I hope that understood your question well, i guess that organic food is much more useful compared to industrial food which may cause many health problems. 

Yes, Kenneth, plants require room and water and some plants (not the deep-sea ones) require light. But the civilization is capable of supplying all these; at least, this is no more difficult problem than the discovery of an appropriate planet, delivery there people and all necessary things, and organization of life there. As you apparently know, Hawking proposes colonization of any planet and plans to finance the search of an appropriate planet out of the Solar System. And he has followers and has even at least one companion.   

Dear Ahmad,

I write about organic food but that obtained artificially from minerals through the chemical processes similar to those applied by the plants and animals. Does the limit of perfection exist?    

Dear Ahmad, 

I believe that it is possible to organize the process of artificial synthesis of DNAs on the basis of the Life Origination Hydrate Theory from CH4 (C2H6, C3H8), KNO3 (NaNO3), and H3PO4 with minor additions of S-containing substances and microscopic amounts of some metals, supply thus obtained supercytoplasm with such source substances, and, under the conditions at which methane hydrate exists, people would have any amount of protein mass as the side product of the DNA's activity. 

May be, the rate of this process will be small, but this factor has no decisive significance when a process is tailored. 

This is a superaim, but I think that the game is worth the candle. 

I know about the today technology of artificial protein production, but we with E. Kadyshevich bear in mind principally other approach to the problem of artificial nutrition. 

The truth, I do not think so, our advances in biotechnology, will never match the capacity of nature.

Do you can propose anything that is better? 

Do you think that the search of a planet out of the Solar System for the resettlement is more effective? There are experts who propose such a move. Are you with them? 

The right people should be informed about dangers of differet types and the right people should choose the ways and means capable of minimizing these dangers. 

To inform about possible natural dangers is one of the main aims of science. 

Dear Marcelo, 

You write: "The truth, I do not think so, our advances in biotechnology, will never match the capacity of nature."

But seventy years ago, I didn't think that people will go for a walk on Moon, sheeps will grow in boxes from nothing, and, being at a distance of several thousand of kilometers, we will be able to see each other and talk with each other. 

Yes, Kenneth, and this also is. But the climatic catastrophes which are capable of initiating mass extinctions are much more terrible. I don't want to paint the devil blacker than he is, but remember even if the two first protuberances of a small red dwarf of 2014, each of which was more power than the most powerful solar protuberances by a factor of much more than 10,000 . 

I am a little bit reminded on "Dr. Strangelove". If catastrophic events would hit the earth (as massive protuberances etc.), mankind might survive because a smaller group is, by coincidence more or less, doing the right thing at the right place. Any preparation for such a case seems relatively useless to me. Where do you want to place your "food factories?" All around the globe? If anything, than it's maybe effective to develop a diet based on insects. Probably any thinkable catastrophic event will be survived by some insects.      

Dear Artur, 

Like you, I also don't want Frankenfood and prefer real life and real food. 

begone, every false thing!

I would like to return to the original question.

I agree with the absolutely correct statement:

“Plants, basing on minerals, create primary food substances, and animals, basing on these primary food substances, create secondary food substances for mankind. This work is being performed on the basis of quite definite chemical processes and is being governed by universal physical laws and chemical regulations.”

However, it has been ignored that the Life on Earth is mostly based on solar energy. Photosynthesis splits water to O2 and reducing equivalents, which in their turn are used to reduce CO2 to carbohydrate. The synthesis of carbohydrates from H2O and CO2 is thermodynamically extremely unfavorable process and uses solar energy.

I was intrigued by the Life Origination Hydrate Theory (LOH-Theory) and started to read the paper  at

Authors: A. Kadyshevich, Elena; E. Ostrovskii, Victor

Source: Mini-Reviews in Organic Chemistry, Volume 12, Number 5, October 2015, pp. 388-396(9)

Publisher: Bentham Science Publishers

The theory is based on assumption that the energy necessary to create amino acids (AA) comes from CH4 oxidation by KNO3. I doubt that it would be a sufficient amount of KNO3 to support a continuous synthesis of AA.  All reaction thermodynamics were calculated based on eq 3

a CH4(gas) + b KNO3(sol) = AA(sol) + b KOH(sol) + c NH3(gas) + d O2(gas) (3),

I doubt that this reaction is correctly chosen.  The products AA(sol) + b KOH(sol) can’t be formed as two separate solid materials. The most likely product is a potassium salt of AA. Water is likely involved in this reaction completely changing the reaction thermodynamics.  I stopped reading and need the author’s comments to proceed further.

My comments on artificial food. As I mentioned the synthesis of carbohydrates from CO2 and H2O requires much energy. Only Sun can be a viable source of such energy. This process, while very inefficiently, is carried out by plants. Why we need to replace the Natural process with something artificial, which would compete with Nature?   

Dear Erik, 

With respect to insects, it is an interesting idea.

Do you prefere the creeping or flying ones for your issues?  

 The correct reference of the paper I mentioned in my previous post

Authors: A. Kadyshevich, Elena; E. Ostrovskii, Victor

Source: Mini-Reviews in Organic Chemistry, Volume 12, Number 5, October 2015, pp. 388-396(9)

Publisher: Bentham Science Publishers

Somehow I managed to download it from RG

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Elena_Kadyshevich/publication/282252161_Life_Origination_Hydrate_Theory_LOH-Theory_Thermodynamic_and_Kinetic_Factors_in_the_Natural_Mechanisms_of_Amino-Acids_Origination/links/56448f8d08aef646e6cb9978.pdf

Article Life Origination Hydrate Theory (LOH-Theory): Thermodynamic ...

In the issue by Yurii it is written that in our paper cited by him “… it has been ignored that the Life on Earth is mostly based on solar energy."

Meanwhile, the deep-sea plants see no solar light but they exist.

It is well known after expeditions of American aquanauts that plants (and even rather highly-developed animals) exist even at a depth of more than 10 km in the Mariana Trench.

As for the terraneous plants, it is, indeed, known that they use a solar energy for their life; however, the portions of the energy used by different plants from the Sun and from the minerals are unknown; some terraneous plants use energy of other living issues.

We don’t ignore this information but we don’t use it because it is not required for our consideration.     

Yurii also writes: “... As I mentioned the synthesis of carbohydrates from CO2 and H2O requires much energy. Only Sun can be a viable source of such energy. This process, while very inefficiently, is carried out by plants. Why we need to replace the Natural process with something artificial, which would compete with Nature?”

Yurii errs here as well. The fact of the matter is that, we had proved in many earlier peer-reviewed physical, chemical, biological, thermodynamical, geological, and specialized publications, e.g., 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265255386_Life_Origination_Hydrate_Theory_LOH-Theory_and_the_Explanation_of_the_Biological_Diversification ; 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235342937_Life_Origination_Hydrate_Hypothesis_LOH-Hypothesis ; 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235409468_Mitosis_and_DNA_Replication_and_Life_Origination_Hydrate_Hypotheses_Common_Physical_and_Chemical_Grounds ; 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235342776_Hydrate_hypothesis_of_living_matter_origination_LOH-hypothesis_Thermodynamic_grounds_of_formation_of_living_matter_simplest_elements_from_hydrocarbons_and_niter ; 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235351966_Generalized_hypothesis_of_the_origin_of_the_living-matter_simplest_elements_transformation_of_the_Archean_atmosphere_and_the_formation_of_methane_-_Hydrate_deposits ;

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235342966_Thermodynamics_of_formation_of_nitrogen_bases_and_D-ribose_from_mineral_substances_in_light_of_the_problem_of_origination_of_simplest_elements_of_living_matter , 

that living matter could originate (and, apparently, originated) not from CO2 and H2O, but from CH4 and NO3 and PO4 ions in the methane-hydrate matrix. We also showed that, apparently, intracellular protoplasm, in which DNA replication proceeds, also has a structure similar to that of gas hydrates. These works give grounds to hope that protein food can be, in extremal situation, obtained artificially on the basis of minerals. Moreover, we predicted probable conditions under which such a process could be realized. On the other hand, we showed (and, perhaps, a number of paleontologists agree with us) that, in future, on the Earth, repetition of the conditions dangerous for survival of humanity is possible. Under such conditions, technology of artificial food production from mineral may become useful. Therefore, in our opinion, it is desirable to try to develop the technology of food production from minerals.

Yurii put one more question. I will answer to it in another issue, because this one is too long.   

Article Life Origination Hydrate Theory (LOH-Theory) and the Explana...

