Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: puppypower on 19/03/2021 11:11:04
-
Water is the most studied substance in all of science. There are more published science papers written about water that any other material. Part of the appeal, even today, is that water turns out to be the most anomalous substance in all of nature. It displays over 70 different behaviors, and counting, that buck the trends found in other materials. For example, water expands when it freezes and hot water can freeze faster than cold water.
Water is a small molecule that is a very stable terminal product of combustion. Yet its hydrogen bonding network is very dynamic and is responsible for water's anomalous nature. Water is very stable at the primary covalent bonding level, due to strong oxygen and hydrogen bond, but it is still very dynamic at the secondary bonding level; hydrogen bonding. Water provides a matrix where the hydrogen protons become dynamic.
If we were to burn life, like in a forest fire, all the fancy organics would break down into gases and charcoal. The water from life would vaporize and lose its secondary bonding dynamics but it would still remain water. Water was there before life, and has not changed or been altered by life or nature. It remains forever the same. These properties of water make it the cornerstone of life. Water can impart additional properties to the molecules of life, via its secondary bonding network, to create the state we call life.
If place DNA in water, the DNA becomes bioactive. If we removed the water and/or replaced the water with any other solvent, DNA would remain inert, no longer functioning. The same is true of protein and RNA. Their life dynamics depend on water's secondary bonding network. However, the dynamics of water is not dependent on any of these organics.
Water was the nano environment for the evolution of life from scratch, with the hydrogen bonding network of water running the molecular selection process. This is inferred by the observation that none of the active biomaterial of life work without water. Water picked the team, that could work with it. Evolution is not about random events, but about milestones with respect to water.
Modern biology is still too dependent on random assumptions and statistical modeling. This gambling and whims of the god approach is needed because the logic of water is not fully understood, in biology, resulting in empirical theory that lacks full understand of that one stable eternal cornerstone variable that was always there, and which makes everything work.
-
So what?
It's not as of any of that is news.
-
So what?
It's not as of any of that is news.
I agree. However, why is there so much resistance to the basic changes needed to advance the life sciences into the next century? Think logically. If DNA does not work without water, and no other solvent can be used as a substitute, why do textbooks still insist that the DNA be shown in its dehydrated form, while also describing this as the template material? This is alternate theory and not fact.
It can be demonstrated that water is essential to the correct DNA conformation as well as to its function. B-DNA requires a very specific degree of hydration. Yet we are still stuck in the 1940's, in terms of education. Why is the obsolete being clung to, when it has been demonstrated as false? Most of the life sciences should be moved to alternate theory, yet a double standard is allowed.
The Covid 19 virus would not be a problem without water, since none of its dynamic properties, as a virus, would work if it was dehydrated or placed in any other solvent. Alcohol will mess it up due to altered surface free energy. Yet we show the dehydrated form of the virus as being deadly. Who is in charge of this nonsense!
The question is, has casino science caused brain damage? In this philosophy of science cards and slot machines, anyone can be winner, on any give day, doing no more than pushing buttons and pumping in money. Is this what is being protected?
My opinion is, science does not have its own resources, but is beholden to others such as government and industry to provide. Science is like the child who gets an allowance and has do chores before the child can spend on their own desires. These others control science by controlling the purse.
Casino science allows more people to participate in applied biology. In the practical sense, anyone can be taught to "black box it " , since the same math can be used, anywhere. Rational theory that included water, is more specialized and targets and this could impact the labor market, thereby impacting the labor force in science government and business models. Scientists should not be carrying the water for the bureaucrats, but it should be the other way around. However, before you can go to the beach, you need to clean the garage.
-
Rather than whine about casino science, it may be better to show how life is rationally organized by water.
The Covid-19 virus will not be able to do anything without water. Water binds to and hydrates the virus so its correct conformations form, and these material shapes have the access to the free energy needed to do its duty as a virus. Without water support the debate about whether this virus is alive, will not be relevant. It is pile of inert chemicals.
Say we added another solvent, to the dehydrated covid virus, to replace the water, such as isopropyl alcohol. This makes things worse, since the alcohol will alter its viral configurations and change its surface free energy in an irreversible way, that even water cannot fix; hand sanitizer for sweaty hands Solvent choice for life is very important to life, since as the majority component of life, the solvent is the big dog. It is straw that stirs the drink of life.
Water by itself cannot form life. Life also requires the organic materials. The organics are sturdy covalently bonded materials that can hold up to the dynamic secondary bonding environment of water. These organic materials, in turn, have an impact on the local and global water via their surface characteristics. This will alter the activity of the water, among other things, and therefore alter how the water can further interact with the organics. Activity is defined as 1.0 for pure water and as we add things, these lower the activity. Water is the major component of life, so there is still residual activity needed to get the job done. If we remove the water, life ends, even if all the organic are protected in place.
The various differences within different cells, such as different organelles, proteins and structural compositions, will attract water and impact the local water in different ways. This allows local activity to be different from average global activity. This difference helps to organize the cell into priories, such as for the flow of materials. If we remove the water, this all stops.
There are other materials, such as ions in cells. Monopoles are not common to nature. Physics continues to look for monopoles. Ions tend to cluster as opposite charges; NaCl, instead of exist as isolated ions; only Na+ monopoles. But water sort of changes this, allowing solvation into monopoles, which then can impact the water, locally, altering the activity of the water near the ions that exist near specific proteins.
For example, ion pumps segregate sodium and potassium ions on each side of the membrane, with each ion causing a different impact in water. As new protein are added, they align with the water free energy gradient. Each ion changes the free energy of the water, allowing the outside of the cell to behave differently from the inside. If we remove the water this ends. The organics are very dependent on water, while water adapts to any organic or ionic state, you can dish out. The hydrogen bonding matrix will find a sweet spot.
Again if we remove the water, all this is moot. The organics will lose their dynamics and then the cell will lose its life. If we add water back, each different thing will come back and the same priorities will appear again. Each alters the hydrogen bonding matrix of water and water will always find the same sweet spot when it returns to help.
Things like cell cycles, where cells divide into daughter cells, are driven by shifts in the various organics materials and their concentrations, which in turn, stem from the real time activity of the water. The changes impact the activity and gradients, due to the new materials and configurations. If we remove the water at any point in the cell cycle, it is all dead in the water, so to speak. The cell cycle needs the water to quickly adapt and then micromanage the changes in compositions, configurations, and activity in a dynamic parallel. If we added alcohol to the water, this alters the water potential and all bets are off.
Evolution was driven by the needs of water, since all change would be dead in the water, without water. The idea of random change on the DNA makes no sense, since all change will impact the water and the water will become altered for all the rest of the organics, including the DNA.
A better model is based on the wild cards that enter a cell from the outside, which the cells has less control over There are transport protein frequencies and budding into cells for bulk material transport. These dynamics wild cards alter the activity of water and then the conformational grid all the way to the DNA. If this alters the water potential, on certain genes, they may need to lower or increase free energy to maintain equilibrium. Again if we take away the water, this is all inert and lifeless.
-
Think logically. If DNA does not work without water, and no other solvent can be used as a substitute, why do textbooks still insist that the DNA be shown in its dehydrated form, while also describing this as the template material? This is alternate theory and not fact.
I assume this is the kind of diagram you are talking about? https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA#/media/File:DNA_chemical_structure.svg
It's not an alternative theory. It's a simplification to make it easier to understand. Sticking a bunch of H2O molecules on that diagram wouldn't really add anything. One could just as easily argue that the diagram is inaccurate because it's a two-dimensional drawing and thus doesn't show DNA's true shape, or that molecules aren't actually a bunch of letters connected by lines. It's not like that matters, because biochemists already know that DNA is suspended in water in cells. It's not exactly a secret.
-
If DNA does not work without water, and no other solvent can be used as a substitute, why do textbooks still insist that the DNA be shown in its dehydrated form
They don't.
The dehydrated form is different.
They just don't bother showing the water because everyone knows that it is there, and it clutters the picture.
You may notice that chemists are even lazier; we often don't bother to draw hydrogens in molecules.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraffin_wax#/media/File:Hentriacontane.svg
They are taken as read by the experienced users.
The Covid 19 virus would not be a problem without water,
Well, yes.
Obviously.
Because people are mainly water, and covid is only a problem if it in people.
Did you somehow think that was some mystical hidden truth?
-
Evolution was driven by the needs of water,
Water has no "needs".
-
Hiya @puppypower
😊
Are You complaining that the Artists are drawing a Dolphin but not the Sea that it lives in?
🐬
Is this a classical case of defining a " Fish " but out of the Water?
🤔
I Do get Your point thou...Water is Life!
👍
Elixir!
P.S. - I really Like your Nickname.
😇
-
Think logically. If DNA does not work without water, and no other solvent can be used as a substitute, why do textbooks still insist that the DNA be shown in its dehydrated form, while also describing this as the template material? This is alternate theory and not fact.
I assume this is the kind of diagram you are talking about? https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA#/media/File:DNA_chemical_structure.svg
It's not an alternative theory. It's a simplification to make it easier to understand. Sticking a bunch of H2O molecules on that diagram wouldn't really add anything. One could just as easily argue that the diagram is inaccurate because it's a two-dimensional drawing and thus doesn't show DNA's true shape, or that molecules aren't actually a bunch of letters connected by lines. It's not like that matters, because biochemists already know that DNA is suspended in water in cells. It's not exactly a secret.
The analogy would be like showing only the reactive site of an enzyme, and ignoring the rest of the enzyme, to simplify the drawing. This would create the impression the rest of the enzyme is there for decoration and can be ignored. In reality, the rest of the enzyme plays a critical integrated part in the enzymatic affect, which would not occur without it. The same is true of DNA and water.
A better way would be to show naked DNA, side-by-side with DNA with a semi-transparent halo of water, so the DNA is still easy to to see. Next you tell the student only the picture with the water works, and other is half baked and can do nothing. This would stimulate thinking. I would ask myself ,what is water actually doing to change the game? This type of question is not being stimulated by the modem teaching methods. Not a single person sees any reason to explore the reason naked DNA needs water to do everything it does. We know water is there and DNA can do nothing without water, but water can be ignored. This is bad education for robot students.
If DNA does not work without water, and no other solvent can be used as a substitute, why do textbooks still insist that the DNA be shown in its dehydrated form
They don't.
