pioneer

Let me give an example of where the OR-inversion analysis comes in handy to extend current understanding. It has to do with photosynthesis. In photosynthesis, there is a reaction center chlorophyll surrounded by a bunch of antenna chlorophyll that funnel the energy so the center can make O2, H+ and electrons. The explanation uses a probability explanation for light absorption such that the reaction doesn't work too well without the support antenna. There is actually a more logical explanation for the need of the support antenna entourage that is consistent with OR-inversion. I am trying to help science. The sunlight excites the resonance in the ring about the Mg allowing a semi-stable conformation in the resonance, where the Mg ends up with a positive charge. In the reaction center, the Mg attaches water to form O2 and H+ plus electrons. The attachment of water is relatively easy. However, the full oxidation is harder and only occurs in the reaction center. The antenna can only attach water. By attaching the water it oxidizes the hydrogen bonding reduction in the water, since it has to displace an H-bond H. In other words, if we look at the water surrounding the group, the distant water is more reduced. As we move toward the antenna the hydrogen bonding is disrupted by the light energy and the antenna as water begins to attach. The antenna are cycling water busting up hydrogen bonding. The reaction center sees an oxidation potential advantage in the water relative to the antenna water. The central core sees something a lot closer to an isolated water molecule (more or less) without having to waste as much energy dealing with the h-bonds. The antenna purify that. If we take the core out, it now has to break the H-bond, making it it much less efficient. The central reaction center, after the formation of O2, resets itself by getting an electron back from the perimeter or support grouping. The OR-inversion gradient potential is set up with reduction on the outside to assist in the electron transport inward. The water is cooperating.

http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/hbond.html Typically we express the oxygen of water as having two non bonded orbitals which form hydrogen bonds. This is only partially true, after a hydrogen bond forms. More currents models actually have both non bonded orbitals overlapping, within isolated water, the water looking more like a triangle. When I defined hydrogen bonding as a reduction of hydrogen, it am proposing a new way to look at it based on the evidence. Sometime I forget what I read years ago. I am not trying to deceive but are trying to be helpful. This approach allows connections that are not obvious without it.

Let me backtrack and go through the basic logic again. Let us start with an isolated water molecule that has formed due to the oxidation of methane, to use an example of reduced hydrogen. The hydrogen is fully oxidized. Once this water forms the liquid state, it begins to form hydrogen bonding structures, which are exothermic. If you look at the H now, it is sharing extra electron density compared to what it was sharing in the isolated water. This hydrogen bonding has partial covalent character. Essentially we have an exothermic reduction of H. I understand hydrogen bonding is not traditionally called a reduction of hydrogen. It is differentiated and treated as a separate phenomena. Although this makes investigation easier, it detaches hydrogen bonding from the bigger picture of oxidation-reduction. In other words, hydrogen bonding, to the biochemist, becomes nothing more than a glue that hold structures together, detached somewhat from any direct affect in the process, except maybe locally. For example, we can see the hydrogen bonding on an active gene, but the packed genes at a distance, are assume inert to the analysis, by this philosophical detachment. What I have tried to do, is by defining hydrogen bonding as part of the oxidation-reduction phenomena, in this case, defined as an OR-inversion, the structural hydrogen bonds that are assumed inert to the activity, now have an impact where form equals function. I tried to show a few of the configurational gradients, like membrane and metabolism, that show the directional fluxes expected of oxidation-reduction potentials. The original topic was water and evolution. The philosophical detachment has no way to integrate water, even though dehydration, makes this impact extremely obvious. This is because hydrogen bonding is detached, making water simply a solvent that just so happens to form hydrogen bonds. I had to invent or define OR-inversion, so I could make this connection easier to see. Let me go back to water, and its impact on life, to show how this model can show how water had a direct impact at the very beginning of evolution. Liquid water is more reduced than isolated water molecules. This implies that the surface water of the earth is more reduced than atmospheric water. If this potential is high enough one would expect electrons to flow up and/or positive charge to flow downward, in response to oxidation-reduction. This is called lightning. The earth had no land in the beginning, rather the earth was one huge ocean, with the earth's water setting the stage for life. An electric arc has been demonstrated to create animo acids from simple molecules. One valid question is why animo acids? These are hydrogen bonding molecules, which can participate in the OR-inversion, with the acid implicit of a slant toward the oxidation side of the inversion, i.e., water in the atmosphere. Again, this explanation does not use the philosophical detachment of earth physics from biology, so it may look odd. What the theory predicts are these animo acids will increase their inversion reduction to be in equilibrium with the liquid water. Whatever the mechanism, protein is the goal.

Enzyme catalysis In traditional thinking, oxidation is the path of exothermic output. If we start with a molecule with reduced hydrogen and oxidize it, it will give off energy. Because of the oxidation-reduction inversion (OR-inversion) the reduction associated with hydrogen bonding is exothermic. Relative to enzymes, these molecule structures are designed to use both the traditional OR hydrogen and the OR inversion hydrogen. The primary structure associated with the C,N,O,H follows the rules of traditional OR, while the secondary, tertiary and quaternary structures follow the rules of the OR inversion. Conceptually, if we oxidize this structure part of the push to lower atomic energy in the primary structure becomes endothermic in the 2,3,4th order structure. The net result is the potential in the oxidation, instead of becoming a linear lowering of energy like expected, becomes a one-two punch with a time delay due to the OR-inversion. This is subtle, so I hope I am explaining well enough. When we use ATP, this oxidizer, without hydrogen bonding inversion, would try to oxidize the protein. Because of the hydrogen bonding, part of this oxidation goes into molecular oxidation dynamics while part goes into the endothermic OR inversion of the hydrogen bonding. The latter provides the shape changing of the substrate on the enzyme needed for the catalysis. When the shape returns, it give off its share of the potential in the original ATP oxidation. All chemical reactions require climbing an activation energy hill. This is true of both oxidation and reduction reactions. By partitioning the oxidation value of ATP, nature can lowering the amount of activation energy going into the substrate, since part goes into the OR-inversion. The value of this is, it allows life to cheat the stronger bulk potential to oxidized hydrogen in an irreversible way. It cuts the normal activation energy hill short. On the enzyme, the substrate is essentially part of the secondary protein structure. It sort places in it the OR-inversion allowing life to further cheat oxidation and form reduced materials. I am not saying enzymes only cause reductions. However, the OR-inversion makes it possible to shift the balance toward net reduction, because the enzyme's 2,3,4th order structure all favor exothermic reduction via OR-inversion.