Article Life Origination Hydrate Hypothesis (LOH-Hypothesis)

Chapter Mitosis and DNA Replication and Life Origination Hydrate Hyp...

Article Hydrate hypothesis of living matter origination (LOH-hypothe...

Article Generalized hypothesis of the origin of the living-matter si...

Article Thermodynamics of formation of nitrogen bases and D-ribose f...

I wrote: the Life on Earth is mostly based on solar energy. 

Indeed, the chemosynthetic bacteria, which can utilize the chemical energy of certain inorganic compounds and thus are not dependent on the conversion of light energy. 

'however, the portions of the energy used by different plants from the Sun and from the minerals are unknown."  You have to prove that the energy used from the minerals is significant. 

"The fact of the matter is that, we had proved in many earlier peer-reviewed physical, chemical, biological, thermodynamical, geological, and specialized publications, e.g.,  "

In my opinion you have not proved. " a number of paleontologists agree with us," please references.

As I pointed out, the reaction thermodynamics seems to be miscalculated. 

Victor, I have no special idea about the kind of insects. There are just, generally speaking, a good source of proteins, and for sure, some species will survive even under very harsh conditions. Larvae can survive several years without food under certain circumstances, they are quite radiation resistant, and so on. 

Dear Eric, 

You write that Larvae are quite radiation resistant. If this is the case, it is, I think, very interesting fact, that deserves careful study and discussion. However, I don't think that it is possible to decide the problem of food under extraordinary circumstances on this basis. It would be important to develop the technologies of food production from mineral natural sources. 

 "It would be important to develop the technologies of food production from mineral natural sources." It would require enormous amount of energy. Where are you going to take it from?  

You, Yurii, write about things, about which you know nothing. If you would read our works about live origination and development, you would understand that you are wrong. 

Victor,

I read your mini-review and asked you a professional question:

"The theory is based on assumption that the energy necessary to create amino acids (AA) comes from CH4 oxidation by KNO3. I doubt that it would be a sufficient amount of KNO3 to support a continuous synthesis of AA.  All reaction thermodynamics were calculated based on eq 3

a CH4(gas) + b KNO3(sol) = AA(sol) + b KOH(sol) + c NH3(gas) + d O2(gas) (3),

I doubt that this reaction is correctly chosen.  The products AA(sol) + b KOH(sol) can’t be formed as two separate solid materials. The most likely product is a potassium salt of AA. Water is likely involved in this reaction completely changing the reaction thermodynamics.  I stopped reading and need the author’s comments to proceed further.

Do you believe that all principal food substances can be.... Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_you_believe_that_all_principal_food_substances_can_be_changed_for_industrial_products_obtained_on_the_basis_of_minerals/2 [accessed Aug 25, 2017].

"You, Yurii, write about things, about which you know nothing."

I consider your last response insulting. 

Yurii, I answered yesterday to two your opinions and wrote that I will answer to the third one as well. I will do it.. I have other work but the correspondence with you.

Dear All and Yurii, please read my deferred answer to Yurii's question. 

Yurii Geletii wrote: "All reaction thermodynamics were calculated based on eq 3

a CH4(gas) + b KNO3(sol) = AA(sol) + b KOH(sol) + c NH3(gas) + d O2(gas) (3),

I doubt that this reaction is correctly chosen.  The products AA(sol) + b KOH(sol) can’t be formed as two separate solid materials. The most likely product is a potassium salt of AA. Water is likely involved in this reaction completely changing the reaction thermodynamics.  I stopped reading and need the author’s comments to proceed further."

My answer: The reactions expressed by equation (3) by no means stop after formation of amino-acids, but ammonia and oxygen formed as a result of interactions leading to formation of molecules of amino-acids can participate in subsequent transformations and, of cause, participate in such transformations completely or partially. Negativity of the free energy in the processes expressed by this equation shows that such transformations are possible as  intermediate reactions. After them, amino-acids can be subjected to the further transformations with formation of proteins while other products can participate in any transformations or can go out of reacting medium. Thus, all interactions proceed as the cumulative ones but the vast majority of the reactions proceed with a decrease in the free energy. 

I recall that the reactions proceed within the CH4-hydrate phase inside the cavities and under low temperatures and CH4 pressure.

It is important that living matter can be produced from CH4, niter, and phosphate exothermally and with a decrease in the free energy.

Victor, I spent hours to critically analyze your theory because it is directly related to  my professional interests and the global question "How to power the planet?" 

This paper has more than three thousands citations

Powering the planet: Chemical challenges in solar energy utilization

By: Lewis, Nathan S.; Nocera, Daniel G.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  Volume: 103   Issue: 43   Pages: 15729-15735   Published: OCT 24 2006

I'm actively working in this area and considered your hypothesis as an alternative to the solar energy. This is a very professional interest, nothing personal.

You use the standard deltaG formation of reactants and products to estimate whether the reaction is thermodynamically favorable. When you write the reaction 3, you ignore that this is not the most favorable pathway. The mixture of the reaction products in eq 3 is thermodynamically unstable.  I calculated the standard deltaG of the alternative reaction

2 CH4(g) + 2 KNO3(s) = K2O(s) + N2(g) + CO2(g) + CH3OH(l) + 2 H2O (l),

it appeared to be -340 kj/mol, which is lower and more likely to occur than your reactions. Thus, you suggest the thermodynamically feasible reactions but they are not the most favorable. Therefore, your thermodynamic arguments do not support your theory. At the same time, your theory does not violate the thermodynamic laws. 

Please, consider this response as a friendly critic. 

Yurii,

In truth, the sign of the delta G value for a chemical reaction described by a stoichiometric equation for a standard conditions means no more (and no less) than the direction of this reaction under these conditions. The sign of the standard delta G values responds to the question on the direction of the interaction in the reactions, and the values of the delta G give the possibility of calculation of the equilibrium mixture but give no possibility of calculation of the rates of approaching to the equilibriums.

Thus, you make a mistake, when you write that the more is the delta G magnitude, the more intensively goes reaction.

Some reactions with higher delta G negative in magnitude proceed with higher rates than some other reactions with lower delta G negative in magnitude, but it is by no means a rule. For example, reaction SO3(g) + H2O(l) = H2SO4(l) ; Delta(Delta G0) = -19 kcal/mol goes at 298 K, but reaction 0.5O2 +CO=CO2; Delta(Delta G0) = -61.5 kcal/mol doesn’t go at 298 K. A multitude of examples are available.

The reaction rate is governed by kinetic rather than by thermodynamic regulations.

I see no scientific meaning in your opinion about the occurrence of thermodynamically favorable reactions, at least as applied to our case. There are thermodynamically feasible reactions, and just the kinetic regulations determine the really formed products in many-component systems.  

I don’t exclude formation of some other molecules but those entering equation (3). However, the direction of the reactions should steadily shift to formation of amino-acids because of mineralization of KOH and, may be, of K2O (as 2KOH=K2O+H2O), of H2O as a result of the occurrence of the excessive CH4, and because of elimination of such gases as NH3, H2, and N2 from the reaction zone. It is necessary to understand that the reaction acts proceed within the CH4-hydrate matrix and, if an amino-acid molecule forms inside a structural cavity, it is localized there and “pushes out” the small side particles which diffuse from a cavity to a cavity out of the reaction zone. Thus, comparably large amino-acid molecules fill steadily the cavities and the small side molecules go out of the reaction zone. We think that the processes of amino-acids formation go approximately in such a way.

However, experimental verification of this theory is necessary and the autoclave instrumentation and procedures are proposed in different our papers, beginning from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235351966_Generalized_hypothesis_of_the_origin_of_the_living-matter_simplest_elements_transformation_of_the_Archean_atmosphere_and_the_formation_of_methane_-_Hydrate_deposits

and in later papers.    

A number of observations, 3D-simulations, and natural phenomena confirm the occurrence of processes of living-matter formation and development within Earth’s underground localizations of methane-hydrate; see, e.g.

 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265255386_Life_Origination_Hydrate_Theory_LOH-Theory_and_the_Explanation_of_the_Biological_Diversification .

In this paper, a special section is devoted to the confirmations. 

Article Generalized hypothesis of the origin of the living-matter si...

Article Life Origination Hydrate Theory (LOH-Theory) and the Explana...

Victor,

All your responses are condescending in style. In addition, intentionally or unintentionally, you misrepresent my original wordings. I have never written and would never write that “the more is the delta G magnitude, the more intensively goes reaction.”