The dehydrated form is different.
They just don't bother showing the water because everyone knows that it is there, and it clutters the picture.
You may notice that chemists are even lazier; we often don't bother to draw hydrogens in molecules.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraffin_wax#/media/File:Hentriacontane.svg
They are taken as read by the experienced users.
Chemists also know that different chemical reactions do better in different solvents, as well as with the additions of acids and bases. Simply changes like the solvent or to the solvent can make all the difference, including targeted differences. This can get very complicated but that is the topic I am trying to simplify for life.
The Covid 19 virus would not be a problem without water,
Well, yes.
Obviously.
Because people are mainly water, and covid is only a problem if it in people.
Did you somehow think that was some mystical hidden truth?
Water is needed to make all active material in cells work, including virus like Covid. Modifying the water around vulnerable cells, with chemical additions to the water, can alter the equilibrium for covid's configuration and reactions. One can reverse engineer medicine based on any of the critical points where water helps covid enter cells and propagate.
The value of this is, water is one simple thing that can reflect at any level; local or bulk, any and all organic and ionic equilibria, no matter how complex. One can simulate life, using just water without all the organic clutter since any level of the organic clutter is reflected in the water. We only have to get past the poor educational systemic bias.
Last year when Covid first appeared on the scene, I started a parallel water analysis, to show that all the medical conditions of the most vulnerable people were consistent with a single equilibrium water analysis. This same analysis could have also put a muzzle on the bogey man affect that was encouraged by the casino approach. The young people were never consistent with the needed equilibria at the level of water. It is not coincidence that politics also uses the casino approach. It was painful watching the blind leading blind, waiting for their oracles to give advice.
-
Are You complaining that the Artists are drawing a Dolphin but not the Sea that it lives in?
That seems to sum up the problem nicely.
-
Chemists also know that different chemical reactions do better in different solvents
And, since we know, we don't need to be told about it.
In particular we know that the only solvent in which life (on Earth) works is water.
So there really is no need to keep mentioning it, is there?
-
, I started a parallel water analysis,
What did you actually do?
-
The analogy would be like showing only the reactive site of an enzyme, and ignoring the rest of the enzyme, to simplify the drawing.
Depending on what is being taught at that moment, that could be a perfectly acceptable thing to do.
This would create the impression the rest of the enzyme is there for decoration and can be ignored. In reality, the rest of the enzyme plays a critical integrated part in the enzymatic affect, which would not occur without it. The same is true of DNA and water.
No, it wouldn't. If you are going to go down that track, then you might as well argue that showing DNA without showing the histones, enzymes and everything else in the cell gives the impression that DNA works all by itself without any of the other cellular machinery required. It's extraordinarily nit-picky and pointless. Anyone who actually becomes a biologist will know that DNA is in water.
-
The analogy would be like showing only the reactive site of an enzyme, and ignoring the rest of the enzyme, to simplify the drawing.
Depending on what is being taught at that moment, that could be a perfectly acceptable thing to do.
This would create the impression the rest of the enzyme is there for decoration and can be ignored. In reality, the rest of the enzyme plays a critical integrated part in the enzymatic affect, which would not occur without it. The same is true of DNA and water.
No, it wouldn't. If you are going to go down that track, then you might as well argue that showing DNA without showing the histones, enzymes and everything else in the cell gives the impression that DNA works all by itself without any of the other cellular machinery required. It's extraordinarily nit-picky and pointless. Anyone who actually becomes a biologist will know that DNA is in water.
There is a difference between pure and applied science. Showing just the reactive site of an enzyme or the dehydrated state of the DNA, may be useful and even practical for applied science. The rest you can black box with statistics.
Pure science is not allowed this practical short cut. The fact that water is critical to all aspects of life down to enzymes and below is pure. The odds are 1.0. Statistics is useful to applied science, because it can ignore what is pure in favor of what is probable. If this makes money, why not do it?
If you take a pure approach, there is another way to do bio-physical chemistry, that is far more rational and it centers on water. There is no black box needed. I am taking a pure approach to the DNA, so I cannot ignore the one variable that makes the DNA and all its support enzymes and chemistry, alive. You all have been taught to ignore this, as everyone is demonstrating, since pure science is not critical to manufacturing drugs. However, once the pure science approach is made clear, there will be a new set of protocols that will be more efficient.
Let me start at the beginning. If we react oxygen and hydrogen gases, we get one of the hottest flames, with the result being the production of water molecules. Water molecules are very stable being the product of this fiery reaction.
If we place water molecules together, in the liquid state, these very stable molecules become a very dynamic matrix that can self ionize; pH affect. This paradox of self ionizing dynamics coming from extreme stability, is partially due to oxygen being very electronegative. Oxygen is able to hold more electrons than it has positive charges. Charge balance is not important to the oxygen atom, since it can form O-2 quite easily. This is very stable in mineral oxides.
The reason this occurs is the EM force, in general, is both electrostatic and magnetic. In oxygen, the magnetic attraction of its octet of elections, around the oxygen nucleus, is able to offset the electrostatic repulsion so two extra electrons are stable. The oxygen atom is magnetic heavy in terms of the EM force. The advantage of this is, in the liquid state, oxygen does not need the positive charge of the hydrogen proton to balance the local charge, since it can do this by itself with its orbital induced magnetic force. This allows the hydrogen more flexibility and mobility in the liquid matrix.
Although water is a poor conductor of electricity, due to oxygen, the hydrogen proton becomes quite mobile, The hydrogen proton and is the fastest ion or entity dissolved in water, able to beat even sodium and potassium ions in any race, in water. When nerve impulses move sodium and potassium ions around, hydrogen gets there first, but never get credit. This is placed in the black box of applied science. However, It prepares the way, conducting information. It is easier to keep track of the sodium ions so this is the way used by applied science. This is not pure so I cannot just stop there.
-
You are still being nitpicky. Do you honestly think that lack of water molecules on a diagram of DNA is a genuine science problem? Please explain how that has caused observable problems in science.
-
Do you honestly think that lack of water molecules on a diagram of DNA is a genuine science problem? Please explain how that has caused observable problems in science.
Getting the right level of hydration was critical in Franklin & Gosling getting the famous photo 51, which first revealed DNA's spiral structure.
- At different hydration levels, DNA forms different structures
- But ever since then, the presence of the right amount of water in a living cell was a given
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_models_of_DNA#DNA_structure_determination_using_molecular_modeling_and_DNA_X-ray_patterns
PS: I would be fascinated to see the structure of tardigrade DNA when in it's dehydrated state. Apparently, tardigrades can survive in "suspended animation" for years with only 1% of the normal amount of water in their cells.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrade#Physiology
-
You are still being nitpicky. Do you honestly think that lack of water molecules on a diagram of DNA is a genuine science problem? Please explain how that has caused observable problems in science.
I made a distinction between applied science and pure science. Applied science does not need to be pure to be practical and cost affective. Newtonian gravity is sufficient for a designing a pitching machine for baseball or cricket, even though relativity is a pure science way to describe the motion of the ball. No pitching machine business will waste their resources trying to be pure if semi-clean is good enough and cheaper.
The reason I would show DNA in both dehydrated and hydrated states, with a blue semi-transparent halo to represent the water that hydrates the DNA, side-by-side in textbooks, is to encourage the students to ask some questions. I can see these questions being a problem only if the teachers know current applied science simplifications, but are not knowledgable about of life in it's pure state with water. These questions are being discouraged because it was never taught. This has been taboo since the 1950's. It is time to change this.
I realize that having to express the DNA, with its hydrating water, although pure science, will be more cumbersome for applied science. However, that can be simplified. If water is needed for all the dynamic shapes and reactions in the cell, then water is like a halo reflection of the organics and their induced dynamics. A more advanced applied science approach could model cells using only the water side, as we now do with only the organic side. In each case, the other can be ignore, but implied. Water is one thing with various hats. Organic is very complex. Water simplifies modeling by orders of magnitude.
In a business sense, this will create an applied bio-market monopoly, since complexity of organic modeling, will become too cumbersome and slow. The new push will be to translate the organics into their water halo, to create the water equivalent of the same thing.
Quote from: Kryptid
Do you honestly think that lack of water molecules on a diagram of DNA is a genuine science problem? Please explain how that has caused observable problems in science.
Getting the right level of hydration was critical in Franklin & Gosling getting the famous photo 51, which first revealed DNA's spiral structure.
- At different hydration levels, DNA forms different structures
- But ever since then, the presence of the right amount of water in a living cell was a given
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_models_of_DNA#DNA_structure_determination_using_molecular_modeling_and_DNA_X-ray_patterns
PS: I would be fascinated to see the structure of tardigrade DNA when in it's dehydrated state. Apparently, tardigrades can survive in "suspended animation" for years with only 1% of the normal amount of water in their cells.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrade#Physiology
Suspended animation is not alive. However, this state of these integrated organics is capable of becoming fully hydrated and alive, when the correct amount of water is added. This may be a good test subject to define the water halo for preliminary applied water models; two distinct final states and some transitional states for the reflected model halo.
Back to the theoretical foundation.
Hydrogen bonding is not unique to water. For example, hydrogen chloride and ammonia can boht form hydrogen bonds. However, the hydrogen bonding in water is unique in the sense water molecules can form up to four hydrogen bonds with other water. This allows an expansive 3-D network of water held together by transient hydrogen bonds. The other example cannot polymerize to the same degree, such as through out an entire cell.
In a loose sense, water is like a cousin of carbon, both able to form four bonds allowing extended structuring. Carbon does this at the primary covalent bonding level, using electrons for binding, while water does this at the secondary bonding level using hydrogen protons to bind. While the pH affect of water shows water can also transition between primary and secondary bonding. There is a natural interface between water and carbon at the concentrations used by enzymes.
The hydrogen bonds show both polar and covalent bonding characteristics. Both are expressed in the pH affect. One water molecule will form a hydrogen bond with another water molecule. This often begins as a polar attraction between charges; hydrogen proton and oxygen electrons.
This brings the neighboring hydrogen proton close to the oxygen atom of the other water. As discussed before, oxygen is heavy on the magnetic side of the EM force, to maintain its extra electrons, beyond the positive charge of its nucleus. The hydrogen proton, being shared, can get wrapped up in the stabilizing magnetic field of the extra oxygen electrons. This transitions the polar hydrogen bond into the covalent aspect of a hydrogen bond. If it goes even further, the hydrogen proton will become covalently attached to the new oxygen. Oxygen is important to the hydrogen bond's full nature.
