NNTP-Posting-Host: pa34.wegliniec.sdi.tpnet.pl
X-Trace: atlantis.news.tpi.pl 1048070154 2016 217.97.127.34 (19 Mar 2003 10:35:54 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:35:54 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Path: text-east!propagator-sterling!news-in.nuthinbutnews.com!news.csl-gmbh.net!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.tpinternet.pl!atlantis.news.tpi .pl!news.tpi.pl!not-for-mail
Xref: 127.0.0.1 sci.bio.botany:17858 sci.physics:609366 sci.chem:156184


"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message
...
Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:00:06 GMT Steve Turner wrote:

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

I am trying to nail-down the inverse or reverse relationship. As to why
plants need animals to reform nitrogen.

Plants lack the biochemical pathways for large scale protein
degradation. That is the specialty of saprophytes (e.g. fungi and

I must find out some details of this biochemical pathways of protein
transformation. I know that plants by an large lack proteins and animals
are chock full of proteins.

Perhaps this is another commensalism relationship between plant and
animal is the proportion of protein to nonprotein involved with the
two kingdoms. I would guess that this proportion is related to the fact
that animals are mobile and plants are not. Which would eventually get
back to the fact that plants are carbon based and animals are calcium
based due to electricity of body.

Question Steve. When plants use nitrogen as fertilizer. Does the plant
use the nitrogen in gaseous form or is the nitrogen bound up in solid form
before it is used by the plant. Or is that a silly question. In
respiration
the elements of Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide are in gaseous form. So,
my question is that in plant fertilizer of nitrogen, does that nitrogen
when
used by the plant have a gaseous form. I would guess the answer is no
because then, most plants would just take the nitrogen out of the air.

So, I would guess that the nitrogen has to be in solid form and I would
guess in a compound that is not present in the atmosphere. If that is
true,
then it seems as though the commensalism relationship I am searching for
involves the idea that plants need animals because animals have the
biochemical
pathways to turn nitrogen into a solid-compound for which plants alone and
the atmosphere cannot do.


bacteria). Legumes are able to convert atmospheric nitrogen to usable
form by virtue of rhizobia bacteria in root nodules (it is the
bacteria which do the conversion). Plants can also use inorganic
(mineral) nitrate as a source of nitrogen. Higher animals are a
relatively minor source of nitrogen.

I believe there exists some inverse or reverse relationship between
plants and
animals so that both can live on Earth and without the other, both
would quickly
die.

There is an important symbiosis between plants and animals, in that
plants use carbon dioxide and emit oxygen, and animals do the
opposite.

Steve Turner


Yes, I am trying to find the symbiosis of nitrogen and something else?
between
plants and animals. That something else is plant food-- I guess sugars--
which
I guess in the final analysis is hydrogen-bonds. And so what plants give
to
animals is hydrogen bonds and what animals give to plants is nitrogen.

Can I say nitrogen-bonds, as per hydrogen-bonds for sugars?

But I believe these two words of Symbiosis and Commensalism are not
adequate
science concepts. I view these two terms as concepts that are "inchoate"
or rather
fuzzy terms. I view these two terms as somewhat ill-defined and that these
two terms are really seeking for a physics term to set them straight and
more
correct. I believe the term in physics that will eventually replace these
two
biological terms of "Commensalism and Symbiosis" . (Actually I would be
hard pressed to be able to differentiate between the term commensalism and
symbiosis). But anyway, I believe the correct term in the future for
commensalism
and symbiosis is the physics term and concept of duality.

I believe the carbon-dioxide to oxygen symbiosis is really a form of a
Macroscopic
Quantum Physics duality relationship. Microscopically we
have a duality of particle to wave. Macroscopically I hazard to guess that
duality appears in the form of carbon-dioxide to oxygen, and nitrogen to
something else.

Perhaps in 200 years in the future QM duality will permeate biology and
they
will have vacated with terms of symbiosis and commensalism in those future
years.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies


Quantum Physics is Sci-Fi!

Mathew Orman

www.ultra-faster-than-light.com