Myth busting part 2. 24h scedule for plants

You should change your name to Adam Savage or Jamie Hyneman with all this MythBusting. 😂

You know they're not cannabis plants..........right? Might be time to lay off the bong for a while..........

Icarus.

And did you get more out of that than keeping it at a somewhat natural timing? What's the Point?

From a science perspective, the two species being subjected to this experiment are separate and together allow your to dra no conclusions or else we would all be math and science gods if n=2 was rigor. The 24 hour light being improper for cannabis is really three fold. Firstly, the metabolic cost of doing this is just (excuse the language) dumb for cannabis...your hormones become off, water and sugar use changes, and these things slowly accumulate like little errors in an old car until you either sell the car (harvest) or break down on the side of the road (notice all the harm accumulating to an extent you can't ignore it any longer). Second, the same way you run up silly costs during the day time...you have that happening on things that do not occur at night. For example, when photons rupture cuticles when do they get repaired if there is infinite photons raining down and no dark period set aside for the copious amounts of daily repairs required? Third, not only does it seem mean in spirit to me to the plant but it seems mean to yourself (wallet-wise). Cannabis is a really tough plant. They can go through a lot, the question is are you doing it to make the flower better? To treat the plant better? Or because ruderalis is your go-to-medicine? I'd point you to humans. A human can go without sleep for weeks. Every daily period that sleep is forgone, you skip a cleansing cycle where fluid from the spine is used to flush the wastes from the brain. Everyone has stayed up for all night once or twice, right? Well, eventually if you forego that sleep process long enough you can run a deficit to the point where you will die from accumulation not being removed. Full stop, no way to around it. Does the first fact negate the second, or have any implication whatsoever related to the severity of the second? One is trivial in the face of the other.