You write: “I see no scientific meaning in your opinion about the occurrence of thermodynamically favorable reactions.” Again you misinterpret my opinion: the thermodynamically feasible reactions may proceed spontaneously.

This your statement is evident and I absolutely agree with it.  “There are thermodynamically feasible reactions, and just the kinetic regulations determine the really formed products in many-component systems.”  In my previous post I wrote: “your thermodynamic arguments do not support your theory. At the same time, your theory does not violate the thermodynamic laws.” What is wrong in my statement?

“However, experimental verification of this theory is necessary and the autoclave instrumentation and procedures are proposed in different our papers.” If you know how to experimentally prove your theory, why you did not do that?  Why do you expect that someone will do such experiments? You have only speculations but now experimental facts.

One of the elementary step in the reaction (3) should involve CH4. The C-H bond activation in alkane is one of the hottest field in chemistry. I’m familiar with the latest progress in this area. A discovery of any reaction of CH4 (e.g. with KNO3) under mild conditions within the CH4-hydrate matrix or wherever else would be one of the greatest event in chemistry.

Yurii,

I had put the question “Do you believe that all principal food substances can be changed for industrial products obtained on the basis of minerals?” The question is put generally. Do you believe or not? You write about everything: about our theory on the origin of life, about solar energy, about your further progress in the use of the solar energy, about your diligence and the desire to criticize me (“I spent hours to critically analyze your theory”), but you don’t answer the question. What theory? It appears that it is the theory of the origin of life. Meanwhile, I worked and spent not hours but more than 60 years to formulate this theory and related theories of mitosis and DNA replication, of the causes of aging and a way for life prolongation, and of chirality and delay of racemization; these theories are published in more than 10 peer-reviewed international journals and downloaded by more than 9000 researchers. Read two abridged open official reviews (written by an experienced professor of biology of three universities for two consecutive papers. «…Perhaps, the most astonishing and challenging novelty in this book is the approach of DNA structure and chemical dynamics by focusing on its interactions with its natural solvent, the water molecules, and the changes in water concentrations through the cell’s life cycle (chapter by Ostrovskii and Kadyshevich). This most interesting hypothesis develops a concept that escapes conceptions established through the force of habit, which frequently result in dominant, yet unproven intuitive truths. This hypothesis will doubtlessly produce new deep insights into every level of DNA associated processes, and probably also general cell physiology, if given the deserved consideration and further developed…“ (2) I see several positive features in the proposed hypothesis and its presentation, which make it deserving publication.

1. It is original, as it shows that RNA and DNA could originate through thermodynamically spontaneous processes, with no external energy supply.

2. The conditions for the origins of life differ from other hypotheses, conditions that seem much less restrictive.

3. It predicts the usage of the bases A, C, G and T/U, versus other similar ones (such as Х)

4. It predicts the monochirality of living matter.

My statement that the hypothesis "will doubtlessly produce new, deep insights into every level of DNA-associated processes“ is already confirmed by the present manuscript.”

You don’t like our thermodynamics. Nevertheless, this our theory is printed thrice in thermodynamic journals. As for thermodynamics of the theory, we made everything that is possible for this very complicated system. At least, nobody made this never better and more. Of course, there are no limits for enhancement! Let somebody made this better. Our calculations are approximate. But just by using thermodynamic calculations we answered rather firmly a number of questions. Below, I give the list of all answered questions and those answered by using thermodynamics are marked (LMSE: Living Matter Simplest Elements):

 (1) In what phase did the LMSEs form? (2) From what substances did they form? (3) By what mechanism did the N-bases, riboses, and nucleosides form? (4) Is Nature capable of synthesizing LMSEs from minerals with no external energy? (5) How had methane-hydrate originated? (6) How had CH4 and NO3– met together? (7) Why no substance but NO3- reacted with CH4-hydrate? (8) How did DNA- and RNA-like molecules form from nucleosides? (9) Is there a relation between DNA and RNA formation, on the one hand, and the atmospheric composition, on the other hand? (10) Why do only five chemical elements usually enter into the DNA and RNA composition? (11) Why are N-bases entering into DNA and RNA similar in their compositions and structure? (12) Why are N-bases and riboses limited in size? (13) Why are N-bases not identical? (14) Why do only five N-bases usually enter into the DNA and RNA compositions, and why do other N-bases, such as xanthine, sometimes enter into the DNA and RNA compositions? (15) Could D-ribose (DR), desoxy-D-ribose (DDR), thymine, and uracil exist simultaneously in a reaction mixture containing CH4 and niter? (16) How had it happened that the sequences of N-bases in DNA and RNA molecules are not random? (17) Why did Nature choose DR and DDR, but not their L-enantiomers or mixtures of enantiomers, for DNA and RNA syntheses? (18) How did primary plant proto-cells originate? (19) How did primary animals originate? (20) What is the physicochemical mechanism of the mitosis and DNA replication? (21) Why did living-matter explosive distribution occur late in cold periods? (22) Under what conditions can living matter appear on other planets? (23) Why cannot Darwin’s species diversity hypothesis be confirmed? (24) Why is the concentration of living matter in the oceanic and sea water columns small as compared with that in the near-bottom and inshore waters? (25) What is the nature of the nucleotide and DNA monochirality? (From the journal: Mini-reviews of organic chemistry, 2015, see ResearchGate).

          You write: ”You have only speculations but now experimental facts.”(??) Is this Freudian misprint? If yes, you didn’t read our papers but you know, what is there and what is absent there. They contain a number of experimental and observational facts. We didn’t synthesized DNA, but it is usual fact that different scientists formulate theories of processes and try to realize these processes (V. Ginsburg and superconductivity, A. Oparin and living matter, etc.). Without this, we made in science quite a lot.

          To the point, on the issue of what any of us made in thermodynamics and is expert in it…I read the titles of all your papers in the ResearchGate site. I saw not once the words thermodynamics, enthalpy, entropy, heat effect, equilibrium. May be, I was wrong. I would like to read your thermodynamic papers. If such papers exist, please, give me the corresponding references in the following your issue with criticism of my works.   

It is not all that I would like to answer you, but this issue is already too long.

Dear All, 

We put a problem the meaning and importance of which is grandiose. Nutrition from wideky distributed minerals! And Nature prompts the solution. Even the possibility of writing of all chemical reactions and the possibility of matching of the coefficients for them force to think. Methane-hydrate with its honey-comb structure with almost usual S-admixture in it and NO3 and PO4-ions and no more! Nothing more is necessary to have protein as a result of chemical reactions! The problem of nutrition for people can be solved under any unfavourable conditions!? And the cows would be happy! Thermodynamics? Apparently, the thermodynamics is also together with us. It is necessary to try to create the technology. Apparently, such processes go to one's utmost under the sea bottom. Read our papers, for example, the paper in the J. Molec. Evolution. There, it is written  about this discovery and the corresponding references are given. The game is worth the candle!

I do not believe in creation of underground civilization powered by the reaction CH4 + KNO3.

 If you use the term "LOH-Hypothesis," instead of "LOH-Theory,"   I would accepted it.  

I agree with this definition of the word "theory:"

 "In science, an explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations. A theory is more general and better verified than a hypothesis." 

I would like to read your the most cited paper to see how your hypothesis is considered by the scientific community. 

My main area of expertise is the kinetics and mechanisms of homogeneous catalytic processes.

one of the recent paper:

Oxidation of Reduced Keggin Heteropolytungstates by Dioxygen in Water Catalyzed by Cu(II)

Mooeung Kim, Ira A. Weinstock, Yurii V. Geletii, and Craig L. Hill

ACS Catal., 2015, 5 (12), pp 7048–7054

Publication Date (Web): October 20, 2015 

the most cited paper:  

A Fast Soluble Carbon-Free Molecular Water Oxidation Catalyst Based on Abundant Metals

By: Yin, Qiushi; Tan, Jeffrey Miles; Besson, Claire; et al.

SCIENCE   Volume: 328   Issue: 5976   Pages: 342-345, Published: APR 16 2010

Yurii,

(1) You write: “If you use the term "LOH-Hypothesis," instead of "LOH-Theory,"   I would accepted it.  I agree with this definition of the word "theory:  "In science, an explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations. A theory is more general and better verified than a hypothesis." 

