Somehow I tend to suspect that the beleivers in the abiotic theory of petroleum genesis may also be considering other controversial theories such as intelligent design...there are always mainstream theories and contoversial theories supported by a minority of scientists. There was also cold fusion, with the experiments of Pons and Fleischer that made quite a stir few years ago. Part of the scientific approach is to consider all possibilties, and when the proof provided is accepted by peer reviewing, publication gathers interrest, which increases the number of publications by others, attracts funding on the topic, which in turn makes a bigger crowd of researchers study the topic. After a while, the controversial theory becomes mainstream, by a natural evolution.
But for now, it is the abiotic theory of petroleum genesis that is controversial, not the other way around.

Aurel

Mentioning them is hardly the same as stating a belief.

Quote:

there are always mainstream theories and contoversial theories supported by a minority of scientists. There was also cold fusion, with the experiments of Pons and Fleischer that made quite a stir few years ago.

Wasn't that actually a scam aimed at obtaining research money? Dr. Gold is now dead, and I don't think he wrote any grant proposals asking for funding of research on Abiotic Oil Generation either, big difference.

Of course, like Global Warming, some theories obtain the mainstream without a scintilla of truth to them, ever.

Quote:

Part of the scientific approach is to consider all possibilties, and when the proof provided is accepted by peer reviewing, publication gathers interrest, which increases the number of publications by others, attracts funding on the topic, which in turn makes a bigger crowd of researchers study the topic. After a while, the controversial theory becomes mainstream, by a natural evolution. But for now, it is the abiotic theory of petroleum genesis that is controversial, not the other way around. Aurel

As long as the fact is still accepted that both are theories.

Well...yeah, sure...just like anarchy is another theory on how to run a society...everything goes ;)

Aurel

No, that's not a description for anarchy. That's a description for chaos. Anarchy is a society that does everything by voluntary and cooperative arrangements. There's nothing about that that means anything goes, it would in fact be much like America was during most of the 18th century, but we'd have most of the modern conviences and fewer government prohibitions on life saving drugs and lots of other things.

I just love how some people fall for solar or wind and yet poo poo something like the abiotic theory of petroleum. Abiotic production of oil is not extremely likely to be true, but far more feasible than actually producing power from wind or solar. I learned a lot about batteries when I was the tri service engineer for advanced batteries, far out, cost is no object batteries. Research by the AF materials labs and others came up with a lot of the stuff out there now for cell phones. The point here is that there were theories, or ideas on exactly how such things could be made, some very very old, but limited by cost, technology, and practical matters, all of which may or may not have solutions. There are NO basic IDEAS, i.e. theory’s, on new sources of energy, let alone the complications of engineering out ways of implementing those theories.

One way to comprehend the immense energy stored in oil or gasoline is to compare it to TNT. You can make small bombs out of TNT, but with fuel air you can make immense, near atom bomb strength, bombs. I once looked at making an electric drag race car, powered by an MHD generator, run by TNT. Then I looked at what you can get out of gasoline and nitro methane and changed my mind. A gallon of gas will go further than almost anything on earth, much further at a cost of almost nothing. Cost is not the object with wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro, its the lack of energy density. Kind of like comparing a stick of TNT to a single match. And the match is Hydro. The other sources don't even rate a comparison.

It has yet to be proven that anarchy would not lead to chaos. Just take the case of law enforcement for instance. To enforce law, I imagine you would have some sort of private militia, unless of course everyone would spontaneously respect the law...which law by the way? The laws would not evolve anymore without a government to vote them. Rapidly, the militia would turn into gangs...I understand that government is very wasteful of taxes, and that privately run companies are more efficient, but I have a hard time beleiving that a totally anarchic system would self regulate itself...anything goes means that wihtout set and enforced rules, human nature, that is greed, tends to prevail...back to the law of the fittest, elimination of the weakest. And let me ask you this: who would protect you from terrorists ? (Not that I care at all, because I think that the war on terror is a joke all by itslef, but maybe YOU care...).