The reaction I presented H2 + O2 <=> 2H2O was presented in terms of the energy given off per mole of hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms. The reactions of life give off energy within the outer boundaries of these energetics, with the right side connected to H bonding in water. I am not discounting life reactions but none give off as many Kcal/moles. We can start with any final product and burn it and it will give off less energy per mole of H. Nature does not use full combustion but will do this is little steps, with each step given off or gaining energy at levels that are closer to the right side of the equation to form larger molecules. But relative to energetics they all lie within this range. The focus is on differentiating the water and not rehashing what we already know about the C aspect, which is much better defined. To isolate the water we need to focus on water and not reactions connected to C. I am only trying to isolate the water, which does not require using C reactions at this point in the analysis. The point I made is if we start with isolated water molecules and form liquid water the formation of a hydrogen bond implies hydrogen is gaining electron density. This causes the H to becomes slightly reduced. This is not the normal way to present this, but it explains other things in a consistent way. Hydrogen bonds have partial covalent character implying these water polymers are structures with a reduction potential relative to isolated water. This situation creates an interesting paradox. It amounts to H oxidizing oxygen and oxygen reducing H, which is counter intuitive, even though that is how it stacks up. As such, one would expect the opposite to also occur since O is a better oxidizer. One observation that shows this latter affect is pH, where the H becomes oxidized or loses electron density to become H+. But this is short lived with the reaction reversing and the H becoming reduced again. Another observation is an isolated H2O molecule, because the bonds are very strong, can last a long time. In liquid water, any given water molecule will only exist about 1 millisecond. Essentially what occurs is the H of a given water molecule forms a hydrogen bond. The hydrogen is then swapped to another O, with the hydrogen bond becoming covalent and the covalent bond becoming a hydrogen bond. There is no net change other than a partner swap. We still get H2O. But the H doesn't carry electrons with it, but surfs between the electrons that are attached to the O. For a short time, it is in a transition state where it is oxidized by the O. But it quickly regains reduction. But this will only last for 1 millisecond until the oxygen oxidizes the reduced H again. But as quickly as this happens the H is regains its reduction. This process allows the strong -OH bond to break constantly using hydrogen bonding. The pH affect takes this one step further, with the H more oxidized. What we have going on in water is a tug of war between H and O. The H can self reduce by picking Oxygen's back pocket or one of its two bonded electron orbitals. The oxygen, being more electronegative, tries to compensate for this to assert its higher electronegativity. This oxidizes the H. But this is short lived with the H reducing itself by picking another oxygen's back pocket. What this does is keep water in a constant state of flux due to two agenda's that are in constant conflict with each other. Even hydrogen bonded water may look like a fixed structure, but there is constant H trading within the time average. Water can also swap between high and low density hydrogen bonded structures, with one state more reduced and one state more oxidized. In this case, the oxidation and reduction becomes a team effort of H and O. This is a theory. Breaking strong 0-H covalent bonds with a hydrogen bond does not seen logical, but still occurs constantly. This suggests a team afford. Water forms very distinct extended shapes and can form reversible transitions between these shapes, with the entire affect coordinated. Below is one such shape from: http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/clusters.html Like in life, water doesn't display huge energy changes in proportional to the strong covalent bonds that are breaking. Like life, this change occurs in a step down way, with water using H-bonding. We can place water in the dark, shield it from the visible spectrum and UV, and hydrogen bonding bonding can break all the covalent bonds in a millisecond. There is no net change in the bonds. ATP is an Oxidation Hydrogen bonding type reduction is also common to the living state. The hydrogen bonding within the DNA double helix will reduce the hydrogen in a more stable way than within water. It is not subject to the same constant reversal-oxidation by the O in water. The double helix of water, that is also part of the DNA double helix, is also more reduced than in the bulk water due to less reversibility. But being in water, there is still an oxidation potential, which is expressed when the double helix separates and the double helix of water increases entropy oxidizing this water. By the very nature of the stored reduction potential in DNA there is a innate potential in water to separate the quadruple helix via an oxidation. It may not happen spontaneously, but required evolving oxidizing type catalysts at the level of hydrogen bonding. The energy molecule of life is ATP. If you look closely, the way this energy is utilized is by adding an oxygen, since ADP and phosphate contain one additional oxygen atom. At an enzyme, this is done with an OH group, with the release of H. The phosphate is a tri-acid implying a weakly held H compared to the OH group. This reaction is a net oxidation of H. To recycle the phosphate we begin with H2O. The OH group of the enzyme gets reduced but the bulk water gets oxidized in terms of losing a water molecule and placing one of the H in an acid state. This reaction also follows the push in water which is to oxidize the H. To reiterate; O is more electronegative than H and because of that should always oxidize H. But H is able to overcome this in a sneaky way by picking O's back pocket. Nature designed a vulnerability within the O that works in contradiction to its higher electronegativity. But because O is still more electronegative it has ways to assert its higher oxidation power. In the ideal case it would like to maximize water entropy and form an isolated H2O molecule. This is not easy to do in the liquid state because of its built in vulnerability. The hydrogen, on the other hand, is looking for stability within fixed hydrogen bonding that is less vulnerable to the countering affect of the aqueous O. Life structures are helping the goal of the H while ATP is designed to help the goal of the O. But in the end, the H wins the battle in terms of life enhancing reduction of H. Cell cycles require a lot of energy. When the cell stores enough reduction potential in terms of both food and proteins the requirement becomes an oxidation on the DNA. Modern cells do this in an elaborate way but the net affect is still an oxidation. We can tweak links in the chain to inhibit this, or with cancer, maybe use easier pathways that help oxidation more. I don't know enough about cancer, but I would look in terms of oxidation pathways since it is displaying this capability. In a loose sense, cancer is helping O or oxidation. This is true not only in terms of high metabolism but death allows dehydration into that isolated H2O state O only dreams about. Life holds water for the H. It is not coincidental that anti-oxidants are helpful against some cancer. DNA and RNA Defining hydrogen bonding as reduction of hydrogen creates a logical consistency. DNA and RNA differ in only a couple of minor ways at the atomic level. The sugar unit on RNA has an -OH group at the same place the DNA has a -H. One of the bases on DNA has an -CH3 group whereas RNA has an -H group in the same spot. The net affect is DNA is slightly more reduced. If we compare surface tension in water, relative to single helixes, DNA will create a slightly higher surface tension. The result is the double helix of DNA has more potential to form to help bury the extra reduction. If we look in terms of commonalities, both are bulk slanted toward the O side of the potential. The most obvious is the phosphate group which limits hydrogen reduction to H-bonds. The aromatic bases, place a restriction on how much reduced H, relative to non-aromatic. The O bonded to two C in the sugar lowers possible inclusion of H and limits it to H-bond reduction. The DNA and RNA are a blend of oxidation and reduction with the reduction partially designed around H-bonds. Relative to the cell's choice of RNA or DNA production, RNA production occurs when the cell is building reduction (growing) or favoring the needs of H. DNA production occurs during the state of highest metabolism when O is favored. In other words, if the cell is favoring H it balances with the O side implicit of making the RNA. If it is favoring the O side it balances with the H side by making the DNA. An interesting scenario is a cell that only uses only RNA for genes and for cell cycles. The only real difference is the length of the RNA with longer RNA favoring the O side of the potential. One way to look at this, genes have start and stop points, with the hydrogen bonding reduction or H-bonds at the stops bonded strongly enough to signal the transcription process to stop. To overcome that, we need to oxidize these hydrogen bonds so it is easier. The packing of DNA also involves hydrogen bonding reduction. To overcome that we need to oxidize. This unpacking will only occur completely during the duplication of the DNA, when the cellular oxidation potential is highest. During times when the cell is not replicating the reduction in the cell places a limit on the oxidation at the DNA, with the oxidation on the DNA (unpacking) balancing the reduction with a specific set of active genes. The way the logic goes is although RNA production is slightly favoring the O , it is being used to produce proteins that are net favoring the further reduction of the H. The cell steps on its own foot, requiring continued production of RNA to solve the reduction problem the short term RNA oxidation is creating by then being used to make proteins that net reduce. The use of ATP then tries to oxidize this. But that leads to further net reduction. One odd scenario is why don't we use mDNA, instead of mRNA, to make proteins on ribosomes? The mDNA would be more reduced than mRNA, such that the production of proteins using mDNA, would be accelerating the reduction potential in the cell, faster. It creates an energy paradox of needing oxidation to favor mDNA, with the mDNA accelerating reduction. Theoretically, to be stable, it would place a cell in state of high recycle to keep the oxidation high, and absorb an accelerating reduction. It may never be able to replicate or have longer durations between cell cycles. THis would favor the O side of the potential. The Metabolism and Membrane The metabolism represents the oxidation maximum in the cell, in terms of a bulk configuration, if we drew a black box around it. Metabolism lowers the reduction of hydrogen. If oxygen is present this goes all the way to water and CO2. Combining CO2 and H2O makes H+ and bicarbonate, which takes this one step further. The cell is interesting in that the step down energy makes ATP, which is energy value stored in oxidation potential. The reduction maxima, in terms of a bulk black box configuration is the cell membrane. The lipid materials contain long chains of CH2, storing concentrated reduced H. The high flux of ATP going to the cell membrane reflects this potential, with the ATP trying to oxidize it. This is not done directly to the lipids, but goes to the proteins that part of the membrane, which are there to help lower overall reduction, compared to pure lipids. The charged ends on the aliphatic part of the lipid is a further oxidation to help also lower the configurational reduction. Unsaturated compounds in the membrane represent a step down in reduction compare to saturated implying an oxidation type affect. This is more prevalent during cell cycles when oxidation is highest in the cell. The one of the most energy intensive processes occurs at the Na+K+ pumps, with the inside becoming negative and the outside positive. Relative to water reduction the inside is more reduced the outside more oxidized. This creates a paradox for the metabolic oxidation pole, with part of its oxidation effort causing a reduction. It is one of nature's paradoxes to perpetuate this potential. This paradox increases the protein configurational requirement. The outside positive charge reflects the maximized oxidation affect. It is a little odd putting it there, the oxidation pole of the cell can't see it. The membrane's oxidation-reduction gradient is used to produce useful work within transport. This gradient is also useful for the correct orientations of proteins. One might expect an attempt to lower this potential, internally. For example, a wiggle where potential goes both ways, helping part of the transport. I always thought it interesting that the cell sort of shows its metabolic pole reflected in the exterior membrane. The puts up a huge sign in the water, oxidation here. The exterior water should see this. If the water tried to transfer reduction, it can't do it with water alone just due to all the cations. This membrane pole may play a role in inducing food toward the cell. Food may be an addendum to what water lacks, sort of passed along via migrating H-bonding structure.

The anorexia affect works by a process called projection. Picture a projector mounted on a hat, you are wearing, that is shining a red light. What your eyes will see is the reality of the environment plus the red overlay. If you didn't know you had this projector on your head you will swear the world has a red cast to it. Projection, in a psychological sense, comes from the imagination. You can't see this projector, directly, yet it is still overlaying the reality you see. Some girls will look in the mirror at their bodies and see fat, when the reality data entering the eyes is thin. This projection overlay from the imagination makes it hard to take other peoples word for it, because you see and feel what you see and feel. This filter or projector may have been placed there due to social reasons created by the pressure placed on females to look good. There are treatments designed make you aware of this overlap affect so you can filter it out, within your mind. Projection is not pathological but is part of normal behavior. Marketing helps to set up this projector all the time. This gives the new toy an alluring quality. Once we get bored with the new toy, this means the projector runs of out steam, and we see reality again. With this projector, people spend lots of money, even for pet rocks, that can appear to come alive or give the owner a special aura. This called normal because it is sort of innocuous. Some girls get a projector installed, with too much overlay and too long of a duration. This is sort of a toxic affect, similar to mercury discharge from the marketing process. There are no mind pollution laws set up. What may be safe and fun for most can hurt others. This pollution is remediated by a wide range of good and services who can help uninstall the projector.