This your complaint is ridiculous. There are no conventional definitions of these terms, at least, neither in English nor in Russian or French. Tens of proposals are available. Use of one of these terms only reflects the attitude of a person to the subject of consideration. Your definition you can retain for your own lexicon. We wrote for more than ten years “LOH-Hypothesis” and write LOH-Theory after obtaining answers for 25 questions listed by me in my previous issue. I know in details, in contrast to you, the history of this problem, and I don’t know its more comprehensive consideration than that proposed by us. We proposed the method of its verification. It is extremely actual problem because its solution promises production of nutrition from minerals. To set to this work, it is necessary to study thoroughly all our works on this subject, rather than a half of a paper, because, chronologically, each new paper adds the new and doesn’t detail earlier considerations. Seemingly, no other way of protein production from minerals exists. It is impossible to turn down our theory through reasoning; all the more so, through reasoning by a dilettante. It is necessary to try to apply it for synthesizing of protein from minerals. Nature made this, and people should repeat its work. May be, something should be discussed and something should be improved. And, if this was made by G-d, it was made, apparently, not from nothing.

Meanwhile, our theory corresponds, in my opinion, to all requirements producible by your definition of this term. Read, at least, ten our most principal papers, study the content of several thousands of references occurring in these papers, and, when you will understand the significance of the problem and the state of its solution, think of this.

Therewith, please, take into account that, by using the same scientific basis as for the LOH-theory, we are the first to propose a physicochemical theory of DNA replication and mitosis, proposed a new explanation for the processes of aging and new approaches to specification of optimal nutrition and to life prolongation. After that, you, maybe, will understand the significance of the works made by us in this field of science.

I don’t write about those innovations that we introduced into other sciences, because this is a special question.    

As for other your remarks, I will answer to them in another issue.

Yurii,

(1) You write: “If you use the term "LOH-Hypothesis," instead of "LOH-Theory,"   I would accepted it.  I agree with this definition of the word "theory:  "In science, an explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations. A theory is more general and better verified than a hypothesis." 

This your complaint is ridiculous. There are no conventional definitions of these terms, at least, neither in English nor in Russian or French. Tens of proposals are available. Use of one of these terms only reflects the attitude of a person to the subject of consideration. Your definition you can retain for your own lexicon. We wrote for more than ten years “LOH-Hypothesis” and write LOH-Theory after obtaining answers for 25 questions listed by me in my previous issue. I know in details, in contrast to you, the history of this problem, and I don’t know its more comprehensive consideration than that proposed by us. We proposed the method of its verification. It is extremely actual problem because its solution promises production of nutrition from minerals. To set to this work, it is necessary to study thoroughly all our works on this subject, rather than a half of a paper, because, chronologically, each new paper adds the new and doesn’t detail earlier considerations. Seemingly, no other way of protein production from minerals exists. It is impossible to turn down our theory through reasoning; all the more so, through reasoning by a dilettante. It is necessary to try to apply it for synthesizing of protein from minerals. Nature made this, and people should repeat its work. May be, something should be discussed and something should be improved. And, if this was made by G-d, it was made, apparently, not from nothing.

Meanwhile, our theory corresponds, in my opinion, to all requirements producible by your definition of this term. Read, at least, ten our most principal papers, study the content of several thousands of references occurring in these papers, and, when you will understand the significance of the problem and the state of its solution, think of this.

Therewith, please, take into account that, by using the same scientific basis as for the LOH-theory, we are the first to propose a physicochemical theory of DNA replication and mitosis, proposed a new explanation for the processes of aging and new approaches to specification of optimal nutrition and to life prolongation. After that, you, maybe, will understand the significance of the works made by us in this field of science.

I don’t write about those innovations that we introduced into other sciences, because this is a special question.    

As for other your remarks, I will answer to them in another issue.

OK, Kenneth, 

I counted you. 

OK, I understand nothing in this field. I give up. I would like to know the opinions of experts on your theory. Please, provide references on papers in which your theory is cited and discussed by the experts. I will rely upon their opinion. " After that, you, maybe, will understand the significance of the works made by us in this field of science."

Yurii, 

I see, you downloaded one of our papers of the ten years' prescription in the Успехи физических наук (Physics-Uspekhi) (The translation is made not by us, and the Russian version is available at the RG site). It is published as a result of personal solution taken by V.L. Ginzburg (Nobelist in physics 2003 and Editor-in-Chief of the Physics-Uspekhi that is one of the most prestigious Russian journals of Physical and Astronomical review-papers), and we are proud of this. This paper contains the LOH-Theory and "germs" of the PFO-CFO Theory, which is based on the principles contradictory to those used by Ginzburg in his book on cosmology. And, in spite of this, he published our paper. We have been told later that the deciding reviewer was acad. G.R. Ivanitskii. Since then, the theory was significantly developed and we used it when formulating a new explanation of the species diversity (J. Molec. Evolution), the Mitosis and Replication Hydrate Theory (four papers), the explanations of the monochirality and delay in racemization (journal “Chirality”), a new explanation for the processes of aging, and new approaches to specification of the optimal nutrition and to the life prolongation (book Safe Food). All these papers are available at the RG site.

I asked the simple question: who cited your papers? I want to read them.

I asked the simple question: who cited your papers? I promise to read them.

Yurii, 

Everything will be. 

 Yurii,

     I wrote that I looked at the list of your contributions at the RG site. I had seen there the following:

(1)   All or, may be, almost all of several tens of scientific works performed with your participation in the Alexander E. Shilov’ laboratory (Russia) and in the Emory University (Atlanta), represent kinetic studies of liquid-phase catalytic reactions in solutions. The objects of your current works are interesting, but you are the leading author (the first in the author’s list) in only a small number of these works;

(2)     I didn’t see generalized scientific works, performed by you personally in the list of your works (may be, I didn’t identify them);

(3)     You published not a thermodynamic paper, and even not a paper with your participation contains in its title words thermodynamics, enthalpy, entropy, heat effect, equilibrium.

(4)     You don’t understand that, to state that one of two reactions between the same source substances is preferable, it is insufficient to show that the free-energy decrease for one reaction is greater in magnitude than that for the other reaction and make mistakes in your thermodynamic reasoning.                            

(5)     I see not a paper written by you about the problems of life origination and development, about the food and phenomena and processes connected with these problems and, after reading of one half of a paper written by a researcher who many years lives with this problem, published many review paper on these subjects and proposed a number of new ideas for their clarification, you consider possible to criticize him in a dictatorial and implicit manner and, similarly to an attorney, to bring to him one after another accusations and lay claims.

Up to present, you criticized me. Now, allow me to give you one critical advice. You are writing that you are actively working in the problem of accumulation and storage of solar energy in chemical bonds. The problem of the storage of energy in chemical bonds is an important and not a new problem. For example, Li-Xian Sun in China works in this field for many years. In your papers, I didn’t see your personal principal achievements in this field. Made principally new works, propose a principally new idea in this field and, after that, you will have the moral right to attack another's scientific works so much as in this field, if you like to criticize other persons. And, until, I advise you to be more modest.       

Yurii,

According to your persistent requirements, I give you this list.

The list of citations and opinions on one of the papers that contain the grounds of the LOH-Theory

(the opinions of some researchers having his own hypotheses of living matter origination are not included because they require my response commentaries)

 Below, [1, 2] are: Островский В.Е., Кадышевич Е.А., Успехи физ. наук, 177 (2007)183-206 and its English version V. Ostrovskii, E. Kadyshevich, Physics-Uspekhi, 50 (2) (2007)175-196.

 Larionov S.V. Russ. J. Coord. Chem., 38 (2012) 1

“The elucidation of the reason for the appearance of homochirality of natural organic substances during evolution is an urgent problem [1, 2].”

 Brukhno A.V., Anwar J., Davidchack R., Handel R., J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 20 (2008) 494243 (17pp)

“…there is a recent hypothesis that initial steps of RNA evolution may take place very slowly within the permafrost on the timescale of longlasting ice ages [1, 2]. In this long-term process local stresses and molecular rearrangements within the subsoil ice, due to weather fluctuations and palaeoplatform drifts, should be a major factor leading to a retarded diffusion of icebound small organic compounds (methane and nitrates) which are supposed to eventually meet and react.”

Krichkov A., Shnabel O., Philosophy of Science Multiplied by Squared Velocity of Light. Е=SPh × с2, Book · 2014, M: Sputnik.

“В основе ощущения особой упорядоченности биологических структур лежит то обстоятельство, что в информации, содержащейся в живой материи, есть «смысл», т.е. этим структурам присуща особая так называемая «осмысленная» упорядоченность» [1,2].

Sovga E.E., Lyubartseva S.P., Lyubitsky A.A., Phys. Oceanogr. 18 (2008) 272. 

