[larens (OP)]

 

, so I go ahead and produce a successful model.

It's not a success, because it requires the utterly implausible intervention (among other things) of titanocene dicarbonyl.

Because you are not a theoretician, you never get into exotic chemistry, e.g, intense radiolysis.

The solubility of calcium titanate is roughly zero.
You don't get a concentrated solution of it.

You are talking about solubility in water. For growing a large crystal a sparingly soluble solution is better for it blocks the variability of the sources. Calcium titanate is significantly soluble in calcite saturated ASF solution.

And yet  you say "

I go ahead and produce a successful model.

Whereas  a pessimist won't waste time on stuff that's impossible.
Who knows? They might actually achieve something instead of  cluttering bandwidth with impossible nonsense.

You are just proving again that you are not a creative, practical scientist.

How do you know it's successful if you haven't tested it?

I test it everyday by taking a missing piece of my analysis and finding a straightforward explanation for what that piece implies. That is what most theoretical scientists mean by testing. I would like some empirical scientists to test it but they won't without a grant. I do not have any money to pay them because I have spent my time working on my theory rather than on creating a funding account. It would be rather a failure of ethics to hold this against me.

Let's face it. Even in a simple thought experiment, it failed the test.
He still thinks it passed.

The only test that it failed was not getting you to read and analyze it seriously. I have been rebutting every technical detail you do casually throw out. It is not a valid test because you have shown that you are not a creative, practical scientist that would recognize a successful new theory if it bit you.

[Kryptid]

I test it everyday by taking a missing piece of my analysis and finding a straightforward explanation for what that piece implies.

That's not a scientific test. That's just adjusting your model.

It is not a valid test because you have shown that you are not a creative, practical scientist that would recognize a successful new theory if it bit you.

If a system like the one you described was built and it resulted in the creation of living organisms, I would call that successful. Before that, I wouldn't call it successful because you don't know if it would even work.

[larens (OP)]

I test it everyday by taking a missing piece of my analysis and finding a straightforward explanation for what that piece implies.

That's not a scientific test. That's just adjusting your model.

Testing and adjusting are not the same thing. If I can do an analysis on a new piece and get a satisfactory result, that is a positive test. If I go back and change an old piece, that is an adjustment. They both fall under the larger category of refinement and are usually done together.

It is not a valid test because you have shown that you are not a creative, practical scientist that would recognize a successful new theory if it bit you.

If a system like the one you described was built and it resulted in the creation of living organisms, I would call that successful. Before that, I wouldn't call it successful because you don't know if it would even work.

The model might be correct, but might be too large or take too long to do. For instance, to interpret the isotope record in meteorites I have to use a model of neutron star mergers. Nearest to the forming black hole their iron crusts undergo radical compression and heating. A typical overall reaction is 2Fe-56 -> Fe-60 + 2Al-26. These radioisotopes are ejected axially along magnetic field lines. The r-process (rapid neutron capture) isotopes with A<140 are mainly ejected from midlatitudes. The heavy isotopes with A>140 are mainly ejected at equatorial latitudes. When all these isotopes reach the Solar nebula they are absorbed onto small particles. This is what fits the data for a gamma ray burst pointed directly at the Solar system. Since the main belt asteroids have yet to form, the Al-26 and Fe-60 get mixed into them causing them to melt and form iron-nickel cores. After they cool Jupiter moves causing the asteroids to collide with one another and be ground down into meteorites, which provide phosphorous in a useful form for early life. This extends over millions of years. No one expects anyone to do physical experiments in this case, They use computers and in the case of the neutron star mergers supercomputers.

Most of the parameters that go into the models have been determined by physical experiment. For instance, NASA has done physical collision experiments with iron-nickel meteorites to determine their ductility at different temperatures for the grinding process. As for the origin of life many of the processes need to be verified in laboratory experiments. One cannot do the overall experiment, however, because life developed over millions of years.

[Bored chemist]

Calcium titanate is significantly soluble in calcite saturated ASF solution.

https://xkcd.com/285/

[larens (OP)]

Calcium titanate is significantly soluble in calcite saturated ASF solution.

https://xkcd.com/285/

I do not have a citation because no one has measured it. The theoretical argument is based on activities. First formamide is more polar than water raising solubility modestly. Ammonia greatly reduces the activity of carbonate. This greatly raises the activity of calcium. This greatly increases the potential of calcium titanate compared to rutile. The calcium titanate dissolves because it is the polar form. The "significant" concentration is quite small. The growth rate to grow large polar crystals is only on the order of one micron per year. This puts the solubility of rutile in water below the normal range of measurability. The solubility increases with basicity, which removes the proton from ammonium.

[Bored chemist]

Ammonium greatly reduces the activity of carbonate. This greatly raises the activity of calcium.

Wel... sort of.
Excess ammonium sulphate will tend to displace CO2 from calcite- which is a pity since you were hoping to use calcite fro things.
It will convert it into a different rock- gypsum. (And ammonium carbonate- which is volatile).
That's actually quite soluble as rocks go. (about 2 grams per litre in water).

Even that fairly low concentration of calcium would be enough to reduce the solubility of calcium titanate - by the law of mass action.

So the science says that if there's calcite and ammonium sulphate present, the solubility of calcium titanate is likely to be reduced.

[Kryptid]

If I can do an analysis on a new piece and get a satisfactory result, that is a positive test.

How can you know that the result is satisfactory if you don't know that your set-up can give rise to life?

[larens (OP)]

Ammonium greatly reduces the activity of carbonate. This greatly raises the activity of calcium.

Wel... sort of.
Excess ammonium sulphate will tend to displace CO2 from calcite- which is a pity since you were hoping to use calcite fro things.

