Titor's Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight
- Thread starter RainmanTime
- Start date
Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight
Oil is so expensive because oilmen are greedy and want to get richer. They accomplish this by not opening any new refineries, as they have not for about 30 years, even though demand increases along with population. As such, we are swimming in raw petrolium but running at 96% capacity in refining it into usable things, as such any little thing will cause a major shortage thereby increasing their profits.
More inherently, petrolium is not a fossil fuel, it is a normal, renewable part our planet. It's caused by differentiation over time with heat and pressure (as I stated before) with the addition of (I am now adding) abiotic microbes that convert minerals to hydrocarbons, not much unlike life at our hydrothermal vents. So when they finally put petrolium under a microscope 150 years ago and saw organic matter they concluded it was part of something that lived 100 million years ago and somehow still lives, hence "fossil fuels".
What's really so funny is that fossil gold mines like Montana have no petrolium and other places like the middle east are swimming in petrolium but have nearly no fossils. One would imagine that where there's fossils there should also be fossil fuel petrolium, but this is simply not the case.
Additionally, petrolium should be a utility, even though it will never happen, if for no other reason that oilmen like being filthy rich and politicians (on all sides) like their money. If we had another "oil crunch" millions would freeze to death, commerce would nearly stop, people wouldn't go out and spend money... America would fall apart. And this is quite embarrasing when you consider we have access to unlimited petrolium from the seas with deep sea drilling, which only becomes an issue when the oilmen "ain't makin' enough of it" then quickly gets shuffled back into the closet when the demand is met.
What is quite startling is the number of already proven oilfields that we have right here in the continental USA that are capped off intentionally, assuring our reliance on the Middle East in exchange for God-knows what from our Government. Our reliance on the middle east for oil truly turns our once gold-backed money into now "black-backed"- if they ever stopped sending us oil we would simply fall apart.
In effect, we are devaluing our own currency by relying on the unstable middle east as a steady supply of oil and it's already showing- the middle east realizes this and also realizes that oil is worth more than dollars, this is why they are leaning against the Eurodollar and leaning towards further development in their own exchanges, starting with gold.
So what do these countries do with all of this incoming worthless American money? They spend it. And what do other countries that are swimming in American dollars, hate Israel and have good relations with North Korea, which openly admits it will sell atomic weapons for the right price? Your guess is as good as mine.
Oil is so expensive because oilmen are greedy and want to get richer. They accomplish this by not opening any new refineries, as they have not for about 30 years, even though demand increases along with population. As such, we are swimming in raw petrolium but running at 96% capacity in refining it into usable things, as such any little thing will cause a major shortage thereby increasing their profits.
More inherently, petrolium is not a fossil fuel, it is a normal, renewable part our planet. It's caused by differentiation over time with heat and pressure (as I stated before) with the addition of (I am now adding) abiotic microbes that convert minerals to hydrocarbons, not much unlike life at our hydrothermal vents. So when they finally put petrolium under a microscope 150 years ago and saw organic matter they concluded it was part of something that lived 100 million years ago and somehow still lives, hence "fossil fuels".
What's really so funny is that fossil gold mines like Montana have no petrolium and other places like the middle east are swimming in petrolium but have nearly no fossils. One would imagine that where there's fossils there should also be fossil fuel petrolium, but this is simply not the case.
Additionally, petrolium should be a utility, even though it will never happen, if for no other reason that oilmen like being filthy rich and politicians (on all sides) like their money. If we had another "oil crunch" millions would freeze to death, commerce would nearly stop, people wouldn't go out and spend money... America would fall apart. And this is quite embarrasing when you consider we have access to unlimited petrolium from the seas with deep sea drilling, which only becomes an issue when the oilmen "ain't makin' enough of it" then quickly gets shuffled back into the closet when the demand is met.
What is quite startling is the number of already proven oilfields that we have right here in the continental USA that are capped off intentionally, assuring our reliance on the Middle East in exchange for God-knows what from our Government. Our reliance on the middle east for oil truly turns our once gold-backed money into now "black-backed"- if they ever stopped sending us oil we would simply fall apart.
In effect, we are devaluing our own currency by relying on the unstable middle east as a steady supply of oil and it's already showing- the middle east realizes this and also realizes that oil is worth more than dollars, this is why they are leaning against the Eurodollar and leaning towards further development in their own exchanges, starting with gold.
So what do these countries do with all of this incoming worthless American money? They spend it. And what do other countries that are swimming in American dollars, hate Israel and have good relations with North Korea, which openly admits it will sell atomic weapons for the right price? Your guess is as good as mine.
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight
This sounds a bit like a partisan rant. And typically, partisan rants seek to demonize one side with facts, while ignoring facts from the other side (i.e. the side the arguer is partisan to). For example, in all fairness a counter-point could be made with respect to the following:
http://www.scaredmonkeys.com/?p=584
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn12966.htm
So... my point here is to present and analyze both sides. You wish to demonize the "rich oilmen" while I point out that it is not solely this constituency that has prevented new oil refineries from being built or brought online. The opposite political constituency has their hands dirty in this. And that is just one example of the difference between someone who is partisan, and someone who is centrist. A centrist does not seek to assign "blame" to one side, for a centrist knows there are valid factors that shape the debate from BOTH sides of the political aisle.
abiotic - adj. Non-Living.
microbe - n. A minute life form.
So you are saying that "non-living life forms" are the basis of your theory? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
In any event, I know the theory you are espousing, but I get the feeling you might not have fully explored all the facts surrounding the debate on this theory. HERE is a website that summarizes the debate related to your theory. Some key points made in this article follow:
"Abiotic Theory: Carbon and hydrogen present in the Earth at its formation OR carbon and hydrogen carried into the mantle at subduction zones gets converted into methane when it gets into the extremely hot magma. The methane then seeps upwards and collects. Purely abiotic natural gas is very possible. Underground microbes, possibly the first forms of life to inhabit the Earth, converted methane into heavier hydrocarbons such as ethylene, hexanes, benzene, and so on. Somehow, these became heavy crude oil. "
So you see the "abiotic" portion assumes that there was no life-force required to create the methane. But the other part of the conjecture upon which this theory is based is that microbes (life forms) converted the methane into hydrocarbons. Just to set the record straight, because as we have seen "abiotic microbes" is a contradiction of terms. Other points to note:
"The debate on these theories has been ongoing since the first oil well was drilled, but I have recently begun to read more about it. Personally I have always believed in the fossil fuel theory. I am not planning on throwing out the fossil fuel theory...because I think that both are accurate."
A balanced view, I might add. I like this guy/gal! He/she looks at both sides of the coin in their analysis.
Finally, there is:
"Advocates of the abiotic theory often claim that there will be no 'Oil Peak'. They believe that oil replenishes itself easily unlike the fossil fuel theory. There has not been enough evidence of it replacing itself faster than we use it. Sure some wells have refilled themselves, but that is most likely due to oil from the surrounding area running back into the empty hole. Even if oil is produced abiotically, it is still an non-renewable resource."
So... there you go... the other side of the story. Now, before you jump immediately into "demonizing" me (as you have continuously shown is your primary motive towards me), I'd like you to evaluate these arguments from the other side of the political aisle, and see if you can come to a dispassionate understanding of how we got where we are. Your rhetoric displays a highly partisan flavor, and that does not work well in a dispassionate, scientific analysis.
RMT
This sounds a bit like a partisan rant. And typically, partisan rants seek to demonize one side with facts, while ignoring facts from the other side (i.e. the side the arguer is partisan to). For example, in all fairness a counter-point could be made with respect to the following:
The counterpoint shows what the "antithesis" of the "rich oilmen" do to make this situation worse. We all know there is also a major oil field in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). But environmentalists (who typically are on the opposing side of the partisan fence from the "rich oilmen") put up legal hurdles to permitting it to be recovered. And as for building oil refineries, you might wish to research how long it takes to get approval for one, and especially the burden of continuous environmental impact studies, statements, legal filings, and flat-out bureaucracy that significantly slows down the process of getting approval for new refineries. Here are two links that might show you the "other side" of the argument, and why more refineries are not being built:
http://www.scaredmonkeys.com/?p=584
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn12966.htm
So... my point here is to present and analyze both sides. You wish to demonize the "rich oilmen" while I point out that it is not solely this constituency that has prevented new oil refineries from being built or brought online. The opposite political constituency has their hands dirty in this. And that is just one example of the difference between someone who is partisan, and someone who is centrist. A centrist does not seek to assign "blame" to one side, for a centrist knows there are valid factors that shape the debate from BOTH sides of the political aisle.
