You're radically overestimating your own level of scientific knowledge.
Your opinion. Care to back your opinion up with science?
You don't seem to appreciate that reef tanks are as much an engineering
enterprise (or even artistic) as they are science.
Nope. It's 100% biochemistry. Period.
This is why we care about demonstrated results, not just your unusual
theories.
Are you assuming I am alone with my findings? I am the only one that has
realized WC are not necessary? Poor assumption.
You CLAIM that water changes are not necessary for reef tanks, but in fact
all you offer are your theories on what science would support your
strategy.
My CLAIM? Not just MINE.
What you never acknowledge is the possibility that biochemistry may be
going
on that you are NOT aware of.
This was my point from the beginning. That the majority of you do not know
what is going on at the biological level.
(And you can't possibly know 100% of the
biochemical needs of 100% of reef organisms.)
Your correct. How would knowing this or not knowing this make any
difference for a WC or NWC tank. Is the water in your aquarium in better
shape than mine?
But most important, you've never DEMONSTRATED success with your approach
in
a reef tank.
Are any of you people actually reading my responses? Which of my water
parameters that I have given will not support coral life? Don't give me
that coral toxin crap either, I have a skimmer. Plus what percentage of the
coral toxins are you removing with a 10% water change? ANSWER: Only 10%.
You started with your hypothesis (water changes are not necessary
in a reef tank), and you lept right to believing the conclusion (all you
reef
tank fools that do water changes are wasting your time), but you've missed
the
most important part: the actual experiments. You're a horrible scientist.
Again, your opinion. Wanna talk science? Or do you want to keep shouting
your opinion while you slap your chest with your fist?
That's why, when you finally broke down and admitted that in reality you
had
only a fish-only tank
I said this from the VERY beginning. I even mentioned I had a FOWLR in
OTHER previous threads (if you have been following along with the booger
saga).
, and just in the last few weeks got your very first
coral (and a hardy one at that)
What does this mean? Xenia are not coral? Their half coral? 1/3 coral?
, nobody is very impressed. EVERYONE knows that
there is much more challenge is successfully growing difficult (e.g.
stony)
corals over a long period of time (e.g. years), than in just doing a
fish-only
tank, or a hardy coral for a couple of weeks.
Lots of bad strategies seem
just fine in a short time period or without sensitive corals.
Here we go again with the "sensitive coral" strategy. Which of your WC
water chemistry parameters are better than mine?
You are making the assumption that WC guarantees success in some way with
"sensitive coral". Poor assumption.
If you want to be taken seriously as a scientist,
I think it is the audience that takes credit for that, not me.
try to learn the difference
between hypothesis and conclusion,
Lol.
and maybe you should keep quiet until you've
got some actual evidence.
Maybe you should keep quite until you are ready to talk science with the
adults.
Especially when your theories contradict the
practice of real reef keepers
Contradict with the "practices of reef keepers". You really think I am
alone here don't you? Very delusional aren't you?
Please come back with some Science!
, who -- unlike you -- have actually demonstrated
success with sensitive corals over a long period of time.
-- Don
__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Don Geddis
http://reef.geddis.org/
Beware the lollipop of mediocrity. Lick it once and you will suck
forever.