Unexplainable Questions

[Bladerunner]

Actually, I just looked it up a bit. A study testing water vs mass gained was inconclusive, but it referred back to Jospeh Priestly's study on the matter back in the late 1600's, which was confirmed by Martin Kamen in 1940 via carbon-14 tracing.

Basically, it largely comes from the air and water. During photosynthesis, plants convert carbon dioxide into oxygen. They "breathe" out the oxygen but keep the carbon, which is then combined with water and the nutrients in the soil to make the plant grow.

http://www.csun.edu/scied/2-longitudinal/plant_mass/

If you google "where does the mass in growing plants come from" you'll get a TON of articles on the subject.

So, unsurprisingly, pretty much what Galaxiom said.

the bottom line is that all cells in order to divide need energy. Now whether this is obtained through Photosynthesis or Metabolic Metabolism. The amount of Mass is totally at the mercy of cell division and of course genetics, while Weight would include everything within the body including water, blood, etc.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Actually, mass comprises everything that makes up the physical plant, be it the water, the cells, whatever. It is, in layman's terms, all the physical 'stuff' making up an object. The mass of the plant is what is increasing as the plant grows, whereas the increase in weight is only a reflection of that under unchanging gravity. If a plant absorbs more water for some reason, then its mass goes up, even if only temporarily, and if you drop it, its weight effectively turns to zero until it's resting upon something again.

Weight is nothing more than mass times gravity (acceleration, technically, but that's how gravity is defined) (F = ma). If you were to go to the surface of the moon, your weight would change, but your mass would remain the same. That's actually why weight in pounds can be measured with with a simple spring scale, whereas your mass in kg requires a balance like you see in your doctor's office. (The bathroom scales you see measuring in kg are actually estimating kg based on the number of netwons they register and assuming precisely 1g.)

 

[Bladerunner]

Actually, mass comprises everything that makes up the physical plant, be it the water, the cells, whatever. It is, in layman's terms, all the physical 'stuff' making up an object. The mass of the plant is what is increasing as the plant grows, whereas the increase in weight is only a reflection of that under unchanging gravity. If a plant absorbs more water for some reason, then its mass goes up, even if only temporarily, and if you drop it, its weight effectively turns to zero until it's resting upon something again.

Weight is nothing more than mass times gravity (acceleration, technically, but that's how gravity is defined) (F = ma). If you were to go to the surface of the moon, your weight would change, but your mass would remain the same. That's actually why weight in pounds can be measured with with a simple spring scale, whereas your mass in kg requires a balance like you see in your doctor's office. (The bathroom scales you see measuring in kg are actually estimating kg based on the number of netwons they register and assuming precisely 1g.)

Thank you for your internet generated lectures and intellect.
However, I merely stated that " The amount of Mass is totally at the mercy of cell division and of course genetics, while Weight would include everything within the body including water, blood, etc." There was no Mass vs weight scenario here, just two individual statements. Sorry you took that the wrong way and felt you had to school everyone on this thread. I hope they enjoyed it as much as I did.

Blade

 

[Frothingslosh]

Well, so much for my decision to stop being so antagonizing toward you in the hopes that you'd reply in kind and spare everyone else our vitriol.

I tried explaining the difference to you because you obviously don't get it. I simply thought I'd try to help you learn something for once, since it's very apparent that you don't grasp the difference between the two, or apparently what weight even IS.

Guess that was a bad idea - you obviously prefer ignorance.

Remember me telling you that you should learn the basics of a topic before you run off at the mouth and make a fool of yourself? You really should take that advice.

By the way, your comment

The amount of Mass is totally at the mercy of cell division and of course genetics, while Weight would include everything within the body including water, blood, etc."

very explicitly sets up the very mass vs weight scenario you then claim doesn't exist in your very next sentence:

There was no Mass vs weight scenario here, just two individual statements.

Even for you, contradicting yourself over the course of two consecutive sentences is a new low in mental acuity. My grandmother suffering from advanced Alzheimer's could follow a thought longer than that.

 

[Libre]

Everything Frothingslosh said about mass and weight, PLUS what I said about cell division having zilcho to do with either one.
But to reiterate:
Mass is the AMOUNT of matrial, WEIGHT is that material multiplied by the acceleration due to gravity. Mass is a simple unit (grams, for example), whereas weight is a compound unit - it's mass X acceleration (in the SI system that would be newtons). While they are related, in as much as you can extrapolate one from the other (knowing the acceleration of gravity for the particular location you are at, which on the earth is 32ft/sec^2), they are totally different units.
As far as cell division, as I said previously, that also has nothing to do with mass OR weight. If you cut a pizza into 6 slices, do you then have more pizza? Only a child would think so. I don't mean to diss you, Bladerunner - it's not really my style. But can't you reflect on these facts for awhile and give us some sign that we're getting through?

 

[Bladerunner]

I am not going to quote you on your last post, I don;'t want the thread user to have to go through it again.

I understand a little bit more than what you think and I see you for what you are?

The two sentences never twine each other.

