Who Needs oil

[spidergoat]

then if you are that close to thinking folk who do not accept current beliefs and ideas, it would seem you would not be so ignorant with the material you have access too.

tell your pop, 'entropy is abused by living structures' and watch him blow a fuse.

point being, then you could be right for a change

The current fantasy is that science will somehow transcend the coming peak oil collapse. It will not. This is a delusion common in the media and even among many smart people, even Gore. If we started a decade ago, maybe it could have done something to mitigate the problem.

Living things create negative entropy, but so what.

 

[OilIsMastery]

As I said, it's clear that you have already made up your mind

I haven't already made up my mind. You have.

I'm not going to force you to learn anything if you don't want to.

Did you click on the links to the National Academy of Sciences and Nature?

 

[Nasor]

Here's another "sad little crackpot" web page for you: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v198/n4882/abs/198728a0.html

Did you actually even read this article? It says that although there's some evidence that some oil might be abiogenic, most ingeous and hydrogthermal oil is probably from biogenic sediments.

Also, this 45 year old article was discussed at some length in the 2006 review article that I posted earlier today. In the 1960s it was an interesting theory. Now, not so much.

And BTW, still waiting for that answer on whether or not you're a creationist.

 

[OilIsMastery]

Did you click on the links to the National Academy of Sciences?

this 45 year old article was discussed at some length in the 2006 review article that I posted earlier today. In the 1960s it was an interesting theory. Now, not so much.

Biogenic petroleum origin is 18th century Russian petroleum hypothesis (Lomonosov). The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep abiotic petroleum origin is from the 20th century (Kudryavtsev).

Is 2007 current enough for your 18th century hypothesis?

http://aapg.confex.com/aapg/2007int/techprogram/A112905.htm

Inorganic Geochemistry of Oil: First Results of the Study Using the ICP-MS Method

The Biogenic "theory", was what Karl Popper would call, a good scientific theory: it made definite predictions, which could be tested by observation, and possibly falsified. Unfortunately for the theory, they were falsified.

 

[Bishadi]

The denyers are people who say petroleum miraculously and magically evolves in the earth's crust.

no the fools are who adhere to entropy

http://www.pnas.org/content/99/17/10976.full

Read it and weep...:bawl:

I must say thank you...

as the whole thing is sharing that entropy is a joke

The rate at which a reaction might occur cannot alter its direction as determined by the second law of thermodynamics; otherwise the second law would not exist.

so rather than suggest oil is made from abiotic mass while trying to follow the second law; the reality is the law is incorrect.

why these goofs do not realize, the heat and pressure is sustaining the environment for the progression, as well tectonics for the mass shift

and then they mention a long distance potential; anyone know what that is?

Abiogenic theory does NOT say that petroleum is formed in the earth's crust. Abiogenic theory says petroleum is formed in the mantle.

at least you do write the words "Abiogenic theory" and then maybe if you review what they mean you could understand what the second word means


thanks for the link as all you really did was share more data to exhibit how ignorant the physics of chemistry is

but there was a line item that caught my eye "To ascertain the thermodynamic regime of the spontaneous evolution of hydrocarbons, their chemical potentials must be determined."

which is what i suggest about all parts to a system; define the energy upon the mass. That energy is the evolving portion and the mass is simply what supports the environment.

will finish working through it




PS............. we still do not need to burn oil for auto's....

we can be using hydrogen and have hot rods with side pipes, washing the streets with its exhaust; water

talk about equilibrium of the profit margins (finally a good use of the 2nd law).... to decentralize will remove the oil monkeys from abusing this taco stand....... (earth; to the normal croud)

signed

Abe Normal

 

[OilIsMastery]

no the fools are who adhere to entropy

Why do fools adhere to entropy?

the reality is the law is incorrect.

Why is the Second Law of Thermodyamics incorrect?

why these goofs do not realize, the heat and pressure is sustaining the environment for the progression, as well tectonics for the mass shift

and then they mention a long distance potential; anyone know what that is?

Huh?

at least you do write the words "Abiogenic theory" and then maybe if you review what they mean you could understand what the second word means

Biogenic theory isn't even a theory it's a failed hypothesis.

thanks for the link as all you really did was share more data to exhibit how ignorant the physics of chemistry is

The physics of chemistry is ignorant? The National Academy of Sciences is ignorant? Do enlighten us o omniscient one.

 

[Bishadi]

Why do fools adhere to entropy?

i don't know you tell me.

life abuses entropy and without that law we wouldn't be here.

Why is the Second Law of Thermodyamics incorrect?

do you mean the law

The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.

did you mean that law?

because it does not include the properties of the energy within the system that are entangled to environment of the system

Biogenic theory isn't even a theory it's a failed hypothesis.

that is like suggesting evolution is incorrect

the point is life itself combines energy into higher energy (chemical potential) naturally.

Most do not realize this paper suggest oil is from 100km down; well into the mantel rather than even consider the math is incorrect

The physics of chemistry is ignorant?

absolutely!

just by observing this conversation as well as the paper you are suggesting, there is no observance to application and the actually chemical analogy on your part......


all you do is find and repeat what other people suggest just to debate

but you are not giving a whoot about what any of it means

this whole paper is basically saying chemistry when following the 2nd law of thermodynamics, cannot define what is occuring in nature; life!

 

[spidergoat]

What do you mean by life "abuses" entropy? That makes no sense. Do rocks "abuse" gravity? Life is subject to entropy as much as anything else.

 

[Diode-Man]

Oil needs YOU

 

[DwayneD.L.Rabon]

Well maybe this will help out in understanding the condtions of carbon and hydrocarbons in the earth, as their seems to be a debate as to the presence of carbon in the earth and its locations and avialability.

The Earth has quite a bit of carbon in it ranging from about 20% to 40% of the earths mass. So we can exspect to find carbon in various places through out the earth. Some at the center some at the surface and some in the middle.
The conditions of possible chemistry for carbon change in different parts of the earth, for eample their is diamonds and there is oil, graphite ect... The majortity of carbon within the earth exist in the middle of the earth where complexed organized chemisty is not possible, and so biological organization does not exist to form biological derived hydrocarbons, how ever simple chemistry forming hydrocarbon bonds does exist. Some types of hydrocarbons may exist in abundance it the middle regions of the earth as hydrogen makes transition through the earth interior.
above the middle layer of the interior earth is a upper region of the earth which is about 500 to 600 miles below the the surface we stand on, this region of the earth is mostly gaseous, nitrogen,oxygen and florine. It is also this region of the earth where biological hydrocarbons and complexted chemistry become possible. Most biological hydrocarbons occuring at a depth of less than 235 miles within the earth, at depths greater than 235 miles to the 600 mile depth mark within the earth CO2 is most likly very common as oxygen reacts with the surface of the carbon layer forming CO2, the presence of nitrogen in this region may be enert. So in end, the surface and to a depth of about 235 miles within the earth oil may be very common, even having great abundance. that is oil derived from former biological life.

So it seems that their is really not short fall of oil that could exist, but with greater depth we can exspect to find less complexed hydrocarbons, so then the most valuable oil that which contains variable forms of hydrocarbons that can be sorted for various needs, or larger hydrocarbons that can be broken down exist only on the surface regions of the earth.
it is this type of surface existing oil that oil companys would want, and this is appearantly the the type of oil that they are saying is at a short fall. At least to their current account of oil reserves.


Dwayne D.L.Rabon

 

[OilIsMastery]

The majortity of carbon within the earth exist in the middle of the earth where complexed organized chemisty is not possible

Huh?

and so biological organization does not exist to form biological derived hydrocarbons

No biological molecule can survive past the critical temperature of salt water which is 5 to 7 kilometers deep depending on whether you are in a marine or continental environment.

how ever simple chemistry forming hydrocarbon bonds does exist.

Indeed.

Some types of hydrocarbons may exist in abundance it the middle regions of the earth as hydrogen makes transition through the earth interior.
above the middle layer of the interior earth is a upper region of the earth which is about 500 to 600 miles below the the surface we stand on, this region of the earth is mostly gaseous, nitrogen,oxygen and florine. It is also this region of the earth where biological hydrocarbons and complexted chemistry become possible.

No biological molecule can survive past the critical temperature of salt water which is 5 to 7 kilometers deep depending on whether you are in a marine or continental environment.

Most biological hydrocarbons occuring at a depth of less than 235 miles within the earth, at depths greater than 235 miles to the 600 mile depth mark within the earth CO2 is most likly very common as oxygen reacts with the surface of the carbon layer forming CO2, the presence of nitrogen in this region may be enert. So in end, the surface and to a depth of about 235 miles within the earth oil may be very common, even having great abundance. that is oil derived from former biological life.

No biological molecule can survive past the critical temperature of salt water which is 5 to 7 kilometers deep depending on whether you are in a marine or continental environment.

So it seems that their is really not short fall of oil that could exist, but with greater depth we can exspect to find less complexed hydrocarbons, so then the most valuable oil that which contains variable forms of hydrocarbons that can be sorted for various needs, or larger hydrocarbons that can be broken down exist only on the surface regions of the earth.
it is this type of surface existing oil that oil companys would want, and this is appearantly the the type of oil that they are saying is at a short fall. At least to their current account of oil reserves.

