[Bored chemist]

Once the salt is dissolved, now the same heavy salt will be found everywhere as though its weight does not matter. Gravity is sort of suspended by other things, or else all solutions would show a density gradient and never become uniform.

There is a concentration gradient.
It is very small.
You can calculate it or, if you use the very high local gravity (gradient) in a centrifuge, you can even exploit it.

It is important to recognise that your idea was based on something that isn't actually true, or led to a conclusion that is not true.

This means your idea is wrong.
You should ditch it, rather than wasting time and bandwidth on it.

Here's the proof that the concentration of salt is not uniform as your wrong idea predicts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyant_density_centrifugation

[puppypower (OP)]

The driving force is an electron in motion; electrons moving between the Calcium metal and oxygen atom, creates a magnetic field.

And a picosecond or two later when they have moved, the magnetic field collapses because they are in longer in motion.

Did you not realise that?

I guess not, because if you actually had a clue what happens, you wouldn't have wasted time with that picture of current flowing in wires.

This means these electrons   begin with opposite spin that will magnetically attract to other; two wires with opposite currents. However, the oxygen by placing these in her 2p-orbitals can create a super stable 3-dimensional wire situation, that has 6 currents and 6 wires

In reality, there are no wires, no currents and no magnetic fields.

I am trying to develop the water side of life, using accepted principles,

Then you need to start by learning what the accepted principles are.
They include things like "the importance of evidence".

CaO is not magnetic.

Hydrogen bonding is a more of a specialty thing for states of life.

Most of the hydrogen bonds in the world are in ocean water and ice- not life

You may need to refresh your background in physical chemistry. An electron is never stationary, but it constantly moves, at ambient conditions, a fraction of the speed of light. It is always in motion generating a magnetic field. However, as the magnetic fields of electrons cancel each other, in atomic orbitals, it may appear that the lack of magnetic output, means stationary. But the electron is not a magnetic or lump of charge that jumps, sticks and stops. It moves to a different space and becomes a new probability; wave function. 

I used the 6 wires and 6 currents to help clarify a possible scenario where all the magnetic waves of six electrons can cancel, and thereby they will appear not to be magnetic any longer. But like the wave tank with two wave generators, the energy of continuous election motion and generated magnetism, is still being pumped into the tank stillness. This is untapped energy, designed into the electron, that water and hydrogen bonding can tap into. This hidden energy can help break strong covalent bonds with little input energy.

Once the salt is dissolved, now the same heavy salt will be found everywhere as though its weight does not matter. Gravity is sort of suspended by other things, or else all solutions would show a density gradient and never become uniform.

There is a concentration gradient.
It is very small.
You can calculate it or, if you use the very high local gravity (gradient) in a centrifuge, you can even exploit it.

It is important to recognise that your idea was based on something that isn't actually true, or led to a conclusion that is not true.

This means your idea is wrong.
You should ditch it, rather than wasting time and bandwidth on it.

Here's the proof that the concentration of salt is not uniform as your wrong idea predicts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyant_density_centrifugation

I was using ideal solutions, to make this complex colligative anomaly easier to explain. The gradient does not change anything, since even a gradient is displaying an anti-gravity looking affect. The entropy potential not quite able to fully overcome the gravitational pull. The compromise is to form a gradient thoughout the solution, instead of a uniform solution.

But once we set up the osmotic device, concentration is still the key variable, with some heavy solute particles raised up and other heavy particles pulled down toward the gravity source. This is how plants grow; stem and root. The nature of plant growth was always going to be based on the osmosis affect, even before life appeared, since water and osmosis had a schema in advance. It was easier to build on what was already there, within the water. 

[puppypower (OP)]

I have discussed surface tension as analogous to 2-D water surfaces. While water, as pure water,  is more 3-D, in affect, since water-water interactions, in water, is more than a 2-D surface.  Beyond these, there are also 1-D and 0-D water scenarios to complete the water set.

The 0-D water, like 0-D in geometry, is a water point. This type of water is often found within enzymes, and is typically a single water molecule that is chemically bound or caged. If we centrifuge, this 0-D water remains stuck. In all cases, the 0-D water is the visitor, and binding  substrate, the host. The impact of the 0-D water, on its host, can go both ways depending on the substrate environment. For example, an organic environment can cause a reverse surface tension with the 0-D water becoming a solute particle. This can add potential energy to the enzyme.

The 1-D state of water is more than one water molecule, all attached in a line. This will start as the dimers of water; two waters. A larger example of 1-D water can be simulated and seen experimentally, with 1-D water moving through carbon nanotubes. This 1-D water starts and stops like cars in traffic, but nevertheless, makes it to the other side. This seems to show potential energy building; paying homage to the host, and then being vented; motion. The result will be pulses of information that may not have too much in the way of meaning; hello, goodbye.

The 1-D water can also be expressed in more of polymerized linear fashion, such as the double helix of water found within the DNA double helix. There is one helix of 1-D water in each the major and minor grooves of the DNA double helix. If you wish to know more, there is an article published by the America Chemical Society; ACS, in the link below.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acscentsci.7b00229


This 1-D water hydrogen bonds with the base pairs, using the extra hydrogen bonding sites, designed for water, within the bases. The water polymerizes and follows the helical stacking of the bases, via the sited designed on the bases for the water.   