So now you are the one using those 10 dollar words, eh? I seem to recall you lambasting me (that's a $20 word!) for using them. But now let's look at these two words you put together:
abiotic - adj. Non-Living.
microbe - n. A minute life form.
So you are saying that "non-living life forms" are the basis of your theory? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
In any event, I know the theory you are espousing, but I get the feeling you might not have fully explored all the facts surrounding the debate on this theory. HERE is a website that summarizes the debate related to your theory. Some key points made in this article follow:
"Abiotic Theory: Carbon and hydrogen present in the Earth at its formation OR carbon and hydrogen carried into the mantle at subduction zones gets converted into methane when it gets into the extremely hot magma. The methane then seeps upwards and collects. Purely abiotic natural gas is very possible. Underground microbes, possibly the first forms of life to inhabit the Earth, converted methane into heavier hydrocarbons such as ethylene, hexanes, benzene, and so on. Somehow, these became heavy crude oil. "
So you see the "abiotic" portion assumes that there was no life-force required to create the methane. But the other part of the conjecture upon which this theory is based is that microbes (life forms) converted the methane into hydrocarbons. Just to set the record straight, because as we have seen "abiotic microbes" is a contradiction of terms. Other points to note:
"The debate on these theories has been ongoing since the first oil well was drilled, but I have recently begun to read more about it. Personally I have always believed in the fossil fuel theory. I am not planning on throwing out the fossil fuel theory...because I think that both are accurate."
A balanced view, I might add. I like this guy/gal! He/she looks at both sides of the coin in their analysis.
"Advocates of the abiotic theory often claim that there will be no 'Oil Peak'. They believe that oil replenishes itself easily unlike the fossil fuel theory. There has not been enough evidence of it replacing itself faster than we use it. Sure some wells have refilled themselves, but that is most likely due to oil from the surrounding area running back into the empty hole. Even if oil is produced abiotically, it is still an non-renewable resource."
Once again, I believe you are demonizing. How about we step back a second and analyze this from a dispassionate (non-demonizing) stance? There is certainly one reason why we buy more middle eastern oil, and it is related to my point above about how the "liberal left" causes half of the problem with their behemoth bureacracies. Did you know there is no EPA in most (if not all) of the countries of the middle east? And that means that once an oil company finds an oilfield in the middle east, they can start drilling with almost NO legal/environmental/political hoops to jump through. In fact, the only real hurdles come from the governments of the area wanting to know what their "cut" will be (lest we think they don't like getting rich!). Environmental impact is a tiny part (and in some cases NO part) of the equation. Now I ask you to contrast the amount of time (and $) it would take to gain permission (from the EPA, and to fight legal battles erected by environmentalists) to drill and recover all of the oil we have here. And you can look at the ANWR as just one small battle in a larger "war on capitalism" by the environmentalists.
I don't agree. If you take into account the above "other side of the coin", you can do a simple economic analysis that says (right now) it is cheaper to get oil from foreign sources because of the minimal bureacracy in getting to it. At some point there is no doubt that the balance will shift, and it will be more expensive to retrieve oil from foreign sources than it would be to go through all the environmental hoops to do it here. Not to mention the fact that by taking the current approach, the oil beneath us we have not tapped is an "unaccounted for" portion of our strategic petroleum reserves.
So... there you go... the other side of the story. Now, before you jump immediately into "demonizing" me (as you have continuously shown is your primary motive towards me), I'd like you to evaluate these arguments from the other side of the political aisle, and see if you can come to a dispassionate understanding of how we got where we are. Your rhetoric displays a highly partisan flavor, and that does not work well in a dispassionate, scientific analysis.
RMT
Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight
First, I wrote "Additionally, petrolium should be a utility, even though it will never happen, if for no other reason that oilmen like being filthy rich and politicians (on all sides) like their money." I meant both sides; all sides are "in on it", all parties rely on foreign oil. This is what makes it such a 500 pound gorilla to bring up in Congress. Any half-baked college grad who wants to run for office first visits the oilmen and makes his bones; our currency is truly black-backed.
Any industry that stands to profit a total of $96 BILLION dollars, all of which coming from American's pockets IS a fatcat industry. Especially since that 96 billion was 14 billion the year before and we basically consumed the same amount both years.
>So now you are the one using those 10 dollar words, eh? I seem to recall you lambasting me (that's a $20 word!) for using them. But now let's look at these two words you put together:<
You're totally right- I used the wrong word. The word I meant to use was anerobic, meaning "without oxygen". The point is that there is no oxygen 10 miles below the Earth's surface. I would go so far as to even say these anerobic microbes may have been the prototype for DNA, especially when you consider the early Earth had no oxygen. And for a second there, I thought you meant "differentiation" as my ten dollar word!
You mentioned the "environmental hoops" anyone has to go through to drill oil on our land. I agree. However, if our government removed those hoops and allowed us to drill on our own land then we wouldn't need it from the Middle East. So why is it so hard to drill oil on our own land? Because the middle east already drilled theirs. That and the one trillion dollars the middle east has invested in America are good reasons for us to get our oil from them. And the kickbacks, and the payoffs.
So why isn't it easier for us to drill on our own land? Because the fatcats, who own Washington, want it that way. This is quite simple- if the middle east does not like our foreign policy they can simply stop sending us oil. What would happen then?
Don't know if this is common knowledge but America is the only country in the world that clings to the "fossil fuel" theory- most other countries laugh at us for believing this and it's quite simple to prove- just get a cup of raw petrolium and a microscope. If you find any 100 million year old dinosaur remains in it, I'll eat my hat.
I would ask that you go on record here, RainmanTime. You're stating petrolium is a non-renewable fossil fuel that we're running out of, right?
PS- "lambasting"?
First, I wrote "Additionally, petrolium should be a utility, even though it will never happen, if for no other reason that oilmen like being filthy rich and politicians (on all sides) like their money." I meant both sides; all sides are "in on it", all parties rely on foreign oil. This is what makes it such a 500 pound gorilla to bring up in Congress. Any half-baked college grad who wants to run for office first visits the oilmen and makes his bones; our currency is truly black-backed.
Any industry that stands to profit a total of $96 BILLION dollars, all of which coming from American's pockets IS a fatcat industry. Especially since that 96 billion was 14 billion the year before and we basically consumed the same amount both years.
>So now you are the one using those 10 dollar words, eh? I seem to recall you lambasting me (that's a $20 word!) for using them. But now let's look at these two words you put together:<
You're totally right- I used the wrong word. The word I meant to use was anerobic, meaning "without oxygen". The point is that there is no oxygen 10 miles below the Earth's surface. I would go so far as to even say these anerobic microbes may have been the prototype for DNA, especially when you consider the early Earth had no oxygen. And for a second there, I thought you meant "differentiation" as my ten dollar word!
You mentioned the "environmental hoops" anyone has to go through to drill oil on our land. I agree. However, if our government removed those hoops and allowed us to drill on our own land then we wouldn't need it from the Middle East. So why is it so hard to drill oil on our own land? Because the middle east already drilled theirs. That and the one trillion dollars the middle east has invested in America are good reasons for us to get our oil from them. And the kickbacks, and the payoffs.
So why isn't it easier for us to drill on our own land? Because the fatcats, who own Washington, want it that way. This is quite simple- if the middle east does not like our foreign policy they can simply stop sending us oil. What would happen then?
Don't know if this is common knowledge but America is the only country in the world that clings to the "fossil fuel" theory- most other countries laugh at us for believing this and it's quite simple to prove- just get a cup of raw petrolium and a microscope. If you find any 100 million year old dinosaur remains in it, I'll eat my hat.
I would ask that you go on record here, RainmanTime. You're stating petrolium is a non-renewable fossil fuel that we're running out of, right?
PS- "lambasting"?
