Energy to Matter?

Dec 23, 2020
79
2
55
I admit I'm less refined in science than some here would probably like; I don't recall precisely the law concerning matter and energy. The primary thrust of the principle I'm asking about is that which says: energy and matter can be changed, but neither created nor destroyed. My first question is this: does the law stated here touch on conversion of energy to matter, and vice versa?

I have a presupposition (you call it a hypothesis or theory); flora produce a negligible portion of its mass from material sourced from groundwater and particles in the air; these rather provide vital conditioning to the organisms. Instead, the plant or organism gets most it's volume from conversion of radiant energy to matter. My other question then will be, does the following excerpt provide a first basis of supporting evidence?

According to the way they obtain energy, bacteria are classified as heterotrophs or autotrophs. Autotrophs make their own food by using the energy of sunlight or chemical reactions, in which case they are called chemoautotrophs. Heterotrophs obtain their energy by consuming other organisms. Bacteria that use decaying life forms as a source of energy are called saprophytes. --https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-microbiology/chapter/microbes-and-the-world/

(The article doesn't seem to be referring to the popularly called process, photosynthesis.)
 
Mar 6, 2020
138
28
630
I admit I'm less refined in science than some here would probably like; I don't recall precisely the law concerning matter and energy. The primary thrust of the principle I'm asking about is that which says: energy and matter can be changed, but neither created nor destroyed. My first question is this: does the law stated here touch on conversion of energy to matter, and vice versa?

I have a presupposition (you call it a hypothesis or theory); flora produce a negligible portion of its mass from material sourced from groundwater and particles in the air; these rather provide vital conditioning to the organisms. Instead, the plant or organism gets most it's volume from conversion of radiant energy to matter. My other question then will be, does the following excerpt provide a first basis of supporting evidence?

According to the way they obtain energy, bacteria are classified as heterotrophs or autotrophs. Autotrophs make their own food by using the energy of sunlight or chemical reactions, in which case they are called chemoautotrophs. Heterotrophs obtain their energy by consuming other organisms. Bacteria that use decaying life forms as a source of energy are called saprophytes. --https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-microbiology/chapter/microbes-and-the-world/

(The article doesn't seem to be referring to the popularly called process, photosynthesis.)
IIRC, Sunlight is needed because it is used to convert carbon dioxide and water into oxygen and glucose, so the sunlight isn't made into matter, but used as a fuel source to convert other matter.
 
Mar 4, 2020
265
36
730
The "life force" does not make mass. Growth is not manufacturing mass........growth is configuring already exiting mass. Life re-configures mass and matter. Life is not a part of nature. Life is super nature. If life was natural, it would be all over the universe. But life is the ONLY singularity that has ever been detected. Experiments and measurement can not explain life.

The living did not come from nature, nature came from the living.
 
Dec 23, 2020
79
2
55
The "life force" does not make mass. Growth is not manufacturing mass........growth is configuring already exiting mass. Life re-configures mass and matter. Life is not a part of nature. Life is super nature. If life was natural, it would be all over the universe. But life is the ONLY singularity that has ever been detected. Experiments and measurement can not explain life.

The living did not come from nature, nature came from the living.
I can't believe that, since the earth is contoured; since the earth is fractious. Life has to be of nature; and nature of life. There can't be a super nature; that would have to be contrary to nature. There can only be; apparently must be, a parent of nature. Sentience stems from nature and their parent. That parent must apparently be ubiquitous. If life can be detected, then what is it? It would have to be sentience. Life is inexplicable, as is death; except when one breaches cosmology.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS