Benno ter Kuile wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Pentcho Valev wrote
>The examples are many more, but I still don't believe that there will be
>any interest. The group neglected an obvious theoretical evidence that
>catalysts can shift the equilibrium, and experimental verification is
>difficult, if at all possible. What does this mean?
>>Best regards,
>Pentcho
If the "experimental verification is difficult, if at all possible"
than it means nothing. "Obvious theoretical evidence" will be neglected
unless it leads to experiments. I don't believe in the second law, just as
I don't believe in the law of gravity or the theory of evolution. Each
explains all observations to date, but they will be
discarded/reformulated/modified whenever new data necessitate. Theory only
doesn't make me doubt. Therefore indeed no interest.
This is my last contribution on the subject <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
What did I tell you about the conflict of interest? The theory you don't
believe in consists in the mass action law applied to the whole class of
reactions in which the enzyme binds first one of the reactants
(A + E -> AE), and then the other (AE + B -> ABE). For all of them, as
the concentration of B approaches infinity, the rate of the forward
catalyzed reaction (A + B + E ->) approaches some finite value, whereas
the rate of the uncatalyzed reaction (A + B ->) approaches infinity.
Therefore the catalyst can not only shift the equilibrium but also
reverse the course of the reaction (the proof is a bit more complicated,
but again is based on the mass action law only). Can't you see what the
second law does in this case? Just forbids studying the essential property
of catalysts to reverse the reaction course. I suspect the damage caused to
the theory of evolution or metabolism regulation is enormous.
Best regards,
Pentcho