“The processes of methane release in the shelf zones serve as an additional source of energy for the local ecosystems stimulating biodiversity. Moreover, according to one of the existing hypotheses of the origin of life on the Earth [1, 2], the simplest elements of the living matter were formed from methane, saltpeter, and phosphates in the boundary domains of the solid phases of gas hydrates of the simplest hydrocarbons. This process was accompanied by the release of molecular nitrogen and oxygen, which played an important role in the formation of the contemporary chemical composition of the terrestrial atmosphere even prior to the germination of life. It seems likely that these processes still run in methane hydrates.”  

Fedonkin M.A., Geochemistry International, 2009, Vol. 47, No. 13, pp. 1265–1333.

“New physicochemical hypotheses for the origin of the precursors of biological compounds within the hydrate … models [1, 2…] are also intriguing. These hypotheses are similar to each other in that they assume the existence of closed molecular structures (peculiar nanoreactors), where biogenic elements are accumulated and conserved, and complex and biologically active molecules are subsequently synthesized.

The investigation of the role of precrystalline mineral phases in the development of living systems seems to be very promising for many reasons and, primarily, because of the high reactivity and catalytic activity of such incipient structures and their ability to form labile complexes that can accumulate, store, and release energy.”

Taran O., Simonov A.N., V.N. Snytnikov, Parmon V.N., Ch.in book: Biosphere Origin and Evolution, 2008, pp 103-117.

“There is a number of alternative theories, with an origin of life based, for example, on (de Duve, 1991), lipids (Segre and Lancet, 1997), inorganic crystals (Cairns-Smith, 1982; Hartman, 1998), FeS-H2S autotrophy (Wächtershäuser, 1992), prebiotic organic synthesis under hydrothermal conditions (Simoneit, 2004), methane-hydrate deposits (Ostrovskii and Kadyshevich, 2007) or extraterrestrial sources of life (postponing its origin) (Crick, 1981). However some experts suppose carbohydrates to be the major source of the energy driving prebiotic metabolism and chemical evolution (Weber, 1997, 2001; Tolstoguzov, 2004).

 Сейфуль-Мулюков Р.Б., Нефть и газ: глубинная природа и её прикладное значение, М: Торус-Пресс, 2012.(Oil and Gas: the Depth of Occurrence and Applications)

 Krichkov A., Shnabel O., Philosophy of Science Multiplied by Squared Velocity of Light. Е=SPh × с2, Book · 2014, M: Sputnik.

“In the basis of the perception of orderliness of biological structures lies the fact of the occurrence of a “point” in the information that is in any living matter, i.e., a special, so-called “sensible” information resides in it [1, 2].”

“В основе ощущения особой упорядоченности биологических структур лежит то обстоятельство, что в информации, содержащейся в живой материи, есть «смысл», т.е. этим структурам присуща особая так называемая «осмысленная» упорядоченность» [1, 2].”

 G. Gladyshev, comments at the RG site, Jun 20, 2016:

“Works are very interesting and circumstantial” (in Russian: “Очень интересные и обстоятельные работы.”)  

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299393989_GIDRATNAA_TEORIA_PROISHOZDENIA_ZIVOJ_MATERII_LIFE_ORIGINATION_HYDRATE_THEORY_LOH-THEORY_I_MNOGOOBRAZIE_VIDOV

H. Seligmann, Prof. of the Universities of Oslo, Jerusalem, and Tel-Aviv, Fragment of the Preface  to the book   «DNA REPLICATION - CURRENT ADVANCES», 2011, InTech, Croatia, 2011:    

«…Perhaps, the most astonishing and challenging novelty in this book is the approach of DNA structure and chemical dynamics by focusing on its interactions with its natural solvent, the water molecules, and the changes in water concentrations through the cell’s life cycle (chapter by Ostrovskii and Kadyshevich). This most interesting hypothesis develops a concept that escapes conceptions established through the force of habit, which frequently result in dominant, yet unproven intuitive truths. This hypothesis will doubtlessly produce new deep insights into every level of DNA associated processes, and probably also general cell physiology, if given the deserved consideration and further developed. The approach in that chapter integrates processes associated with DNA and its structure with more basic physical properties at a lower scale of natural phenomena, namely the multimolecular dynamical structure of water.»

From: Gerald Pollack (Dr. Gerald Pollack, University of Washington, professor of bioengineering, is the author of an original theory of water.) 

To: Victor Ostrovskii

Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 5:20 AM

Dear Victor,

I read your piece with considerable interest. As you can well imagine from having looked at my book (now in Russian), we both think that the role of water is unexpectedly critical in many if not all cellular processes. I've presumed the same was true in mitosis, but I'm not an expert on that subject and was never able to develop (or to devote the time to develop) any sophisticated understanding, or hypothesis. You've done so. Congratulations!

Cordially, Jerry

Conference Paper ГИДРАТНАЯ ТЕОРИЯ ПРОИСХОЖДЕНИЯ ЖИВОЙ МАТЕРИИ (LIFE ORIGINATI...

Your post is insulting. I have already agreed that I understand nothing and my personal contribution to science is zero. therefore I asked  you for the third time the simple question: who cited your papers? I want to read them and to rely upon opinions of experts on your theory. 

My issues contain facts and only facts. Please, disprove them. After all your unconditional criticism, your words "I have already agreed that I understand nothing and my personal contribution to science is zero" seem as irony. I consider a number of your issues as insulting towards me and my experience. 

Kenneth, 

I wrote earlier that I counted you. You are right: CO2 in the atmosphere, it is a bad gift. However, the conditions that provoke extinctions are much worse. In Phanerozoic, mass extinctions were repeated tenfold. The last one was about 13,000 years ago. Do you think that all they were initiated by CO2? The PFO-CFO Theory leads us to the conclusion that just the Sun and Ra are the committers of these earthy troubles. And the not very hurried creation of underground civilization plus nutrition from minerals are capable of minimization of the sacrifices resulted from protuberances like those at the DG CVn red dwarf in 2014. Nature is very stubborn thing! Instead of one new aerocarrier, a lot of useful work could be made.   

This was supposed to be a scientific discussions I guess.. no need to fall into insulting comments. What Victor propose here is not so weird -- because unless human population size be strictly limited, it's obvious that there will be no room for manufacturing natural products for all of us in the future... and some people here might argue that artificially limiting the human population size is not natural, so of course there is a conflict here. There is nothing wrong in thinking that our food can eventually be produced without the direct input energy from the Sun. Natural bacteria can in fact perform a process called chemiosynthesis, which does not use light to produce organic molecules. Life on Earth indeed may have had its origin under this modality, in the deep ocean, in particular Hydrothermal Vents (there is an interesting book from Nick Lane called "The Vital Question" which discuss this). Best regards.

Dear Salvador,

"This was supposed to be a scientific discussions I guess.. no need to fall into insulting comments" Absolutely right

"our food can eventually be produced without the direct input energy from the Sun." Surely, that our food can eventually be produced using the indirect  input energy from the Sun.

 "Life on Earth indeed may have had its origin in the deep ocean, in particular Hydrothermal Vents." This is feasible, nobody argues against this hypothesis.

Dear All,

the discussion of the original question turns to the discussion of my personality and my contribution to Science. I'm not going to be involved in this discussion.

I gave a clear answer to the original question. There is no way to create a sustainable underground civilization unless you find an energy source to power such energy demanding civilization.

Victor, I have never criticised you but critiqued your theory. I apologize if some my wordings  looks  insulting. English is not my mother language.

I really want to know the expert opinions published in respectable peer reviewed journals. In the papers from your list there is no scientific discussion of your theory. 

I checked the citations of your publications on life origin in Web of Science. I did not find references discussing your theory. Therefore, I consider your idea as an hypothesis but not as an experimentally confirmed theory. 

Concerning the statement: "My issues contain facts and only facts. Please, disprove them."    Facts can't be disproved.   From Wikipedia: "In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret  facts.

Dear all,

I also want to recall the original question. It might be true, that proteins could be theroretically sythesized based on methane / sodium nitrate. It is also true that some deep-sea plants do not need direct solar energy but harvest energy from sources of hot water.

So however, the  key question is: you either use fossile sources of methane/nitrates or you need energy to produce them. So this (restricted fossile sources / energy sources) are exactly the problems mankind is tackling today, with huge effort and yet no sustainable solution.

I do not see how this situation should improve, if mankind had to rely on "underground civilization". It's the same problems. Hard to solve for 7 billion people, even harder if you have to do everything underground.

So, like "moving to another planet" this might be a possibilty for few, but not for mankind in a wider sense.