"Statistical thermodynamic analysis has established clearly that hydrocarbon molecules which comprise petroleum require very high pressures for their spontaneous formation, comparable to the pressures required for the same of diamond. In that sense, hydrocarbon molecules are the high-pressure polymorphs of the reduced carbon system as is diamond of elemental carbon. Any notion which might suggest that hydrocarbon molecules spontaneously evolve in the regimes of temperature and pressure characterized by the near-surface of the Earth, which are the regimes of methane creation and hydrocarbon destruction, does not even deserve consideration." -- Emmanuil B. Chekaliuk, 1968

 

[Gently Passing]

DNA prevents evolution.

This right here definitively annihilates any and all credibility you ever had.

Right now we have a problem with antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Why?

Evolution.

How?

Mutation, aka finite changes in the structure of the DNA.

Period. How about we shoot you full of MRSA and then you can argue about how Evolution is not real, mmkay?!

Didn't think so.

As for oil, right now we are living in the technological equivalent of the Stone Age. 100 years from now we will look back on all of this silliness with the same disgust with which we view bloodletting, witch burning and slavery.

...oh wait, slavery is still happening. Well, maybe we can add it to the list in a century or two.

 

[OilIsMastery]

This right here definitively annihilates any and all credibility you ever had.

At least I had some.

Right now we have a problem with antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Why?

Evolution.

No. That's called natural selection and survival of the fittest, not evolution. The bacteria that are weak die off so only the resistant ones survive...

How?

Mutation, aka finite changes in the structure of the DNA.

So how come no animal has ever been observed mutating into another animal?

 

[Vkothii]

tell your pop, 'entropy is abused by living structures' and watch him blow a fuse.

If I told my pop that, I'd expect a blank look.
If I said that to any of the professors I know, they might have a good chuckle, though.

Isn't it peculiar how someone who is absolutely deluded about their own ability to comprehend science, keeps accusing scientists of being brainwashed and deluded.
The best part is, you seem to actually believe that you understand entropy, and Newtonian mechanics, when you so obviously haven't the least coherent idea what the hell you're even talking about.

P.S. You're also bloody hopeless at spelling, for such a genius.

P.P.S. If you happen to be dyslexic or have Asperger's, I may apologise at some stage, I'll have to think on that.

 

[Nasor]

This right here definitively annihilates any and all credibility you ever had.

I added him to my ignore list when I realized that he was trying to support his position by posting links to articles that he obviously hasn't even read. The best part of the whole discussion was when he jumped on me for assuming he was a creationist when he said something idiotic about DNA and evolution, but then repeatedly refused to answer when I asked him whether or not he was, in fact, a creationist.

 

[DwayneD.L.Rabon]

Well Oilis Mastery,

your last post seems to read that biological derived hydrocarbons are not the source of current oil deposits. Given the depth limit you have given for biological life.

When looking at the dynamics of the interior earth it seems to be very cold, which leaves some question as you mention that hydrocarbons are the after product.

Diamonds appear to be formed form ionzation occuring in the interior earth, where diamonds form inthe earth may be subbject to large electric currents.


DwayneD.L.Rabon

 

[Julie S]

Hasn't anyone ever noticed that we could be burning hydrogen in our current vehicles?

i.e..... H/O combination catalyzes at 3 X's the btu of gasoline and the exhaust is 'heat' and 'water'.....

then each person could be using a solar panel for electrolysis, to seprate the H from water, all over again.....

and then imagine is we had no smog junk on the vehicles and capable of converting our existing ICE's (internal combustion engines) to burn hydrogen is not as tough as people think..... i.e...... just like a natural gas intake but the exhaust, values and cylinders need to be stainless (rust)......

Just imagine living in the desert and all that free fuel from the sun.....

Hi There,
I think that's an awsome idea!! I all for changes that benefit the environment. However, Not trying to be persimistic - What would the expense be though? For my learning purposes what are the disadvantages of this method?
Cheers,
Jules

 

[Bishadi]

Living things create negative entropy, but so what.

then maybe this oilminister could grow up and realize hydrocarbons are not following entropy

 

[spidergoat]

Local areas of increasing order exist, but it doesn't mean that overall the entropy in the system will decrease. There is no "following" of entropy, that makes no sense.

 

[spidergoat]

Hi There,
I think that's an awsome idea!! I all for changes that benefit the environment. However, Not trying to be persimistic - What would the expense be though? For my learning purposes what are the disadvantages of this method?
Cheers,
Jules

It will not be good for the environment. It simply continues the fetish we have for wasteful personal transportation. Hydrogen does not occur in a pure form anywhere near Earth, so we have to make it. Making it takes energy. So we are still stuck with the basic problem of continuing a high-energy culture with diminishing energy sources.