One way to make heavy water is first form H2, D2, T2 from the electrolysis of water. You will also get HD, HT, DT. If we took a long pipe and allowed a fixed amount of this gas to diffuse to the end, the H2 will exit first, then D2, then T2, due to diffusion rates being a function of molecular mass. D2 is twice as heavy as H2, while T2 is three times as heavy. This is called gaseous diffusion with the T2 slowest. A vertical column makes it easier since all three are less dense than air and will want to diffuse up. This implies H2 will travel 1.414 times as far as D2, per given time. That is in a vacuum, but you get the gist. You line up all the gas mixture at the beginning of the pipe, with a Y-valve at the exit end. After some basic calculations or a GC to do it empirically, time the y-valve to switch at the output to collect the D2, T2 in a separate area. Once that is done, add another gas pulse, etc. It is not perfect but one could begin to increase the ratio of heavy hydrogen. Then you react the gas collected with the oxygen, to form crude heavy water.

Light exists in two references. According to relativity, at C we would get maximum time dilation or we should only see frequency equal to O from stationary reference. What we see with energy is frequency able to be less than zero. This is a paradox. Picture you were traveling at C, what would something with a frequency at 10-8 seconds, in stationary reference, look like in your C reference? The clock in stationary references is moving faster implying this frequency would even look faster. That would mean visible light may look like gamma, for example, which would violate the conservation of energy. To maintain conservation of energy that frequency needs to remain the same or be independent of the C reference, since light is not generating either GR or SR in sufficient amounts for a physical change. Light has one leg at C and another in finite reference. One reference of light is outside of time and the other defines it, since energy carries finite clocks built into its energy value. If we had no change of energy, increasing or decreasing, in the universe, time would stop. Time is mediated by the second reference of energy which can be tuned to any change of state in matter. Without this second reference and only C reference there is only one increment of time which is zero. Normally we just say energy does this but ignore the paradox of relativity.

There is a simple explanation for entangled particles using relativity. Say each particle was seeing distance contraction. What that means is each particle would appear closer to each other in their references, such that forces are at the correct distant to overlap for a given affect. Another reference might see an expanded distance affect where the distances appear too far to explain how the force fields are able to interact. One could do this mathematically, even if it is not traditional conceptual. Pretend they are close enough for the affect not to be called entangled. Then back calculate the distance relativity that is required. This theory amounts to untangled relativity can create entanglement. Or only distance is showing relativity with the time and distance variables still in our reference.

Differentiating the water can be done two ways. The first way is labor intensive and requires examining each situation, independently. The other way is to develop some broad based principles that can treat the water affect in a more broad based way. This is less resource intensive but has the requirement of redefining some existing chemistry. Over the years I have developed a number of approaches but many involved theories that required basic research before you could even get started. Recently I made a simple observation that should allow us to get up to steam much quicker. It represents a way to define the potential that can be stored in water and hydrogen bonding. To begin, the following reaction defines the range of energetics within the living state. O2 + H2 <=> 2H2O This is typically written as a forward reaction. I show it as a reversible reaction since life can work within the potential range of this equation in both directions. The production of H2 by life was discovered during research for alternative energy, making H2 gas with bacteria. It is not clear if these bacteria can also eat H2. Most of life uses intermediate reduction and oxidation states, within this energy range, with C-H and N-H as the reduced state since it is easier to store than H2. This energy value is stepped down, with enzymes, all the way to H2O, if O2 is present. Life can go the other way with plants able to make O2 and most of life able to make highly reduced states of C such as saturated lipid material and methane. The area of this equation this is of most interest for the water is the reaction H20 + H2O <=> H2O...H2O. This is just a way of representing hydrogen bonding. If you look at this closely, what happens when a hydrogen bond forms, the H is able to share extra electron density. What that means is the hydrogen bond in water reduces the hydrogen, relative to the zero state of an isolated water molecule. The oxygen is also oxidized relative to this same zero state. One way O shifts this back toward the oxidation of H, is the pH affect, which generates H+ or H3O+. Putting aside the pH affect, liquid water defines an equilibrium between high and low density zones, depending on how the hydrogen bonding is arranged. Relative to the above observation and definition, this can be correlated to each zone defining a different reduction potential, i.e, how well the H is able to share the electron density of water, with the O trying to oxidize this affect. We tend to lump and average this but this average exists within a bandwidth of reduction potential, slightly to the left of the water in the H2 + O2 <=> 2H2O equation. What this means is everything in the cell is assisted by a slight reduction potential in the water, which can be tweaked locally and globally, around this bandwidth depending on how the bio-materials impacts the local and global water.

I recognize we know about water. However, we don't differentiate the potential in the local and global water. It gets lumped into net affects. I am trying to differentiate the lumped affects into the two contributions. If we go back to dehydration things need water to work. I removed one of the two contributions. If we do it the other way and remove the organics, it also doesn't work. I am not saying water does all, any more than I believe the organics do it all. The latter is a good first approximation but it lumps two affects into one. What we know of water is too fuzzy to differentiate this secondary affect. That is what I am trying to do. For example, the DNA double helix has a double helix of water. What is occurring on genes is occurring on a quadruple helix. But we call it a double helix and lump 4 into 2 for a good approximation that needs fudge. I see 4 helixes, which is the reality of what we are actually dealing with. Making that distinction helps to get rid of some the random affects of the 2 helix assumption.

The purpose of this post was not to discuss alternate life on other planets. The only life we can prove, exists, uses water. The real goal is to decide what is the role of water and how far does this role extend. The continuous phase of life or water should play a continuity role since it is the medium by which everything is in contact and connects. Picture this situation, we have a cell. We freeze it in time and remove everything except the water. Where a protein was, the adjacent water has taken a given hydrogen bonding structure based on how the surface of the protein impacts the water. If we go slightly away from this, the water is a little different. The same is true of ions, with K+ and Na+ both having different water structures even though both have the same charge. The picture you would see in this freeze frame is water's reaction to everything in the cell, after the bulk water has this pushed this material to minimize its energy in the water. Water can't zero everything, so the material creates an impression on the surrounding water. If we started time, this entire parallel water structure would collapse into a more uniform state with less energy. The difference between these two pictures is how much energy potential the water contains within the cell. When we dehydrate we remove that parallel water and nothing works quite right, because we remove energy potential as well as the continuity between structural components. The high BP, thermal capacity, etc, of water, which set is apart, implies this medium can store more potential energy than almost any solvent. All these affects are connected to hydrogen bonding, and all the parallel structures of water in the cell are also connected to hydrogen bonding. The cell takes advantage of the binding forces of water that gives it extreme behavior. As cells evolve, it cranks up the water for a stronger back pressure. The back pressure then set potential for even more change to occur.

We defined the pH scaled based on water. It has to do with the concentration of H+ and -OH in solution. Water sets a limit when it comes to the ability of other molecules to gain or release H+. If we change the solvent the H+ release of the acid will not work the same way since the affinity of the solvent for H+ will be different. Nonpolar organic solvents won't accept H+ as easily as water, since there is no good place to put it. It is easier with a negative pole. This means animo acids that should release an H+ or gain an H+, will behave differently in other solvents, depending on the strength of the negative pole. Water has the unique properties which allow the proper release amounts because life evolved in water. If it evolved in NH3, we would need to tweak the design to get the same release rates. Life needs to be tailored to the solvent.

The terms animo and nucleic acids, with the operative work acid, define their acid-base properties with respect to water. Water is the standard or zero point of chemistry with the self ionization of water to 10-7 sort of the zero point. If we replace the solvent, the acid-base affects of amino and nucleic acids are not the same. These were tuned to water. For another solvent, you would need something different to compensate for the solvent power and the movement of the H and still get the same relative affects. For example, HCl and water comes out differently than HCl and ammonia or butane. The entire acid affect is different. The same will happen to animo acids since they are tuned to water to generate their proper pH affects.

Part of the reason this may be difficult to see is due to specialization. Specialization can cause one to lose track of the big picture and cause one to explain everything in terms of this specialty. The big picture of life involves moderating the temperature on a forming planet. The earth was able to provide the basic conditions needed for life because of the oceans and surface water. Water is a small molecule with an unusually high heat capacity. Water is what is responsible for the moderate conditions on earth and the weather. Relative to life, chemical reactions become more reversible if temperature is too high and reaction rates fall if temperature is too low. The range of water 0C to 100C is perfect for life chemistry. Most other solvents have a different range and don't have the same high heat capacity. If we use another solvent to form life this means that same solvent needs to moderate the temperature on that planet, to set the stage before life can even begin. Water is hard to replace. Since other solvents aren't as ideal for moderating a planet for life, let us assume water is still doing this for us, to get the right conditions. We will use another solvent for life. What will happen is we will run into problems because of the water. We have rain, which means polar solvents will end up in the water. Organic solvents can maintain phase separation, but will still need to compete with water for organic molecules with polar groups. So much for simple animo acids. The alternative solvents might work in controlled environments but not if they are also needed to control the environment.