Aurel

You take care of terrorists exactly like we are doing. You hire a bunch of guys and send them out after the terrorists. The only real quesiton is; do you use a gov run military or a private one?

Ok, but how do you pay for the carriers, boats, planes that will equip that bunch of guys you want to send? It is anarchy, remember, so I get to choose what I want to pay for...and as far as I am concerned, I am not paying for all that crap. Maybe you are, I am not. Anarchists are often times pacifists too, ya know...

Aurel

What sort of chaos did Americans have in 1750 for example? The facts are that in any study of private cooperative societies, there's been less crime and more freedom than when government is granted power.

Quote:

Just take the case of law enforcement for instance. To enforce law, I imagine you would have some sort of private militia,

No, I'd just hire private law enforcement, the fastest growing sector in law enforcement today.

Quote:

unless of course everyone would spontaneously respect the law...which law by the way?

I've discussed this with a cop friend of mine. He and I agree that to be successful in his job, at all, he needs for about 95% of the citizens where his jurisdiction is to respect the law. If it falls below 95% it becomes very difficult for him to be successful, and if it fell below about 85% it would be impossible for him to do his job. All law enforcement depends on people voluntarily complying witht the law. That's always been true.

Quote:

The laws would not evolve anymore without a government to vote them.

No, government has never legitimately given the law to the citizens, the morally citizens give the law to government. That's why it's so important to never pass a law that has no common law basis. Drug prohibition has no common law basis, and is therefore virtually unenforceable. It's the difference between mala pro se laws *(laws that proscribe behavior that's wrong in and of itself) and mala prohibitum laws (laws that proscribe something that government wants to prohibit to increase its' power).

Quote:

Rapidly, the militia would turn into gangs...

Why, there's plenty of evidence that this hasn't happened in the past, and few if any instances of it ever happening except in the movies.

Quote:

I understand that government is very wasteful of taxes, and that privately run companies are more efficient, but I have a hard time beleiving that a totally anarchic system would self regulate itself...

It will work because 95% of the population, or more, have a vested interest in assuring that it would work.

Quote:

anything goes means that wihtout set and enforced rules,

Again, Anarchy is far from anything goes, and never has been.

Quote:

human nature, that is greed, tends to prevail...back to the law of the fittest, elimination of the weakest.

When did that happen without government enforcing the takings from one and giving to another? Never.

Quote:

And let me ask you this: who would protect you from terrorists ? (Not that I care at all, because I think that the war on terror is a joke all by itslef, but maybe YOU care...). Aurel

The same people that protect me right now; myself, my neighbors, my family members, and a few friends. There is no government entity protecting me from terrorists today, and there never has been.

But there are no terrorists attacking you right now, so this is a totally mute point. Athough, I tend to agree with you that if everyone felt that way, lots of money and human lifes would have been saved by not going to war in Iraq.

Aurel

I read Gold's work - it does have merit and it did get me thinking.

But thinking that crude comes from decaying organic matter and Just run the numbers - for the mass of crude that exists, the numbers just don't add up.

A barrel of crude is 350lbs - there is roughly 20 trillion barrels still to get - most organic matter is water - any carbon chains account for maybe 5% with animals maybe less with veggies - thats alot of dead stuff to make all that crude - the nubers just don't add up - I think it comes from a rather interesting chemistry going on under the mantle.

Crude is a gift, a gift from God and I would go as far to say that I think it is the very thing that began life on Earth - it was only after the fact that solid state polymerization of liquid crystals allowed for a scnerio for self replication molecules to begin but thats another thread...

If you look at the nuts and bolts of why the terrorists that perpetrated the 9/11 acts succeeded, not before the aircraft took to the air, but while they were enroute you find that the actions of the crew and passengers of the three aircraft were based solely on government recommendations, not their basic survival instincts. The fourth aircraft, as most of us know, had a passenger contingent that learned of the fate of at least the first two aircraft to crash into the Trade Center, and modified their response to the terrorists onboard enough to stop the success of their mission. If they had known what we know now, they would very likely have responded sooner and saved their own lives, or most of them. this has in faqct haqppend seveal times worldwide since 9/11.

The governments reaction has been to further restrict American citizens who board aircraft, including establishing mysterious no-fly lists that no one is allowed to learn if they're on before they fly, or why they're on it should they find out when at an airport.

This has prevented nothing.

Government protects no one other than their own power at the expense of citizens, here and in other countries.

Quote:

Athough, I tend to agree with you that if everyone felt that way, lots of money and human lifes would have been saved by not going to war in Iraq. Aurel

Yes, I agree completely.

It is really funny how, on one hand, we have people who beleive that oil reserves are limitless, and that using them does not have any impact on the environment, and how, on the other hand, oil prices keep rising and temperatures keep rising. There is a clear correlation between atmospheric CO2 and earth temperatures. Just look at this plot from a Nature article:
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1140354559.jpg

It clearly estblishes the correlation, does`n it? Now, from the very same plot, you can argue that CO2 levels have fluctuated without human presence, so we have nothing to do with it...but you can also see that we are in the highest levels, both in CO2 and temperature, and you know that burning oil generates CO and CO2...So, you can keep you head in the sand as long as you want with theories that make you feel warm and fuzzy about using oil. I`d rather have an alternate solution when push comes to shove.

Aurel

Whoa, who' measured Earth's tempurature for 400,000 years!? We don't have a huge amount of history from 4,000-6,000 years back and? Wowza! :p

I've seen a graph with global tempuratures and the number of reported pirate attacks. Its proven due to this that pirates directly affect tempuratures.

(not that I will dissagree with global warming, I just don't beleive in what/why a lot of people beleive about it).

The earth temperature before any records can be calculated from the ice core composition, back to millions of years. The isotope contents of oxygen and hydrogen is one way to calculate that temperature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

Aurel

Mike,
I am unclear as to your position here, and would be very interested to understand it better, as you are a very knowledgeable concerning petroleum chemistry, etc.
Are you saying that the currently accepted theory of petroleum derivation from decayed biomass is unacceptable? Do you believe that a non-biological source of hydro carbons as petroleum is more likely?? Do you think there are a lot of petro experts that would agree with that??

Inquiring minds want to know...:cool:

So would I, but there are NO alternates to chase, except for Nuclear.

So get real, pull you head out of your butt, and work with what we have.

You know there’s a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, don't you? Those who wish to establish some kind of alternate energy need to find that elusive source, and soon, or else they will be very disappointed when we do run low on hydrocarbons and still have not developed nuclear. The incentive is there, just identifying the alternate source would make you the richest man in the world. So go for that pot of gold.

As to our environment, its been getting cleaner every year for the last 30 plus years. I would think it would be better, that is, the overall quality of life, if we had to go back to the horrible mess the world lived with at the turn of the 20th century, i.e. when everyone was burning wood and coal and people actually died from the level of pollution in the air. I don’t think that will ever be necessary, but it would be better than a world without any kind of useful energy, i.e. just hydro, wind and solar. Any world like that would kill far more than the pollution would.

But pollution is a SOLVEABLE problem, while inventing an alternate energy source is not. So I beleive that the world will have cleaner air with coal, oil, and nulcear, and will be a far better place than without it.

There are a few problems with all your ideas Pat. The biggest is ignoring reality. The biggest reality being that there are a bunch of busy bodies that want to run other peoples lives for them. This group’s desire must be satiated or there will never be peace. Another problem is that large group of people that actually want someone to tell them how to live. They to must be satisfied or we will never have peace. Just how does your system accommodate these people, i.e. reality?

This group gets reeducated on their own, or they end decorating lamp posts or becoming Mississippi Wind Chimes.

Quote:

Another problem is that large group of people that actually want someone to tell them how to live. They to must be satisfied or we will never have peace. Just how does your system accommodate these people, i.e. reality?

This second group is easier than the first. No work, no food. Those that truly can't do will be taken care of the way it's always been done, by voluntary contributions and volunteers.