Water and oil do not mix, allowing this 1-D water to add free energy to the DNA double helix, to help prevent the DNA from stacking and binding too tightly. These two water 1-D wires can also pass information pulses and help fingerprint each base. The nature of the information pulses are for future experiments. The finger printing is already well characterized.

 

[Bored chemist]

The gradient does not change anything, since even a gradient is displaying an anti-gravity looking affect.

If you want to calculate the gradient, the thing you need to know is what the value of gravity is.

It's stupid to call something anti gravity when gravity is what drives it.

It is always in motion generating a magnetic field.

Which, on average, is zero.

Did you think you had a point?

However, as the magnetic fields of electrons cancel each other, in atomic orbitals, it may appear that the lack of magnetic output, means stationary.

No, the fact that it cancels out explains why it's not responsible for anything and that this

he oxygen atom is magnetic heavy in terms of the EM force.

is still hogwash.

This hidden energy can help break strong covalent bonds with little input energy.

I was using ideal solutions,

An "ideal solution" is a technical term, and I'm guessing you don't even know what it means.
It isn't relevant here.

to make this complex colligative anomaly easier to explain.

It isn't an anomaly.

I have discussed surface tension as analogous to 2-D water surfaces. While water, as pure water,  is more 3-D, in affect, since water-water interactions, in water, is more than a 2-D surface.  Beyond these, there are also 1-D and 0-D water scenarios to complete the water set.

You have discussed lots of tosh.

We can look at water that's tightly bound to, for example, an enzyme.
It's still water shaped. It's not a point, it's a triangle. It's clearly actually 3D.
And your idea is just tripe.

[puppypower (OP)]

Quote from: puppypower on 31/03/2021 13:53:49
I have discussed surface tension as analogous to 2-D water surfaces. While water, as pure water,  is more 3-D, in affect, since water-water interactions, in water, is more than a 2-D surface.  Beyond these, there are also 1-D and 0-D water scenarios to complete the water set.
You have discussed lots of tosh.

We can look at water that's tightly bound to, for example, an enzyme.
It's still water shaped. It's not a point, it's a triangle. It's clearly actually 3D.
And your idea is just tripe.

You need to review basic chemistry. Your knowledge base appears to have regressed due to being a Bored Chemist. Are you looking at the clock and not paying attention. Are you aware your stick figure shape of water; triangle, is there to make it easier for new students to learn?

If you bothered to read an earlier installment, I said this water analysis was not pure science, since pure science requires resources to record detailed observations. This discussion is to create a  foundation for a new version of applied science. This can be done with recycling old data, inference, and ingenuity. This is cheap and often leads to cost improvements in the free market. Much of the best applied science will not be in the literature since it is proprietary and trade secrets is how you maintain market share. The secret recipe of Coco Cola is hidden, since this application of food science has demand.

Modeling water in terms of its interactions, as the 0-D to 3-D analogy, comes in handy for simulation, when water is the only thing being used to model a cell. This approach allows water to reflect the organics, without all the organic clutter, that makes simulation very cumbersome. You need keep your eye on the ball, and remember which sport is playing. Also try to look at the bigger picture instead of get bogged down in minutia, which detours the discussion but does not alter or add to the main premises.   

The main premise is water and the organics of life are copartners in life. Organics alone cannot form life. This can and has been demonstrated by dehydrating any level of the organics of life, all the way to down to enzymes to see what happens. The answer is nothing happens. We can then substitute other solvents to see if a simple solvent affect is the key. This will also does not work. The organics of life are tuned to water and need the unique attributes of water to make it alive. Life evolved in water and water set and still sets the nano-environment for chemical selection. This is why only water has the keys.

Water by itself does not create life. The organics of life are also needed. Like in the water-oil affect, the organics to act as an antagonist to the water, and offer various types of pushback using sturdy structures, which can perpetuate this push back. But in the end, water, by being the majority component of life, which was there from day one and is still unchanged, and is still driving the bus.

One application I a hoping to attempt, in detail, is to look at the formation of life, from scratch, using a water side analysis. Nobody has create life in the lab, using an organic approach, so this subject is not done deal science, either way. Everyone is speculating, down to starting conditions, changing from reduction to oxidation and then back. 

Before that application, I would like to discuss chaotropes and kosmotropes, which are things dissolved in water, that can alter some of the properties of water and extend its bandwidth beyond pure water.

[Bored chemist]

I said this water analysis was not pure science

Yep
It's pure nonscience.

Are you aware your stick figure shape of water; triangle, is there to make it easier for new students to learn?

How considerate of techniques like xray diffraction and electron scattering to give us a model that is easy to teach.

Or... maybe that's just the real shape of water...

This discussion is to create a  foundation for a new version of applied science.

Presumably, if it's different from the current one- which works- you are planning to set up a model which does not work.

Why would you do that?

This can be done with recycling old data

Presumably that's the

detailed observations

which you seem to dislike.

The secret recipe of Coco Cola is hidden,

Well, for a start...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola_formula

But, more importantly, grown-ups using proper science can analyse cola and find out what it's made from.

Modeling water in terms of its interactions, as the 0-D to 3-D analogy, comes in handy for simulation,

Let us know what the predictive power of these models is.
If it's zero, please stop wasting time.
If it isn't then please tell us what predictions you are able to make which couldn't have been done otherwise.

This approach allows water to reflect the organics, without all the organic clutter, that makes simulation very cumbersome.