One of the conceptual problems with existing evolutionary theory involves a time element. For example, an environmental change occurs, like cold, before there is time for a single reproductive cycle. This is hard to see with bacteria since they make so many generations in a short time. But say we have an animal that reproduces once per year and the environmental change occurs in less than one year. The whole mating Olympics, dominant male, genetic drift, etc. doesn't even apply. There are three ways for this species to adapt. First, the genetics were already in place before the stress. Second limited genetics, such as skin cells, need to change in a short period of time due to the stress. Or three, the brain and consciousness allows an adaptation modification that doesn't require genetics but gives time for the genetics to play catch up. The existing theory works if we have leisurely change in a fixed environment, with the time element long enough for the reproductive cycles to throw the dice for drift and random change. But when we don't have the luxury of long time, there can still be change and evolution. The number 2 scenario, of the DNA being there before the need to change, implies adding genes with no real time selective advantage. It is implicit of future change or maximizing flexibility and not just real time advantage. Where water can explain both scenarios is any perturbation in the living system affects the water too. Water can adapt immediately without requiring a lot of cycles. The DNA is conservative by being a stable molecule and is not designed to adapt as fast. Mammals already had the capability to change with cold weather way before it was needed since this was the next logical step in the progress of life due to the advancing potential in the water. Even before the earth cooled, warmed blooded already had the potential to deal with such a change millions of years before it was necessary. THere may have been thousands of species with this fifth wheel. Was this random;doubtful. It is called the direction of future progress, which, it can be shown, would set the platform for all the next logical steps. Those species that obeyed modern evolutionary theory didn't have time and went extinct.

I am sharing this knowledge with others, which I am sure the author will not mind. I never claimed this information was my own. If left the word [Explanation] in each anomaly so it was obvious this was copied. I even referenced this link in an earlier post. Long before I found this information I was already speculating. This just give me a source of proof with hundreds of references to support my claims. There is no need for me to get so technical. The idea is to find a simple explanation for universal affects. The ideas of point mutations and viral insertions and water are my own ideas. The more I know the easier it is to focus my creativity. But the basic premise of water and life needs to be reinforced first.

Based on science the top three most abundant atoms in the universe are hydrogen, then helium, then oxygen. What that means is H2O and maybe H2 are two most common molecules in the universe. But besides universal commonality, you really need to look at the properties of water that make it unique. Instead of the obvious, it is better to look at the anomalies, since these represent uniqueness for water that other molecules do not possess in such a wide range. These anomalies stem from the H-bonding of water, with the wide variety of anomalies showing the wide range of odd behavior this bond gives to water. Water is the wild card molecule of the universe. C can form the most variety of molecules, while water has the greatest variety of odd special affects. They are the odd couple of nature and team up to make life possible. Below is the current list of water anomalies. 1)Water has unusually high melting point. [Explanation] 2)Water has unusually high boiling point. [Explanation] 3)Water has unusually high critical point. [Explanation] 4)Solid water exists in a wider variety of stable (and metastable) crystal and amorphous structures than other materials. [Explanation] 5)The thermal conductivity of ice reduces with increasing pressure. [Explanation] 6)The structure of liquid water changes at high pressure. [Explanation] (66) Supercooled water has two phases and a second critical point at about -91°C. [Explanation] 7)Liquid water is easily supercooled but glassified with difficulty. [Explanation] 8)Liquid water exists at very low temperatures and freezes on heating. [Explanation] 9)Liquid water may be easily superheated. [Explanation] 10)Hot water may freeze faster than cold water; the Mpemba effect. [Explanation] 11)Warm water vibrates longer than cold water. [Explanation] Water density anomalies 12)The density of ice increases on heating (up to 70 K). [Explanation] 13)Water shrinks on melting. [Explanation] 14)Pressure reduces ice's melting point. [Explanation] 15)Liquid water has a high density that increases on heating (up to 3.984°C). [Explanation] 16)The surface of water is more dense than the bulk. [Explanation] 17)Pressure reduces the temperature of maximum density. [Explanation] 18)There is a minimum in the density of supercooled water. [Explanation] 19)Water has a low coefficient of expansion (thermal expansivity). [Explanation] 20)Water's thermal expansivity reduces increasingly (becoming negative) at low temperatures. [Explanation] 21)Water's thermal expansivity increases with increased pressure. [Explanation] 22)The number of nearest neighbors increases on melting. [Explanation] 23)The number of nearest neighbors increases with temperature. [Explanation] 24)Water has unusually low compressibility. [Explanation] 25)The compressibility drops as temperature increases up to 46.5°C. [Explanation] 26)There is a maximum in the compressibility-temperature relationship. [Explanation] 27)The speed of sound increases with temperature up to 74°C. [Explanation] 28)The speed of sound may show a minimum. [Explanation] 29)Fast sound' is found at high frequencies and shows an discontinuity at higher pressure. [Explanation] 30)NMR spin-lattice relaxation time is very small at low temperatures. [Explanation] 31)The NMR shift increases to a maximum at low (supercool) temperatures [Explanation] 32)The refractive index of water has a maximum value at just below 0°C. [Explanation] 33)The change in volume as liquid changes to gas is very large. [Explanation] Water material anomalies 34)No aqueous solution is ideal. [Explanation] 35)D2O and T2O differ significantly from H2O in their physical properties. [Explanation] 36)Liquid H2O and D2O differ significantly in their phase behavior. [Explanation] 37)Solutes have varying effects on properties such as density and viscosity. [Explanation] 38)The solubilities of non-polar gases in water decrease with temperature to a minimum and then rise. [Explanation] 39)The dielectric constant of water is high. [Explanation] 40)The dielectric constant shows a temperature maximum. [Explanation] 41)Proton and hydroxide ion mobilities are anomalously fast in an electric field. [Explanation] 42)The electrical conductivity of water rises to a maximum at about 230°C. [Explanation] 43)Acidity constants of weak acids show temperature minima. [Explanation] 44)X-ray diffraction shows an unusually detailed structure. [Explanation] 45)Under high pressure water molecules move further away from each other with increasing pressure. [Explanation] Water thermodynamic anomalies 46)The heat of fusion of water with temperature exhibits a maximum at -17°C. [Explanation] 47)Water has over twice the specific heat capacity of ice or steam. [Explanation] 48)The specific heat capacity (CP and CV) is unusually high. [Explanation] 49)The specific heat capacity CP has a minimum at 36°C. [Explanation] 50)The specific heat capacity (CP) has a maximum at about -45°C. [Explanation] 51)The specific heat capacity (CP) has a minimum with respect to pressure. [Explanation] 52)The heat capacity (CV) has a maximum. [Explanation] 53)High heat of vaporization. [Explanation] 54)High heat of sublimation. [Explanation] 55)High entropy of vaporization. [Explanation] 56)The thermal conductivity of water is high and rises to a maximum at about 130°C. [Explanation] Water physical anomalies 57)Water has unusually high viscosity. [Explanation] 58)Large viscosity increase as the temperature is lowered. [Explanation] 59)Water's viscosity decreases with pressure below 33°C. [Explanation] 60)Large diffusion decrease as the temperature is lowered. [Explanation] 61)At low temperatures, the self-diffusion of water increases as the density and pressure increase. [Explanation] 62)The thermal diffusivity rises to a maximum at about 0.8 GPa. [Explanation] 63)Water has unusually high surface tension. [Explanation] 64)Some salts give a surface tension-concentration minimum; the Jones-Ray effect. [Explanation] 65)Some salts prevent the coalescence of small bubbles. [Explanation]