And again, if humans are (by whatever catastrophic) events were forced into an "underground civilization", than, in my view, it's probably easier to eat whatever is there, there will be at least something - insects, bacteria. ... 

To develop a "backup" for humankind on the base of new proteine sythesis seems to me as absurd as planning a planetary exodus. 

So, my anser is:

No, I do not believe that all principal food substances can be changed for industrial products, at least not for a substantial part of mankind.

No. I do  not think that an activity aimed at the solution of this problem should be developed. Without a suitable energy source, such an activity has neither the chance  to resolve the problem of population upsurge nor to support an underground civilization.

The use of words like "absurd" is what other people can feel as insulting sometimes. And except logical contradictions, nothing is really absurd. As an absurd was widely considered the idea of Christopher Colon of navigating to the West in the Renaissance...

Methane, nitrate, geothermical waters, etc.. all those resources can be considered as stored energy that originally came from the Sun. The only energy source independent of the Sun could be the nuclear energy, provided that one already has a nuclear plant and supplies with such independence. Best regards.

Kenneth, you might want to read some papers like:

Martin, William, et al. "Hydrothermal vents and the origin of life." Nature reviews. Microbiology 6.11 (2008): 805.

Lane, Nick, John F. Allen, and William Martin. "How did LUCA make a living? Chemiosmosis in the origin of life." BioEssays 32.4 (2010): 271-280.

Herschy, Barry, et al. "An origin-of-life reactor to simulate alkaline hydrothermal vents." Journal of molecular evolution 79.5-6 (2014): 213-227.

There are some specific facts that would imply that actually life arised long before photosynthesis. You might not share some of the arguments there, but it is not improbable that life emerged in marine hydrothermal vents. 

@ Salvador Ramirez-Flandes: ok, I retract "absurd" and replace it by "improbable" or "costly to such an extent that it seems improbable to me unless we have access to so much energy that is is reduced to a secondary question".  

Kenneth: I don't think I missed the point as it was you who wrote: "It is improbable that life on Earth emerged from the deep oceans". You used the word "emerge" there, not "sustain in the long term". English is not my native language, but I think we can equate "emerge" with "originate", right? if so then the articles I cited have plenty of evidence for disproving your first statement.

Dear All, 

Just DNA is the necessary and primary element of life. The DNA, being such as it is, could originate only within a matrix, which limits the further chemical growth of the N-bases. The quantity of the source molecules for DNA formation should be no more than three because repeated meetings of four definite molecules are improbable. Etc. Therefore, the mechanism of DNA formation proposed by us is the only possible one. This conclusion can't be disproved. I advise for each who is really interested in this problem, to read any one or two our review papers in English or Russian but it is necessary to read them from the beginning to the end. It is, may be, a difficult task because the papers are not simple, but, after this reading, you will understand that the way of living matter origination proposed by us is the only possible one. When reading two papers, you will find  answers to all your questions. Make up your mind now! After that, no fruitless issues about possible and impossible ways of the life origination will be needed. 

Kenneth: the semantics of our statements is important, not a minor issue. I'm done here if you believe otherwise because it is a waste of time if we don't agree on that basic issue. I'm just citing more recent research than what you have referenced here, and there is a body of evidence to support the idea that life may have originated in marine hydrothermal vents, without the requirement of light. Where did it go from there is not the point when you argue that the origin of life is improbable in the deep ocean.  Also, I read your Science article from 1991, and what you argue there is of course correct, but in those years the Alkaline hydrothermal vent systems (not the black smokers) were not known to geochemists (they were discovered in the early 2000). That changes things.

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

Best regards.

Victor, you insisted to answer your original question. Now you switch back to your theory. If you want to discuss your theory, ask a specific question related to the theory. 

This statement is not generally true: "Just DNA is the necessary and primary element of life", unless you have your own definition of life. So I don't feel motivated to read further a theory that might starts in that way... and even less when you treat as "fruitless" a discussion about the origins of life. I'm sorry.

Yurii,

Just you started this conversation, you began to discuss the LOH-Theory, and just I wrote you that my question is about food but not about the theory. I don't want to discuss with you anything. I had prepared one more answer to your infinite questions. I could sent it you if this is necessary for you, but, in any case, I don't want to continue the conversation with you.  As for the opinions of the experts about our LOH-Theory, I had sent you the opinions by Profs. Seligmann, Pollack, Gladyshev and several other citations.     

Dear Salvador, 

I don,t understand you. First, I had read two your issues but I wrote you nothing. Second, do you think that any living issue is possible with no DNA? Please, explaine your opinion.  

Dear Salvador, 

The last statement of the last Kenneth's issue "...life's origin was not probable at hydrothermal vents." is correct. Still, I advise you to read our LOH-Theory if the problem of life origination is of your interest. 

Victor,

I attempted to critically analyze your hypothesis to improve weak points. Your responses were always condescending in style. 

You wrote:  "I had sent you the opinions by Profs. Seligmann, Pollack, Gladyshev and several other citations. "

I checked several databases. I have found only 3 papers cited (actually only mentioned) your work on LOH theory. "The significance of the works made by us in this field of science" can be  judged only by a scientific community, but not by the authors. 

This is my last response to you  while I have full rights to comment others posts.  You are not obliged to answer to this post. 

" I had prepared one more answer to your infinite questions." I would like to read it and promise not to answer. 

Kenneth, did you actually read what I wrote? I did not mention black smokers to add something (but to set them aside), so why writing that they add nothing but smoke.. that comment does make it any semantic sense at all. I said that at the time of your article you did not have knowledge about a second type of hydrothermal vents, called alkaline hydrothermal vents (discovered in 2000). Body of evidence you ask? well, please read the following reference (which is a bit more recent than your references, from more than 20 years ago):

Lane, Nick, John F. Allen, and William Martin. "How did LUCA make a living? Chemiosmosis in the origin of life." BioEssays 32.4 (2010): 271-280.

If you find that the arguments exposed there are not enough (which are based on the alkaline hydrothermal vents), OK then, I don't care, but care about other people reading this thread in the future. 

And Victor: the same references above can explain my point in that DNA is not absolute necessary for life. More elementary is the idea of a replicator, which can be implemented with DNA but not absolutely necessary. Some authors have argued about the possibility of a RNA-world, because RNA can store information and be a catalyst at the same time.

Now, I'm done with this... not willing to waste more time with people that completely ignore the references that one uses. 

Dear Salvador, 

The statement that the life origination within hydrothermal vents is impossible, it is the case when my and Kenneth's opinions coincide. 

Dear All, 

I would like to explain in more detail, why I write about the necessity of formulation of the problem of artificial nutrition creation from minerals

Today, a very powerful protuberance was observed at the Sun.  It was, according to the published observations, about X90. It is very high power. It is striking for many astrophysicists that it was observed between the periods of active Sun. I wrote here that, according to our PFO-CFO Theory, extremely powerful solar protuberances are quite possible in our time. In the literature, similar opinions are available. For example, Australian astronomer Piers Van der Meer predicted that similar phenomena and even the solar explosion can be observed very soon. He predicted explosion of the Sun in a rather near future. A number of researchers observe a significant increase in the solar temperature. The widely distributed solar model based on the Eddington's 100-year-old arbitrary assumptions and on the big bang hypothesis obtained from the General Relativity theory (GR) that follows from the arbitrary assumption on the light speed constancy over the Universe cannot explain the significant increasing in the solar temperature and predicts an approximately constant solar activity for billions of years.

Our PFO-CFO Theory uses neither Eddington's assumptions nor GR, and it explains the present solar temperature increase and, in not very remote future, predicts very powerful solar radioactive protuberances, which may be much more powerful than the one observed today. I should say that the PFO-CFO Theory was developed by  us independently of Piers Van der Meer’s observations and predictions.  

I call the experts in cosmology and astrophysics to pay an attention to our publications available at the RG site. And I repeat my proposal to develop unhurried scientific and engineering works aimed at creation of underground civilization and at creation of nutrition from minerals, passing over plants and animals. To be prevented means to be armed! 

I hope, unlike Piers Van der Meer, that humanity has enough time to solve these problems, and I believe that the present engineering, chemistry, and physics are capable of performing these difficult tasks.

I should notice that not all astrophysicists agree that the dangers, about which I and Piers Van der Meer write, exist, and it is possible that they are right. And, in any case, I repeat, I think that humanity have plenty of time to get ready for it. 

see

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/39-our-solar-system/the-earth/other-catastrophes/59-will-the-sun-go-supernova-in-six-years-and-destroy-earth-as-seen-on-yahoo-intermediate

"I recently read an article (link now expired on Yahoo Entertainment News) that I found initially disturbing, but after reading the information on this site regarding the sun, I feel much more calm. However, I am curious as to whether the article I read carries any merit whatsoever.

Is Dr. Piers Van der Meer an established astrophysicist? Is the European Space Agency a respectable organization? Do they have some sort of hidden agenda for promoting such an astonishing theory? Essentially, do these people know what they're talking about?"

I hadn't seen this article before, so thanks for bringing it to my attention. You're right to be skeptical, for several reasons!

First, the sun is too small to ever go supernova, so the basic premise of the article is incorrect. There just isn't enough mass in our sun to cause it to explode and collapse to form a neutron star or black hole.

Also, I haven't been able to find out any information on this guy "Dr. Piers Van der Meer". There's an online database, called the Astrophysics Data System (ADS), that keeps records of journal articles published in astronomy/astrophysics/planetary science. Even beginning graduate students will show up in the records because they've usually been to at least one conference, and as soon as you have a couple papers about your research it's easy to find out what you're doing and where you work. But this person doesn't show up in the system at all! I looked him up using a search engine and he doesn't seem to have a web page affiliated with any organization. So if he's a serious astrophysicist, he hasn't published papers or appeared at conferences before, and isn't part of a major organization.

Also, the article claims he's associated with the European Space Agency (ESA) (which is a real, credible organization), but when you look at their website there's no mention of this press release at all. So it's not endorsed by them, apparently.

The article was also written for "Weekly World News", which is one of those papers that tends to publish fictional stories and half-truths, or distort the truth to get a sensationalistic story. And there are some truths to the story. For example, SOHO is a satellite that is run jointly by ESA and NASA, and it does take images of giant flares and prominences, which are like giant explosions on the sun. Flares and prominences happen all the time, and although they may cause aurorae or interfere with communications, they're really not a big deal. SOHO has lots of cool images; you can check them out at the SOHO website. Notice they don't say anything about the sun exploding either.

A few people have requested more information about the temperature of the sun. The temperature at the center of the sun is about 16 million degrees Kelvin (27 million degrees Fahrenheit), as stated in the article. As the sun burns up its hydrogen, helium builds up in the core, and the core contracts. This contraction causes heating, so the internal temperature of the sun is increasing over time. However, this temperature change in the hydrogen burning sun is very slow! In the book "The New Solar System", Kenneth Lang states that as a result of the core contraction and heating, the surface temperature has gone up 300 K over the past 4.5 billion years. When the sun exhausts its hydrogen supply (in a few billion years) the sun will become a red giant star, which has a much hotter, helium-burning, core but actually a lower surface temperature. (The Astro 201 website has a good webpage about the sun's evolution, if you want an explanation of the transition to red giants.) The current surface temperture of the sun is about 5780 Kelvins. Since surface temperature determines a star's color, the sun would actually appear blue if its surface temperature had doubled! Everyone would be able to notice that. Also, the Weekly World News article claims that people measured temperature trends "in recent years", which (besides being vague) is a very short time in the life of the sun. Temperature measurements over a few years really won't tell you anything about the long term behavior of the sun.

So, I think what happened is that Weekly World News pieced together some truths and found some person willing to add a few extra things to make the story exciting. It's certainly not credible astrophysics! 

  Lynn Carter

Lynn uses radar astronomy to study the planets, especially Venus. She got her PhD in Astronomy from Cornell in Summer 2004 and is now working at the Smithsonian in Washington D.C. on the Mars Express radar.

About Yurii Geletii, 

It is surprisingly that a researcher who published not a paper on astrophysics, published only several tens of papers on kinetics of chemical reactions in liquid phase, and knows about astrophysical problems only by hearsay considers for him possible to write such an issue on one of the debatable astrophysical problems. 

We are not discussing my personality. You forced me to write about my citation statistic. More than 100 publications, more than 4000 citations,  h-index is between 29 and 33 (depending on database), two research papers have been cited 879 and 492 times. Surely, citations cannot be used to make a precise comparison of researchers but they can show whether a researchers work is worth reading.

In my recent post I only copied-pasted the opinion of Prof.  Lynn Carter about Dr. Piers Van der Meer. I failed to find any his publication. "It's certainly not credible astrophysics!" said Prof. Lynn Carter. 

Yurii, Dear All,

Yurii, your h-index and a number of citations relate neither to the problem of artificial food, nor to the problem of life origination, nor to the problem of theory of the Sun, nor to the thermodynamics of chemical reactions; all your publications relate only to the kinetics of catalytic reactions in liquid phase. These publications are multiply cited, and, as a result, their authors have high h-indexes, because these publications are dedicated to the problem of the use of solar energy and because this problem is under study of many research groups over the world; thus, many author cite each other. Meanwhile, you have no individual works; your works are performed by a wide collective of researchers, and your name is neither the last nor the first in the author lists.

Your citations and h-index by no means replace the knowledge of thermodynamics and add nothing to knowledge of the content of discussions in those fields in which you don’t work.

Our works in the field of life origination, cell functioning, cosmology and the theory of the Sun, optimal nutrition, causes of aging, and life prolongation are original and are based on new initial principles. The entire logical thread of reasoning in each of these works is new and is perfected from one work to another; therewith, different aspects of each work are given in different papers.

Since we use new initial principles, our logic of reasoning connecting the beginning of some process with its end differs in intermediate points from the logic used in old theories.

For example, we don’t proceed from big bang that follows from nothing, we state that conservation laws are valid always, we lean upon Special Relativity rather than upon General Relativity, because the last is considered by us as erroneous since it is known that gravitation influences the light and that Space is gravitationally heterogeneous. The further logic of reasoning given in our publications explains many phenomena which were not explained earlier on the big bang basis. In particular, according to the logic of our theory, all chemical elements are born by the Sun, and we described the mechanism of their birth; we explained why the temperature of solar spots is lower than the temperature of photosphere and why the temperature of photosphere and chromosphere is much lower than the temperature of corona; we explained the paradox of moments in the Solar System; we explained the regularity of 11-year solar cycles; we explained isotopic anomalies in the Solar System and outside it.  

As for the solar events of the last days, we predicted, on the basis of very detailed calculations by using our PFO-CFO Theory, a long-term warming at the Earth and disorders in 11-year solar cycles with increasing power of protuberances, what will lead to a series of powerful protuberance of type of the powerful protuberance from red dwarf DG CVn of 2014 (and we have not much time up to this event). The series of powerful protuberances of the last week and solar activity in the recent years counts in favor of actuality of our conclusions. We are not as pessimistic as the person who wrote under the pseudonym Dr. Piers Van der Meer.

We performed rather serious and laborious calculations that explained each of ten mass extinctions that occurred during Phanerozoic. 

Everything written by you about Solar Model have no common features with explanation of solar state, phenomena, and processes on the basis of our theory.

(I don’t remind in detail about the fact that we performed many methodical, calorimetric and adsorption instrument-making works, thermodynamic and kinetic experimental studies, and theoretical works in the fields of physical adsorbtion, chemical adsorbtion, sorption, and heterogeneous catalysis, which led to clarification of the kinetics and mechanisms of different adsorption and catalytic processes and to formulation of a new phenomenological theory of catalysis.) 

Yurii, 

Meanwhile, I also proposed a new theory for description of kinetics of heterogeneous catalytic reactions which proceed under conditions, when the rate of inverse reaction is comparable with the rate of direct reaction. 

This theory is developed for heterogeneous reactions, but it is also applicable in some cases for catalytic reactions in solutions. It is shown by me by the example of hydrogenation of bensene ring. It is publiched in "Fuel" in detail and in several other journals in less details. This is correction of the method of description proposed by J. Horiuti and criticized by S. Weller. All these journals are available at the Research Gate. 

Victor, 

you always switch to discuss my personality in order to discredit my reputation. I never discussed your personality. You commonly misquote me. For example:"Everything written by you about Solar Model,"  I never wrote about Solar Model.  You misstate "your name is neither the last nor the first in the author lists." 

Instead of self promotion you would better present how your theories were appraised by academic community

I 'm posting a question in RG:" What is a value of never cited academic papers?"

Dear All,

In connection with the recent powerful solar protuberances and discussion at the ReasearchGate site of the phenomena relating to this event, I consider necessary to write the following.

