- Home
- Biophysics
- Lp6b Non-existent
Lp6b Non-existent
- By Dr Gilbert N. Ling
- Published 05/22/2008
- Biophysics
- Unrated
Dr Gilbert N. Ling
Born in Nanking China, Gilbert Ling received his Ph.D. in Physiology at the University of Chicago in 1948. He first taught at the Medical School at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, MD., and then became a researcher at the Neuropsychiatric Institute of the University of Illinois Medical School. While doing research in Baltimore, Dr. Ling concluded that the traditional theory of the living cell could be in serious trouble. He offered a new hypothesis, and laid the groundwork for this theory while in Chicago before returning east to Philadelphia. Here in 1962, he published his book "A Physical Theory of the Living Cell: the Association-Induction Hypothesis".
View all articles by Dr Gilbert N. Ling
Summary
A's conclusion that "Ling's energy calculation for the Na+ pump... is equivocal enough that it
should not be taken as disproof of the membrane theory"(Ph.D. thesis, p. 36) was as
presumptuous as a six-year-old shooting a BB gun at Mount Rushmore, and pronounces that
he had toppled the Black Hills. The manuscript which he and B put together in fun and which
he could be circulating around--- could not be much different from what he described as
given "in details" in his Ph.D. thesis (see portion of his June 28, 1996 letter cited above) ---
and why he himself has called the material he circulated around as "useless junk".
The fact that a reporter like Gina Kolata could be so completely captured by what Dr. A and
Dr. B circulated around told me that I have to put the record straight. And that is what I
have done here.
Thus the fact that Dr. A could get as far as he did was based on ignoring critical issues
described under 2, including the important fact that ATP and phosphocreatine do not
contain a package of so-called "high-energy bonds". This revelation raised the energy
disparity by forty fold. His claim that I have overestimated the Na efflux rate is just as
completely wrong as he was on virtually all the issue he raised with the only exception of
the issue of bound sodium which does lower the estimated energy need for the hypothetical
sodium pump but that only lowers the minimum energy need from 600-1200 times of that
maximally available and thus impossible, to 300-600 times impossible.
There is little question in my mind that the mass exodus of my former students per se, aided
by the kind of unfounded claims put out by A and B, and made worse by Gina Kolata's
endorsement has contributed to the plight of legitimate cell physiology today. How much,
no one can tell. Nevertheless, there is little doubt in my mind that A and all my other
graduate students would have acted altogether differently if they did not see a total
hopelessness in front of them to stick to the AI Hypothesis.You read my home page you
should have some idea where the evilness really came from.
Source:
http://www.gilbertling.org/1p6a.htm
A's conclusion that "Ling's energy calculation for the Na+ pump... is equivocal enough that it
should not be taken as disproof of the membrane theory"(Ph.D. thesis, p. 36) was as
presumptuous as a six-year-old shooting a BB gun at Mount Rushmore, and pronounces that
he had toppled the Black Hills. The manuscript which he and B put together in fun and which
he could be circulating around--- could not be much different from what he described as
given "in details" in his Ph.D. thesis (see portion of his June 28, 1996 letter cited above) ---
and why he himself has called the material he circulated around as "useless junk".
The fact that a reporter like Gina Kolata could be so completely captured by what Dr. A and
Dr. B circulated around told me that I have to put the record straight. And that is what I
have done here.
Thus the fact that Dr. A could get as far as he did was based on ignoring critical issues
described under 2, including the important fact that ATP and phosphocreatine do not
contain a package of so-called "high-energy bonds". This revelation raised the energy
disparity by forty fold. His claim that I have overestimated the Na efflux rate is just as
completely wrong as he was on virtually all the issue he raised with the only exception of
the issue of bound sodium which does lower the estimated energy need for the hypothetical
sodium pump but that only lowers the minimum energy need from 600-1200 times of that
maximally available and thus impossible, to 300-600 times impossible.
There is little question in my mind that the mass exodus of my former students per se, aided
by the kind of unfounded claims put out by A and B, and made worse by Gina Kolata's
endorsement has contributed to the plight of legitimate cell physiology today. How much,
no one can tell. Nevertheless, there is little doubt in my mind that A and all my other
graduate students would have acted altogether differently if they did not see a total
hopelessness in front of them to stick to the AI Hypothesis.You read my home page you
should have some idea where the evilness really came from.
Source:
http://www.gilbertling.org/1p6a.htm
