this post was submitted on 29 Apr 2024
52 points (94.8% liked)

Showerthoughts

29728 readers
1199 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. Avoid politics
    1. NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
    2. Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
    3. Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct-----

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ccunning@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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 🤔

[–] tobogganablaze@lemmus.org 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

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@lemmy.world 3 points 6 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 🤪