Water molecules in the liquid state have a very short life span; nanoseconds, before the protons switch partners; pH affect and others. This entire short lived water matrix, appears to be driven by the second law; the movement and switching of hydrogen protons. Life lower the entropy of pure water, using organics. This creates an entropic potential in the water, among other things. A potential is created, to increase entropy; complexity, elsewhere; evolution. Water does not change, so carbon has the burden to meets the needs of the second law.
-
Both are expressed in the pH affect.
Not really.
Rather than posting reams of obvious stuff (we know the water is there, and we know it behaves weirdly), perhaps you could actually answer this.
, I started a parallel water analysis,
What did you actually do?
-
This has been taboo since the 1950's.
You're going to need to back that up with evidence. I don't believe it.
Getting the right level of hydration was critical in Franklin & Gosling getting the famous photo 51, which first revealed DNA's spiral structure.
Depicting DNA with water molecules around it in books would not have helped with that.
-
Is this a "water is inherant to all life including aliens" post?
Water is very good as a refrigerant to the temperature we are used to, its latent heat is rather high, it is lighter in solid hexagonal form than its liquid meaning it floats at a pressure on a planet with gravity enough to hold an atmosphere meaning it floats rather than sinking, it has a humongous heat capacity to act as a buffer. Plus it seems to be fairly abundent.
-
Quote from: puppypower on Yesterday at 11:15:31
Both are expressed in the pH affect.
Not really.
Rather than posting reams of obvious stuff (we know the water is there, and we know it behaves weirdly), perhaps you could actually answer this.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/03/2021 12:33:19
Quote from: puppypower on 23/03/2021 11:09:14
, I started a parallel water analysis,
What did you actually do?
I am trying to show you and everyone, however, the discussion cannot yet get past the front door, to outside the box. The answer is outside the box. Normally I plow on, but this time I want to be slow and patient, since leaving the box, temporarily, is important.
Conceptually, the co-partner relationship between water and the organics of life allows you to model life from either side of the partnership, since each reflects the other, to create the potential between, needed for life. Other solvents do no reflect properly. In my opinion, a water side approach, although newer, is the smarter way to approach life, since it is chemically simpler, compared to having to account for all the organic diversity which seems to expand with each improvement in technology.
However, I do appreciate everyone who did and does it the hard way. The harder organic way was technically easier. It is technically easier to look at the large lumbetinh DNA, than look at dynamic water that exists around in situ DNA. What was learned both the DNA can used for a water refection translation. A direct water approach would be technically far more difficult to do. In situ water, in live cells, in not easy to analyze. I learned how to place the organics in the mirror, and see the needed water parallel. There are simple trends.
As evan_au mentioned, "tardigrades can survive in "suspended animation" for years with only 1% of the normal amount of water in their cells."
This is an example of all the organics in place, as shown in textbooks, with very little water beyond chemically bound water that will not centrifuge. In this example, we do not have to assume water since water is lacking. Are the tardigrades alive at this point? The answer is no. The conformations of its organic materials are not correct for life. Its enzymatic reactions are limited and/or stopped, while the integrated state called life, is not there. The layman looking at textbooks will assume this should be alive since the pros know better and draw it this way. Then again, water is harder to analyze than the organics so what is less certain is not included but lumped wth casino math.
If we add water, the inert pile of tardigrade power up, as the organic configurations reorientate, enzymes become active, and all the organelles begin to integrate. For some reason, I been being asked to belief there is nothing to see here, and ignoring the water is the path I need to take, so I can run with the herd. I saw through that magic trick long ago. Organic centric levitation is not possible, even if you think you see it.
I should be able to suggest experiments to prove this theory. I suggested powering up hibernating tardigrades, with water, a little at a time, to observe the power up priorities, until life resumes.
Is this a "water is inherant to all life including aliens" post?
Water is very good as a refrigerant to the temperature we are used to, its latent heat is rather high, it is lighter in solid hexagonal form than its liquid meaning it floats at a pressure on a planet with gravity enough to hold an atmosphere meaning it floats rather than sinking, it has a humongous heat capacity to act as a buffer. Plus it seems to be fairly abundant.
All speculation about alien life in water or any other solvent is speculation, since there is no hard evidence of any such life. The only hard evidence is connected to life on earth which uses water. When others propose other solvents for life, since DNA does not work in any of the proposed solvents, they will need to also supply, at the very least, an alternate template material. This is never done. This gets a pass, simply to appease benefactor for continued funding.
Life on earth has all the organic parts already done by nature. We only need to catalog these and try them in other solvents. For example, if we add isopropyl alcohol to the corona virus. they die. What type of protein and genetic alternatives would be needed to form virus in an alcohol planet? Science appears to pander to these speculations, with a dual standard based on the casino math jackpot mentality. Water leading life is doomed to alternate theory. Politics and science both use the same casino math. This is why we are stuck at the door to common sense. But I will wait for the casino to close, so I can hand out gambling addiction leaflets.
-
Rather than posting reams of obvious stuff (we know the water is there, and we know it behaves weirdly), perhaps you could actually answer this.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/03/2021 12:33:19
Quote from: puppypower on 23/03/2021 11:09:14
, I started a parallel water analysis,
What did you actually do?
-
One of the best simple tools, I noticed, for approaching life from the the water side, is the water and oil affect. If we mix water and oil and then agitate, we get an emulsion. If we let it settle, the water and oil will separate back into two layers. The agitation adds energy and work. When the agitation stops, the system will give off the artificially added energy, and spontaneously move back into the lower free energy of two separated layers. The emulsion is a high free energy state. Water has an internal free energy set point and will lead things back.
The hydrogen protons, in pure water, are not fixed in place, even though hydrogen protons are covalently bonded to oxygen with strong OH binds. The high electronegativity of oxygen; magnetic heavy, allows oxygen to stabilize extra two extra electrons, so the hydrogen protons can form higher levels of complexity, beyond only covalent bonded to oxygen; hydrogen bonding. This extra mobility of the hydrogen protons reflects states of higher entropy driven by the second law.
If we add organics to the water, this creates surface tension anywhere where the water and oil have any surface contact. If we agitate, this increases the surface area contact between water and oil and amplifies the surface tension.
The "tension" is implicit of the covalent side of polar-covalent nature of hydrogen bonding. The covalent character expands the hydrogen bonds to better align the covalent bonding orbitals with oxygen. The polar side of the hydrogen bond switch can get closer; has no tension.
The covalent aspect of hydrogen bonding increases election sharing; covalent sharing, with oxygen it but it reduces the mobility of the protons in the bulk matrix. Water's hydrogen proton entropy decreases as surface tension increases.
In the case of the emulsion, we added work and energy via agitation, to add free energy. This will reverse the second law for the hydrogen protons. The surface tension binds and immobilizes the hydrogen protons into covalent bonding. Once this energy input stops, water increases its hydrogen proton entropy, once again, by reducing the surface contact and surface tension. This excludes the oil, to form pure water, with less tension; hydrogen protons moves back to the polar side. The more pure water that can form; one single water phase, the larger the proton entropy increases via the 2nd law.
This is useful to life, since nearly all the organics of life create some level of surface tension in water. The water's hydrogen proton entropy needs, in turn, will push the organics into lumps, clumps and phases. We get membranes, organelles and other organic compartments within cells.
The hydrogen protons of pure water were made to move; 2nd law, and will do all types of things to the organics to satisfy the needs of the second law, including sending information via enhance directed mobility. Or if the organic is too stubborn, water will increase local entropy via enzyme catalysis.
It is not coincidence that the DNA is the most hydrated molecule in the cell; not a mono-polymer, since the DNA has four base monomers. This reflects very low surface tension at the top of the organic food chain. The base pairing occurs to shield the water from the reduced moieties on the bases. This was a goal from day one. This was not gambling, but a sure thing needed to satisfy the hydrogen proton's 2nd law needs in water. Life, thereafter, generated a lot of entropy increase.
The modern cell has lingering surface tension, due to the vast variety of organic, which the water tries to decrease, so it can increase hydrogen proton entropy. When lumping and clumping is not enough, other things begin to happen; chemical changes, all the way to the state we call life.
-
Rather than posting reams of obvious stuff (we know the water is there, and we know it behaves weirdly), perhaps you could actually answer this.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/03/2021 12:33:19
Quote from: puppypower on 23/03/2021 11:09:14
, I started a parallel water analysis,
What did you actually do?
-
Hiya PuppeyPowerz!
😊
Just based on your sheer Liking for
" WATER "
Here is a lil something U might enJoy reading.
👌
https://www.joiscientific.com/water-magic/
Okay then, guess i shall leave now...coz i do Not have anything else considerable to add to your OP.
🙋
P.S. - u r soo much persistent even wen ur a pup, heaven knows how sternly strong u'd be once u grow up.
🐶
Ok buhbyeez & Tc!
🦴
-
Rather than posting reams of obvious stuff (we know the water is there, and we know it behaves weirdly), perhaps you could actually answer this.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/03/2021 12:33:19
Quote from: puppypower on 23/03/2021 11:09:14
, I started a parallel water analysis,
What did you actually do?
It is not clear what you are asking. If you are asking what I have done, new, this will come after I build the needed foundation. If you cannot accept the foundation, it is moot after that. I am trying to make sure the foundation is very clear, first. This has huge free market potential.
Hiya PuppeyPowerz!
😊
Just based on your sheer Liking for
" WATER "
Here is a lil something U might enJoy reading.
👌
https://www.joiscientific.com/water-magic/
Okay then, guess i shall leave now...coz i do Not have anything else considerable to add to your OP.
🙋
P.S. - u r soo much persistent even wen ur a pup, heaven knows how sternly strong u'd be once u grow up.
🐶
Ok buhbyeez & Tc!
🦴
Thanks for the link. I will try to read it, but I had eye surgery yesterday and my eye is still adjusting. Writing is a little easier at this time.