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight
But OTOH, you make it sound so simple to just "remove the hoops". Do you know how big the environmental lobbying block is? I'd say just about as big as the oil lobby! So what I am asking are your SPECIFIC solutions that would help us remove those environmental hoops. Because surely you understand that if the Dems stopped voting for the environmental block, they would lose a BIG chunk of their support base. Given the last two elections and how the Dems couldn't figure out how to win more votes, much less keep the ones they had, I'd say the Dems are not about to ignore one of their major supporting elements. And thus the standoff we have today.
Now, if you really want to demonize someone, I suggest you avoid the oilman, avoid the politicians, and even avoid the tree-huggers. Then ask yourself "what single constituency benefits from ALL of these interests, no matter who wins the fight?" Answer: Lawyers, especially trial lawyers. They make $ bringing environmental litigation to block oil companies from building more refineries. They also make $ working for the oil companies trying to defeat such blocks on their livelihood. And lawyers are all over government, arguing cases for and against laws passed by Congress and state legislatures. I also know that lawyers have been the primary factor in destroying American dominance and innovation in my business (aerospace). Maybe we can agree on a "common demon"?
Now... that being said, I am always looking for new science and new breakthroughs. So if you can give me some concrete science that shows how we can produce oil at a sustainable rate, then I am all ears.
RMT
Holy cow! Ring the bells at St, Mary's! He admitted he was wrong! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif (Just kiddin')
OK, well at least we agree that it is not ONLY the "rich oilmen" sitting in their giant houses deciding "I just don't WANT to build any more refineries." That is how you painted it, and the reality is quite different.
But OTOH, you make it sound so simple to just "remove the hoops". Do you know how big the environmental lobbying block is? I'd say just about as big as the oil lobby! So what I am asking are your SPECIFIC solutions that would help us remove those environmental hoops. Because surely you understand that if the Dems stopped voting for the environmental block, they would lose a BIG chunk of their support base. Given the last two elections and how the Dems couldn't figure out how to win more votes, much less keep the ones they had, I'd say the Dems are not about to ignore one of their major supporting elements. And thus the standoff we have today.
Now, if you really want to demonize someone, I suggest you avoid the oilman, avoid the politicians, and even avoid the tree-huggers. Then ask yourself "what single constituency benefits from ALL of these interests, no matter who wins the fight?" Answer: Lawyers, especially trial lawyers. They make $ bringing environmental litigation to block oil companies from building more refineries. They also make $ working for the oil companies trying to defeat such blocks on their livelihood. And lawyers are all over government, arguing cases for and against laws passed by Congress and state legislatures. I also know that lawyers have been the primary factor in destroying American dominance and innovation in my business (aerospace). Maybe we can agree on a "common demon"?
I'm not sure what you are implying would happen, but I would guess you think we'd be in deep dog dirt. But also recall that it is OPEC we buy from, and not directly from middle east governments. However, have you ever seen the extravagant lifestyles that most Saudis live? That is THE primary source of wealth for a great many people in that land. So yes, if we stopped buying oil from them, do you think we would suffer more, or them, or how about a zero-sum game? We both would suffer.
Your point is non-scientific. Did you read that link I gave you on this debate? "Fossil fuel" is a term, but there have not been many people who still believe it is all dinosaur remains. Do you know what a diatom is? HERE is another website that explains why what the author of that other article said (about BOTH theories having merit) is probably right. So... the issue is not at all about "are there dinosaur remains in oil". Rather, it is about HOW is the oil created, and more importantly HOW LONG does it take to create.
I will go on the record and state that there is certainly no evidence (nor a good chemical theory) that would say we could produce oil at an appreciably faster rate than nature does. In that regard, then yes I am saying it does not possess a fast enough timeframe for production to be "renewable" given the rate at which we consume it.
Now... that being said, I am always looking for new science and new breakthroughs. So if you can give me some concrete science that shows how we can produce oil at a sustainable rate, then I am all ears.
To scold sharply; berate.
RMT
Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight
Here is the oil cycle:
1. Rich American landowners have land with oil on it, the middle east has a lot of sand.
2. The Middle East agrees to invest in America in exchange for the import of oil, a trillion dollars in our economy and counting.
3. The American landowners end up swimming in money, partly from "co-operative efforts with the middle east", partly from government laws that benefit them.
4. The only way rich American landowners can make more money is through even more government laws that benefit them. If they drill their own oil, the middle east will pull out its trillion dollar investment in our country and scale back the import of oil to us. And the suitcases full of money will stop flying into America on privately owned jet airplanes. This will lead directly to an oil crunch and a depression. Our ex-oilman President knows this well.
5. Rich oilmen buy people seeking governmental office. In exchange, these politicians agree to pass even more laws that help them.
6. These politicians, with their millions they got from oilmen, do whatever they have to do to win elections; money is no object, ethics go out the window.
7. Once elected, these politicians owe the oilmen. They repay this debt by allowing "fossil fuel" and "peak oil" and no new refineries and an inreased reliance on foreign oil to continue.
8. This in turn keeps demand high for oil and with no new refineries, we always need as much refined oil as we can get- we have been running at 96% capacity for many years, regardless of the fact that we consume twice as much oil as we did in the 70's (remember that oil crunch?) and the fact that worldwide there are twice as many oil wells than back then, in fact we have more raw petrolium in containers than we EVER have, all in the wake of a "shortage".
9. No politician will come out and say this is all BS- they'll be debunked, and they're all owned by rich oilmen. Both sides are knee deep in this.
10. Americans pick up the check.
MORAL: If you're an American landowner, what would you rather do- drill your own oil and compete on a fair market, or do nothing and take paychecks from the middle east and let them handle the headaches?
Now let's flip it:
1. American pay more for gas and heating oil.
2. Those monies go towards buying more politicians.
3. Those politicians end up reinforcing the 150 year old doctrine of peak oil, fossil fuel oil, etc.
4. Some of those monies go back to the Middle East as additional profit which they reinvest in American businesses, making us even more reliant on them.
Now let's look at Iran:
1. Iran hates everyone that's not Iran.
2. Iran realizes that eventually America will wake up, realize oil is abundant everywhere and we don't need Iran for oil. At that point, Iran will once again be a fourth-world country in a part of the world full of third-world countries, right next to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Afganistan and other countries that are already in bed with America. At that point, they'll be last in a list of countries we go to for petrolium.
3. Iran needs to assert whatever it's gonna assert before America realizes this, prosaically Iran wants to be in a good position when America wakes up.
4. The way to control America is to control the America-friendly countries in the Middle East. This is done with nuclear weapons and the effect is two-fold: first, with nuclear weapons, Iran will be recognized as a world power. Second, with nuclear weapons, all the other Middle Eastern countries in bed with the USA will remain on guard. That is, they won't tell Bush that the bad guy is Iran.
5. Iran provides as much oil as cheaply as possible to America in exchange for American dollars. Iran does not need American dollars but Iran knows that the more they have, the more buying power they will have to levy against America, like Saudi Arabia and their $900 billion investment in American companies.
6. But other Middle Eastern countries are already here- they have been investing in America for decades; Iran has no practical use for our money, no new mega-companies to buy etc.
6. The more American dollars that flood the Middle East, the less the American dollar will be worth. There is no long-term investment in America. As such, the acquisition of American dollars is solely to get power.
7. They get this power through nuclear weapons. With nuclear weapons, no one will invade Iran, no other middle eastern countries will talk badly about Iran, Iran will remain on the bargaining table.
So why do we need the middle east for oil at all?
1. Because America believes that oil is scarce, oil is finite. Americans will pay for gas. Unlike Europe, where gas is a lot more, Americans drive a lot. We drive the most of any country in the world.
2. As long as we agree that oil is scarce and rare, the Middle East will continue paying us all off. They do this by investing in America, the point being a sudden pullout would be catastrophic. Free money.
3. More importantly, if all Americans realized oil is renewable and easy to find, Americans will demand it become a utility; we'll demand it cost 35 cents a gallon.
4. If gas becomes 35 cents a gallon, there will be no more millions of dollars flowing everywhere into oilmen and politicians' pockets.
So what would happen is tomorrow we all realized we've been hoodwinked for the past 25+ years?