The sentence for Mass was concerning the cell -division and genetics

The sentence for weight was concerning it make up. Gravity was not mentioned nor was any type or amount of weight.

I appreciate the lesson from the Great Internet Guru but I had seen that stuff long before you were even thought of. Yes, I know you cannot believe that science has been around that long, right.......\

I do not want to write a dissertation like you do so I use simple sentences.

And you yourself stated you had looked it up in your first post.

To Libre, I apologize for all the hoop-la. It seems here lately it is following me where ever I go.

Blade
.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Wow, you're up to selectively editing your own reality now, huh? Neat trick. Between you saying I claimed to look up mass vs weight (I didn't - I stated that I looked up where the additional mass comes from as plants grow, using the exact search terms I posted) and you claiming you never mentioned weight in the very same sentence beginning "The sentence for weight was...", I am just awestruck at your complete incoherence. Seriously, 'I never said weight in the sentence where I talked about weight!'?

You still obviously don't have the first CLUE what mass and weight are, and you make that more and more clear every time you talk about them. Hell, every discussion you've had on this forum has shown your complete inability to reason, deal with abstract concepts, or understand what science even is. You really should stick to your conspiracy theories (I mean, seriously, George Soros is fronting the Illuminati in an attempt to take over the world and destroy the USA for the sake of evil, and all Liberals are active members in this despicable plot?!?) and bronze-age superstitions. Every time you try to discuss something that requires rational thought you simply make a fool of yourself.

Edit: Bah, trying to talk with you is pointless. Back on ignore you go.

 

[Bladerunner]

Blade - nobody is saying that cells don't divide. Of course they do. But an organism - plant or animal - can't grow simply by cell division. It's like cutting a deck of cards. One big deck becomes 2 smaller decks with a total of 52 cards, equalling the first deck - and with the same mass. In order to actually GROW or add mass, the material must be added from outside the system - namely the environment.

OK, by your reasoning, you have a one cell animal/plant where its limitations of growth if relevant to the how big can the cell get. And Yes, the cell has water, nutrients and other things in it, depending on its genetics.BUT

What I said was: "The amount of Mass is totally at the mercy of cell division and of course genetics" You also said in another post somewhere that when a cell divides it cannot be greater than the original. You are right that the sum of the two = the sum of the one at that point.

But then these two cells grow in size because of how much water and nutrients areconverted into an energy the plant can use as determined by genetics. When these cells get up to a certain size, they then divide themselves creating two more cells out of one that grow and then divide.again (i.e a tumor is essentially cell growth gone bonkers, but you and Frosh say this does affect the MASS????????). I do not dispute the fact that mass is affected by water, nutrients and other things

But Lets go a little farther: If there is not cell division in some cases the organism dies because older cells die off (in the case of humans) and if there are no new cells to replace them, well death will follow quickly. What I said is a very basic sentence and the beginning of all life be it plant or animal. What happens after cell-division, how big the cells grow, how much water/nutrients they contain, how specialized they are, etc. etc. etc., all affect the mass of the organism and is controlled by genetics. YES????????????? BUT the beginning is the "The amount of Mass is totally at the mercy of cell division and of course genetics"

I asking a question to you and Frothingslosh. Is this sentence right? "The amount of Mass is totally at the mercy of cell division and of course genetics"

A simple Yes/No is all that is required.


Blade.

 

[ConnorGiles]

Next one : When will Frothing and Blade settle their differences?

 

[Bladerunner]

in my last post, I stated that cell-division is the beginning of all life and that was not what I wanted to say. However, cell-division is essential to growth of most organisms. Amoeba(one celled organism), bacteria, etc) do cell divide however they remain individual and this too comes from the essentials (RNA,DNA, etc.etc. etc. (genetics)) of life as we know it.

My apologies

Blade

 

[Frothingslosh]

Next one : When will Frothing and Blade settle their differences?

"Almost certainly never" is still an answer.

 

[Libre]

OK, by your reasoning, you have a one cell animal/plant where its limitations of growth if relevant to the how big can the cell get. And Yes, the cell has water, nutrients and other things in it, depending on its genetics.BUT

.
.
.

I asking a question to you and Frothingslosh. Is this sentence right? "The amount of Mass is totally at the mercy of cell division and of course genetics"

A simple Yes/No is all that is required.


Blade.

Blade-
I can't answer a complex question with a Yes/No response, but I get the feeling that we're not that far apart - as long as you agree that cell division alone cannot cause an increase in mass. Certainly, a multicellular organism cannot grow if its cells fail to divide.
I do think that you may have some wrong ideas about mass vs weight, but perhaps not. It's pretty easy to get something a little wrong when you're trying to express yourself at any time, and especially on an internet forum. We don't have all day and we don't have all the space in the world to write it all out exactly as we want to - and even then people can misinterpret.

Now, I'm saying the following to both of you - that is, Bladerunner and Frothingslosh:
Your "feud" I'll call it is not, ...well, nice. I can appreciate some sharp responses or a few barbed answers, we're not kids. But really - the personal attacks are getting old. So what if Frothingslosh looked something up? So what if Bladerunner misunderstood Froth's post about Americans inventing the Loch Ness monster? Come on guys. Shake hands and enjoy the conversation.