Back to background
The water model for life began when I was a sophomore in college. It was the end of second semester organic chemistry, which was my favorite subject in college. We did some chapters on polymers; plastics, then on life molecules like protein and DNA. It was during that time I started to understand the importance of secondary bonding for the properties of bio materials. The author of the textbook, at the very end, made the point that hydrogen bonding was a key to life being a universal secondary bond in all the important materials. This stuck with me, but it was placed on the back burner for about ten years.
One day, at a time of leisure and a good job, I revisited this idea and started to self educate in biology, looking at the 3-D structures of biomaterials. I was a materials expert by education; metals, ceramics and polymers; secondary bonding, so this was down my alley.
I decided to develop a theory that one could model a cell using just the hydrogen bonding, since secondary bonding was the key to the properties of these materials. I developed a qualitative approach of high and low free energy, but this was hard to sell. It could explain all types of things in a simple way, but the traditions were carved in stone. I stopped again and did to revisit for another 10 years.
One day, after many new cycles of hope and disappointment, I came to the understanding that a even better way, that was easier to investigate and had more data, was to use the water as the antagonist to the organics. The hydrogen bonding approach was more consistent with the organic-centric approach and had been modeled as a reactive variable, but little data was available.
Water created a potential that gave me the energy needed to lead the organic secondary bonding such as via the water-oil affect. This was easier to develop than the hydrogen bonding analysis. When I read that the organics of life were dead without water, I knew I the leader variable, that could impose all the secondary bonding needed for life.
The problem had always been the lack of constructive feedback and having to assume the negativity meant I needed to start again. But eventually I realize that biology is linear memory science and not\conceptual and abstract science. In physics there is more openness to new ideas along as they don't challenge anything held dear. Chemistry is more settled science, so that area was good to have under my belt, to make sure I was on point.
-
Hydrogen bonding forms between the hydrogen and the nonbonding electron orbitals of highly electronegative atoms; like oxygen, nitrogen, chlorine, etc., This was always odd to me. The nonbonding electron orbitals, of say oxygen, were used to bond hydrogen via hydrogen bonding. Why are they called nonbonding?
The reason is the nomenclature was designed with primary covalent bonding in mind and not secondary bonding. The hydrogen bond is somewhat unique in hat it can turn the nonbonding into bonding orbitals, and convert bonding orbitals into nonbonding, at the level of covalent.
I have already discussed this as being connected to the magnetic heavy side of oxygen, which allows ten negative charges to balance eight positive charges. A charge in motion creates a magnetic field ,and the mobility of the electrons generate an offsetting magnetic attraction. As the hydrogen proton approaches the nonbonding orbitals, it can participate in the open side of the oxygen based magnetic field.
What is cool about this is hydrogen bonds can become cooperative, meaning they can cluster and enhance each other. A cooperative has the weird property of making the first bond broken of the cooperative, the strongest bond, no matter where you cut. This implies there is extended electron mobility so they all get stronger, loosely similar to resonance stabilization in benzene.
When the entropy of the hydrogen proton lowers to make a cooperative, the enhanced electron entropy can pick up the slack. Water via hydrogen binding has two ways for applying potential to organics. Along the DNA, enzymes disrupt cooperative hydrogen bonding with water, causing an large increase in hydrogen proton entropy. As the enzyme passes, the water goes back and resets the cooperative. We have cooperative electron and proton free energy helping the enzyme. If we remove the water the enzyme cannot make up the difference.
-
It is not clear what you are asking.
I suspect you are the only one who thinks that.
It really isn't difficult.
What did you actually do?
You say you "I started a parallel water analysis,"
Well, what analysis did you undertake and in what way was it "parallel"?
Did you actually start it?
Had someone actually done it before?
I suspect the answer is that you didn't really do anything; you didn't even bother to learn what is already known; you just wrote some nonsense on web pages.
But feel free to tell us all what you actually did.
-
I have already discussed this as being connected to the magnetic heavy side of oxygen,...
Which is still word salad.
-
Chemistry is more settled science, so that area was good to have under my belt,
You do not have chemistry under your belt.
-
I decided to develop a theory that one could model a cell using just the hydrogen bonding
That's not a theory, is it?
-
Is this a "water is inherant to all life including aliens" post?
Water is very good as a refrigerant to the temperature we are used to, its latent heat is rather high, it is lighter in solid hexagonal form than its liquid meaning it floats at a pressure on a planet with gravity enough to hold an atmosphere meaning it floats rather than sinking, it has a humongous heat capacity to act as a buffer. Plus it seems to be fairly abundant.
All speculation about alien life in water or any other solvent is speculation, since there is no hard evidence of any such life. The only hard evidence is connected to life on earth which uses water. When others propose other solvents for life, since DNA does not work in any of the proposed solvents, they will need to also supply, at the very least, an alternate template material. This is never done. This gets a pass, simply to appease benefactor for continued funding.
Life is more likely to use an alternate to DNA than use an alternate to water. Copper for blood, breathes chlorine, mostly made from silicon are all theories but water and its characteristics of ice density, latent heat, specific heat, triple point all point to it being water based.
Liquid is pretty much a necessity for life in my considered opinion , a solid is fixed and gas is too tempestuous.
-
I have already discussed this as being connected to the magnetic heavy side of oxygen,...
Which is still word salad.
Salad is good for you. The roughage helps with digestion. I try to be more descriptive than only using the jargon of the experts in the field. I am trying to teach first, and impress, last. I prefer to reach a wider audience, that includes layman. I am not trying to impress a niche audience.
Oxygen can hold two more electrons that it has nucleus protons. For this charge instability to remain stable, we need to include the offsetting magnetic fields from the two extra electrons, as they move about the oxygen nucleus, within the 3-D (Px,Py,Pz) magnetic fields set up by 2p-orbitals. Charge and electrostatic forces alone cannot explain how oxygen can do this. You need to factor in the extra magnetic force. I call it magnetic heavy. I thought that was a good memory peg. I am going to stick with it
It is not clear what you are asking.
I suspect you are the only one who thinks that.
It really isn't difficult.
What did you actually do?
You say you "I started a parallel water analysis,"
Well, what analysis did you undertake and in what way was it "parallel"?
Did you actually start it?
Had someone actually done it before?
I suspect the answer is that you didn't really do anything; you didn't even bother to learn what is already known; you just wrote some nonsense on web pages.
But feel free to tell us all what you actually did.
There is pure science and then there is applied science. Pure science needs resources or else nobody will accept it. Logic alone is never good enough. Seeing is believing. Applied science is different in that it only needs logic and ingenuity, which does not cost anything. Applied science may also require stepping outside the box, if one is looking for a free market niche. My newest approach is an applied science approach that needs some background, before its makes sense. The goal is to compete with applied casino science at a fraction of the waste and cost. Instead of complain about casino science, I want to give it a nice watch and retire it. Applied science often has propriety information. Pure science tends to be free, since it was paid for in advance, by benefactors who control it via bureaucracy. Free market is more open to utility.
Back to the Foundation Theory.
I would like to change direction and discuss osmosis, which is common to life, and has a connection to the hydrogen bonding of water. Osmosis occurs when two solutions of different concentrations, are separated by a semi-permeable membrane, that only allows water to freely pass in both directions. The membrane restricts movement, across the membrane, with respect to all dissolved solutes.
This scenario is common to cell membranes, which are very selective in terms of material transfer. However, water is able to freely move back and forth. The resultant osmotic affect is somewhat bizarre, in that a pressure head will develop, as shown below in the center pic, that appears to defy gravity. The forces at the membrane balance, but a gravity head is generated and although water can release the pressure head, it does not.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-WAO-DZ3kQDc/WI4P1yuIrAI/AAAAAAAAByw/C1SOQfMWb7QO0s7O3QZ0nnPP3pL71TA6gCLcB/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/%25289%2529.PNG)
One way to help understand; applied science, how this works, is to first look at the water-oil affect. In this case, water and oil will form surface tension, with a mathematical surface being a 2-D; flat or semi-curved structure. In the case of osmosis, water, alone, is allowed to become 3-D. The solute is forever restricted to the 2-D surface of the membrane. This extra z-dimension of the water generates the osmotic affect, for both the water and the solute. The z-dimension is not pure science, but a practical way for modeling purposes; computer simulation.
If we mixed a solution of pure water and a solution of salt water, without the membrane, both the water and the salt solution, by dissolving and mixing into each other, will interact in 3-D. In this case, we do not get any pressure head, on one side of the beaker and a negative pressure head on the other side. The two 3-D vectors cancel. But when only water can go 3-D, we end up with a single z-vector that has to do the job of both vectors. This allows nature to amplify the presence of the water. It also allows nature to develop a directed force vector using the water. This allows pressure to translate to free energy changes and vice versa. Life uses chemical and mechanical principles that feedback and balance each other.
Osmosis is a colligative property, meaning that osmosis is only dependent on the concentration of the solute but not on its chemical character. This tells us the osmotic affect is connected to entropy since enthalpy is connected to EM forces and the character of the solute. For example, if we mix nitric acid and water the solution will get hot, If we mix salt and water, the solution will get cold. If we use the same concentration of each, in two osmotic experiments, both will generate the same osmotic pressure since hot or cold; different EM force interactions, are not connected to the osmotic affect. The hot and cold is about enthalpy and internal energy, but not entropy.
There are four known colligative properties. Osmosis, boiling point; BP elevation; melting point; MP depression and vapor pressure lowering.. The common thread appears to be the entropy of water. In BP elevation, the elevated BP means the entropy of water is forced to remain lower than needed, by the solute, to boil normally. This elevates the BP. In MP depression, the entropy is forced to stay higher, by the solute, so it has to get colder to solidify. In VP lowering, the entropy is forced to stay lower then is normally needed to vaporize. Based on this pattern, one would expect entropy in water also explain osmosis. The question is higher or lower, since colligative properties can go both ways. This is how inference works and costs nothing to do. This is different from casino science, where you need a wad of cash to gamble.
The key to the nature of the water's up or down entropy change within osmosis, is pressure. In the third pic on the diagram, an applied downward force can inhibit further osmosis and even reverse it. Pressure can be used to inhibit and even reverse the entropy change. Pressure can tweak free energy up and down; mechanical and EM equilibria.
Relative to the binary polar-covalent nature of hydrogen bonding, pressure benefits the polar side of the binary, since polar hydrogen bonding benefits by the two charges getting as close as possible. The osmosis pressure is induced, because the entropy of the water is decreasing, as the entropy of the solute increases. The entropy drive of the solute, favors the covalent side of the hydrogen bonding binary.
