As the title says. I’m actually thinking about this hard with my friends because everything that’s produced on Earth stays on Earth so it doesn’t change size, but what if it’s not from Earth but it stays on Earth?

  • rockerface 🇺🇦
    link
    fedilink
    217 months ago

    We do. The sun’s energy is locked in plants via photosynthesis, which is then processed by herbivores and passed further down the food chain. That energy exists in form of chemical compounds which are then broken down to release it during digestion.

    In terms of numbers tho, it’s probably a negligible fraction of the Earth’s mass

    • @ccunning
      link
      37 months ago

      I thought plant biomass was obtained from the air (CO2/carbon sequestration?) and water.

        • @ccunning
          link
          67 months ago

          Sure, but the implication was that plant mass comes from the sun. Maybe some negligible fraction of percent is but nowhere near the majority.

          The sun’s energy also goes into heat all over the planet. I’m just trying to understand how any of that energy might manifest as mass in a tangible way.

          Or maybe it’s just the case that the amount of energy needed to create mass is astronomically minuscule.

          🤔 I suppose that’s the principle behind atomic bombs 🤔

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            6
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Or maybe it’s just the case that the amount of energy needed to create mass is astronomically minuscule.

            It would actually be an astronomically large amount. An atomic bomb will turn a very tiny amount of mass into a tremendous amount of energy. And that’s with a nuclear process that is way more efficent then a chemical one like photosynthesis.

            But from pure physics standpoint a carbon atom and an O2 molecule will have a teeny-tiny bit more mass than a CO2 molecule (which is why combining or burning them together will release some energy). So doing the reverse and splitting up a CO2 molecule into it’s parts will generate a little bit of mass.

            • @ccunning
              link
              37 months ago

              Wow - that’s what I meant. Not sure how I managed to get it backwards.

              And to think I fretted so much over using “astronomically” and “minuscule” together 🤪