 

[Bladerunner]

Blade-
I can't answer a complex question with a Yes/No response, but I get the feeling that we're not that far apart - as long as you agree that cell division alone cannot cause an increase in mass. Certainly, a multicellular organism cannot grow if its cells fail to divide.
I do think that you may have some wrong ideas about mass vs weight, but perhaps not. It's pretty easy to get something a little wrong when you're trying to express yourself at any time, and especially on an internet forum. We don't have all day and we don't have all the space in the world to write it all out exactly as we want to - and even then people can misinterpret.

I give up.

OH, I have another question for someone????What is Optical Physics. Please give me the learned version not the internet junk.

Blade

 

[Libre]

What do you mean you give up? I thought we were communicating.

Optical physics has to do with the properties of lenses.
I don't know if that's "learned" enough for you, but that's my take on it. That's what we learned in college physics when the topic came up - and it was long before the internet (which I would not sell short as far as its value as a reference for such questions).

 

[kevlray]

I give up.

OH, I have another question for someone????What is Optical Physics. Please give me the learned version not the internet junk.

Blade

As I recall from college physics. The characteristics of light when it passes through a medium (glass, air, water, etc.).

 

[Frothingslosh]

Your "feud" I'll call it is not, ...well, nice. I can appreciate some sharp responses or a few barbed answers, we're not kids. But really - the personal attacks are getting old. So what if Frothingslosh looked something up? So what if Bladerunner misunderstood Froth's post about Americans inventing the Loch Ness monster? Come on guys. Shake hands and enjoy the conversation.

That would be why I put the idiot on ignore. If there's no further communication between us, there will be no more feuding.

 

[Bladerunner]

What do you mean you give up? I thought we were communicating.

Optical physics has to do with the properties of lenses.
I don't know if that's "learned" enough for you, but that's my take on it. That's what we learned in college physics when the topic came up - and it was long before the internet (which I would not sell short as far as its value as a reference for such questions).

Thank you... I just heard someone use it the other day and wondered What it had to deal with. The learned part is something someone knows from experience and not by being an internet junky. Someone once said here on the forum that it is very easy to be a genius now days with the internet.

OK on the communicating. I am going to try and get us on the same track. I said: "The amount of Mass is totally at the mercy of cell division and of course genetics"

By that I meant that if the cell does not divide, then the Mass is limited to the size of the cell and all of its contents.

If the cell divides there are many different scenarios here but to be simple, The cell that divides is equal to its two parts at the time of division. Both of these cells then start acquiring extraneous STUFF (covers all ingredients, etc of the cell without having to name them all). Both cells reach maximum size as dictated by the genetics of the organism and splits again. Now these cells are probably the same size as the original cell (or at least we hope they are) but you have now have seven cells that have a total of three times the mass of the original. Are still OK here????

Lets me say something about the weight sentence. I understand that mass and weight are different. Mass on the moon would be the same as on the earth while the weight would be around 15-17% of what it is here on earth. However, since we are not going to the moon or dealing with a neutron star, mass and weight are relative here on earth. NO?????????? In otherwords my mass which contains everything I am (including all the shist and hot air LOL)weighs as much here in TN as it will in Georgia as long as the numbers above or below sea level remain the same. NO?????????

Therefore if there is someone out there that weighs my weight and is standing on the same points from sea level as I am, would they have the same mass as I do. (ATTTTTTTTT) we are not talking about elements here (i.e. gold, lead, etc.) we are talking about the normal unalterated human body ( it is a shame I have to put in all of these dam adjectives in to explain something so simple.

We were arguing over one sentence "The amount of Mass is totally at the mercy of cell division and of course genetics" and it is.

Blade

 

[ConnorGiles]

in my last post, I stated that cell-division is the beginning of all life and that was not what I wanted to say. However, cell-division is essential to growth of most organisms. Amoeba(one celled organism), bacteria, etc) do cell divide however they remain individual and this too comes from the essentials (RNA,DNA, etc.etc. etc. (genetics)) of life as we know it.

My apologies

Blade

No need for apologies mate.

I knew what you meant

 

[Libre]

.
.
.
Now these cells are probably the same size as the original cell (or at least we hope they are) but you have now have seven cells that have a total of three times the mass of the original. Are still OK here????
.
.
.

Blade

Yeah, we're ok. I pretty much agree with what you wrote. I wouldn't put it exactly in the same way - that mass is at the MERCY of cell division and genetics, because there are lots of other factors - metabolism, available nutrients, etc, but I won't quibble about it - so ok, I agree with you - now that you've clarified.
One thing though, and maybe I'm nitpicking, but you can never have an odd number such as 7 after a process of multiplying integers by 2. It's misleading that it's called "cell division" because the arithmetic process seems to me to actually be multiplication.

 

[Frothingslosh]

It's called division simply because the cell quite literally divides itself into two, rather than just spawning a new one.

Now rabbits - THOSE things multiply.

And I'd give 50/50 odds that there are an odd number of cells in your body this very moment.