This can be understood as a type of surface tension, at the level of individual molecules; hydration spheres. The osmotic pressure implies a push back, by the water, to maintain a better polar side hydrogen bonding equilibrium. At full osmotic pressure, no further covalent hydrogen bonding 2-D molecular surface tension can happen. The hydration spheres for any further solutes gets inhibited at a certain pressure. Logic allows one to see without a microscope. The pressure head reflects an entropic potential in the water, that tries to the counter the solute entropy increase, until a balance is reached between the two.
If you think about the cell, it is full of polymers, such as protein from amino acids. This final result for the living cells is connected to osmosis and colligative properties. If we polymerize amino acids into protein, the number of solute particles decreases. This can reduce the needed osmotic pressure, and thereby allow the more reactive polar side of the hydrogen bonding binary to be favored. Polymerization made the pre-cells more reactive, even before enzymes.
-
I am trying to teach first, and impress, last.
You are doing neither.
Try using the right words, rather than deliberately avoiding being clear.
-
Oxygen can hold two more electrons that it has nucleus protons. For this charge instability to remain stable, we need to include the offsetting magnetic fields from the two extra electrons, as they move about the oxygen nucleus, within the 3-D (Px,Py,Pz) magnetic fields set up by 2p-orbitals. Charge and electrostatic forces alone cannot explain how oxygen can do this. You need to factor in the extra magnetic force. I call it magnetic heavy. I thought that was a good memory peg. I am going to stick with it
The formation of the oxide ion has northing to do with magnetism.
You are talking bollocks.
-
Oxygen can hold two more electrons that it has nucleus protons. For this charge instability to remain stable, we need to include the offsetting magnetic fields from the two extra electrons, as they move about the oxygen nucleus, within the 3-D (Px,Py,Pz) magnetic fields set up by 2p-orbitals. Charge and electrostatic forces alone cannot explain how oxygen can do this. You need to factor in the extra magnetic force. I call it magnetic heavy. I thought that was a good memory peg. I am going to stick with it
The formation of the oxide ion has northing to do with magnetism.
You are talking bollocks.
The p-orbitals have lobes in the (x,y,z) directions, both plus and minus. See below;
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/PHJKiwT9IpXWL2TCz_A2OAYCNqkqfssUVjkZEw7_g66B362MsU261kp3lTP-R5drSq_TKhdCqDZvvJQNL_ixqABQgGWjYjscqCXEa53lgKZOF6sFKpc)
A charge in motion will create a magnetic field, while a magnetic field will follow the right hand rule, where the thumb, index finger and middle finger pointed in x,y,z directions, represent the current direction, magnetic field direction and the magnetic force that is created. I forget which finger is which.
In the case of the p-orbital geometry, all the magnetic forces of the right hand rule can complement each other in 3-D, via the six p-electrons electrons. This can bind the electrons, including the two extra electrons, with a strong additive magnetic force. We may not see the magnetic force since the cancelling magnetic waves are so efficient in 3-D.
If we had two wave generators, one at each end of a wave tank, with each 180 degrees out of phase with each other, the waves would cancel in the middle, even though the two wave generators are adding a lot of energy. The stillness of the middle tank, due to wave cancellation, will hide the dynamics of the two wave generators, and create a false negative that many appear that the generators are not even plugged in.
The fact that charge is out of balance, yet oxide is stable, implies it has to be magnetic to overcome electrostatic. There is no other explanation. The 3-D, 2-P orbital magnetic force addition of atoms like oxygen, chlorine, nitrogen are really powerful, making these very electronegative. They can all accommodate extra negative charge. Life uses these atoms for their 3-D wave tanks, with the hydrogen proton of hydrogen bonding, able to play in these 3-D wave tanks.
-
A charge in motion will create a magnetic field, while a magnetic field will follow the right hand rule, where the thumb, index finger and middle finger pointed in x,y,z directions, represent the current direction, magnetic field direction and the magnetic force that is created. I forget which finger is which.
In the case of the p-orbital geometry, all the magnetic forces of the right hand rule can complement each other in 3-D, via the six p-electrons electrons. This can bind the electrons, including the two extra electrons, with a strong additive magnetic force. We may not see the magnetic force since the cancelling magnetic waves are so efficient in 3-D.
It's still practically nothing to do with magnetism.
The fact that charge is out of balance, yet oxide is stable, implies it has to be magnetic to overcome electrostatic.
The "balance" that is needed is provided by the counter-ion.
For example, in calcium oxide there is a Ca++ ion to go with the O-- ion.
There is no other explanation.
Yes there is; and it's called science.
You should try finding out about it. Science is much more interesting than nonsense.
-
If we start with oxygen gas; oxygen atoms, and metallic calcium, both begin charge neutral. To form calcium oxide, the already neutral oxygen atoms needs to accept two electrons from the neutral Calcium atom, allowing both to become charge imbalanced. If all that was important was electrostatic charge neutrality, this reaction should not occur due to the created charge imbalance. What ends up happening is calcium will end up enriched in positive charge and the oxygen will end up electron enriched, relative to the originally two neutrally charged atoms. This reaction is very favorable and gives off a lot of energy.
The driving force is an electron in motion; electrons moving between the Calcium metal and oxygen atom, creates a magnetic field. In this case, there is better magnetic force addition for the two extra electrons of calcium, within the oxygen, than was originally within calcium.
Let us look at this from a basic Physics POV. If we had two wires, side-by-side, with electron currents in each wire, if the currents are in the same direction, the wires will repel, via the right hand rule. If the currents are moving in the opposite direction, they will attract each other, even though both are using moving negative charges with charge repulsion. The magnetic force can overcome electrostatic repulsion; See below;
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-4d0f086243ea9d575af8aed738770f09-c)
In the case Calcium metal, its two outer electrons are in the 4S orbital. 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 x,y, z directions, that all attract via the right hand rule as applied in 3-D. This is more stable, than the 4S orbital, and can extract calcium's electrons to create these two ions. The calcium ion stabilizes itself, by using its 4S orbitals, for some extra EM attraction, but all it can do is share, but never completely take the electrons back.
If you look at some solid state crystals of CaO, each Calcium+2 ion can become surrounded by six oxides ions. In this crystal grid, Calcium uses six oxides ions, to share two electrons. It uses the equivalent of 1/3 electron from six different oxides.
This is tells us this is not about charge, since 1/3 of a negative charge or 1/3 of an electron has never been found in particle accelerator physics. The electron always remains one thing; 1 minus charge, that cannot be reduced any more. However, since the EM force is one interchangeable unified force; charge and magnetism can become one thing, allowing a virtual 1/3 negative charge to be simulated by the magnetic fields. The sharing is timed averaged by the magnetic fields, to add up as a virtual third of an electron.
I have used the analogy of two wave generators in the opposite ends of a wave tank. If these wave generators are pumping out waves that are 180 degrees out of phase, the two wave generators will cancel each other, since the crests and troughs from one wave generator, will overlap the troughs and crests of the other. The center of the tank will be still and all the mechanical energy pumped into the tank, will be hidden in the wave addition stillness at the center of the tank. The stillness creates the illusion that there is no energy in the tank, due to wave cancellation. There is nothing to see, therefore it does not exist? Does it need to sing and dance to exist?
The hydrogen proton, via hydrogen bonding, can play in this hidden energy rich, yet calm looking wave tank of oxygen. If we placed a wooden board in the stillness of the wave tank, the solid wooden partition, can disrupt the wave cancelation in the liquid water tank. This will cause the hidden energy to reappear. It will look like opposite waves appearing on each side of the board; potential energy gradient will appear. The oxygen hides a huge source of hidden energy, and if fully tapped into, can lead to observed affects like the quantum tunneling of hydrogen proton pairs in water; two waves that become hidden, then reappear over there.
This last quantum tunneling analysis is speculation, but from a practical POV, this is theoretically possible. All our wave tank needs to retrieve the hidden energy is the correct partition. This extreme spectacular is not needed for life. Life can benefit by tiny amounts of hidden energy, bled off by the hydrogen protons; forms virtual hydrogen atoms (endothermic) from hydrogen protons, via a time shared virtual electron. Oxidation is always ready to take the energy back for a different boost; stillness returns.
I am trying to develop the water side of life, using accepted principles, without adding provocative things, but the physics of the EM force in atomic orbitals opens new doors.
-
Let me go back to osmosis and colligative properties. The four colligative properties only depend on the concentration of solute, but not the character of the solute. Each solute particle is treated the same no matter its size, surface charges, and internal characteristics.
Colligative properties do not discriminate against any solute, based on any of the superficial criteria normally used by science. Science likes to differentiate reality into its tiny differences, but the colligative properties integrate all this chemical cataloging diversity into a simple commonality. Each unit of solute, no matter whether it is negative, positive, neutral, large or small is treated the exact same way, no matter what its surface and inner workers may be. This is mystifying and right down my alley.
In terms of the four forces of nature, this above unity analysis suggest that the colligative properties and the osmosis appear to have more in common with gravity, than the other three forces. The black hole does not discriminate between any type of matter or any energy photon. The rest of the forces tend to discriminate and work only in certain situations. This inference also appears to be consistent with the osmotic pressure head, pushing upward against gravity. It can linger their as though levitating. The net effect uses gravity to help control the EM forces via pressure. This appears to demonstrate unified forces in action.
The electron remains a single particle, no matter how powerful the particle collider experiments are designed. The electron can be smashed, where all other common matter is broken down, but the electron remains one particle, with both negative charge and some mass. Since the electron remains one thing, that is forever unified, it seems likely the line between gravity and negative charge can be blurred by the electron.
If you look at the nature of colligative properties and its concentration dependency, all solute entities will become surrounded by hydrating water. However, some solute particles will get a larger hydration spheres, by being larger or having more charges. However, since the size and character of the solute is not important, the hydration sphere size and character is also not a critical parameter in osmosis. The molecular and ionic hydration sphere differences are not the basis for the unified response of colligative properties. The unified response is not connected to the 2-D affect of molecular and ionic surfaces; hydration, but is really connecter to the residual 3-D affect, associated with the open pure solvent; freely moving water.