No, this property is necessary. The amount of ammonium sulfate is regulated by the organic barrier between its source and the calcite. The calcite has to be etched for the nickel contact of the photovoltaic cell to be formed. Later during stepping (to raise the top of the crystal above the layer of dust) or reproduction the crystal has to be cut in two. This would be impossible if it were not for its high solubility in ASF solution.

So the science says that if there's calcite and ammonium sulphate present, the solubility of calcium titanate is likely to be reduced.

To achieve an optimum rate of crystal growth the organic barrier has to regulate the concentration of calcium and the pH.

[larens (OP)]

If I can do an analysis on a new piece and get a satisfactory result, that is a positive test.

How can you know that the result is satisfactory if you don't know that your set-up can give rise to life?

Since my goal is to model the origin of life, a satisfactory result is one that is compatible with that goal. Without a goal satisfaction and positive test would be undefined. Why do you have such difficulty with basis scientific philosophy and logic?

[Bored chemist]

Ammonium sulphate will destroy metallic nickel.

[larens (OP)]

Ammonium sulphate will destroy metallic nickel.

What you are saying is that ammonium sulfate's complexing ability is great enough to dissolve metallic nickel. This is fine. It makes possible the non-electrochemical deposition of nickel metal. The system has a high hydrogen fugacity from the serpentinization of mafic minerals. (This can be many atmospheres without forming a gas phase, because of the small capillaries of the protobiological region, their relatively high tensile strength, and the great height of the volcanic standpipe.)  Activity is not linear at these high concentrations. The high concentration of calcium cations in calcite saturated ASF solution competes with nickel cations moving the equilibrium toward nickel metal.

[Bored chemist]

No. What I am saying is

Ammonium sulphate will destroy metallic nickel.

You can tell, because that's what I actually said.
It's the acidity which does it.
The complexing ability of ammonium sulphate- on which you seem to be depending- is nil (unlike that of ammonia).

[larens (OP)]

No. What I am saying is

Ammonium sulphate will destroy metallic nickel.

You can tell, because that's what I actually said.
It's the acidity which does it.
The complexing ability of ammonium sulphate- on which you seem to be depending- is nil (unlike that of ammonia).

With equilibrium all reactions are relevant at some level so different interpretations are possible. When I realized your different interpretation I edited my explanation. Both rutile solubility and nickel deposition are favored by basicity. If the optimum pH is too different in the separate compartments of the two reactions, there has to some regulation by the organic material separating them. This illustrates the difficulty of dealing with the chemistry of the origin of life. There is increasing regulation with time and one has to show that any particular regulation has been made possible by previously developed ones.

[Bored chemist]

there has to some regulation by the organic material separating them.

So, "magic" then...

[larens (OP)]

there has to some regulation by the organic material separating them.

So, "magic" then...

Only if you consider life "magic" rather than a result of natural processes.

[Bored chemist]

Only if you consider life "magic" rather than a result of natural processes.

Life before there was life is magic.

[Kryptid]

Since my goal is to model the origin of life, a satisfactory result is one that is compatible with that goal.

You don't know that it's compatible.

[larens (OP)]

Since my goal is to model the origin of life, a satisfactory result is one that is compatible with that goal.

You don't know that it's compatible.

In making a test one can only consider compatibility within the limited domain of the test. Otherwise one cannot proceed from one positive test to another and build a model. At the very end one may find there is a better explanation than the one that was being tested. In that case making the test was a necessary stepping stone to knowledge. It was close enough to support further progress and refinement of the model. If I used your philosophy, all I could do at the beginning was to wail, "I can't proceed! I don't have the final results!"

[Kryptid]

If I used your philosophy, all I could do at the beginning was to wail, "I can't proceed! I don't have the final results!"

That's a straw-man. I never said you couldn't proceed. By all means, proceed and do tests. That wasn't my contention. My contention is with you calling it "successful".

[larens (OP)]

Only if you consider life "magic" rather than a result of natural processes.

Life before there was life is magic.

Before the arbitrary boundary defining where "life" starts, abiotic processes were preparing the road. Consider that the entire Solar system was set up to be a place for life to originate. The originating body Ushas ("Dawn" in Sanskrit) needed twelve guardians in the Solar system. Life needed six main elements H, C, N, O, P, and S. H is the ubiquitous univalent atom that defines the boundary of molecules. It just required a distant supernova to keep Ushas warm so that she could have water.

* Vesta (Keeper of the Hearth) attracted the necessary resources for Ushas.

* Earth provided a place for Ushas's offspring to live.

* Uranus and Neptune dispersed the covalent elements C, N, O, and S to Vesta once they had been bound into dust and stored at 9 AU. Dispersing agents come in pairs, one to do the dispersal and one to usher the disperser away.

* Jupiter and Saturn dispersed the mostly ionic element P after it was stored in iron/nickel cores of asteroids.

* Venus and Mercury guarded Earth by casting dangerous asteroids into the Sun.

* Mars guarded the Earth on the opposite side of its orbit and also served as a stepping stone to Earth.

* Ceres (Creator of Agriculture) prevented the corpse of Ushas from falling back into the Earth after Mars had thrust her away. We must all die after we have completed our mission.

* Pluto and Charon (guardians of the underworld) provided a final farewell. They make a resonant triad at the outer end of the major planets, just as Vesta, Ushas, and Earth made a resonant triad at the birth of life. On Charon there is a memorial to the first community of living beings on Ushas. It is a mountain in a moat, as was the location of the first community:
https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/new-horizons-close-up-of-charon-s-mountain-in-a-moat