurate is in statistical analysis.. which is what you do... they are two different fields and have completely different standards for examining their results.
Ok.. You are an actuarial. So your "scientific data" is directly related to statistical happenings. You get a record of all the claims for the year, and compile a list to compare similarities and thus come up with the statistics of someone having a claim in a certain group... the "variables" you concern yourself with while compiling your rate list of probability has nothing to do with scientific variables which can directly effect outcome. a 25year old male living in Toronto is more likely to get into an accident than a 30 year old male living in Toronto based on actual events that you add up and compile then you speculate that all 25 year old drivers are going to get into an accident and you will have to pay more claims to that group so they have a higher probability of having a claim.. so they pay higher rates.. stats is NOT fucking rocket science.. I think in my stats course I got 98% - and went to class 5 times. (I went to college for business insurance by the way.. so I took all the courses you did-likely more due to the government regulations pertaining to the insurance industry in Canada). In science you have controls and experiments. a controlled environment is one that has no independent variables so your result is based on what an average of the plants do in THAT set of controlled variables. That doesn't change over time.. an indica can grow to around 8 feet and a sativa can grow up to 25... so the link I gave you is still accurate.
What is it I need to look up an indica for? or Kush? What am I getting wrong? Why don't you just tell me.
I showed you a link that referenced relevant information-regardless of age. The laws of physics were written a long time ago, but their findings are still accurate. I would see as a statistical analysis you would think "because it's dated it's not relevant". But that's not the case. I assure you.
You asked about how they determine height for a breeder site...
http://www.amsterdammarijuanaseedbank.com/Growguides/general-marijuana-info/difference-sativa-indica.html
Do they give a height? Yes.. max height for the two types indica (short and bushy.. and a kush can be 100% indica.. so I don't know why I need to look it up.. I have some kush growing in my novice little set up right now.) and sativa.... (tall and lanky.. and yes I have some of them too).. guess what.. I have a violator kush growing beside a strawberry cough and because of my independent variables they are both around 4 feet high.
http://www.tutorvista.com/topic/what-is-variable-in-science
there's a link to go read about the difference of independent and dependent variables.
You say everything can be measured. How big is the universe? please give me a link to the correct information from yesterday or you're a fucking idiot.. .. in an outdoor grow.. you have your answer as to what the height means... small med and tall... 6-25 feet being the measured and documented (and accepted) normal range of MJ plant growth. Indoor growing has too many independent variables to give a result that can be deemed as average as to height as it can be manipulated to grow how you like it.
So - how do you give relevant information on a seed site as to height when it says small? it's quite simply put - so come down off your high horse and look at it as a reasonable assumption (in science that's how you base any experimentation..ie- it's reasonable to assume that if I cut a plant it will die.) A breeder (and a novice grower like myself) will take a look at the FACT in an indoor grow you can have variables that could make your plant be 8 feet tall or 8 inches.. how do you quantify that into a statistic? You can't. You need to look at the control group to distinguish a height range. Just like you cannot say all Chinese people are 4'5"..because there are anomalies ( http://thexodirectory.com/2008/09/chinese-bao-xishun-worlds-tallest-man.html )
and the variances are too vast (not because I feel safe saying it.. because it is so) to formulate an "average" height for an indoor grow... so it's generalized. My wife fits into an extra small dress.. she also fits into a medium at some places because there are variables in the size of clothing across the manufacturer's - so then what is a small.. or medium? It's relative to the standards and should be measurable.. it's a size that is cut and sewn together.. yet not consistent...in the industry? hmm... weird how the world can work when you get your head out of your ass and out of your cubical to realize there are very few absolutes.
Counting is not what I call "scientific analysis"... you have definite numbers and definite variables.. age, location, type of vehicle... so it's easy to look at your claims and add all "sunfires stolen last year out of urban centers".. and you have a ratio - and can figure what the probability is based on what you already know. does that apply to people who lock their car in a garage every night.. or have a security system? sure.. but insurance companies choose to ignor variables so they turn a profit.. and if you are driving a sunfire in toronto.. according to insurance industry standards -you are more likely to have a claim.. so are charged premiums based on what claims have been paid out.. not too scientific to me.
This is why the short med tall reference is made.. as there is no definitive #'s that can be compiled to make an actual statistical analysis. there isn't enough relevant data available to compile a list - which would have to be strain and variable related.. along with consistent environmental factors for each result... 100,000 people growing bubba kush in hydroponic system using 1000watt light - keeping temps within a certain range vegging for a certain period, utilizing which growing techniques.... You need a huge number of growers compiling their variables, and grow results to formulate a statistical average which can still have a variables effecting it's relevance and accuracy. Which is why you don't have #'s... you CAN quantify it.. but good luck with it. So the control plants which have a known height that has been measured and averaged is all that people can go from. That's what I told you before you thought your high and mighty college educated promptitude - made you decide to be a fucking asshole to people who answered your vague and undefinable question.
Industry standards? Has no relevance in the discussion. And you on your first grow - are not in it regardless.
You know absolutely nothing about growing from any of your posts that I have read.. and you come out here like a pathetic loser tossing about how we are all stoopid stoners posting bullshit links... to correct information that your little statistical mind can't comprehend.. so WE'RE novices...lol.. I'll show you my sativa dominant plant...
oh and what the hell is SLH - to determine sativa percentage? enlighten me.
Edit: in the first pic is my little dinky set up...(well one of my rooms anyway) and on the right half of the picture.. is one plant. week 3 of flowering.