The semi-permeable membrane results in only water having an extra dimension beyond the 2-D membrane interface between solute and water. That interface will discriminate. The 3-D nature of the free moving water, within in osmosis, has to work not only for itself, put also for the solute, to help optimize total system free energy.
Entropy is a state variable. Any given state matter will define a specific amount of entropy. Entropy is also a unifying variable, based on states of matter, which can be anything regardless of any superficial character. The electron is the main way entropic states are sustained in chemical matter.
Hydrogen bonding is a more of a specialty thing for states of life. But electrons are always involved in all states, such as metal and life. I can see the electrons bridging the gap between EM and Gravity to meets the needs of the second law, using the hydrogen proton, as a partition; virtual gravity.
Consider a salt tablet dropped into a glass of water. The salt will sink due to the gravity, weight and its higher density. 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. However, since entropy is a state variable, fully dissolved can be driven by the second law over time; absorbs more and more energy over time. The osmotic pressure head will not only cause the solute to rise against gravity on one side, but it will also cause some solute to lower downward, toward the earth, on the opposite side. This can also be done with fluctuations in the earth's local gravity. Life taps into these cool physics affects.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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 (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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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,
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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... :(
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Particle accelerator data has shown that electrons are fundamental particles, where mass and negative charge are integrated into a unified state; single particle state.
What is a "unified state" supposed to mean. Mass and charge are separate properties of an electron.
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.
Nice word salad.
Two characteristics of mass is mass takes up space and has inertia.
Wrong again, an electron is a point particle, it doesn't 'take up space' and it has mass.
The rest of your post is just more of the same; wrong, wronger and wrongest. Made up pseudoscience, nothing to see here...
-
I don't think anyone expected that,
They didn't set up the accelerators because they thought nothing would happen.
This unique difference between electrons and protons explains the uncertainty principle when applied to atoms.
No, it does not.
Among the things which makes that obvious is the fact that the principle applies to electrons and protons in the same way that it applies to atoms.
One thing that has always puzzled me is why is the electron always on the move, compared to the proton?
Both move, but one is about 2000 times heavier, so it obviously moves less.
mass takes up space
Not as far as we can tell in the case of the electron.
In terms of hydrogen bonding, the binary nature of hydrogen bonding; covalent and polar
It's not really binary.
You keep on calling mistakes "new connections"
Why do you do that?
-
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.
But it is true of the positron.
One thing that has always puzzled me is why is the electron always on the move, compared to the proton?
Because it has less mass.
-
Puppypower:
One thing that has always puzzled me is why is the electron always on the move, compared to the proton?
Kriptoid:
Because it has less mass
The sad part is an answer was given by two people but you will continue to be puzzled since you never learn anything new, you just make up new stuff.
-
Puppypower:
One thing that has always puzzled me is why is the electron always on the move, compared to the proton?
Kriptoid:
Because it has less mass
The sad part is an answer was given by two people but you will continue to be puzzled since you never learn anything new, you just make up new stuff.
As new data appears, like the electron being a single particle, and not two separate particles as was assumed for a century, the old answers no longer apply; apples and oranges. One needs to ask the same questions, but in the context of the latest understanding based on reproducible lab results. Equal and opposite no longer applies, since the electron is one particle and the proton is not. Reinventing the wheel is needed when the cart changes to this extent. The old assumptions of probability may have applied when the electron was two things, but it makes less sense as one unified thing with two complementary and interactive potentials. Now there is a logical explanation outside the casinos of science.
The question could be rephrased as why does the electron maintain it high velocity and inertia around a proton; energy level, while also taking up a lot of space; wave function? Why doesn't the orbit and space requirement decay over time; atomic collapse, since the proton is an easy slow target and there is EM potential that could be expressed? Matter and antimatter will do this.
An analogy is the moon orbiting the earth. The moon's inertia is such that its motion balances the force of gravity that lies between. We get an orbit. In the case of an electron in an atom, there is a perpetual minimum inertia, that does not get any lower, even with the EM force getting stronger with less distance. Even at absolute zero, when exothermic is favored, the EM cannot close the deal. Instead the high space requirement of the electron is perpetual and requires a constant inertia that is not being decreased by the EM force, beyond a certain level. This is a mass based glitch in the EM force due to the unified force of negative charge and mass.
This topic is water and life which is connected to hydrogen bonding. This is where the one particle electron and the multi-particle proton do their dance via a binary switch between two bonding styles; polar and covalent, with differing inertia and space requirements. This is critical to life since there is a difference in free energy between these two states, that can be expressed via changes in enthalpy, entropy and space requirement; energy, muscle and information.
My guess is the over reliance of biology and the life sciences on statistics, instead of logic, may be based on the classic assumption of the electron being two particles. Water can account for much of the decrepancy, while the unification of negative charge and mass can account for rest.
In science there are foundation premises on which theory is built. If the old foundation is not up to par, any theory built on that foundation does not have a good footing in reality. The current life sciences may have to be moved to alternate theory due to a poor and obsolete foundation. This assumes science come before politics and money. It is ironic that I am the one following the philosophy of science.
-
and not two separate particles as was assumed for a century,
When did anyone assume that?
-
An analogy is the moon orbiting the earth.
Yes, but it's a bad analogy.
A better analogy might be the Moon and the Earth both orbiting their common centre of gravity- though this does mean that the Moon moves more because it has less mass.
-
My guess is the over reliance of biology and the life sciences on statistics, instead of logic, may be based on the classic assumption of the electron being two particles.
Nobody ever made that assumption.
-
you just make up new stuff.
yep, and the "stuff" gets worse.
-
and not two separate particles as was assumed for a century,
When did anyone assume that?
Yes, I too want to know that.
Equal and opposite no longer applies, since the electron is one particle and the proton is not.
The proton isn't the opposite of the electron. The positron is.
-
My guess is the over reliance of biology and the life sciences on statistics, instead of logic, may be based on the classic assumption of the electron being two particles.
Nobody ever made that assumption.
and not two separate particles as was assumed for a century,
When did anyone assume that?
Yes, I too want to know that.
Equal and opposite no longer applies, since the electron is one particle and the proton is not.
The proton isn't the opposite of the electron. The positron is.
In our universe, the lions share of negative charge is connected to the electron, while the lions share of positive charge is connected to the proton. This is not to say that other ways are not possible. Antimatter is an example of an alternate way but this is a tiny percent of the universe.
In practical reality, we are not dealing with isolated positive and negative charges, but positive and negative charges contain within two very different configurations. The electron combines mass and negative charge into a single particle, while the proton combines mass and positive charge as several particles. Positive charge, in practical terms, is more pure than negative charge since the unification of mass and negative charge allows negative charge to be impacted and modified by its integrated mass. When pure positive charge interacts, with mass tainted negative charge, it will lead to some odd results in the EM force such as uncertainty.
An analogy is say we had two, two-man teams having a foot race. One team is tied together by opposite legs like in a three legged race; electron. While the other team can run as two separate people; proton.
The team tied together has to synchronize their motion perfectly or else they will cause a resistance to each other, that can cancel some forward progress. The two free person team does not have to coordinate or need to have the same running style, since each is not that overly dependent on the other. The slower of the two, on the free team, will not impact the faster. But electron team, but being two things tied together as one, can only be as fast as the slowest link and the fastest has to synchronize with the slower for the team to go faster. The mass of the universe has inertia, while the electron has to follow this lead to maximize the team.
The universal containment of charge, as protons and electrons creates two different charge containment scenarios, using what would otherwise be two equal and opposite charges. This results in some profound differences, due to their different styles of containment. This can explain things like the Uncertainty Principle and even the binary nature of the hydrogen bonding switch. The three legged electron has two of its four legs; so to speak, tied via a unique aspect of the unified force; mass/gravity/negative charge, that is not part of the standard model.
The standard model assumes both positive and negative charge, via the EM force, and not just negative charge, is the bridge to mass/gravity, via the electron. The charge anomaly is based on the universal containment as electrons and protons and the practical results that appear in physical reality; real instead of ideal. Real is based on a pure positive charge and tainted negative charge, caused by different containments.
The positron is also a single particle. This single particle containment scenario of positive charge and mass would create a tainted positive charge, that would be on the same page as the tainted negative charge of the electron. They will annihilate without uncertainty. They will not linger, forever, like the hydrogen atom.
-
In our universe, the lions share of negative charge is connected to the electron, while the lions share of positive charge is connected to the proton.
That doesn't change what I said. The proton is not the opposite of the electron. The positron is.
-
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:58:41
Quote from: puppypower on Yesterday at 12:11:57
My guess is the over reliance of biology and the life sciences on statistics, instead of logic, may be based on the classic assumption of the electron being two particles.
Nobody ever made that assumption
You quoted me pointing out that you said something silly.
But you didn't address the problem.
How did you come to the idea that anyone assumed this... "As new data appears, like the electron being a single particle, and not two separate particles as was assumed for a century,
Why do you believe that nonsense about anyone thinking an electron was two particles?
-
Positive charge, in practical terms, is more pure than negative charge since the unification of mass and negative charge allows negative charge to be impacted and modified by its integrated mass. When pure positive charge interacts, with mass tainted negative charge, it will lead to some odd results in the EM force such as uncertainty.
Why do you make up goofy crap and then present it as if it was true? You are probably the most prolific purveyor of pseudo science on this site; it seems no matter what the subject, you are willing to make up some illogical junk to add to the discussion. You must be so proud[shrug].
-
Why do you make up goofy crap and then present it as if it was true?
I assume he doesn't understand that he is wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
It's very hard to do anything about it.
-
The bottom line is an electron has mass and negative charge, yet it is only one particle, based on particle collider experiments. This paradox tells me there is a unified force connection between the mass and negative charge within the single particle electron. This means mass/gravity and negative charge and EM force have an intimate connection, via the electron, that is interchangeable; unified forces. This flexibility should allow different states of an electron, without altering it as a single particle. When I said that negative charge was tainted, it was simply saying the equilibrium of mass and negative charge can shift depending on the circumstances.
The analogy is the EM force. At one time, the electrostatic and magnetic forces were treated as two separate forces. We now know these are two sides of a single force. We also know that the ratio of charge to magnetism can change and it will still be called the EM force, since these two forces are part of one unified thing. The real problem of accepting unified force with the election, appears to be the implications; this changes everything.