So, from the point of view of "life"- you have decided to ignore the important bit. Do you understand what I think that looks stupid?

The main premise is water and the organics of life are copartners in life.

We know.
There's really no need to keep banging on about it.
For a start, it's not news and for a finish, you say silly things which detract from it.

Water by itself does not create life.

Nobody ever suggested it did. (well, not since the 17th C).

using a water side analysis.

That's one of the meaningless phrases you keep using.

I would like to discuss chaotropes and kosmotropes,

Go ahead but...

which are things dissolved in water

Not just water; they exist in other solvents too and

extend its bandwidth

Water doesn't have a bandwidth,

[puppypower (OP)]

I would like to discuss the impact of ionic chaotropes and kosmotropes within water. Simply put, ionic chaotropes are ionic substances, dissolved in water, that bind to water weaker than water binds to itself via hydrogen bonding. One very notable example are potassium ions. Kosmotropes are the opposite and bind to water stronger than water binds to itself. One notable example, are sodium ions.

Sodium and potassium ions both have a single positive charge, but each impacts the hydrogen bonding matrix of water differently. Charge alone does not tell us everything when it comes to the impact of ions in water. Each ion can flip the binary hydrogen bonding switch to opposite sides; more polar or more covalent hydrogen bonding. Hydrogen bonding of pure water is in the middle of these two important ions.

There are two parallel definitions of chaotropes and kosmotropes. They each label the same things but in the opposite way. The biology definition, which is organic centric, bases things on protein behavior and properties. I am developing the water side and will stick with the water side definition, as was stated above. I prefer start at the source of the affect; water, and not a level once removed from the original source. The former can make it appear more magical and statistical than it is. At the source it becomes rational.

As a practical example of both above ions in affect, neurons expend nearly 90% of their metabolic energy pumping and exchange sodium and potassium ions at the cell membrane.This results in the chaotropic potassium ions concentrating inside the cell, and the kosmotropic sodium ions concentrating outside the cell. This creates two different zones of water, on the opposite sides of the membrane, with each zone having slightly different water properties. The inside of the cell becomes specialized to manufacturing, while the outside of the cell becomes more conducive to shipping and receiving.

Potassiums ions, by being chaotropic and binding less powerfully to water than water binds to itself, shifts the hydrogen bonding binary more toward the polar side and away from the covalent side; less order and more chaos. The polar side also contains more entropy. The potassium ion is better for inducing change and complexity. 

The shift toward the polar side will also slightly lower the hydrophobic nature of dissolved organic materials within water, since hydrophobic implies surface tension and the covalent side of water's  hydrogen bonding binary. This is weakened in water because of the potassium ions. Enzymes become less compressed by surface tension in 3-D space, so enzymes can be shaped shifted easier during enzymatic reactions. 

Sodium ions by being kosmotropes bind to water stronger than water binds to itself. They will slightly shift the hydrogen bonding binary equilibrium more to the covalent side of the hydrogen bonding binary. This favors the formation of surface tension and slightly enhance the hydrophobic nature of organic materials in water. The outside of the cell, by concentrating sodium ions, will make all organics more hydrophobic. This enhances organic-organic extraction; food, by the lipid membrane. In terms of neurons, neurotransmitters are more effective, when the kosmotropic sodium ions are influencing the outside water; rest neuron.

An interesting affect is that potassium ions, although slightly larger than sodium ions, can more easily migrate through the cell membrane, driven by the chemical potential of the concentration gradient created by ionic pumping. This results in a membrane potential, since excess plus charge ends up on the outside. The chaotropic nature of the potassium ions makes the local membrane that is permeable to water, less hydrophobic, so it can squeeze through, somewhat easier. The sodium ions make the same membrane, that is permeable to water, more hydrophobic so the local membrane tightens, preventing its free passage. The tweaks can be small, local or global, but have a very profound impact.

When the stereotypical cell prepare for cell cycles, the cell membrane will become unsaturated. The cis and trans double bonds make the unsaturated membrane materials pack worse lowering the viscosity of the membrane. The hydrophobic impact of the sodium ions is less pronounced, during unsaturation, allowing more sodium ion reversal. This shift the internal ionic balance of the internal; water; into cell cycle mode.

If you consider the total packing of the doubled DNA, into condensed chromosomes, via packing protein, this would be assisted by an enhanced hydrophobic induction due to a kosmotropic induction. The mother cell ion pumps up a storm, but the reversal keeps the membrane potential lower; less K+ affect and more Na+ affect. Unpacking the condensed chromosomes, to create active cells, benefits by the hydrophobic induction moderating; higher potassium proportions in the two daughter cells. 

In terms of multicellular differentiation, such as within humans; all cells have the same DNA, nerve tissue plays an important role in this control system. The local nerve endings near nearly all cells, help regulate the external equilibrium of sodium and potassium ions around differentiated cells. This can impact the internal water and thereby define the packing-unpacking hydrophobic balance that will define its basic genetic expression. A local sensory neuron fires and resets thereby able to impact both local sodium and potassium ions balances.

Another interesting observed affect, is connected to cells, that have been stripped of their outer membranes, so there are no ion pumps. In spite of no ion pumps, naked cells will still concentrate themselves with potassium ions. This has led to some to believe that ion pumping is more of a fail safe from an earlier time. This is not exactly true, since the ionic pumps can push the potential for further evolution.