1. We would get rid of all the politicians who went along with this lie.
2. The middle eastern countries would immediately pull out, our stock markets would crash.
3. The middle east would scale back its oil to us, we wouldn't be able to drive our cars.
4. America would be thrown into a Civil War with no enemy to fight but ourselves- after all, we've let this go on for 150 years, we would most definetly have no reason to invade anyone for oil, the UN would not allow it and the "black sheep of the middle east" Iran, which would have nuclear weapons by then, would become the savior to the middle east by preventing a WW III with its nuclear arsenal. Part of our deal with these friendly middle eastern countries is that they don't own nukes. They all are in complaince except for the evil Iran. So when America tells the middle east to bugger off, the middle east will turn to Iran for salvation.
5. America will collapse, the middle east, which is swimming in our American dollars, will then buy America and kick us out.
We are a black-based economy.
Here is the oil cycle:
1. Rich American landowners have land with oil on it, the middle east has a lot of sand.
2. The Middle East agrees to invest in America in exchange for the import of oil, a trillion dollars in our economy and counting.
3. The American landowners end up swimming in money, partly from "co-operative efforts with the middle east", partly from government laws that benefit them.
4. The only way rich American landowners can make more money is through even more government laws that benefit them. If they drill their own oil, the middle east will pull out its trillion dollar investment in our country and scale back the import of oil to us. And the suitcases full of money will stop flying into America on privately owned jet airplanes. This will lead directly to an oil crunch and a depression. Our ex-oilman President knows this well.
5. Rich oilmen buy people seeking governmental office. In exchange, these politicians agree to pass even more laws that help them.
6. These politicians, with their millions they got from oilmen, do whatever they have to do to win elections; money is no object, ethics go out the window.
7. Once elected, these politicians owe the oilmen. They repay this debt by allowing "fossil fuel" and "peak oil" and no new refineries and an inreased reliance on foreign oil to continue.
8. This in turn keeps demand high for oil and with no new refineries, we always need as much refined oil as we can get- we have been running at 96% capacity for many years, regardless of the fact that we consume twice as much oil as we did in the 70's (remember that oil crunch?) and the fact that worldwide there are twice as many oil wells than back then, in fact we have more raw petrolium in containers than we EVER have, all in the wake of a "shortage".
9. No politician will come out and say this is all BS- they'll be debunked, and they're all owned by rich oilmen. Both sides are knee deep in this.
10. Americans pick up the check.
MORAL: If you're an American landowner, what would you rather do- drill your own oil and compete on a fair market, or do nothing and take paychecks from the middle east and let them handle the headaches?
Now let's flip it:
1. American pay more for gas and heating oil.
2. Those monies go towards buying more politicians.
3. Those politicians end up reinforcing the 150 year old doctrine of peak oil, fossil fuel oil, etc.
4. Some of those monies go back to the Middle East as additional profit which they reinvest in American businesses, making us even more reliant on them.
Now let's look at Iran:
1. Iran hates everyone that's not Iran.
2. Iran realizes that eventually America will wake up, realize oil is abundant everywhere and we don't need Iran for oil. At that point, Iran will once again be a fourth-world country in a part of the world full of third-world countries, right next to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Afganistan and other countries that are already in bed with America. At that point, they'll be last in a list of countries we go to for petrolium.
3. Iran needs to assert whatever it's gonna assert before America realizes this, prosaically Iran wants to be in a good position when America wakes up.
4. The way to control America is to control the America-friendly countries in the Middle East. This is done with nuclear weapons and the effect is two-fold: first, with nuclear weapons, Iran will be recognized as a world power. Second, with nuclear weapons, all the other Middle Eastern countries in bed with the USA will remain on guard. That is, they won't tell Bush that the bad guy is Iran.
5. Iran provides as much oil as cheaply as possible to America in exchange for American dollars. Iran does not need American dollars but Iran knows that the more they have, the more buying power they will have to levy against America, like Saudi Arabia and their $900 billion investment in American companies.
6. But other Middle Eastern countries are already here- they have been investing in America for decades; Iran has no practical use for our money, no new mega-companies to buy etc.
6. The more American dollars that flood the Middle East, the less the American dollar will be worth. There is no long-term investment in America. As such, the acquisition of American dollars is solely to get power.
7. They get this power through nuclear weapons. With nuclear weapons, no one will invade Iran, no other middle eastern countries will talk badly about Iran, Iran will remain on the bargaining table.
So why do we need the middle east for oil at all?
1. Because America believes that oil is scarce, oil is finite. Americans will pay for gas. Unlike Europe, where gas is a lot more, Americans drive a lot. We drive the most of any country in the world.
2. As long as we agree that oil is scarce and rare, the Middle East will continue paying us all off. They do this by investing in America, the point being a sudden pullout would be catastrophic. Free money.
3. More importantly, if all Americans realized oil is renewable and easy to find, Americans will demand it become a utility; we'll demand it cost 35 cents a gallon.
4. If gas becomes 35 cents a gallon, there will be no more millions of dollars flowing everywhere into oilmen and politicians' pockets.
So what would happen is tomorrow we all realized we've been hoodwinked for the past 25+ years?
1. We would get rid of all the politicians who went along with this lie.
2. The middle eastern countries would immediately pull out, our stock markets would crash.
3. The middle east would scale back its oil to us, we wouldn't be able to drive our cars.
4. America would be thrown into a Civil War with no enemy to fight but ourselves- after all, we've let this go on for 150 years, we would most definetly have no reason to invade anyone for oil, the UN would not allow it and the "black sheep of the middle east" Iran, which would have nuclear weapons by then, would become the savior to the middle east by preventing a WW III with its nuclear arsenal. Part of our deal with these friendly middle eastern countries is that they don't own nukes. They all are in complaince except for the evil Iran. So when America tells the middle east to bugger off, the middle east will turn to Iran for salvation.
5. America will collapse, the middle east, which is swimming in our American dollars, will then buy America and kick us out.
We are a black-based economy.
anoneemass
Temporal Novice
Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight
Do you suppose the Dems and Reps are Titor fans?
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20051101/D8DJUMS01.html
Hows about some brevity fellas, geez.
Do you suppose the Dems and Reps are Titor fans?
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20051101/D8DJUMS01.html
Hows about some brevity fellas, geez.
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight
Nice story. Did Titor tell you that? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Not only have you not addressed the issue of how we repeal environmental requirements that are a stranglehold (something we agreed upon!), but you also have not addressed the point I was asking about with regard to how oil is made by nature:
RMT
Nice story. Did Titor tell you that? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Not only have you not addressed the issue of how we repeal environmental requirements that are a stranglehold (something we agreed upon!), but you also have not addressed the point I was asking about with regard to how oil is made by nature:
For once, I'd like to see someone who is all about the conspiracy theory back up their assertions with science, rather than more conspiracy theories.
RMT
Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight
>Nice story. Did Titor tell you that?<
No. Titor died in 2000.
>Not only have you not addressed the issue of how we repeal environmental requirements that are a stranglehold<
Simple: we build more refineries. Then we build more refineries, then finally more refineries.
>but you also have not addressed the point I was asking about with regard to how oil is made by nature<
Petrolium is a natural resource. After all the major impacts occured in our young solar system and after the collision between proto-Earth and Orpheus which resulted in the Earth as we know it, our planet began to differentiate. Compounds (mostly minerals) sank to their respective levels and became the bedrock that we sit on right now. But the tectonic plates are constantly moving and grinding against each other and with each grind, more compounds fall to the bottom of the sea and ultimately through cracks on the sea floor. These compounds wind up deep under the Earth in a place of high pressure, no oxygen and lots of heat. As they heat up, anerobic microbes gravitate towards them and use them for energy. Over time, this soup becomes petrolium. This is actually a good thing because petrolium "lubricates" our planet. If we didn't have this deep underground layer of petrolium, our planet would grind a lot more resulting in an unstable planet; earthquakes would be a lot more frequent than they are.
>Now... that being said, I am always looking for new science and new breakthroughs. So if you can give me some concrete science that shows how we can produce oil at a sustainable rate, then I am all ears.<
Would a self-sustaining free energy machine suffice?
>Nice story. Did Titor tell you that?<
No. Titor died in 2000.
>Not only have you not addressed the issue of how we repeal environmental requirements that are a stranglehold<
Simple: we build more refineries. Then we build more refineries, then finally more refineries.
>but you also have not addressed the point I was asking about with regard to how oil is made by nature<
Petrolium is a natural resource. After all the major impacts occured in our young solar system and after the collision between proto-Earth and Orpheus which resulted in the Earth as we know it, our planet began to differentiate. Compounds (mostly minerals) sank to their respective levels and became the bedrock that we sit on right now. But the tectonic plates are constantly moving and grinding against each other and with each grind, more compounds fall to the bottom of the sea and ultimately through cracks on the sea floor. These compounds wind up deep under the Earth in a place of high pressure, no oxygen and lots of heat. As they heat up, anerobic microbes gravitate towards them and use them for energy. Over time, this soup becomes petrolium. This is actually a good thing because petrolium "lubricates" our planet. If we didn't have this deep underground layer of petrolium, our planet would grind a lot more resulting in an unstable planet; earthquakes would be a lot more frequent than they are.
>Now... that being said, I am always looking for new science and new breakthroughs. So if you can give me some concrete science that shows how we can produce oil at a sustainable rate, then I am all ears.<
Would a self-sustaining free energy machine suffice?
Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight
As far as how to get off of oil dependance, it's quite simple. VERY simple. Overly simple.
Instead of spending $200 billion on an Iraq war, we spend $400 billion on a WPA program to build massive windmill fields across America. $400 billion would get you 600,000 windmills each generating enough energy for 500 homes, resulting in enough free energy for three hundred million American homes. From there, America will become "the country with free electricity". At that point, the choice will be the comsumer's: either pay $5.00 for a gallon of gas or $0 for electric cars.
Additionally, having 600,000 windmills in America would affect the jetstream across America giving us, among other things, control over things like killer hurricaines. Plus tens of thousands of unemployed would not have work and in the end, our seniors will have one less thing to worry about, no less the low income Americans who have to weigh food against heat on a daily basis.
But this is pie in the sky- although it would really work, the entire system is set up to ensure it will never happen.
As far as how to get off of oil dependance, it's quite simple. VERY simple. Overly simple.
Instead of spending $200 billion on an Iraq war, we spend $400 billion on a WPA program to build massive windmill fields across America. $400 billion would get you 600,000 windmills each generating enough energy for 500 homes, resulting in enough free energy for three hundred million American homes. From there, America will become "the country with free electricity". At that point, the choice will be the comsumer's: either pay $5.00 for a gallon of gas or $0 for electric cars.
Additionally, having 600,000 windmills in America would affect the jetstream across America giving us, among other things, control over things like killer hurricaines. Plus tens of thousands of unemployed would not have work and in the end, our seniors will have one less thing to worry about, no less the low income Americans who have to weigh food against heat on a daily basis.
But this is pie in the sky- although it would really work, the entire system is set up to ensure it will never happen.
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn12966.htm
a) How you convince tree huggers that their laws and blockades are making it increasingly difficult to build refineries in short order (that means MUCH less than 5 years!).
b) How do you make building a refinery cost effective (i.e. so money is not LOST when you look at the profit margins... remember, the refiners don't get all the big bucks!)
c) How you convince the country to standardize on a SINGLE fuel blend, thereby eliminating inefficencies.
RMT
Everything is simple when you don't address the crux of a problem. I get the feeling you didn't even read that SHORT article I gave you in the link above. Let me repeat it, go read it (2 minutes tops), and then give me DETAILS about:
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn12966.htm
a) How you convince tree huggers that their laws and blockades are making it increasingly difficult to build refineries in short order (that means MUCH less than 5 years!).
b) How do you make building a refinery cost effective (i.e. so money is not LOST when you look at the profit margins... remember, the refiners don't get all the big bucks!)
c) How you convince the country to standardize on a SINGLE fuel blend, thereby eliminating inefficencies.
You will probably, once again, accuse me of making fun of you. However, NONE of the above is SCIENCE. Much of it (like "Orpheus") you have no evidence for. And finally, the next issue that you have not addressed, you at least referred to with:
Yes. Exactly. Now do you care to go back and address the question I asked you about this? And provide some SOUND science, and not just wishful dreaming?
If you think you've got a machine that can break the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the world will make you king. But before we schedule your coronation, I think I know enough of about math and science to look at your SCIENCE (not wishful thinking, or ideas of what you THINK may work, because it likely won't) and see if it passes muster with the reality of physics and thermodynamics. And if not me, then there's plenty of other qualified people to assess it scientifically.
RMT
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight
This post proves to me that you are Mr. Wishful Thinker, and you don't (can't?) really get your hands dirty in the science to understand the real engineering problems.
1. There is no, single "magic bullet" to renewable energy concerns. (That's why I keep pointing out to creedo that an all-solar car has serious engineering problems preventing it from being reality for a long, LONG time).
2. What happens when the wind stops blowing (or blows so slowly that the resulting dynamic pressure can barely overcome the energy losses in the torque-to-electricity generator)?
3. Why no solar? I give you credit for thinking beyond petroleum, but as I said, there is NO single magic bullet. Your plan would seem MUCH more reasonable if you added solar and wave energy to the mix.
I challenge you to take any ONE of the ideas you have floated, which you believe are really good enough to work, and dig into the details, do the math, and PROVE to someone (doesn't even have to be me, since you have problems with me) that it DOES work. If you can do that, you can get venture capital to go do it. Until then, you are a guy with an attitude, thinking he is smarter than people who do the detailed math/science for a living.
Honestly...I just want to see some REAL science and math out of you. As yet, I have seen none, and that includes your thread on the "fundamental principles of time travel". And now you will probably jump all over me, complaining about how I act like the "know it all". Fine. Have at it if that is what soothes you. But it will not change the fact that you think you have all the answers, and yet you apparantly don't have the math/science/engineering skills to either prove or disprove what you say.
RMT
This post proves to me that you are Mr. Wishful Thinker, and you don't (can't?) really get your hands dirty in the science to understand the real engineering problems.
1. There is no, single "magic bullet" to renewable energy concerns. (That's why I keep pointing out to creedo that an all-solar car has serious engineering problems preventing it from being reality for a long, LONG time).
2. What happens when the wind stops blowing (or blows so slowly that the resulting dynamic pressure can barely overcome the energy losses in the torque-to-electricity generator)?
3. Why no solar? I give you credit for thinking beyond petroleum, but as I said, there is NO single magic bullet. Your plan would seem MUCH more reasonable if you added solar and wave energy to the mix.
Here is more evidence that you are a wishful dreamer, and have not really looked into the details of some of the things you are talking about. Towhit: Do you know at what altitude the jetstream exists? Hint: It is nowhere NEAR the area of surface winds where windmills operate. And if you think you are going to build 36,000 foot windmills, I think the FAA and their air traffic control system needs are going to have some big issues with it.
This is certainly true, but...
...this is verifiably false! And this is how, once again, I know you are really Ren. You clearly like to caste yourself as "the guy who has all the answers." You seem to think that because you can come up with these fanciful ideas, that no one else has ever thought of them (or there is some conspiracy keeping them from reaching the light of day). But the reality is that you haven't done (perhaps cannot do) the detailed engineering analysis to really verify if these ideas could work. And the devil is in the details, as any experienced engineer will tell you who has had to make something work.
I challenge you to take any ONE of the ideas you have floated, which you believe are really good enough to work, and dig into the details, do the math, and PROVE to someone (doesn't even have to be me, since you have problems with me) that it DOES work. If you can do that, you can get venture capital to go do it. Until then, you are a guy with an attitude, thinking he is smarter than people who do the detailed math/science for a living.
Honestly...I just want to see some REAL science and math out of you. As yet, I have seen none, and that includes your thread on the "fundamental principles of time travel". And now you will probably jump all over me, complaining about how I act like the "know it all". Fine. Have at it if that is what soothes you. But it will not change the fact that you think you have all the answers, and yet you apparantly don't have the math/science/engineering skills to either prove or disprove what you say.
RMT
Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight
>Everything is simple when you don't address the crux of a problem. I get the feeling you didn't even read that SHORT article I gave you in the link above. Let me repeat it, go read it (2 minutes tops), and then give me DETAILS about: http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn12966.htm<
Well the answer is rather apparent. Rich oilmen would rather not build refineries than build them. The article mentions a cost of 2-4 billion and 800 permits etc. but once you have an oil well, you can tap nearly unlimited oil from it.
If I went into a bank and said I just won the lottery- $50 million a year for the next 25 years, do you think they'd extend me $100 million in credit? You bet your butt they would because they know if I don't pay them their $100 million back they'll just take it from the $1.25 billion I'll get for the next 25 years plus their pound of flesh. So why is this different than oilmen going to bankers looking for funds to build more refineries?
>a) How you convince tree huggers that their laws and blockades are making it increasingly difficult to build refineries in short order (that means MUCH less than 5 years!).<
You really can't because treehuggers have a problem with the entire oil-dependant system. The best you can do is educate them about the truth and the hard reality of it- we CAN drill our own oil and we CAN refine it on our own, then we won't be reliant on Middle Eastern oil anymore, then we won't have any reason to go there and kick butt. It'll cost billions but years down the road it will pay for itself not only from freedom of oil but from an actual lower cost per gallon for US citizens. But this is what we have a government for; this is what our government should be doing. Why aren't they? It's easier to shut up and take a check then actually make things better.
>b) How do you make building a refinery cost effective (i.e. so money is not LOST when you look at the profit margins... remember, the refiners don't get all the big bucks!)<
Considering one phone company buys another for several billion because they know ultimately we need telephones, the oil industry is just as viable. Outlaying billions in exchange for trillions in oil is a no-brainer.
>c) How you convince the country to standardize on a SINGLE fuel blend, thereby eliminating inefficencies.<
I wouldn't. I'd make driving gas-powered cars a novelty. I'd have vast fields of windmills producing free electricity for all Americans, then I'd have cheaply-made mostly plastic, electric cars. Then it's up to the consumer- if you really have to be in an 8mpg SUV then more power to you- you'll end up being the one laying out $50-$100 a week to drive it while more sensible people drive ugly but free-to-drive electric cars. And as a side-effect of this, tens of thousands of people won't die from speeding-related deaths.
>You will probably, once again, accuse me of making fun of you. However, NONE of the above is SCIENCE. Much of it (like "Orpheus") you have no evidence for.<
Glad you brought that up because I obtained more information last night after I posted.
1. The Earth as we know it was formed when a proto-Earth, which was mostly rock, and Orpheus, which was a gas giant (or gas dwarf?) collided. This explains why we have two completly seperate habitats for life- deep sea hydrothermal vents and with it, anerobic microbes and the sea and land. Also explains why we have had liquid oceans for billions of years regardless of the fact that there's "something solid under it".
2. Thinking more, it became clearer- molicules fall into the ocean, the ocean is 6% salt. As these molicules fall to the bottom of the sea they are broken down by the sea salts and ultimately basic compounds hit the bottom.
3. The very bottom of the sea is not a bottom at all, it's more like mush. There is no sea floor at the very bottom of the sea, it's more like liquifaction: the pressures of the deepest part of the seas make the water there and minerals a mush. Like in that horrid movie "The Core": as they penetrated the deep sea floor they more "slipped into" the "land under the sea" rather than drilled through something.
4. This soup is what will become petrolium. As it slips and drips deeper, it only gets more pressure and heat and with time becomes petrolium. I assume you know the by far there is more living at the bottom of the sea then in all the seas and land combined.
>Over time, this soup becomes petrolium.<
As these anerobic microbes thrive in this soup, they consume these mineral compounds and expel oxygen as waste, just like on primordeal Earth. Their decaying mass becomes hydrocarbons- hydrogen from the seas and carbon from their mass. The oxygen in turn keeps the oceans H2O and we end up with petrolium. Considering no research has been done on this partly because oil doesn't want it and partly because they spend billions to suppress it, and considering we've just begun to research these undersea systems, this is the closest you're going to come to a real answer. I have gone as far as I can on this subject, any more inquiries and I will ask you in turn to legitimize "fossil fuel" claims which is impossible to do. If you're looking for the silver bullet answer then you'll never get it- if I had the answer I wouldn't be here telling you, I'd be writing a book and making millions from it. But then again there are lots of books that tell the same story I am telling here, this is not some obscure theory, this idea has been around for at least 60 years, it's just always been debunked and suppressed.
One final thought on this matter. I am seeing a logical system here that makes petrolium. I see a connection between heat, gravity, liquids and compounds. With more clear thought you can see a connection between our planet making petrolium and a sun making plasma and for that matter, every planet potentially having some liquid that could run cars. Looking at the moon and considering the moon used to be part of the Earth, it's obvious that we have an abundant supply of energy on a molecular scale- what's up there? Tri-helium or something like that... well the same kinda stuff is here too, the same stuff came from here. Titan looks like a viable planet for life as well as Mars, clearly planets have molecular compounds that have energy.
Lastly, you're looking for answers and math when all there is is theory. You're missing the reason we have science in the first place- to be able to look objectively at something with different eyes and formulate new ideas then test theories to see if they're true. Considering we've all been blind sheep believing in fossil fuel when there is absolutely no evidence anywhere to support it, I see no reason why I need to continually present you with facts when logic is a better yardstick for what's ultimately right and wrong. You need to be more objective. Science is the building of truths from other truths, not a fact-finding mission. Science is conjecture turned to research which leads to experimentation which results in a clearer and simpler understanding of complex concepts, not a fact-finding mission.
>Everything is simple when you don't address the crux of a problem. I get the feeling you didn't even read that SHORT article I gave you in the link above. Let me repeat it, go read it (2 minutes tops), and then give me DETAILS about: http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn12966.htm<
Well the answer is rather apparent. Rich oilmen would rather not build refineries than build them. The article mentions a cost of 2-4 billion and 800 permits etc. but once you have an oil well, you can tap nearly unlimited oil from it.
If I went into a bank and said I just won the lottery- $50 million a year for the next 25 years, do you think they'd extend me $100 million in credit? You bet your butt they would because they know if I don't pay them their $100 million back they'll just take it from the $1.25 billion I'll get for the next 25 years plus their pound of flesh. So why is this different than oilmen going to bankers looking for funds to build more refineries?
>a) How you convince tree huggers that their laws and blockades are making it increasingly difficult to build refineries in short order (that means MUCH less than 5 years!).<
You really can't because treehuggers have a problem with the entire oil-dependant system. The best you can do is educate them about the truth and the hard reality of it- we CAN drill our own oil and we CAN refine it on our own, then we won't be reliant on Middle Eastern oil anymore, then we won't have any reason to go there and kick butt. It'll cost billions but years down the road it will pay for itself not only from freedom of oil but from an actual lower cost per gallon for US citizens. But this is what we have a government for; this is what our government should be doing. Why aren't they? It's easier to shut up and take a check then actually make things better.
>b) How do you make building a refinery cost effective (i.e. so money is not LOST when you look at the profit margins... remember, the refiners don't get all the big bucks!)<
Considering one phone company buys another for several billion because they know ultimately we need telephones, the oil industry is just as viable. Outlaying billions in exchange for trillions in oil is a no-brainer.
>c) How you convince the country to standardize on a SINGLE fuel blend, thereby eliminating inefficencies.<
I wouldn't. I'd make driving gas-powered cars a novelty. I'd have vast fields of windmills producing free electricity for all Americans, then I'd have cheaply-made mostly plastic, electric cars. Then it's up to the consumer- if you really have to be in an 8mpg SUV then more power to you- you'll end up being the one laying out $50-$100 a week to drive it while more sensible people drive ugly but free-to-drive electric cars. And as a side-effect of this, tens of thousands of people won't die from speeding-related deaths.
>You will probably, once again, accuse me of making fun of you. However, NONE of the above is SCIENCE. Much of it (like "Orpheus") you have no evidence for.<
Glad you brought that up because I obtained more information last night after I posted.
1. The Earth as we know it was formed when a proto-Earth, which was mostly rock, and Orpheus, which was a gas giant (or gas dwarf?) collided. This explains why we have two completly seperate habitats for life- deep sea hydrothermal vents and with it, anerobic microbes and the sea and land. Also explains why we have had liquid oceans for billions of years regardless of the fact that there's "something solid under it".
2. Thinking more, it became clearer- molicules fall into the ocean, the ocean is 6% salt. As these molicules fall to the bottom of the sea they are broken down by the sea salts and ultimately basic compounds hit the bottom.
3. The very bottom of the sea is not a bottom at all, it's more like mush. There is no sea floor at the very bottom of the sea, it's more like liquifaction: the pressures of the deepest part of the seas make the water there and minerals a mush. Like in that horrid movie "The Core": as they penetrated the deep sea floor they more "slipped into" the "land under the sea" rather than drilled through something.
4. This soup is what will become petrolium. As it slips and drips deeper, it only gets more pressure and heat and with time becomes petrolium. I assume you know the by far there is more living at the bottom of the sea then in all the seas and land combined.
>Over time, this soup becomes petrolium.<
As these anerobic microbes thrive in this soup, they consume these mineral compounds and expel oxygen as waste, just like on primordeal Earth. Their decaying mass becomes hydrocarbons- hydrogen from the seas and carbon from their mass. The oxygen in turn keeps the oceans H2O and we end up with petrolium. Considering no research has been done on this partly because oil doesn't want it and partly because they spend billions to suppress it, and considering we've just begun to research these undersea systems, this is the closest you're going to come to a real answer. I have gone as far as I can on this subject, any more inquiries and I will ask you in turn to legitimize "fossil fuel" claims which is impossible to do. If you're looking for the silver bullet answer then you'll never get it- if I had the answer I wouldn't be here telling you, I'd be writing a book and making millions from it. But then again there are lots of books that tell the same story I am telling here, this is not some obscure theory, this idea has been around for at least 60 years, it's just always been debunked and suppressed.
One final thought on this matter. I am seeing a logical system here that makes petrolium. I see a connection between heat, gravity, liquids and compounds. With more clear thought you can see a connection between our planet making petrolium and a sun making plasma and for that matter, every planet potentially having some liquid that could run cars. Looking at the moon and considering the moon used to be part of the Earth, it's obvious that we have an abundant supply of energy on a molecular scale- what's up there? Tri-helium or something like that... well the same kinda stuff is here too, the same stuff came from here. Titan looks like a viable planet for life as well as Mars, clearly planets have molecular compounds that have energy.
Lastly, you're looking for answers and math when all there is is theory. You're missing the reason we have science in the first place- to be able to look objectively at something with different eyes and formulate new ideas then test theories to see if they're true. Considering we've all been blind sheep believing in fossil fuel when there is absolutely no evidence anywhere to support it, I see no reason why I need to continually present you with facts when logic is a better yardstick for what's ultimately right and wrong. You need to be more objective. Science is the building of truths from other truths, not a fact-finding mission. Science is conjecture turned to research which leads to experimentation which results in a clearer and simpler understanding of complex concepts, not a fact-finding mission.
Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight
When you consider how easy it is for Bush to set us on a collision course with the rest of the world, a lot of talking about the future relates directly to what our elected officials are actually doing with our money. When you consider Titor said a Civil War will erupt and it will be Bush and cronies vs. the world, there is good reason to keep an eye on his actions (or inactions).
When you consider how easy it is for Bush to set us on a collision course with the rest of the world, a lot of talking about the future relates directly to what our elected officials are actually doing with our money. When you consider Titor said a Civil War will erupt and it will be Bush and cronies vs. the world, there is good reason to keep an eye on his actions (or inactions).
Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight
>Maybe we can agree on a "common demon"? <
We most definetly have a common demon, but it's not the lawyers, it's the people paying the lawyers to be scum. Follow the money.
>But also recall that it is OPEC we buy from, and not directly from middle east governments.<
Follow the money.
>However, have you ever seen the extravagant lifestyles that most Saudis live? That is THE primary source of wealth for a great many people in that land.<
I understand having palaces everywhere in every city etc. but how does a Saudi spend a billion dollars a year? It's just not possible! Follow the money.
>So yes, if we stopped buying oil from them, do you think we would suffer more, or them, or how about a zero-sum game? We both would suffer.<
Great point. We'd definetly suffer and it would definetly be a whole lot worse here than there. They have their billions, we don't. We all have to realize that gas is not a luxory, not anymore at least. We NEED gas to function as a country and that is what gives them power over us.
>"Fossil fuel" is a term, but there have not been many people who still believe it is all dinosaur remains. Do you know what a diatom is? HERE is another website that explains why what the author of that other article said (about BOTH theories having merit) is probably right. So... the issue is not at all about "are there dinosaur remains in oil". Rather, it is about HOW is the oil created, and more importantly HOW LONG does it take to create.<
So I take it you're considering switching teams having seen this?
>Maybe we can agree on a "common demon"? <
We most definetly have a common demon, but it's not the lawyers, it's the people paying the lawyers to be scum. Follow the money.
>But also recall that it is OPEC we buy from, and not directly from middle east governments.<
Follow the money.
>However, have you ever seen the extravagant lifestyles that most Saudis live? That is THE primary source of wealth for a great many people in that land.<
I understand having palaces everywhere in every city etc. but how does a Saudi spend a billion dollars a year? It's just not possible! Follow the money.
>So yes, if we stopped buying oil from them, do you think we would suffer more, or them, or how about a zero-sum game? We both would suffer.<
Great point. We'd definetly suffer and it would definetly be a whole lot worse here than there. They have their billions, we don't. We all have to realize that gas is not a luxory, not anymore at least. We NEED gas to function as a country and that is what gives them power over us.
>"Fossil fuel" is a term, but there have not been many people who still believe it is all dinosaur remains. Do you know what a diatom is? HERE is another website that explains why what the author of that other article said (about BOTH theories having merit) is probably right. So... the issue is not at all about "are there dinosaur remains in oil". Rather, it is about HOW is the oil created, and more importantly HOW LONG does it take to create.<
So I take it you're considering switching teams having seen this?
Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight
>This post proves to me that you are Mr. Wishful Thinker, and you don't (can't?) really get your hands dirty in the science to understand the real engineering problems.<
I prefer "can't".
>1. There is no, single "magic bullet" to renewable energy concerns. (That's why I keep pointing out to creedo that an all-solar car has serious engineering problems preventing it from being reality for a long, LONG time).<
Agreed. But if there ever was one, it sure wouldn't be fossil fuel.
>2. What happens when the wind stops blowing (or blows so slowly that the resulting dynamic pressure can barely overcome the energy losses in the torque-to-electricity generator)?<
At that point we can all have the day off. Where does wind come from?
>3. Why no solar? I give you credit for thinking beyond petroleum, but as I said, there is NO single magic bullet. Your plan would seem MUCH more reasonable if you added solar and wave energy to the mix.<
Solar technology is not advanced enough, you get more energy from the wind. I'd love to add solar- heck- make the fan blades out of solar paneling!
>Do you know at what altitude the jetstream exists? Hint: It is nowhere NEAR the area of surface winds where windmills operate.<
Lemmie guess. Four? Is it four? How about eleventeen? Do I know the altitude of the jetstream? Do you know the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow? All I know is I live less than a mile from an array of 34, 200 foot tall windmills. They spin with a 4mph wind, they shut themselves off if the wind gets over 25mph. They spin all the time, except during a storm. This includes days when there is no wind. This is a viable technology because once you put it up, it runs itself for the next 50 years producing energy.
>And if you think you are going to build 36,000 foot windmills, I think the FAA and their air traffic control system needs are going to have some big issues with it.<
Where I live there are no planes. This is because I am nowhere near the "skyways" planes use. Heck, I even go up there once in a while and suprisingly there aren't even dead birds at the base of them. Once again- from the getgo I said this is a pie in the sky but it's also a viable technology that really works, if you don't believe me you're welcome to visit and see for yourself, I got the room.
>I challenge you to take any ONE of the ideas you have floated, which you believe are really good enough to work, and dig into the details, do the math, and PROVE to someone (doesn't even have to be me, since you have problems with me) that it DOES work. If you can do that, you can get venture capital to go do it. Until then, you are a guy with an attitude, thinking he is smarter than people who do the detailed math/science for a living.<
You know the difference between "intelligence" and "wisdom"? What you get from that tells if you're smart or wise.
>Honestly...I just want to see some REAL science and math out of you.<
Okay- nothing really matters because everything breaks down or combines or can be manipulated with an equal opposing force. This is as scientific as you would ever need to get, any more and you're staring into a microscope ignoring the meteor that's about to hit you.
>As yet, I have seen none, and that includes your thread on the "fundamental principles of time travel".<
75% of it is already there posted, the other 25% is the last part- the key... the "language that makes it work" which is quite easy to figure out because I have left at least three hints at it. Part of why I came here is because this website allows the free flowing of ideas over time and with time we see whether or not those ideas were valid or not. I am not here to prove anything to you and for that matter,
>But it will not change the fact that you think you have all the answers, and yet you apparantly don't have the math/science/engineering skills to either prove or disprove what you say.<
You're the one who says you have the secret to time travel. You're the one predicting earthquakes. You're the one who says (to paraphrase) "reality is little more than a hologram" and you're the one who compares reality to a chocolate cake. I am the one who presented the fundamental principles of time travel, you're the one who proclaimed well over a year ago you had it solved. Yet here we are, here you are examining everything everyone else has to say instead of making a point yourself. And philosophically, the more a person accuses another person of something, the more that something is also true or themselves. In layman's terms, "it takes one to know one" and this is a truth.
You want to kick ideas back and forth I'm all ears but if all you do is pick apart what everyone else has to say while at the same time proclaiming to be of a "better stock" all while not presenting your superior concepts then all you're doing is blowing hot air. I would love the chance to have a venue of free thought with you but you need to stop with the pot shots and cheap one liners and summarialistic comments and emoticons because they're all signs that you think you're better than everyone else and you're not, I'm not, no one is. The difference between you and me is I would happily push a bum out of the way of a Mack Truck while you would philosophically surmise the world is better off without him. I have read most of your 2,079 posts from the past several years and you have many great points to make, but to get to them you first have to remove all the sarcasm.
"The first man to see an illusion by which men have flourished for centuries surely stands in a lonely place."
>This post proves to me that you are Mr. Wishful Thinker, and you don't (can't?) really get your hands dirty in the science to understand the real engineering problems.<
I prefer "can't".
>1. There is no, single "magic bullet" to renewable energy concerns. (That's why I keep pointing out to creedo that an all-solar car has serious engineering problems preventing it from being reality for a long, LONG time).<
Agreed. But if there ever was one, it sure wouldn't be fossil fuel.
>2. What happens when the wind stops blowing (or blows so slowly that the resulting dynamic pressure can barely overcome the energy losses in the torque-to-electricity generator)?<
At that point we can all have the day off. Where does wind come from?
>3. Why no solar? I give you credit for thinking beyond petroleum, but as I said, there is NO single magic bullet. Your plan would seem MUCH more reasonable if you added solar and wave energy to the mix.<
Solar technology is not advanced enough, you get more energy from the wind. I'd love to add solar- heck- make the fan blades out of solar paneling!
>Do you know at what altitude the jetstream exists? Hint: It is nowhere NEAR the area of surface winds where windmills operate.<
Lemmie guess. Four? Is it four? How about eleventeen? Do I know the altitude of the jetstream? Do you know the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow? All I know is I live less than a mile from an array of 34, 200 foot tall windmills. They spin with a 4mph wind, they shut themselves off if the wind gets over 25mph. They spin all the time, except during a storm. This includes days when there is no wind. This is a viable technology because once you put it up, it runs itself for the next 50 years producing energy.
>And if you think you are going to build 36,000 foot windmills, I think the FAA and their air traffic control system needs are going to have some big issues with it.<
Where I live there are no planes. This is because I am nowhere near the "skyways" planes use. Heck, I even go up there once in a while and suprisingly there aren't even dead birds at the base of them. Once again- from the getgo I said this is a pie in the sky but it's also a viable technology that really works, if you don't believe me you're welcome to visit and see for yourself, I got the room.
>I challenge you to take any ONE of the ideas you have floated, which you believe are really good enough to work, and dig into the details, do the math, and PROVE to someone (doesn't even have to be me, since you have problems with me) that it DOES work. If you can do that, you can get venture capital to go do it. Until then, you are a guy with an attitude, thinking he is smarter than people who do the detailed math/science for a living.<
You know the difference between "intelligence" and "wisdom"? What you get from that tells if you're smart or wise.
>Honestly...I just want to see some REAL science and math out of you.<
Okay- nothing really matters because everything breaks down or combines or can be manipulated with an equal opposing force. This is as scientific as you would ever need to get, any more and you're staring into a microscope ignoring the meteor that's about to hit you.
>As yet, I have seen none, and that includes your thread on the "fundamental principles of time travel".<
75% of it is already there posted, the other 25% is the last part- the key... the "language that makes it work" which is quite easy to figure out because I have left at least three hints at it. Part of why I came here is because this website allows the free flowing of ideas over time and with time we see whether or not those ideas were valid or not. I am not here to prove anything to you and for that matter,
>But it will not change the fact that you think you have all the answers, and yet you apparantly don't have the math/science/engineering skills to either prove or disprove what you say.<
You're the one who says you have the secret to time travel. You're the one predicting earthquakes. You're the one who says (to paraphrase) "reality is little more than a hologram" and you're the one who compares reality to a chocolate cake. I am the one who presented the fundamental principles of time travel, you're the one who proclaimed well over a year ago you had it solved. Yet here we are, here you are examining everything everyone else has to say instead of making a point yourself. And philosophically, the more a person accuses another person of something, the more that something is also true or themselves. In layman's terms, "it takes one to know one" and this is a truth.
You want to kick ideas back and forth I'm all ears but if all you do is pick apart what everyone else has to say while at the same time proclaiming to be of a "better stock" all while not presenting your superior concepts then all you're doing is blowing hot air. I would love the chance to have a venue of free thought with you but you need to stop with the pot shots and cheap one liners and summarialistic comments and emoticons because they're all signs that you think you're better than everyone else and you're not, I'm not, no one is. The difference between you and me is I would happily push a bum out of the way of a Mack Truck while you would philosophically surmise the world is better off without him. I have read most of your 2,079 posts from the past several years and you have many great points to make, but to get to them you first have to remove all the sarcasm.
"The first man to see an illusion by which men have flourished for centuries surely stands in a lonely place."
roorichard
Chrono Cadet
Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight
You know what's funny? Neither of you started this arguement...it was Creeds by saying "Why is oil so expensive." A small question that turned into a giant quarrel. I find that very funny! Good job creeds, haha...
I enjoy reading about this but have not picked a side yet. Anyone want to take bets?? :D Just trying to make some fun out of this!
I think it's time for round 2...ding!
You know what's funny? Neither of you started this arguement...it was Creeds by saying "Why is oil so expensive." A small question that turned into a giant quarrel. I find that very funny! Good job creeds, haha...
I enjoy reading about this but have not picked a side yet. Anyone want to take bets?? :D Just trying to make some fun out of this!
I think it's time for round 2...ding!
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Re: Titor\'s Collapse Still Nowhere In Sight
Are you telling me that asking for math that corresponds with physical reality is not objective? And yet you say both "you need to be more objective" and in the same paragraph you say that science is not a fact-finding mission. Well, let me return you to the dictionary:
Objective - 3.b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually.
So you see, being objective IS about fact-finding. And let me also point out a few quotes about science and its relationship to math:
"You can't do good science without math" - Anon.
"Science without math is like language without syntax." - Dr. Jack Sarfatti
I agree with you that PART of science is conjecture turned to research. But until you can show that conjecture objectively (that is either with real experiments, not thought experiments, or math models that reflect empircal data) you are not doing any form of science that will benefit anyone. IOW you are expelling ideas without the means to show if those ideas can really work. Just because you state they can work does not ensure us that they really do.
RMT
Are you telling me that asking for math that corresponds with physical reality is not objective? And yet you say both "you need to be more objective" and in the same paragraph you say that science is not a fact-finding mission. Well, let me return you to the dictionary:
Objective - 3.b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually.
So you see, being objective IS about fact-finding. And let me also point out a few quotes about science and its relationship to math:
"You can't do good science without math" - Anon.
"Science without math is like language without syntax." - Dr. Jack Sarfatti
I agree with you that PART of science is conjecture turned to research. But until you can show that conjecture objectively (that is either with real experiments, not thought experiments, or math models that reflect empircal data) you are not doing any form of science that will benefit anyone. IOW you are expelling ideas without the means to show if those ideas can really work. Just because you state they can work does not ensure us that they really do.
RMT