The extra mobility of the electron, compared to the proton, is connected to mass differences. The proton is heavier and slower. However, this perpetual difference in mobility allows the electron to amplify its magnetic force compared to the proton. A charge in motion will create a stronger magnetic field, that increases with velocity.
If we compare the EM force of the hydrogen proton to the electron, the electron has more EM force potential, due to negative charge being attached to mass that is lighter and faster. The EM forces are not equal and balanced for the electron and proton. This is due to the mass difference; smaller for electron, amplifying the magnetism of the negative charge via higher mass velocity. The proton may have the same kinetic energy, but this translates to lower EM energy. The electron has to use extra orbital space and the Pauli Exclusion Principle, to use up its extra mass based EM potential. This allows atom building.
The positron can mimic the electron, in terms of the same velocity and EM force induction; equal and opposite. The different in the EM force between the proton and positron is not a charge based affect, but rather it is connected to the containment style of the charge. The proton containment of positive charge will create different EM forces, than electron containment for negative charge or positron containment for positive charge. I was/am an applied scientist and notice these practical differences. This is how the next widget appears.
Relative to water, water expands when it freezes. Water takes up more space as it gets colder than 4C, especially at the freezing point. Why would the electrons take up more space; 10% more, when freezing makes things colder and thereby takes away energy? It would be like a hydrogen atom expanding, after giving off energy and going into a lower energy level.
Matter takes up space. This means when water freezes, we have a different state of matter with a larger space requirement, using the exact same electrons and protons. In this case, the change is connected to the hydrogen bonding electrons and protons going from polar to covalent. This shifts the EM equilibrium to where charge potential means less, than magnetism. Higher mass inertia is used to create extra stability via better and stronger magnetic addition. More space becomes exothermic via the EM advantage.
If we look at mass and gravity, more space lowers mass density. The increases gravitational potential and lowers GR affects. If the entire earth was a ball of water and it froze it would get larger against the force of gravity. The mass of the water electrons will see a potential increase. This is a very integrated affect that only happens with water and the element Antimony.
When we melt ice, the water will contract and the space requirement will be less. The mass inertia of the electron gets less; less gravitational potential, allowing the magnetic ratio of the EM force to become less. This is endothermic due to the loss of covalent magnetic addition. The electrostatic side of the EM force become more important; polar hydrogen bonding. The switch in equilibrium is based on changes in integrated mass inertia and negative charge mediated via the magnetic force to change ratio and changes in gravitational potential.
-
This paradox
It is not a paradox.
Why don't you respond to the points which people have already made, rather than posting more tripe?
Why do you believe that nonsense about anyone thinking an electron was two particles?
-
This is a very integrated affect that only happens with water and the element Antimony.
And germanium .
And gallium and... probably a few other things.
Why do you put so much effort into things that are clearly wrong?
-
The reason why I assume the standard theory still assumes the electron was/is two particles is because nobody made the connection that mass/gravity and negative charge were fully integrated within the electron, because the electron is only one particle.
If the mass and negative charge of the electron had been assumed to be fully integrated, gravity would have already been integrate with the other three forces via the negative charge of the electron. That simple connection was not made, since everyone still expects positive and negative charge to act the same. Words and actions do not add up.
Positive and negative charge can and do act the same; equal and opposite, under some circumstances, like positron and electron. But nature and practical reality, early in the BB, segregated the two charges, via two different and dominant styles of containment; proton and electron. This is the preponderance of the universe; real instead of ideal and rule instead of exception. As the rule, only the electron is fully integrating charge; negative, and mass as one particle. I have been showing you how this one particle with mass and negative charge works in hydrogen bonding to show this integration is real.
Hydrogen bonding is done with hydrogen protons, which are the fundamental containment of positive charge in our universe, interacting with electrons; negative charge unified to mass. Life occurs at the foundation of this containment difference. Properties of mass, such as inertia and space are expressed through the electron, via the binary switch of polar and covalent hydrogen bonding. The mass inertia will alter the magnetic component of the EM force within the electron, differently from the hydrogen proton, due to the different containment styles. The hydrogen bond can switch settings and thereby be used to transfer information, free energy and muscle.
-
The reason why I assume the standard theory still assumes the electron was/is two particles is because nobody made the connection that mass/gravity and negative charge were fully integrated within the electron, because the electron is only one particle.
Stop posting word salad and answer the point.
How did you think that the electron was considered to be two particles when absolutely nobody and nothing said that it was?
Your nonsense about negative charge is unhelpful because, as has been punted out, a positron has essentially the same properties except that it has a positive charge.
So we know that this
As the rule, only the electron is fully integrating charge;
is impossible- no matter how often you repeat or rewrite it.
-
Hydrogen bonding is done with hydrogen protons, which are the fundamental containment of positive charge in our universe, interacting with electrons;
Many materials, for example, ethane, have hydrogen in them but do not have hydrogen bonding.
In order to get hydrogen bonding you need another, different, atom- another nucleus- for example, you could choose ethanol as an example, where the presence of oxygen gives rise to hydrogen bonding.
You could also pick ethylamine as an example where the nitrogen atom is involved.
But the real system is more complex; if you move the oxygen to the middle of the molecule you get dimethyl ether which does not have hydrogen bonding.
On the other hand, if you move the nitrogen to the middle of the molecule, you get dimethylamine- which is still hydrogen bonded.
Real chemistry is much more complicated than you seem to understand, and it isn't ruled by the mumbo-jumbo you are talking.
-
protons, which are the fundamental containment of positive charge in our universe
Given that protons are not fundamental, this isn't true. You'd be better off talking about up quarks, which are (as far as we know) fundamental.
-
I was educated as an applied scientist. Not all science can be applied, to create new products in tangible reality that can have wide spread use. For example, dark matter may be an important part of theoretical physics, but since it can't be isolated and manufactured in the lab, it can't be used in applied science to build a bridge. Applied science needs tangible things and not theoretical things. This is not to say that theoretical things are not important to science; placeholder for math.
Quarks are a tangible part of experimental science, but they have a very short self life. They are of interest to physicists, but, when isolated by experiments, they don't have a long enough duration in reality to be useful to applied science. We cannot yet generate the needed gravity to induce GR based time dilation persistency for permanent quarks configurations like protons. This is why I stick to protons and electrons that formed when gravity and GR was huge.
The proton and electron are very common, widely available, and very sturdy and persistent. These are not theoretical, or a by-product of experiments; cart leading the horse, but a persistent form of natural containment for positive and negative charge. This is cheap and available anywhere.
Positrons are natural and can form from energy or directly from matter, such as with beta decay. But since we live in a matter universe, these are not that useful to applied science except for new type of bombs or perhaps energy generation. For life and water protons and electrons are the best choice for cheap raw materials. Not everything is useful in specific application of applied science.
If we compare the proton to the electron, the proton is heavier and the positive charge is not a fully integrated part of the proton, since it can be isolated and shifted into other containment forms, such as into a positron; beta decay. The proton is a stable composite but it was not designed to be a single particle.
The electron is lighter and has more mobility than the proton. It cannot be broken down further. It is considered a single particle state with both mass and negative charge. It is like Joe the business owner and Joe the husband. It is one person with two roles, which may not always be easy to separate. He may boss around his wife or be too accommodating to salesmen. On other days, the line is more clear cut.
The electron will not be very useful for fusion reactions, since it is not a good building block for fusion, where quarks needs to move about and swap. It is better designed for working two jobs separately and combined, in community with other electrons. The proton, by not having its positive charge contained in a permanent way, is more flexible in terms of fusion, allowing the positive charge to be shared with the nuclear forces; weak and strong.
If we isolate a proton and an electron, both have a single charge, but their different natural containments styles impact the EM forces that each can and ill generate. The lighter electron is always in faster motion than the proton, except under high energy conditions; particle accelerators. At room temperature, the election generates a stronger magnetic component to the EM force of its negative charge, than proton does for its positive charge, by virtual of the higher average electron velocity. The charges may balanced, but the EM force is not balanced, at the conditions of life. This is the practical reality that I need to deal with, rather than try to force a square peg in a round hole.
In water, if we compare the oxygen nucleus with the hydrogen proton, the hydrogen protons of oxygen can share positive charge better, within the oxygen nucleus, compared to the isolated hydrogen proton. The nucleus protons of oxygen can share with the electrons via the EM force, but also with the neutrons and other protons within the nucleus. Nucleus sharing should increase the magnetic contribution of the positive charge, due to its enhanced mobility in its confined nuclear space, with the enhanced magnetic wave addition able to overcome some of the positive charge repulsion; Pauli exclusion principle. This will not match the electron, in terms of nucleus orbital arrangements, due to less EM force potential, but it will have an impact on how the electrons need to align. After helium, spherical orbitals alone do not optimize all the magnetic addition of higher atoms.
In the case of oxygen, the oxygen atom, as oxide, is able to hold two extra electrons compared to its nuclear protons. The enhanced magnetic fields of the electrons, compared to the protons and positive charge, need to lower EM potential by adding with each other, instead of with the protons, exclusively.
Hydrogen bonding will require these induced electrons share also with the lower positive charge magnetic component of hydrogen proton. This allows for a binary switch between the two states. Within the hydrogen bond, all the forces of nature are in balance, including the nuclear forces of the oxygen via its positive charge sharing.
In life, hydrogen protons are both reduced and oxidized. Reduced hydrogen such as with carbon contain more energy potential. These hydrogen are covalently bonded to carbon, but can share electron density via polar bonding; van der Waals, with other organics. The energy difference between these states is high, so this binary is not very useful expect for helping to trigger chemical reactions. The hydrogen proton, via hydrogen bonding has a better balance between polar and covalent bonding and can act as a switch. The difference has to due with the carbon and oxygen nucleus induction, with oxygen and hydrogen bonding more stable. Nitrogen is in the middle.
-
when isolated by experiments,
Quarks can't be isolated.
These are not theoretical
Nor are quarks.
but a persistent form of natural containment for positive and negative charge.
So are up and down quarks (when inside of protons)
Not everything is useful in specific application of applied science.
What does it matter whether it is "useful" or not? Reality doesn't care whether we find something useful.
-
This is why I stick to protons and electrons that formed when gravity and GR was huge.
GR has only been huge for about a hundred years.
Positrons are natural and can form from energy or directly from matter, such as with beta decay. But since we live in a matter universe, these are not that useful to applied science except for new type of bombs or perhaps energy generation
You might not be clever enough to find an application for them.