The above affect is connected to the surfaces of proteins within cells also impacting the water. These are all organics and will create surface tension and shift the pure water equilibrium toward the covalent side. This where the biology definition comes from. The potassium ions are preferred because they will oppose the organic surface tension induction, in favor of the polar side of water. This is helpful to the water; offer more chaotropic offset. This tells me that the potassium ion led the evolution of that protein grid, until the modern ion-organic balance in water became carved in stone.

The water side is easier when it comes to modeling evolution, since everything starts in the water with various ionic and other potentials able to push the organic system in different ways. Just as the potassium ions are preferred to help balances to the naked cell's internal organics for the water, an existing organic or protein grid will react to surplus potassium ions. This can lead to  genetic change to help the water finds its new sweet spot. A simple evolution in ion pump efficiency kept the needed protein changes moving forward.

[puppypower (OP)]

Water and Abiogenesis

The precursor molecules needed for life have many paths. Simple gases could be made by the early sun as plasma cools. On earth, if we heat these simple gases like CO2, CH4, NH3, N2, in the presence of water, at high temperature, and then allow these radicals to cool, larger things like amino acids and organic materials will appear. There are many paths that can work and since this is well researched, I will not dwell there.

The bottleneck is going from these simple molecules, like amino acids, into polymers like protein, using only simple conditions on the early earth. The main practical problem is most life based polymerizations, such as into protein and RNA, are condensation reactions. This means they give off water.

Since life on earth formed in water and is bathed in water, the solvent water inhibits these condensation reactions, thereby requiring energy input to proceed forward. This bottleneck is good for life, since it allows cells to build polymers, without competition with spontaneous condensation reactions. This makes all the condensation reactions within water, selective and perfect for the exacting needs of templates.

These needed condensation reactions creates a problem for the science of abiogenesis since they need energy to occur which makes things more complicated in terms of easy paths that would be common in the early earth. Most approaches look for natural energy sources to compensate for the energy needs of condensations.

There is another way that may or may not have been tested. The hint that confirmed my hunch, came from a paper  that appeared to be written by an applied scientist involved in manufacturer proteins in a production environment. He invented a process improvement. He noted that production normally required very careful control of variables or else side reactions would occur. This slowed down the process. This is not a problem in living cells, where all types of molecules are present. The protein come out perfect. He noticed that in cells, protein are made on ribosome surfaces,where water can be excluded. Nature got rid of the solvent bottleneck.

This made me remember an old idea, I had, of using an organic solvent, such as a light oil, to make proteins from amino acids. The use of oil instead of water will restrict condensation competition from water. It may even cause the product water to be expelled through surface tension affects.

Amino acids are very soluble in water. So the solubility in oil will be very low, which is better for selectivity. You will need a solvent phase that is different from water, such as a light weight oil, that offers moderate amino acid solubility. Agitation will create a water and oil emulsion, while small bubble size can create huge internal bubble pressures. Pressure can help push space saving  reactions forward. While the higher surface area will maintain amino acids concentrations between water and oil.

In the Miller experiments, beside creating amino acids and sugars his apparatus also created complex tars from his experimental precursors. His approach suggests fossil fuels, may not have began with fossils, but were there first and then infiltrated. An oily solvent could have been available with the precursors. Once we get some protein, the oil and water phases will both use these.

[Bored chemist]

Since life on earth formed in water and is bathed in water, the solvent water inhibits these condensation reactions, thereby requiring energy input to proceed forward.

No
Amide formation (all things being equal) is typically exothermic.
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2002/p2/b108041e#!divAbstract

[evan_au]

So I've heard a few new words today that (surprisingly) turned out not to be word salad:

chaotrope or chaotropic agent: any substance that increases the transfer of apolar groups to water because of its ability to decrease the ‘ordered’ structure ...

kosmotropic(Adjective): Describing ions (normally small, with a high charge density) that stabilize intermolecular interactions in water, especially by stabilizing hydrogen bonds

I don't think I'll have an opportunity to casually drop them into a sentence today...

[puppypower (OP)]

Since life on earth formed in water and is bathed in water, the solvent water inhibits these condensation reactions, thereby requiring energy input to proceed forward.

No
Amide formation (all things being equal) is typically exothermic.
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2002/p2/b108041e#!divAbstract

Forming protein from amino acids is endothermic and requires about 125 kJ/mole of added energy. This is the main bottleneck when it comes to Abiogenesis. An energy source becomes needed to form protein because of this polymerization bottleneck. Another approach, that I take, is to alter reaction conditions so they become less endothermic. The 125 KJ/mole is based on protein polymerization in water. If we reduce the energy need, in advance, all the various postulated energy sources become more effective.

Once the first cell is up and running, since protein synthesis, via condensation reactions in water, require energy, protein synthesis within cells become relativity easy to control in terms of selectivity. There are no easy spontaneous paths; exothermic, that can compete. This opens the door to template reactions and exacting protein shapes.

RNA and DNA polymerization are also condensation reactions. These too create bottlenecks since they too are endothermic. Both the Protein World and RNA World theories of Abiogenesis have the same bottleneck. However, once cells are up and running, template reaction selectivity benefits by these reactions being endothermic. The cell will have to use energy, such as ATP, to give the needed energy boost up the activation energy hill. Competing reactions will not get the selective boost and will not be competitive. It is well planned design for the future of life, but it may have posed some bottlenecks at the beginning. Easy polymerizations; exothermic, would make it very difficult to achieve the selectivity needed for future life.

