Body Language of Trees

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

which bits might be these be?

 

the axiom of uniform stress and the T/r theory

 

both are valid

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

This must be a special book I know of someone else looking for a copy too.

 

sent from my office in the field via s3

 

if you had to own three books of arboriculture this would be in them, so yeah, very special

[sloth]

the axiom of uniform stress and the T/r theory

 

both are valid

 

I thought they held true. I am aware of tr being challenged, but the axiom? who/when challenged that?

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

I thought they held true. I am aware of tr being challenged, but the axiom? who/when challenged that?

 

ive heard many over the years argue over these concepts, both hold true IMo

 

I dont think anyones scientificaly chalenged the axiom, and would be daft to, to be frank.

 

I am not as concerned by the arguments as I used to be, i settled the arguments for myself in nature, and am happy with the methods of tree evaluation, both old, in The body language of trees, and in newer releases by Prof claus mattheck.

[sylvaarb]

Email Sent

 

[Dan Curtis]

Copy sourced, cheers guys. I didn't read too far into what was disputed, I'm just aware that things were.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Copy sourced, cheers guys. I didn't read too far into what was disputed, I'm just aware that things were.

 

I wouldnt concern yourself with the quite frankly pathetic squabbling the scientific community get involved in, used as intended and not with dogma VTA, the body language of trees, and thinking tools after nature are the ground zero of the thinking arborists tool box.

 

They are game changers, aswill also be Gerrits work when it is finally published in English:001_cool:

[Amelanchier]

That squabbling is critical to the scientific process. If it is to be any use at all, a theory must be able to withstand a good kicking.

 

The Axiom (note capital), notwithstanding the lack of challenges to its veracity, has no evidential basis. That is why Mattheck defined it as an axiom (note lack of capital) - a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy. It might be argued that by questioning its truth, you negate the conditions needed for the Axiom to be an axiom...

 

In any case, any challenges to it will either strengthen its claim or sweep it away - either result is progress.

[Albedo]

What difference does the capital letter make Tony?

 

My guess is noun/verb or noun/adjective:001_smile:

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

What difference does the capital letter make Tony?

 

My guess is noun/verb or noun/adjective:001_smile:

 

Who cares but scholars who feel anal about such things and feel a need to exert authority or excellence:001_rolleyes:

 

Getting into that much detail on an essentialy tools based forum is only going to detract from the breaking down of the basics, which are to be considered of far greater importance at this level.

 

 

let the academics squabble over the finer details, they are much better at it:001_tongue: