Russians & NASA Discredit 'Fossil Fuel' Theory: Demise of Junk CO2 Science

a reply to: SPECULUM

you did earlier...lol

No. I didn't.
Thread

Abiogenesis is not proven rather than disproven.

Petroleum is simple straight chains of carbons, typically 4 carbon chains like butanol. Theoretically, any straight carbon chain that formed naturally from random collisions would remove itself from the methane by the action of gravity and flow down to a lowest place. Liquid carbon chains have less kinetic velocity than light gaseous Methane and would randomly react at a much slower than Methane, but carbon chain linking involves a water reaction. Water is the universal solvent and reacts with everything on some level.

Heat and pressure cause more and harder collisions, increasing the probability of low probability reactions. Kind of like a raindrop splashing a sliver of wood up the side of a tree.

Some chemicals do and some chemicals don't behave like that.

originally posted by: PersonneX
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

I think two definition of petroleum exist. One broadly used, talking about a mix, and a more precise one. I think this is another cause of the argument we got right now. I thinks this is why they use crude oil as the term for the liquid part in stock market.

And to think, they murdered Gaddafi to steal the finest crude on the planet,,,not including the fine gold as well

originally posted by: yulka
a reply to: jinni73

Are you an expert on the topic? PhD ? Just curious

No I'm not an expert but I do have common sense,
We are told Oil is from compacted organic matter yet this story proves that it is not and its not hard to read others (as in experts) work why are they saying its from fossils when it is all throughout our universe meaning it can be from a mineral source unless there is life on all the other planets?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SPECULUM

you did earlier...lol

No. I didn't.
Thread

Whatever Dude...Lol

a reply to: Semicollegiate

You are talking about petroleum or hydrocarbon right now?

If you use the strick meaning of the word, you cannot switch them like this.

a reply to: jinni73

We are told Oil is from compacted organic matter yet this story proves that it is not

Methane is not oil.
There is nothing that suggest oil was found on Titan.

So methane is a more efficient fuelsource?

originally posted by: proob4
I remember hearing oil comes from silicon based enzymes deep in the earth, basically they poop our oil and it is endless.
Also the earth needs these oils to keep friction at bay so it does not heat up or cool down too drastically.

I always had a problem with the term "fossilized fuels". Seriously when the gulf disaster happened we are to believe that at those depths life once existed? Dinosaurs and vegetation? Really?

And was that ever fully capped from leaking crude? Or was fukishima just another excuse when TSHF and things go bad and people want answers?

You people keep living the lie, keep on keeping on and believe all this crap and until the day it's known you are sheep with wool pulled over your eye's, or you got your head in the sand.

Huh? lol

Petroleum is only crude oil

Four different types of hydrocarbon molecules appear in crude oil.

Alkanes (paraffins)
Naphthenes
Aromatics (Methane is in here)
Asphaltics

Crude oil also contains nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur, iron, nickel, copper and vanadium

You can have methane without petroleum, but not the other way around.

originally posted by: jinni73

originally posted by: yulka
a reply to: jinni73

Are you an expert on the topic? PhD ? Just curious

No I'm not an expert but I do have common sense,
We are told Oil is from compacted organic matter yet this story proves that it is not and its not hard to read others (as in experts) work why are they saying its from fossils when it is all throughout our universe meaning it can be from a mineral source unless there is life on all the other planets?

Actually, it doesn't prove that at all? Are you reading the same story as the rest of us?

a reply to: charlyv

Wow charlyv thank you!

originally posted by: yulka
So methane is a more efficient fuelsource?

Yes, because its more abundant and can be easily made from landfills and other rotting sources.

Natural gas/ Methane..its what heats most homes in the cities and their cooking stoves

originally posted by: charlyv
Petroleum is only crude oil

Four different types of hydrocarbon molecules appear in crude oil.

Alkanes (paraffins)
Naphthenes
Aromatics (Methane is in here)
Asphaltics

Crude oil also contains nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur, iron, nickel, copper and vanadium

You can have methane without petroleum, but not the other way around.

Nitrogen is inert and found mostly in the atmosphere. If all petroleum has nitrogen in it, that is very strong evidence in favor of fossil only derivation.

Feldspars can also contain nitrogen, typically as ammonium, with the mineral buddingtonite as the endmember ammonia
www.minersoc.org...

Rocks do have nitrogen in them, never mind.

a reply to: charlyv

I have a question charlyv: Why methane are in aromatics? If my chemistry class are good, methane doesn't have an aromatic cycle.

a reply to: SPECULUM

Energy output?

a reply to: PersonneX

Kind of a connundrum. Methane converts to an aromatic and also into napthalene. Real gas soup.

(in the context of being mixed in petroleum)

a reply to: charlyv

I don't know you, but right now I like you very much!

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Abiogenesis is not proven rather than disproven.

Petroleum is simple straight chains of carbons, typically 4 carbon chains like butanol. Theoretically, any straight carbon chain that formed naturally from random collisions would remove itself from the methane by the action of gravity and flow down to a lowest place. Liquid carbon chains have less kinetic velocity than light gaseous Methane and would randomly react at a much slower than Methane, but carbon chain linking involves a water reaction. Water is the universal solvent and reacts with everything on some level.

Heat and pressure cause more and harder collisions, increasing the probability of low probability reactions. Kind of like a raindrop splashing a sliver of wood up the side of a tree.

Some chemicals do and some chemicals don't behave like that.

Disproven, how did they disprove it? if they say methane is from fossils yet it is found on planets then they are lying
methane is just the simplest and therefore the lightest chain 1 carbon atom surrounded by hydrogen atoms ( for those that don't know carbon has 4 bonds and other atoms attach to it for an easy way to understand organic chemistry Issac Asimovs World of carbon is a great introduction) the more efficient a fuel as in it takes longer to burn requires it to have a longer chain of carbon atoms that attach to each other so butane has 4 carbon atoms lying In a line with the remaining 10 bonds filled with hydrogen atoms

This is the Russian viewpoint of how the theory of oil coming from fossils is absurd.

a reply to: Argus100

Maybe I've got lost what do you mean?

The Biotic Theory

It would seem logical the biotic (a.k.a. biogenic) theory would gain initial acceptance. The climate of 17th and early 18th century chemistry suggested life was essential to the production of carbon-containing compounds similar to those found in living organisms. It was also recognized that many minute life forms are found in sedimentary layers within the earth. Pressure, percolation, and other processes might well lead to pooled oil deposits.