The approach that I took is to try and lower the activation energy; less endothermic, by altering the reaction conditions.  Mixing an organic solvent with water will increase the surface tension in the water and solvent. The surface tension in water favors the covalent side of hydrogen bonding binary of water. This makes the water less reactive than pure water. Pure water has more polar side of the hydrogen bonding binary. The polar aspect of the binary is more reactive; polar hydrogen bonds get closer.  An organic solvent blend will lower water's reactivity to some extent, thereby lowering condensation reversal.

If the organic solvent is highly reduced, light oil instead of alcohol, we will get two phases that will not completely mix. This scenario lowers the surface tension, by reducing the surface area between the two phases. It will retain some surface tension, but only at the interface of the two phases. Only the interface zones will slightly favor condensation reactions in water. If the two phases are agitated, by waves, into a reversible emulsion, the emulsion can cause internal bubble pressures to increase; LaPlace. Pressure can favor forward reactions. For example, a 100 nanometer bubble may have 3 atmospheres of extra pressure.

Modern cells contain two continuous phases, water and membrane, with the lipid bi-layer membrane induced into place by surface tension; water and oil affect. The membrane is also permeable to water. This water permeability will increase inter membrane surface tension, since the membrane becomes similar to a localized emulsion shell. The polar-covalent hydrogen bonding binary of water is shifted to the covalent side within the membrane. Water is made less reactive to entering and existing materials. The water inside the cell is opposite due to the chaotropic nature of potassium ions. These ions bust up the order in water making the water more polar and reactive. This makes it harder for spontaneous condensations reactions and thereby favors deliberate template selectivity. In Abiogenesis condensation reactions, sodium will be more useful since this makes water more ordered and less polar.

[Bored chemist]

requires about 125 kJ/mole of added energy.

https://xkcd.com/285/

If we reduce the energy need, in advance, all the various postulated energy sources become more effective.

If you could change the energy needed to do something (particularly something reversible like a peptide bond), you would break the conservation of energy.

So we know that you can't.

If the formation of a peptide is more favourable in an oil environment than in a water one then the difference is exactly compensated by the energy needed to get the reactants into, and the products out of, the oil.

[puppypower (OP)]

requires about 125 kJ/mole of added energy.

https://xkcd.com/285/

If we reduce the energy need, in advance, all the various postulated energy sources become more effective.

If you could change the energy needed to do something (particularly something reversible like a peptide bond), you would break the conservation of energy.

So we know that you can't.

If the formation of a peptide is more favourable in an oil environment than in a water one then the difference is exactly compensated by the energy needed to get the reactants into, and the products out of, the oil.

The 125 KJ/mole to react amino acids is based on reactions in water. If you change the reaction environment, this number can change. Catalysis does the same thing by offering an alternate surface on which the reaction can occur. The reactions of life also take advantage of the potential within the hydrogen bonding of the water, that forms on enzymes, prior to these reactions. These become useful further into abiogenesis, but they need protein first.

For example, the energy needed to make DNA from its monomers, on the DNA template, exceeds the energy within the ATP type molecules that are used. One molecule of ATP has the energy equivalent needed to break about 1-2 hydrogen bonds. However there will be dozens of water molecules hydrogen bonded to the template DNA, that need to get out of the way. Do the math. This is not a part of early abiogenesis, but it is a milestone further down the line. 

In modern cells, water will form cooperative hydrogen bonding on the surfaces of DNA and enzymes. The cooperative is similar to surface tension, in that it connected to the covalent side of hydrogen bonding binary. In this case, electrons are delocalized and shared among the cooperative to create a new level of hydrogen bonding stability for DNA and water.

One important purpose of ATP is connected to the absorption of a water molecule; hydrolysis, to form ADP and phosphate, so the energy within ATP can be released. The water molecule that ATP extracts comes from the cooperative. The ATP, when extracting this water, acts like a bolt cutter that breaks the cooperative sharing, causing a rapid increase in local water entropy; back to polar hydrogen bonding. It is like a run in a stretched nylon stocking caused by a single thread being cut. This run of entropy increase makes free energy in water available. The increase in local water entropy will absorb energy; endothermic. The water entropy increase pulls the reaction up the energy hill, at the same time the ATP pushes the reaction up the hill. Almost immediately the water reforms the cooperative, which resets the water side of the potential for another cycle.

Back to abiogenesis. One thing common to all of life, at any time in its history, is life fixes water into place. Even in the desert, life can hold water better than water is held in the soil, for example. This is connected to life lowering the vapor pressure of water, with vapor pressure lowering one of the four colligative properties. The other three are boiling point elevation, freezing point depression and osmosis. 

Colligative properties are interesting in that they only depend on the concentration of solute, in this case water, but not on the identity of the solute. This means colligative properties are not based on the EM force, since the EM force defines most of the differences that colligative properties will ignore. Life fixing water is based on the thousands of different ions and molecules, each counted as one solute unit, each making the same contribution.

The fixing of water by life; vapor pressure lowering, implies the other three colligative properties can also be present, at the same time, since these four colligative properties use the exact same schema of solute concentration, apart from any superficial differences caused by the EM force. We can use these four colligative properties to our abiogenesis advantage, if we can infer how the four colligative properties are connected to the forces of nature. 

One force that does not care about most differences is gravity. All atoms and molecules have mass and gravity will act upon the mass, regardless of charge and magnetism. If the mass is too low such as with hydrogen gas, the earth's gravity cannot contain it forever. Mass has a connection to inertia, and mass occupies space. In the case of life fixing water into place, the lowering of vapor pressure implies less water molecule inertia. To become a vapor, water needs to gain inertia and occupy more space; more vapor space with more inertia, instead of less liquid space with less inertia.

The colligative properties can be directly impacted by gravity such as with density gradients forming, with the higher solute concentration closer to the earth. Many perennial plants die back to the roots and others lose their leaves. The zone of the strongest colligative impact due to gravity is the last to go. Life interfaces gravity via the colligative properties.

The water and oil affect, which results in two phases to help lower surface tension, is used by life to set up a barrier to free concentration flow and inertia, thereby creating colligative potentials across the membrane. A semipermeable membrane, such as used for osmosis, can have vapor pressure lowering different on each side of the membrane. This colligative potential results in increased water inertia through the membrane and beyond, filling in the space. The osmotic pressure that results lifts the water against gravity. The colligative properties create the potentials that scale within life to the needs of gravity; mobility.

Another colligative property consideration is entropy. Entropy is a state variable, meaning for any given state of matter, there is a fixed measurable amount of entropy. Water at 25C and 1 atmosphere will always have the same entropy value when measured no matter which direction this final state is reached. In the case of vapor pressure lowering, the entropy of the water is lowered compared to pure water.  The membrane creates an entropic potential with the second law. In the case of water being able to move freely through the membrane, the entropic potential is felt by the water and water attempts to balance this potential. This is reversible via pressure, with pressure gravity thing.

[Bored chemist]

Catalysis does the same thing

No.
It does not.

If it did, that would break the energy conservation laws.
So the rest of your post is nonsense.

Why don't you learn some science?
Here's what wiki would tell you if you had the sense tolook it up

"In the catalyzed elementary reaction, catalysts do not change the extent of a reaction: they have no effect on the chemical equilibrium of a reaction because the rate of both the forward and the reverse reaction are both affected (see also thermodynamics). The second law of thermodynamics describes why a catalyst does not change the chemical equilibrium of a reaction. Suppose there was such a catalyst that shifted an equilibrium. Introducing the catalyst to the system would result in a reaction to move to the new equilibrium, producing energy. Production of energy is a necessary result since reactions are spontaneous only if Gibbs free energy is produced, and if there is no energy barrier, there is no need for a catalyst. Then, removing the catalyst would also result in reaction, producing energy; i.e. the addition and its reverse process, removal, would both produce energy. Thus, a catalyst that could change the equilibrium would be a perpetual motion machine, a contradiction to the laws of thermodynamics.[12] Thus, catalyst does not alter the equilibrium constant. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalysis#Reaction_energetics

[Bored chemist]

Another colligative property consideration is entropy.

It's not a colligative property.
Did you mean an intensive property?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensive_and_extensive_properties#Examples_2

[puppypower (OP)]

Another colligative property consideration is entropy.

It's not a colligative property.
Did you mean an intensive property?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensive_and_extensive_properties#Examples_2

Entropy has a connection to the colligative properties. The colligative properties do not depend on the character of the solute. Solute character is primarily defined by the EM force. Colligative properties are not related to the EM force, but have more of a connection to mass and gravity. Gravitational pressure, like all any form of pressure, is connected to the inertia and momentum of individual mass particles; nanoscale. Higher pressure has more mass based inertia per particle. Mass defines the particle momentum needed for a gas to hold the walls of the balloon in place.

Pressure is a common artifact of gravity. The atmospheric pressure, the pressures under the oceans and the pressure at the core of the earth are all dependent on the earth's gravity. The connection between gravity, pressure and the colligative properties means pressure can be used to tweak the colligative properties up and down.

Osmosis generates its own osmotic pressure. This can be reversed, at the nanoscale,  with an opposing pressure; reverse osmosis.The ability of life to fix water by lowering its vapor pressure can be reversed in a vacuum; lower the pressure, or at the top of a mountain. Boiling point elevation and freezing point depression are also pressure dependent and these would be different  on other planets with different gravity. Our arms can be used to generate pressure.

Entropy also has a connection to pressure. Entropy is a state variable and pressure is one main  characteristic within many states of matter. Water vapor has more entropy than liquid water. The equilibrium between these two states is connected to pressure. Pressure could be used to create an entropic potential between these two states. Pressure can also oppose the second law.

Entropy needs energy for entropy to increase. This energy typically comes from heat. In the free energy equation, entropy times temperature is a measure of free energy. Temperature is connected to heat, and heat is used to increase the inertia of particles, which can then create or increase the pressure. If we do work and pressurize a gas, it give off heat, that can be used to increase entropy elsewhere.

If you look at the electron, the electron remains one particle, even at the most extreme particle collider conditions. The electron has both mass and negative charge. Within the electron, gravity and the EM force are unified into a single particle state. The unity; single particle and binary nature; mass and charge, of the electron appears reflected in heat and EM radiation. Heat is connected to the electron's mass and gravity side; black body radiation. The EM radiation is connected to its charge side. Heat appears with its equivalent in terms of EM radiation; color of heat such as red hot. 

Temperature and heat impacts everything in any given state of matter. It defines the average inertia of all the mass particles within the state. The EM force is more localized and dependent on secondary characteristics of local magnetism and charge. We can break one bond without having to heat everything.

I suppose we can heat one particle in a gas with a laser. This will create a potential that will need to equilibrate; hot to cold. At steady state the entire gas volume will share the heat. With EM radiation, photons remain more localized, and the entire photon potential can be released as a single photon, without requiring system wide equilibrium.

The EM force is more useful in terms of entropy changes at the smallest scale. Heat is useful in terms entropy changes at all scales, including large scale; helps define a specific state of matter with a fixed amount of entropy. The human body stays at 98.6F, so the state called "you",  maintains a fixed amount of free energy; ST.

[Bored chemist]

Entropy has a connection to the colligative properties.

It has a connection to the game of scrabble.
But that doesn't mean it is the same thing.

The colligative properties do not depend on the character of the solute.

And entropy  is not one ot them.

Solute character is primarily defined by the EM force.

Unless we are talking about non polar materials...

Colligative properties are not related to the EM force, but have more of a connection to mass and gravity.

Tosh.
Entropy works  just fine in zero gravity.

Higher pressure has more mass based inertia per particle.

No
Inertia is dependent on (and proportional to) mass. It has nothing much to do with pressure.

I'm getting bored of this.
It may be quicker if I simply highlight the things you actually got right.

Pressure is a common artifact of gravity. The atmospheric pressure, the pressures under the oceans and the pressure at the core of the earth are all dependent on the earth's gravity.

Yep

Boiling point elevation and freezing point depression are also pressure dependent

Entropy is a state variable

Water vapor has more entropy than liquid water. The equilibrium between these two states is connected to pressure.

Temperature is connected to heat,

If you look at the electron, the electron remains one particle, even at the most extreme particle collider conditions. The electron has both mass and negative charge.

Temperature and heat impacts everything in any given state of matter.

I suppose we can heat one particle in a gas with a laser.

At steady state the entire gas volume will share the heat.

Pretty much everything else you wrote is meaningless or wrong.

[puppypower (OP)]

Entropy has a connection to the colligative properties.

It has a connection to the game of scrabble.
But that doesn't mean it is the same thing.

The colligative properties do not depend on the character of the solute.

And entropy  is not one ot them.

Solute character is primarily defined by the EM force.

Unless we are talking about non polar materials...

Colligative properties are not related to the EM force, but have more of a connection to mass and gravity.

Tosh.
Entropy works  just fine in zero gravity.

Higher pressure has more mass based inertia per particle.

No
Inertia is dependent on (and proportional to) mass. It has nothing much to do with pressure.

I'm getting bored of this.
It may be quicker if I simply highlight the things you actually got right.

Pressure is a common artifact of gravity. The atmospheric pressure, the pressures under the oceans and the pressure at the core of the earth are all dependent on the earth's gravity.

Yep

Boiling point elevation and freezing point depression are also pressure dependent

Entropy is a state variable

Water vapor has more entropy than liquid water. The equilibrium between these two states is connected to pressure.

Temperature is connected to heat,

If you look at the electron, the electron remains one particle, even at the most extreme particle collider conditions. The electron has both mass and negative charge.

Temperature and heat impacts everything in any given state of matter.

I suppose we can heat one particle in a gas with a laser.

At steady state the entire gas volume will share the heat.

Pretty much everything else you wrote is meaningless or wrong.

You seem to be good at memorizing and repeating the status quo but to innovate you need to be able to make new connections. For example, the electron now considered a single particle with mass and negative charge. This logically implies the electron is an example of the unification of gravity with negative charge. This inference is not part of the status quo you may have memorized. However, it is self evident if you open your eyes. I do not think anyone expected the electron to be so durable in particle colliders and traditions pigeon holed physics. I wish Albert Einstein had lived to see that data, since it would have made his job of the unifying the four forces much easier. He has to work unde the consensus assumption mass and charge were two separate things, which was a bad assumption for the electron.
 
The colligative properties are not dependent on the character of the solute. This means the colligative properties are not EM force dependent. Solute character is connected to the EM force. The colligative properties have more in common with mass and gravity, since gravity can do all the same things as the four colligative properties, such as create or reverse a pressure head, lower vapor pressure of gases, increase boiling point and decrease melting point such as with the metallic iron in the core of the earth.

Gas pressure, at the microscopic scale; individual atoms and molecules, is connected to the average inertia and momentum of all the particles as they bounce off the containment vessel. Momentum and inertia are connected to mass which is connected to gravity. Mass also occupies space. Changes in pressure change, the space requirement, since volume can decrease with lower pressure.

If we go back to the unification of negative charge, magnetism and gravity via the electron, the colligative properties are more connected to the mass side of the electron, than to its charge side since the colligative properties are not EM dependent. The colligative properties are more connected to heat side of the electron mass than to the EM radiation from its charge.

Heat and EM radiation are unified by the single particle nature of the electron. However, each type of energy is also unique in terms of its action and reaction. This is connected to the proton not being a unified particle but codependent with the electron.

Heat will impact all of matter, just like gravity. It moves from higher to lower temperature regardless of the character of the matter. Heat flow is loosely similar to the colligative properties in not being dependent on the character of the matter. High to low will not change, although the conduction of the heat can vary. The EM radiation of charge is much more situational and only impacts matter that is tuned to accept specific quanta of EM radiation. The heat of the early universe has long equilibrated; cooled, but its parallel early EM radiation lives allowing us to see details within distance galaxies that were formed long ago.

Entropy is connected to free energy via the relationship G=H=TS, where where T is temperature and S is entropy, Temperature is connected to heat, more than EM radiation. This means T is more connected to the mass of the electron and gravity, than to its charge and EM radiation. The free energy within entropy varies with temperature. The equation does no say EM radiation but heat.

Entropy is a state variable. The entropy of water at 25C and 1 atmosphere of pressure is a constant. This state of water, with a fixed amount of entropy, is dependent on temperature and  pressure both of which were shown to be connected to gravity; mass inertia. This is not to say that other states cannot include EM force dependency. I am focusing on gravity.

The significance of the entropy, gravity and heat, versus entropy, EM force and EM radiation, is gravity connected entropy is less impacted by randomness, since heat flow from higher to lower temperature is not dependent on the character of the matter. The EM radiation path for entropy is more susceptible to randomness, since photon quanta are specific to situational character. For example, if we form a diamond with heat and pressure, the heat flow through the carbon material always goes from hotter to colder. Any stray EM radiation, by being more situational, can lead to defects such as odd bond formation that will get frozen in place. This will increase EM entropy but the heat entropy will lower.

The value of this is gravity and the colligative properties are more targeted and less situational,  allowing life to form and evolve in nonrandom ways. Like the flow of heat there is a path of least resistance. As life evolves, its entropic states are quantum stepping, at least in terms of gravity based entropy. Random changes on the DNA is EM mediated. Template improvement is not random, but is based on quantum steps though entropic states. This is mediated through the water, which is a wild card due to its anomalous nature.

[Bored chemist]

You seem to be good at memorizing and repeating the status quo but to innovate you need to be able to make new connections.

You keep on calling mistakes "new connections"
Why do you do that?

He has to work unde the consensus assumption mass and charge were two separate things, which was a bad assumption for the electron.

There's an example of you being wrong.
Mass and charge ARE two different things; it's not an assumption, but an observation.

[puppypower (OP)]

You seem to be good at memorizing and repeating the status quo but to innovate you need to be able to make new connections.

You keep on calling mistakes "new connections"
Why do you do that?

He has to work unde the consensus assumption mass and charge were two separate things, which was a bad assumption for the electron.

There's an example of you being wrong.
Mass and charge ARE two different things; it's not an assumption, but an observation.

Particle accelerator data has shown that electrons are fundamental particles, where mass and negative charge are integrated into a unified state; single particle state. The same is not true of the proton. The proton is composed of separate mass and positive charge according to particle collider data. I don't think anyone expected that, but since this is what the data says, you need to adapt. This opens up new doors that had been closed the old way. 

This unique difference between electrons and protons explains the uncertainty principle when applied to atoms. If the electron was a single particle with negative charge and mass unified, and the proton was not, their EM interaction will impact each differently, due to the EM force of the electron unified and sharing potential with the electron mass. The energy balance will be correct, but the EM balance should have uncertainty; momentum and position There will be energy bleed off to mass side, so EM force predictions seem somewhat off. Heisenberg would have seen things differently if that data was available to him.

Two characteristics of mass is mass takes up space and has inertia. The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle is connected to uncertainty in momentum; inertia and uncertainty in position in space.

One thing that has always puzzled me is why is the electron always on the move, compared to the proton? The electron never seems to get tired and is a much busier bee than the proton. Since a charge in motion will create a magnetic field, this constant motion of the electron, compared to the proton, naturally gives the electron more magnetic contribution to its EM force. The proton can do this but not as a habit like the electron. The higher induced magnetism may be the interface between the unification of negative charge and mass, with the electron maintaining higher inertia for its mass attribute. 

Electrons within atoms also takes up the majority of the atomic space via orbitals. One property of mass is mass takes up space, while the electron, on the average, has much more space requirement than the proton. The electron jives more with the space and inertia requirement of mass. This is expected due to the unified force displayed by the electron. Magnetism appears to be the bridge that unifies the space and inertia requirement of electron mass, through EM wave addition.

In terms of hydrogen bonding, the binary nature of hydrogen bonding; covalent and polar, could be due to the unification of the electron, but not the hydrogen proton. The unification of mass and negative charge within the electron, causes negative charge to assume some of the mass characteristics of inertia and space, via magnetism. This will create more stable hydrogen bonds; covalent side takes up more space. If we lower the space requirement; polar hydrogen bonds will take up less space, the mass contribution of the electron is less and its charge become more dominant; polar.

As was discussed in other posts, the colligative properties appear to have a connection to gravity and therefore mass, since they are not dependent on the character of the solute. The colligative properties ignore the subtle EM force differences of different solute. The electron is part of the driver for the living state, via its unified force and its connection to the colligative properties. Mass is also how the earth gets involved; gravity to negative charge. 

If we apply pressure to liquid water the hydrogen bonds will shift more to the polar side, since these have less space requirement. Therefore mechanical and osmotic pressure can be used to tweak the unified force of the electron via induced changes in hydrogen bonding; tweaks distance potential of the electron and protons.  Life via water has an extra energy source that is now modeled with statistics, but which has a logical explanation, if you can accept the unification of negative charge and mass.