Prev: Journal special issue: "The Search For Life in the Universe."
Next: Proposed and Past Experiments Detecting Absolute Motion
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 29 May 2010 09:04
On May 29, 3:12 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:
> > thusNso:
> > Dear woould-be replacer of Jerry "no oil, except from Texas etc."
> > Brown:
> > no change from Jerry Brown's '69 "platform," eh?
> > it is intolerably stupid, insofar as we do
> > need "fossilized fuels TM (sik),"
>
> Don't you think, this is getting too far away from the subject in
> question? (it started with discussions about dimensions and their meanings).
> Anyhow, Prudhoe Bay in Alaska is a very interesting subject. I recall to
> have seen a film about a priest, named Lindsay Williams, ranting against
> big oil-companies. (A pretty dubious story altogether ...)
>
> > to not get our share from our own "reserves." really, though,
> > it is merely biomass, and the techniques have progressed since '69.
> > Dubya's bro's ban offshore of Florida (and Louisiana) seemed like
> > a tactical maneuver to support the oilcos' scarcity programme
> > in our state.
>
> Actually I think, that oil is not fossilized biomass, but comes from
> deep inside in the inner earth. The why and hows about this idea is
> another interesting, but very different and difficult subject.
> This has to do with what is called 'growing earth hypothesis'. And that
> comes from a different concept about matter (what would lead -btw- back
> to the subject).
> The oil is found according to this theory at certain locations, because
> there the crust is thinner or 'cracks' break it open from inside. This
> comes due to the process of expansion, that forces bigger pieces to
> drift apart and thins certain areas in between, generally at ocean
> slopes, because the ocean floor is actually newer crust.
> Or we have larger cracks, if plates break (like an upside V), what
> enables the hydrocarbons to raise (what seems to be the case in
> Saudi-Arabia). So that stuff is the lighter fraction and the movable
> part of the material, the Earth gathers as new matter in the stream of
> time. The very light is e.g. carbon-dioxide, that puffs out of volcanoes
> occasionally.
> Even as this idea was known in the early 20th century, it was replaced
> with a blunder called 'plate tectonics'.
>
> greetings
>
> TH

Well, as long as we're discussing alternative theories of geology then
what about a second moon (M2) that drifted closer and closer to earth,
breaking in the atmosphere for a smooth landing; turning into the
continents we see today, and squashing whatever life was beneath into
the fossil fuels in more of a 'presto' fashion than a slow buildup.

Some guy is studying the preCambrian explosion:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/977749a910341dbb
and I've shared this idea there.

- Tim
From: spudnik on 29 May 2010 21:39
my format is just self-publishing, but
always responding (top-posting) to the subjectum.

Tom Gold's theory hasn't been tested, only it has;
the oilcos just haven't realeased the C14/C12 ratio
of their "fingerprints of adjacent holes."

no oil is "Fossilized Fuel TM;" that is nothing,
but a tradename, with no technical significance (unless,
you consdier, "sediments pile-up in the ocean, and
their own weight creates hydrocarbons," to be a theory .-)

of course, Earth is growing, but this depends not only on falling-
in space-junk, but the biota of the outermost layers & the
noosphere....
I don't see what the problem is with plate tectonics, over-all,
although "currents in the mantle" is a known absurdity,
from the seismic data (on the other hand,
there are so many weird pahses of rocks at temperature & pressure,
like ice .-)

volcanos produce huge amounts of CO2, and CFCs and so on.

> Actually I think, that oil is not fossilized biomass, but comes from
> deep inside in the inner earth. The why and hows about this idea is
> another interesting, but very different and difficult subject.

> The oil is found according to this theory at certain locations, because
> there the crust is thinner or 'cracks' break it open from inside. This
> comes due to the process of expansion, that forces bigger pieces to
> drift apart and thins certain areas in between, generally at ocean
> slopes, because the ocean floor is actually newer crust.
> Or we have larger cracks, if plates break (like an upside V), what
> enables the hydrocarbons to raise (what seems to be the case in
> Saudi-Arabia). So that stuff is the lighter fraction and the movable
> part of the material, the Earth gathers as new matter in the stream of
> time. The very light is e.g. carbon-dioxide, that puffs out of volcanoes
> occasionally.
> Even as this idea was known in the early 20th century, it was replaced
> with a blunder called 'plate tectonics'.

thusNso:
hogwash; spacetime is just a phase-space,
three orthogonal (and imaginary) coordinates in space,
one (real) scalar time; til Gibbs dysassembled Hamilton's "inner
and outer products" into his version of Hamilton's "vectors &
scalars."

> (And that is the reason we need complex fourvectors, because
> these are fully-symmetric upon the change of the timeline.)

thusNso:
you don't read Shakespeare til the eleventh grading, or
it could seriously mess you "up." til then,
one can readily study *mathematica*, which is four subjects,
in a "hands-on" manner that does not really require
the full-throated use of language -- that one is learning,
by doing stuff.

I like UD's _Math.Cranks_, because, in his chapter
on fermatistes, he only made one mistake,
that I can find, now, and he had acknowledged it, when I told him.

also, he seems to have left numbertheory, out, and that's one
of the four, the true meaning of "higher arithmetic."

> http://www.ams.org/notices/201005/rtx100500608p.pdf
> author would be in not including Geometry explicitly as part of
> mathematics: "So that there is no confusion, let me say that by
> 'mathematics' I mean algebra, trigonometry, calculus, linear algebra,
> and so on: all those subjects beyond arithmetic."

thusNso:
textbooks are often *generically* bad glosses on the discoveries
in the original monographs, or simply pedantic workbooks.

the real empty set, to me, is those who attempt proofs,
without any grounding in elementary geometrical & numbertheory proofs
-- see wlym.com. and, recall,
it was Liebniz who gave the generic format of "iff,"
which is necessity & sufficiency, used meaningfully
in various ways in natural language.

the New Math following upon General Bourbaki was a silly thing,
since you *need* natural language (and diagrams etc.)
to make ready analogies & metaphors for your work. such that,
the glaring example of Bourbakism was perhaps Russell's illinguistic
"paradoxes"
-- whence "silly" deploys from over-reliance on Aristotle's
syllogisms!

--Stop BP's capNtrade rip-off; call Waxman & tell him,
we need a small *tax* on carbon emmissions, instead
of "let the arbitrageurs raise the price of CO2 as much as they can
-- free trade, free beer, free dumb!"
http://wlym.com
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Journal special issue: "The Search For Life in the Universe."
Next: Proposed and Past Experiments Detecting Absolute Motion