Here is a theory. I don't mean any insult by it although it could be taken the wrong way in terms of PC sensitivity. If you look at the profile of the average serial killer, it includes white male. What this implies, under the same inducing conditions, the rest of the demographics are not affected the same way as the white male. At a social level, the white male is sort of put on a pedestal since equality laws are designed for the rest of the demographics to balance the field. What this seems to imply is the white male has the furthest to fall (subjectively within). In other words, if one is put down and sees their place in the pecking order subjectively lower the fall is not as far, so they are less likely to snap to the level of the serial killer. Again, I am not saying the white male are at the top in any objective way. But culture both directly and indirectly create this hierarchy, especially in terms of favoring the rest of the demographics with equality laws. I am not saying equality laws have anything to do with this, but they do reinforce the hierarchy, indirectly. The serial killer may subjectively feel he need to be top dog, but circumstances have put him down. He needs to overcompensate even more for parity to go from a common ground zero, to where he thinks he belongs socially. What I always though was interesting is a Mafia hit man, with ten kills to his credit is not considered a serial killer. This is something he is good at and likes to do. The difference is he begins closer to the top of the subjective hierarchy within his social circles. Among his peers he is a pro. This allows him to be less compulsive about it, although he would like to move up the ladder to middle management. His boss, who orders the killing is not considered a serial killer either. He will be called a business man. Again, maybe group affects, where one belongs and feels better keeps them away from the bottom zero point, so they are not included in the definition of the loner who starts closer to zero. What is interesting is the media will build up serial killers the most, in terms of visibility. Maybe serial killers use this system of hierarchy since it is already in place. For a little while they are VIP's with that ten minutes of fame.

I was applying water to a point mutation to show how natural laws would favor trying this, until the time came when cells could censor this. The proof reading enzymes would find these point defects or improper base pairing, easier by them being at higher energy and could use the extra water to help drive their own dynamics. I also agree with the importance of virus in evolution. We usually associate a virus with something bad, but there is no logical reason they can't insert something good or innocuous. This could explain why small things can have so much extra DNA. The scenario I can see is a good virus causing an affect similar to a bad virus. The cell tries to keep up with the output partially going into internal recycle. This causes changes in the cell as the protein(S) produced by the good virus finds a place in the cell where it can be of use. If a virus was to cause a good change, wouldn't we just assume it was already part of the DNA? We are not looking for good affects since there is no reason to investigate healthy with the same effort as sick. Virus have to begin somewhere, being maybe a nature output of DNA. For example, a virus may start in a flea. Maybe back in the early days, one life form's progress is shared this way. Just like a bad virus can cause its affect to occur in days or weeks, maybe the same can be said for a good virus. Nature takes care of the bad virus source with predators. But the good virus would give a selective advantage. But getting back to water, once a gene is inserted by a virus, it has to hook up into the water double helix and will create its own hydration finger print. The fact that this isn't just buried but often becomes selectively active show energy favorability at some level. One way to explain that is a group of genes have an optimized group thumb print pattern, with the insert sort of a defect in the wider hydration pattern. It adds a new line to the regional thumb print that stands out since it affects the patterns of adjacent genes. It is suppose to stand out to be affective.

The distinction I am trying to make is the C based aspects of life is the essence of life. But this works in the context of being dissolved in water. The simple dehydration experiments suggested places an extreme limit of what can work using C based life. Once you add water, the options are more wide open. Let me give an example of water and DNA. The base pairs have extra H bonding hydrogen that don't participate in the hydrogen bonding between base pairs. I often wondered why the extra H bonding hydrogen were there, if they aren't used by the DNA. It turns out, these were designed by nature to hold water. This water, in turn, is not only grease for the gears, but plays a role in DNA recognition. http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/index2.html Let us look at a defect on a gene, that involves inserting the wrong base. The base pairing is not optimized there. That means the hydrogen bonding is not right or optimized relative to the DNA. This means we have more places for water to attach, since water can hydrogen bond to the same places as the base pairing, plus a bunch of other places. According to above, the specificity has a connection to the entropy change in this binding water. This type of defect, by offering the potential to add more water inside the DNA offers a little more entropy potential if that gene is used and the larger water pattern is disrupted. This may be tiny but it gives a slight statistical advantage to evolution in the sense of trying this new gene.