Others have.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission_tomography
. It is like Joe the business owner and Joe the husband. It is one person with two roles, which may not always be easy to separate.
It is more like Joe with the property of being 70Kg and Joe with the property of being 5' 6"
The mass and charge of an electron are properties, not roles.
The proton, by not having its positive charge contained in a permanent way,
The charge on a proton is fixed, not flexible.
If we isolate a proton and an electron, both have a single charge, but their different natural containments styles impact the EM forces that each can and ill generate. The lighter electron is always in faster motion than the proton, except under high energy conditions; particle accelerators. At room temperature, the election generates a stronger magnetic component to the EM force of its negative charge, than proton does for its positive charge, by virtual of the higher average electron velocity. The charges may balanced, but the EM force is not balanced, at the conditions of life. This is the practical reality that I need to deal with, rather than try to force a square peg in a round hole.
In water, if we compare the oxygen nucleus with the hydrogen proton, the hydrogen protons of oxygen can share positive charge better, within the oxygen nucleus, compared to the isolated hydrogen proton. The nucleus protons of oxygen can share with the electrons via the EM force, but also with the neutrons and other protons within the nucleus. Nucleus sharing should increase the magnetic contribution of the positive charge, due to its enhanced mobility in its confined nuclear space, with the enhanced magnetic wave addition able to overcome some of the positive charge repulsion; Pauli exclusion principle. This will not match the electron, in terms of nucleus orbital arrangements, due to less EM force potential, but it will have an impact on how the electrons need to align. After helium, spherical orbitals alone do not optimize all the magnetic addition of higher atoms.
In the case of oxygen, the oxygen atom, as oxide, is able to hold two extra electrons compared to its nuclear protons. The enhanced magnetic fields of the electrons, compared to the protons and positive charge, need to lower EM potential by adding with each other, instead of with the protons, exclusively.
Hydrogen bonding will require these induced electrons share also with the lower positive charge magnetic component of hydrogen proton. This allows for a binary switch between the two states. Within the hydrogen bond, all the forces of nature are in balance, including the nuclear forces of the oxygen via its positive charge sharing.
In life, hydrogen protons are both reduced and oxidized. Reduced hydrogen such as with carbon contain more energy potential. These hydrogen are covalently bonded to carbon, but can share electron density via polar bonding; van der Waals, with other organics. The energy difference between these states is high, so this binary is not very useful expect for helping to trigger chemical reactions. The hydrogen proton, via hydrogen bonding has a better balance between polar and covalent bonding and can act as a switch. The difference has to due with the carbon and oxygen nucleus induction, with oxygen and hydrogen bonding more stable. Nitrogen is in the middle.
Yadda yadda yadda- the usual meaningless word salad.
How did you think that the electron was considered to be two particles when absolutely nobody and nothing said that it was?
-
In life, hydrogen protons are both reduced and oxidized.
Oxidation is the process of removing electrons.
How do you remove electros from a proton?
It hasn't got any.
You should stop posting tosh.
I was educated as an applied scientist.
Is that a way to admit that you never had any education in anything deeper?
That would certainly explain a lot.
-
I would like to look at the water and oil affect, from the POV of the unification of mass and negative charge; electron. This water-oil affect is important to life, since water can force organics to interact via containment modules, held together by water and surface tension. This surface tension also has the secondary affect of adding free energy to the containment surface. Evolutionary change can occur much easier at the early stages of evolution.
If we mix water and oil and shake, we will form an emulsion. If we let it settle, the water and oil will separate into two layers. This is driven by water and hydrogen bonding. Surface contact between water and oil prevents water from forming optimized hydrogen bonding. Hydrogen bonding is a very strong secondary bonding force, stronger than the van der Waals forces that organic use for secondary bonding. Water leads the separation since it has more potential energy; surface tension, due to its hydrogen bonding.
Surface tension implies stretching; tensile strength, of bonds, thereby increasing the space requirement relative to pure water. Matter takes up space, while surface tension, causes the space requirement of the same matter, to increase. There is a mass connection.
If we ran this same water and oil experiment in zero gravity, after mixing surface tension will also appear, but the two liquids will not completely separate. Gravity lowers the space requirement to close the deal, while zero gravity allows for more space.
Part of the separation of water and oil is lowering surface tension and part is due to gravity lowering the space that can be occupied by the matter; electrons. In gravity, the water is denser and heavier than oil and it sinks allowing the water bubbles to combine. The oil floats as it separates and then combines. Gravity closes the deal in terms of minimizing electron space. This final space allotment has an impact on the final free energy within the electron's EM forces; different probability function.
If we look at a cell, the water and the organics do not all separate into two layers. Rather the water and organics remained under various levels of surface tension, all spread out at different levels; organelles. This reminds me of water and oil in zero gravity. The space allotment remains sort of high. The mass connection is being tweaked via the EM side of the electron unity and the mass potential helps with the enzymatic boost.
-
I would like to look at the water and oil affect, from the POV of the unification of mass and negative charge
Mass and negative charge are not unified.
You are still talking nonsense.
-
If we mix water and oil and shake, we will form an emulsion. If we let it settle, the water and oil will separate into two layers. This is driven by water and hydrogen bonding.
If you shake a hydrocarbon oil like cyclohexane with a perfluorocarbon oil, they will form an emulsion, and if you let that settle, the two layers will separate out.
But no hydrogen bonding will be present in either layer.
So, your "explanation" makes no sense.
-
I agree water is the most important and fundamental aspect of life and is a true miracle Puppy power tells it very well.
-
Puppy power tells it very well.
No.
He talks a lot of nonsense and says plenty of things that are clearly not true.
-
Sometimes people sound confused only due to the dilemma discovery. We make a discovery then try to dismantle it then it takes time to study and reassemble and make meaning of what we have. most of the time we can find the truth embedded within the confusion.
-
Sometimes people sound confused only due to the dilemma discovery. We make a discovery then try to dismantle it then it takes time to study and reassemble and make meaning of what we have. most of the time we can find the truth embedded within the confusion.
And sometimes people like PuppyPower just keep posting bull.
-
Sometimes people sound confused only due to the dilemma discovery. We make a discovery then try to dismantle it then it takes time to study and reassemble and make meaning of what we have. most of the time we can find the truth embedded within the confusion.
In short, you can dismiss what Poopy posts as utter nonsense.
-
I'm lost for words.
-
I'm lost for words.
It's a pity PuppyPower is seldom in that position.
I don't know why he hasn't been banned as a troll.
-
It's a pity PuppyPower is seldom in that position.
I don't know why he hasn't been banned as a troll.
I agree, he posts complete nonsense and does not even respond to questions or comments.
-
Have you come across Hamdani yusuf yet.
-
If we mix water and oil and shake, we will form an emulsion. If we let it settle, the water and oil will separate into two layers. This is driven by water and hydrogen bonding.
If you shake a hydrocarbon oil like cyclohexane with a perfluorocarbon oil, they will form an emulsion, and if you let that settle, the two layers will separate out.
But no hydrogen bonding will be present in either layer.
So, your "explanation" makes no sense.
Your problem is you have a chip on your shoulder, and did not even read what I said. Your first instinct is to criticize but never contribute.This topic is about water and life and the discussion you quoted; read the quote you chose, was about a water and oil emulsion. Due to your lingering grudge, you tripped out, and went in a different direction to criticize what was not even said. Your problem appears to be you cannot contribute to new theory discussions, nor have I ever seen you come up with any new theory of your own. Outside the box does not mean tripping out and critiquing what was not even written. Try to focus better.
In a water and oil emulsion, water self binds via the secondary bonding forces of hydrogen bonding. The oil can also self bind, through the secondary binding forces of van der Waals forces. Hydrogen bonding is the strongest of the two secondary bonding, and therefore contains more potential when it is disrupted by the emulsion. Hydrogen bonding will drive the reversal, with the van der Waals of the oil, taking advantage of the opportunistic situation that the water creates.
This drive by the water, via its hydrogen bonding, occurs throughout life. If we take away the water the organics are dead and do nothing. If we add any other solvent, we still do not get life and few if anything will work as designed.
The question is why is water so different? Water can form up to four symmetrical hydrogen bonds per molecules of water; two donors and two receivers. This can extrapolates into extended tertiary polymers of hydrogen bonded water. These can form cooperative hydrogen bonding which adds even more stability. This secondary and extended tertiary hydrogen bonding structure gives water the strongest push of all solvents, in terms of creating opportunity for the organics.
Ammonia can also form four hydrogen bonds; one donor and three receivers. However, the 3 to 1 asymmetry limits its extended tertiary structures. Ammonia cannot take hydrogen bonding as far as water. Water, via hydrogen bonding, sort of does with its tertiary structures, what carbon does with its primary bonding; extended polymer structures. In the case of life, organics react to the push of the water's extended hydrogen bonding, allowing them to become active.
Ammonia can't quite close that deal via tertisty structures. It remains somewhere between a aqueous and organic solvents; seondsry and tertiary, with the organics too loose to function as designed. They need the water's extra tertiary squeeze and its 3-D caging, that adds surface free energy for catalysis.
Hydrogen bonds also act as a binary switch as shown by the pH affect. The hydrogen bonds of water can go from a polar attraction between two water molecules, all the way to the same hydrogen proton becoming part of a new covalent bond. This range allows the transfer of information through a hydrogen bonding binary switch, with each setting on the switch having different muscle and free energy. There will be volume changes for muscle, between polar and covalent, as well as free energy changes via enthalpy and entropy. While the 3-D tertiary matrix of water is wired into all the organics as an integrating push tool.
I have tried to add the unified nature of the electron, where negative charge and mass are unified. This is inferred from particle collider data that shows that the negative charge of the electron is not a separate particle from its mass. They are unified. The proton and positive charge are not unified quite as deep and can be separated in particle accelerators. This unique situation is part of the hydrogen bonding phenomena.
In our natural reality on earth, positive charge can be attached to the proton and the position. Positrons can form from matter through beta decay. At ambient conditions we can witness two states of positive charge. Negative charge only has one state at ambient conditions. We can form a negative proton, but this is not natural to the surface of the earth. Positive charge has more flexibility.
-
Lots of silly words and yet, still...
your "explanation" makes no sense.