Our PFO-CFO Theory multiply published and presented at different scientific conferences gives no ground for waiting the explosion either of the Sun as a whole or of its radiation zone in the nearest centuries. Below, I will concretize our predictions.

Dutch astrophysicists Dr. Piers Van der Meer (this is apparently a pseudonym, and it cannot be excluded that this astrophysicist is an invention, but, in the last case, it should be taken that he is invented by George Stanford, a journalist of Weekly World News newspaper) prognosticated in the interview, which was published by this newspaper on August 13, 2002, that the Sun can explode in 6 years under some its interior conditions. He made a mistake, because 15 years had elapsed since then and the Sun continues to maintain life on the Earth.

Nevertheless, Van der Meer’s prognosis of a solar explosion should be apparently identified as the first one in the modern history, though, in reality, an explosion occurred not in 6 years but in 15 years and manifested itself not as an explosion of the Sun as a whole but as a series of three unusually powerful protuberances.

I sustain the opinion that any negative prediction should be expressed in a restrained manner, but even a negative prediction should be unveiled, because to be warned means to be armed.

In this context, I showed write that our PFO-CFO Theory led us to the following conclusions (we don’t proceed from the big bang hypothesis and adhere to another opinion on the mechanisms of the beginning and transformation of the Universe).

(1) In the foreseeable future, neither the Sun as a whole nor the solar radiation zone will explode.

(2) The Earth’s mass extinctions are caused by the solar protuberances similar in their scale to the protuberance emitted by the red dwarf DG CVn in 2014; they can be of different power and are capable of creating conditions incompatible with life on a portion of the Earth’s surface.

(3) The major portion of the period between the previous Earth’s mass extinction (about 13,000 years ago) and the future mass extinction had elapsed.

(4) The only way to decrease the number of victims in the course of the next mass extinction consists in creation of underground civilization and, very desirable, in development of the technologies of production of artificial nutrition from minerals passing over the processes proceeding within organisms of plants and animals.

(5) In my opinion, the humanity has enough time to solve these problems; however, the beginning of research and engineering works in these directions should not be put off. 

And I think that there are no grounds for panic.

The article by George Stanford is available by the address:

https://books.google.ru/books?id=-vIDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=Dr.+Piers+Van+der+Meer&source=bl&ots=MzyALCqUEp&sig=MHXaDI-gcz4OTDEBUUzZ06BUKH0&hl=ru&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwicmffowZrWAhVKJpoKHRI0Cf8Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=Dr.%20Piers%20Van%20der%20Meer&f=false

Dear All,

Every day of the last solar events adds confirmations to the consequences from our PFO-CFO Theory of Solar System Formation.

(1) According to our general prediction, present time and future period should be characterized by an increase in the solar energy (Earth warming), faults in the 11-year solar cycles, and increasing in the frequency of untimely powerful protuberances.

(2) According to the conclusions from the PFO-CFO Theory, the solar radiation zone (RZ) is separated from the core by the electron-enriched layer, electron pressure in which increases with time as a result of ionization of the star interior and floating up of electrons, which are breaking through the RZ in the form of protuberances with a definite pause, which is determined by the RZ resistance in this epoch.

(3) The radiation zone (its depth portion) is condensed, and this its state explains some of the following points.

(4) RZ and core compress almost independently in time under gravitation and other effects.

(5) In the period preceding protuberances, weak electron jets leak everywhere through the RZ pores (hundreds of such jets were observed in the course of the last events) and protuberances emit as a result of pore merging under the effect of the inner pressure.  

(6) Some protuberances are initially directed in parallel with the solar visible surface and then sharply turn away from the Sun under the energetic effect of the radiation-chemical reactions proceeding according to the PFO-CFO Theory.

(7) As a result of radiation-chemical reactions within the protuberance jets, the jets’ temperature should critically increase in the direction: dark spots – photosphere – corona.

In the context of the PFO-CFO Theory, we performed a great volume of original calculations and explained the mechanism of formation of all chemical elements, explained past mass extinctions and predicted the possibility of arising the conditions unfavorable for life in future, and explained many other phenomena in the Solar System and out of it.

On the basis of all these works, we by no means think that there are grounds for panic expectations of critic solar phenomena, but it would be reasonable to plan long-term works aimed at solution of the fundamental problems about which I wrote in previous issues.  

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Victor_Ostrovskii/contributions

Kenneth,

Sorry, I don't understant you. Wherefore  is CO2? I write about use of methane, nitrates, and phosphate. No CO2 is necessary. 

Kenneth, 

Of course, I understand the difficulties on the way of industrial production of artificial nutrition. Meanwhile, I see neither chemical nor physical insuperable obstacles to do this. As was said by N. Nekrasov, a Russian poet, "Human will and labor create amazing miracles".     

Dear All,

According to the paper published in the Journal of Propulsion and Power (AIAA), a prototype of an engine (EmDrive), which is capable of working in vacuum without fuel. It is announced that Chinese researchers and engineers created an EmDrive pilot sample and assume to test it in space. Meanwhile, no fuel-free engine is possible, according to the thermodynamics. If this test is successful, I will think over, in what connection this event is with the notion, taken by us as the basis for the PFO-CFO Theory, about Space as the endless and eternal mass/energy of a low potential. Apparently, the realization of such an engine would be the obvious confirmation of the grounds of the PFO-CFO Theory in its cosmological section. This theory has been developed by us for about ten years; it was multiply published and presented at nine international conferences, and has been widely discussed at the ResearchGate site for several years.  

Dear All,

Really, the problem of artificial nutrition is not so new and irresoluble as it sounds, especially for dilettantes. In the Former Soviet Union and, as I know not only there, such a problem was formulated and corresponding works were performed on a limited scale. Experiments were performed for cultivation of protein mass on the basis of some microorganisms by using hydrocarbons or alcohols with some additives as the medium. This protein was supposed to be used as the feed. However, the quality and cost of such a protein mass were unsatisfactory. However, first, the problem of the cost is important under the conditions of a competition and, second, we write about production and cultivation of protein mass on the basis of the minerals chosen in the context of our LOH-Theory. As was shown, microorganisms, apparently, are synthesized in nature on the basis of methane hydrate, niter, and phosphate with minor additives of some metals, which are always in the composition of these minerals.

I belive, but I hope I will not have the chance to taste such "food".

Regards,

Same here, Miroslaw,

But plants eat the soil, and we eat these plants and bear no malice. All's fish that comes to his net.

Of course. Whereof are their DNAs and all other? Do you think that everything is from the Sun? Or, may be, is everything from nothing?

Simply closed cycle of carbon and other elements in nature. Our place in this cycle precludes the consumption of stones and metals. Fortunately!

Regards,

Dear Kenneth, Dear Miroslaw,

I wrote and repeat that I see neither chemical nor physical principal obstacles for hoping that the industrial production of food from minerals is possible. Plants produce food for people on the basis of chemical processes. This means that people can try to do the same artificially in chemical reactors.

I believe in our PFO-CFO Theory. Its grounds are rather realistic and based on the Special Relativity, it doesn’t contradict the conservation laws, and the resulting hump-shaped curve is very expressive; I think that, apparently, such a curve can’t be obtained by chance. The conditions stimulating mass extinctions occurred repeatedly, and they certainly will occur once more, because nothing in nature changed principally; meanwhile, the theory shows that similar conditions are not far off. It is necessary to be ready to them as far as this is possible. I consider that I should let people know beforehand about this, the more so because the sun and red dwarf signal for us. The understanding of the total danger should change our social psychology. In my opinion, this situation should be discussed by scientists profoundly, and it should be decided whether the theory has ground or not. If yes, it is necessary to think about creation of an underground civilization. It is principally possible; the special overland buildings should mesh with the underground ones and should be connected with underground communications, many countries and even not very large, such as North Korea, have underground factories. Meanwhile, such a structure could be useful under some other conditions as well.

Kenneth,

I write about an emergency situation, when it is necessary to think about salvation of civilization. Oxygen can be obtained from the atmosphere after its purification. All your questions can be answered. I don't want to write about this. It is necessary to think and to do without unnecessary talking. Read about the previous mass extinctions. This theme is not for talking but for an activity. The technology of the underground engineering is developed. We know greater than it was written by us; we know the grounds of the today cosmology no worse than anybody other and we reject them. To prevent - this is my duty as of a scientist. First of all, it is necessary to discuss our theory and its conclusions with no prejudices together with responsible persons. Thus, I will pass on my duty and will be free of this burden. To think about the defence - this is not my concern.

OK! I will answer to your questions in some time because we have dead of night now and I have other plans.

Regards.