Education uses this energy principle. For example, we teach a child that the furry thing that barks and wags his tail is a dog. When they get it right, there is reward such as "good boy" or rest . If they get it wrong, we keep the pressure on, so their brain is in an activated learning state. Some parents may crank up the activated state, with yelling. The idea is to get the lowest energy state, externally (punishment-reward) to help define the zero energy point of social convention. We could call it anything, but a culture will define the lowest energy state of this memory association based on common tradition and language. You don't need both reward and punishment, just punishment or reward will do, but the combo also works. Say the brain is doing this memory energy lowering internally, while culture is also using peer pressure to define the lowest energy state externally, though education. These two zero states can match or they can be different. As an example of different, peer pressure says the world is flat as the externally defined lowest energy state. At that time, anything beside flat will mean punishment, therefore flat is as low as you can go based on external knowledge. But internally the data reached lowest energy as the world is round. What we have is an internal conflict. We have this internal peer pressure, so to speak, and an external peer pressure. I suppose which ever nags more wins, with external able to apply group pressure. To reach the internally defined zero point, which is lower energy due to being more true, implies going into negative energy relative to the socially defined zero point. This would be exothermic and appear to go below conscious rest, into negative unconsciousness, i.e., anger and fear. We can't go there directly, because chemical reactions require an activation energy hill. Therefore, the socially defined zero state stability will require an activation energy, where it needs to climb an energy hill to free it from its defined zero energy energy structure. In modern culture, this process is done with initial skepticism due to the direct negative energy affect. The activation energy requirement then becomes experiment, math and logic. If it works out to lift the mind up and out of the old socially defined zero energy point, we can slide down the new energy hill toward the new newest lowest energy state. My question was is memory a chemical structure that stores energy? I said yes. One way to look at it is more synapses mean more sodium ions flowing implicit of more current flowing.

One simple way to address memory is does memory store energy or lower energy in the brain? In other words, if we added a memory and only look in terms of an energy balance, does the brain gain a slight amount of energy or does it lower energy by a slight amount? If the answer is "gains energy" due to the electrical impulse, if the brain is designed to constantly trying to lower energy, while memory is semi-stable, but at higher energy, it will reorganize structured memory in the direction of lower energy, becoming part of larger structures or memory organizations. For example, we see something new. It can get us excited. If we place it into a catalogue of similar things we are satisfied and excitement lowers. If there is no catalogue the excitement remains. If we can give it a logical explanation then we can rest. Both affects involve single isolated memories being moved into the direction of larger organization. The brain may also do this naturally, in an attempt to lower energy into logical and integrated arrangements which represents lowest energy states.

I understand basic biochemistry. Just basic biochemical mechanisms isolate the chemical reactions out of the context of the phenomena being dissolved in water. We know and imply these occur in water, but we never say water is helping support structures. I also understand this isolation assumption is done for simplicity. If these bio-chemical mechanisms were actually free standing they should occur in any solvent as well as in air. But they don't, so logic says water plays a role. I am not trying to reinvent the wheel, but rather trying to explain why these reactions don't occur in air, like it is implied in the text books. The implied in the air assumption is not valid and requires a random variable that lumps the water affect. I keep coming back to basic logic. Just dehydrate any of these isolated chemical mechanisms in the biochemistry text books, run a test, to see if water is not important They should work with the same efficiency if these mechanisms are complete. The in the air assumption will not give an assist to water even though it won't happen without it. Instead of citing the riot act for breaking the law, maybe someone can explain the logic that says that the water medium, which makes it all possible, has no impact. A philosophical assumption due to tradition is not the same. This may satisfy those entrenched in the philosophical assumption, but I looking for logic why we leave out water as a direct component. Here is an analogy. We have a parent teaching his child to ride a bike. The parent is holding the bike while the child is peddling. The way we do it now is assume the child is riding the bike by himself and the parent affect of water is not even there. When we dehydrate, the parent lets go and child stops riding and falls over. We add the parent back and the child can once again pretend he is in control of the ride. This is dehydration and life. The philosophical bias is analogous to the child who can't give any credit to dad (water) holding the bike even though at every turn, start and stop, the little child will just sit there without dad. The evolution of life is the child who has free riding stretches, where he is riding alone. But if he begins to tip, dad is there to give a little push to straighten him out and to teach him how to turn and do stunts.

Even number of legs is still 2-D. We were talking 3 legs or an odd number of legs, with an odd number more than 1. There is a difference between a walking gait of 1 then 2, and 1,2,3. As they learn to march in their ancient days when they are still in the mythological stage, they will begin to think in terms of a three step movement not just in exterior space but also interior space. You have heard the expression logic steps. If would be hard to think in terms of a 2-D concept like good and evil because someone would say what about the middle step, when we walk through life. Our minds are used to thinking in 2-D symmetry and not 3-D symmetry. It may have been easier to see with the eyes. The wiring in the brain has two paths that cross in the middle and invert. If you had a third eye you would probably still have these two paths plus a straight wiring path with all three merging and then inverting with the center path going straight to the back. The natural wiring would see 3-D plus. I other words, there are now 3 combinations of two eyes each of which can see 3-D. The brain would see 3-D from three slightly different angles. The trained mind would notice this slight difference requiring extra logic, which would begin to approach more like 3-D logic. For example the cell is a highly integrated entity, which is why it is so efficient. We narrow down observation to cause and affect plus a random variable because 2-D is not enough to take into account the 3-D integration that makes it so efficient. If we look at the 3 eye example, there are three degrees of 3-D observational attachment that need to be satisfied. They could use three random degrees of attachment for the third variable, but this looks mythological. This triple random would be reduced into a third logic step.