Connecting Singles^® Forums100% Free Online Dating

buggers - did mean to quote you - wish I could blame the comp

plonker ... plonkers and twits .. bloody hell...

Okay! Now! ... what is Plonker May I get any clarifications on this term?

does it matter life is still what we want it to be.

ALL OF A FROG IS ALIVE BUT ALL OF A FROG IS NOT ENERGY. ENERGY IS PROPORTIONAL TO ITS ACCOPANYING MASS. E=MC2.

THEREFORE: ALL LIFE IS NOT ENERGY . . . ALL OF A FROG IS ALIVE BUT ALL OF A FROG IS NOT ENERGY

TRISH AND BNATUREAL!

all life is not energy? Is it possible it is then not alive/life=dead? 1+1=2 right yeah somethin like that

I concur....

My dear Ray ... I assume even frogs need some sort of mechanical or physical energy to move those muscules.

Dullard.

All life is not energy. Everything alive has/needs energy to continue to be alive [body/mass]. Therefore I agree with what Detente said earlier: all life is not energy.

No Constanza, all energy does not amount to life.

Huge difference.

Yes, of course they do!

My man!!!

There is indeed a huge difference! Energy puts a body into MOTION.

ALL LIFE IS NOT ENERGY! IT 'CAN’T' BE!!!

That means when, them, frog stop to move those body parts of theirs ... energy is gone and them are dead.

I'm not trying to prove or to imply anything here, I'm just trying to be logical.

And yet when you asked your question What exactly did you mean by definition of LIFE?

Happy Comming New Year Ray!

Life and Energy....

Life and EnergyLiving versus non-living is one of the most fundamental distinctions we can make. For the most part, this distinction is an easy one to make: a person, shark, or tree is clearly alive, while a rock, cloud, or stream is clearly not. Yet defining life itself is not so easy – it is, in fact, one of our all-time great puzzles. Most biology texts list a series of characteristics that all living things seem to possess: metabolism (the exchange of energy and materials with the environment, including energy/food acquisition and waste excretion), growth, responsiveness to stimuli, self-maintenance (including homeostatic [physiological balance], immunological and anti-predatory mechanisms), movement (on at least a cellular level), and reproduction. But the characteristics of life is not the same thing as what life is.

Fundamentally, life is an energy-handling process. What most clearly separates the living from the non-living is the fact that life uses energy to maintain itself. Non-life cannot do this, and – as a direct consequence – passively erodes, corrodes, and otherwise breaks-down. The multitudinous ways in which living things handle energy are subtle and complex. But perhaps the most astonishing and revealing consequence of perceiving life as an energy-handling process is the realization that the very same principles of chemistry and physics governing non-living things can be seen in living things in easy-to-understand ways.

Are we done mentally masturbating yet

that does depend on which form of energy you consider a frog to be of course - within proporion obviously

No, of course it doesn't! That is the most illogical thing I have ever heard. A frog CANNOT stop moving unless it is thoroughly dead.

I have not given a definition. I have been refuting one that is mistaken.

‘All life is energy.’

No . . . it is NOT!

Happy New year to you too!!!

All energy is not life energy but all life is dead without an energy form