On 5/31/2010 12:31 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > spudnik schrieb: >> why couldn't the tremendous heat & pressure >> in the tectonic system produce oil out of plants, >> if humans can do it to make "biodiesel?"... well, >> there's is little difference between that & diesel, >> with an added bouquet! > You could put olive oil into your tank and call that diesel. But that > isn't the same stuff. Long-chain hydrocarbons are very different to > organic materials and more or less toxic for most organisms.
Earth to Heger. Long chain hydrocarbons _are_ organic materials. And there are organisms that are very happy to live in diesel fuel. Enough so in fact that diesel that is to be stored for a long period of time has to have toxins added to prevent those organisms from digesting it.
The stuff the pump out of the ground isn't diesel either you know. It has to be processed in a variety of ways before you can burn it in a diesel engine.
> So is there any evidence, that under any kind of conditions, you could > get hydrocarbons out of organic sediments?
Well, there is this substance known as "coal" . . .
>> the production of biomass is *huge*, and >> it has to go some where; oil comes out of the ground, >> under pressure. there is no need of abiogenic oil, >> considering massive sedimentation of biomass -- >> has nothing to do with dinosaurs, either, >> til proven otherwise. >> > No, the production of biomass is not huge. In contrary the amount of > remainders in biological system is very small. In rain-forests for > example you find zero organic material below a certain horizon in the > ground, even if there is a lot of life above.
So you're saying that dead diatoms float? Your argument is that "because rain forests have x property all biomes have x property".
> This is because the energy in dead organisms is fast utilized by other > organisms. Very efficient organic systems use all of that stuff and > leave nothing.
How about organic systems that are _not_ "very efficient"?
> So where do we have this large amount of dead bodies to transform into > hydrocarbons? (Even if that wouldn't work anyhow.)
Bottom of the ocean. Peat bogs and other kinds of swamp. No doubt there are other examples. Or you can deliberately grow them.
>> yes, that's what I said: >> "currents in the mantle" is absurd; so, >> there must be another mechanism for plate tectonics, >> whose geometry is so beautiful ("Euler poles"). > Actually we know, that continents drift apart.
No, we know that continents move. We also know the direction they move. And they are not all moving apart. Some are moving towards each other.
> But since subduction > seems impossible, the Earth has to grow. > > Why is subduction impossible: > If we really would experience that process called subduction, where the > crust dives into the mantle and get molten, we would certainly notice it > on the surface.
"We" do.
> Given the strength of rock and the thickness of the layer to bent, we > need enormous stress and get only a very large radius of curvature. > If that would really happen, the surface would look very strange, > because the crust is not only large, thick and stiff, but has curvature > also (as spherical shell of the Earth). This could be bent only at the > expense of tremendous destruction, that we simply do not find.
You've never seen the aftermath of a major earthquake or volcanic eruption, have you?
> Than the verticals would change over time. But we find very old planes, > that I wanted to describe as former sea-bottoms or dried out lakes. Than > we would expect them to be lopsided, but don't find that neither.
Huh? Subduction doesn't occur everywhere simultaneously, it occurs at specific locations. And if you've never seen tilted strata you haven't studied very much geology or even ridden through a mountainous area.
> And how could material sink into something it is floating on?
<cough> Titanic <cough>
> Only if it > is molten away. But the Earth' surface doesn't seem hot enough.
Why does the surface have to be hot? It's the mantle that's doing the flowing, and it's not on the surface.
Now let's see, so far in your argument you've failed biology, chemistry, and geology. What's next?
