Photosynthesis theory contains very improbable supposition that plants get carbon from the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide. This supposition is absurd because there is almost no carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In the reference books they usually write that there is only 0.03% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Often it is a mistake of the apparatus. Moreover, plants are said to require carbon and not carbon dioxide itself. That’s why converting it to carbon it makes a bit less than 0.01%.
How much is it?
Looking at it from the purely arithmetical side, it is one ten thousandth part of the figure (1/10 000).
Can one nourish a living creature that is the plant with food that contains almost nothing useful?
Of course not!
In the theory of photosynthesis it is written that plants feed on the air. This invented process is called air nourishment and breathing of plants. In other words, air is the food of plants.
What is its сarbon nutritiousness if the concentration is 0.01%?
What should we take for a fodder unit?
What is the way of supplying it inside the plant?
If the air is driven through the leaves as it is with the animals’ lungs then how does it work? Plants don’t have organs of breathing!
If it is diffusion then with such a low concentration of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere it will not be directed into the plant but vice versa, will come from the plants because they constantly «produce» and evolve carbon dioxide with the concentration from 10% to 90%.
But whatever is the method of supplying plant cells with the carbon dioxide it must be written about this method. It is impossible to write in the textbooks only that «carbon dioxide gets into the leaves from atmosphere»
There are high altitude meadows where carbon dioxide can not be discovered by apparatus. And still there is great motley grass here and other plants!
If scientists do not understand what 0,03% , then at least teachers must understand it! Or politicians like to use percent. Will he win the elections for the second term if the level of life during his first term raised at 0,03%? Or ask a milkmaid if she churns a lot of butter if the fattiness of her cows’ milk is 0,03%?
And moreover 0,03% of carbon dioxide! It is an obvious zero for such a big natural «manufacture» of organic matter on the planet!
There is also a degree of efficiency of extraction. It is nearly impossible to extract at such concentration carbon dioxide from the air mixture of evenly mixed gases, dust and vapour. Then there is a degree of efficiency of assimilation that also can’t be 100%.Gas must be dissolved in liquid, decomposed into components and carbon must be extracted from it. Only after that a cell «will eat» carbon. For every action there is a degree of efficiency, waste. What will be left of these 0,03%? Maybe 0,001% or 0,0001%?
When one reminds to biologists or nearly biologists that plants do not have breathing organs and ask them then in what way gases get into leaves and then leave them they start to talk about diffusion for some reason. But diffusion is blind! It can’t say what lies before it! Diffusion can not separate!
For example, there is no nitrogen in leaves so if openings really appear in leaves then the first to diffuse inside a leaf will be nitrogen. Till it won’t reach 79% in leaves.
Why are the facts so stubborn? Because behind every fact stand not less stubborn consequences, subfacts or afterfacts, whatever anyone…
That’s why the fact that there is no nitrogen in leaves is a 100% proof that there are no openings in leaves! Stomatos are one-way valves to exhaust oxygen and carbon dioxide into atmosphere!
The feeding of the plants with atmospheric carbon is nonsense!
But this nonsense is not scratched on the wall of a madhouse chamber by Napoleon! It is written In TEXBOOKS!!!
Why does the «intellectual» mountebanks feel free and do evil things in the name of the government?
Where are the Ministry of Education and Science, State Duma, Federal Assembly, Federal Security Service of Russia, first minister, President? Built their summer houses?