We develop the LOH-Theory for about 20 years, published it and its applications in a number of physical, chemical, biological, and other journals, and presented it at several tens of international conferences; the theory is applicable equally to the Watson-Crick and Hoogsten base-pairings. We see that our papers dedicated to this problem are downloaded by many thousands of researchers. These papers demonstrate that the LOH-Theory “sprouts”, apparently, into a number of the fields of science, such as explanations of DNA replication and cellular mitosis, aging of organisms and life prolongation, optimal nutrition, parasitology, medicine, chirality and racemization delay, and allows for proposing new and, possibly, promising solutions in these fields important for population or, at least, in some of them. We see no sound arguments against the theory. Meanwhile, I am well over 80 and Elena Kadyshevich went out long ago from the student age and we would like to have time for trying to answer the possible scientifically (logically) grounded arguments against the theory in order that it could serve people after us if it deserves this.
Victor Ostrovskii could you briefly summarize your LOH theory in you own words for the many people who have never heard of it?
Dear Steingrimur Stefansson,
Thank you for your interest.
May be, the best answer to your question is available for free by the address:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263235557_Life_origination_and_development_hydrate_theory_LOH-_Theory_in_the_context_of_biological_physicochemical_astrophysical_and_paleontological_studies
It is two-page paper, which was presented in 2014 at the European Planetary Science Congress (EPSC2014) and is titled "Life origination and development hydrate theory (LOH- Theory) in the context of biological, physicochemical, astrophysical, and paleontological studies".
Hi Victor, all very interesting.
But how does LOH explain the chirality differences of amino acids and sugars in the natural world?
Thank you.
As for chirality, it is really very simple phenomenon.
I. Newton wrote : "Nature is simple and doesn't luxuriate in exesses" and he was right, of course. The simplest understanding from the possible ones is, as a rule, proper.
Please, the address by free is:
Article Natural Mechanism of Origination and Conservation of Monochi...
Press and read.
Dear Dr. Steingrimur Stefansson,
Dear All,
Our explanation of chirality is, I believe, important for understanding of the disconnectedness between thermodynamics and kinetics. The occurrence of this phenomenon and our its explanation, apparently, shows that a process as such and establishing of thermodynamic equilibrium proceed by different mechanisms and the kinetics of these processes is different. (No other realistic explanation exists.) The reacting molecules know nothing about energy, and a reaction goes by the way that meets minimum steric and charge-field hindrances. The equilibrium is capable of being settled as a result of collisions, if they occur. In the case of gas-phase reactions, collisions are very frequent under usual pressures, and the equilibriums become established in reactions. In the cases of condensed phases, the situation is another. Thus, the Bronsted's paradox obtains, apparently, the realistic explanation and the potential curves have nothing to do with it. I had been assuming to write a detailed paper about this subject, but I have no confidence that I have enough time to do this and, therefore, decided to write this issue as my preliminary opinion.
Factually, the free energy - reaction rate connection wasn' t stated experimentally never and by nobody, and the multiple attempts to find it experimentally, including those made in our group, revealed no connections analogous to those proposed by Bronsted.
I think that, if my logic is correct, the explanation of the phenomenon of chirality would be important for Science in a wide sense of this term.
Dear All,
I apply to the "hommes d'esprit". This is one of the most important problems for humanity in its interactions with Nature. Discussion of this problem on the basis of available scientific achievements but not imaginations, dreams, and science fictions is, by my opinion, necessary. I know only one problem comparable with it by its significance for humanity: it is the problem of cosmology, of the Sun origination and functioning and on the gifts that can be expected from the Sun for the Earth and all living on it. Never nobody but us considered the problem of the life origination and development as deeply and widely as it is made by us. Any more or less common solution of this problem is very desirable (I am afraid of the word "necessary") for humanity because, as I wrote at this site somewhat earlier, its solution "intergrows" to the understandings of the problems of medicine, aging, optimal nutrition, life prolongation, and interaction between humans and nature living and mineral, including possibilities of nutrition industrial production from minerals, i.e., fulfilment of the work that plants do for us. Real scientists all together are obliged to solve somehow or other the problem of life origination and to prove its solution in practice.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Medicine