Monday, February 9, 2009

Celestial Events In The Time of the Iliad



"There did really happen, and will again happen, like many other events of which ancient tradition has preserved the record, the portent which is traditionally said to have occurred in the quarrel of Atreus and Thyestes. ... how the sun and the stars once rose in the west, and set in the east, and that the god reversed their motion, and gave them that which they now have as a testimony to the right of Atreus. " -- Plato, The Statesman

"Then, it was then that Zeus changed the radiant paths of the stars, and the light of the sun, and the bright face of dawn; and the sun drove across the western back of the sky with hot flame from heaven's fires, while the rain-clouds went northward and Ammon's lands [Egypt] grew parched and faint, not knowing moisture, robbed of heaven's fairest showers of rain." --Euripides, Electra, 408 B.C.

Once again Velikovsky demonstrates himself to be an absolute monster intellect and polymath with his essay Celestial Events in the Iliad.

The true time of the events recounted in the Iliad was the second half of the eighth and the beginning of the seventh centuries before the present era.

In Worlds in Collision an effort was made to recognize in the description of theomachy and of the natural phenomena that accompanied the battle of the gods, the events that took place in the sky and on earth between -747 and -687.1

The Trojan War was waged to the accompaniment of blows exchanged by the planetary gods—Earth (Hera), Moon (Aphrodite), Venus (Athene), Mars (Ares) and Jupiter (Zeus).

These celestial phenomena could not have taken place in the sky over Troy alone: the entire world had to witness the events, if they were not mere creations of the bard. That they were not can be deduced from the fact that these very events, witnessed in all parts of the world, are also described in sacred epics from Finland (Kalevala), Lapland and Iceland (Edda), from Mexico, Peru, India, the South Sea Islands, China and Japan, and, of course, by the poets and dramatists, annalists and astronomers, of the Near and Far East. It would require repeating close to two hundred pages of Worlds in Collision, actually the entire part II (Mars) of that book, should we desire here to evidence and illuminate this in some detail.

Perturbations in the celestial sphere, or Theomachy, in which Mars endangered the Earth at nearly regular intervals during this century, preoccupied the minds of men and repeatedly intervened in human history. Pestilence also broke out, and many references in the cuneiform literature ascribe its cause to Nergal (Mars). Earthquakes, overflooding, change of climate, evidenced by Klimasturz, did not spare a single land. These changes moved entire nations to migrations. Calendars were repeatedly thrown out of order and reformed—and the reader will find abundant material in the second part of Worlds in Collision and also in Earth in Upheaval, where no human testimony, but only the testimony of nature was presented; and this material could be multiplied by any dedicated researcher.

It appears, however, that in the Iliad Homer telescoped into a few weeks events that took place in the space of several decades. At least some of the events may be placed in a chronological order with the help of ancient Israelite sources: namely, on the day when King Ahaz was interred the motion of the Earth was disturbed so that the Sun set before its appointed time;2

At the time of the destruction of Sennacherib’s army in the days of Hezekiah, son of Ahaz, another disturbance occurred with the contrary effect: the Sun appeared to return several degrees to the east before proceeding on its regular westward path. It is asserted in the rabbinical literature that the second disturbance rectified the effects of the first—and this is also the meaning of the sentence in Isaiah 38:8: “So the sun returned ten degrees by which degrees it was gone down.”3

In Greek legendary tradition the first event took place in the days of the two brothers, Atreus and Thyestes, contesting the throne of Mycenae—when, according to Seneca, the Sun set earlier than usual.4

Yet a certain compression or amalgamating of two events, separated in time, must have taken place, for another version of the story tells of a reversal of the sun’s motion. This version is recorded by Apollodorus and several other authors.5

The event described as the reversal of motion of the sun took place, as illuminated Worlds in Collision, on March 23rd, -687.6

The fixing of the event to the early spring of -687 is made on the strength of the information from Hebrew sources that the event took place on the night of Passover, during the second campaign of Sennacherib against Judah, the ninth campaign of his reign. The exact date for the last of this series of catastrophes7 is provided by the records of the astronomical observations of the Chinese, where we learn that in the year -687, on the 23rd of March, “during the night the fixed stars did not appear, though the sky was clear. In the middle of the night stars fell like rain.”8

This date is also confirmed by Roman sources—Romulus found his end during a celestial-terrestrial catastrophe connected with the planet Mars:

Both the poles shook, and Atlas lifted the burden of the sky . . . The sun vanished and rising clouds obscured the heaven . . . the sky was riven by shooting flames. The people fled and the king [Romulus] upon his father’s [Mars’] steeds soared to the stars.9
Romulus was a contemporary of Hezekiah;10 and the 23rd of March was the most important day in the Roman cult of Mars.11

We must not forget that the Romans and the Greeks worshipped their gods in the planets, not as gods of the planets. Invocations to the gods, such as the Homeric Hymn to Ares (Mars) are addressed directly to the planet as an astral power.12

The siege of Troy under Agamemnon followed by less than one generation the natural disturbances of the days of his father Atreus, when this king of Mycenae competed with his brother Thyestes for the crown of the realm and the Sun was disrupted in its motion.

24 comments:

Louis Hissink said...

OiM,

You might find it useful to look at Gunnar Heihnsohn's comments about the events of the Bronze Age.

Ginenthal's work is relevant.

(Heck, just realised he has published a new book, %$%^$%)

OilIsMastery said...

Thx for the headsup!

Not sure exactly when I'll have time to get to them as I am totally preoccupied with Velikovsky at the moment.

What a genius!

Reading Worlds In Collision and his essays, I'm surprised people haven't accused him of being a polytheist Greek fundamentalist...Haha.

Although I admit In The Beginning is just as terrifying as Worlds In Collision. Aliens and giants? WTF...LOL.

I'm not sure who I'm supposed to fear more...=)

Clifford J. Wirth, Ph.D. said...

Global crude oil production peaked in 2008.

The media, governments, world leaders, and public should focus on this issue.

Global crude oil production had been rising briskly until 2004, then plateaued for four years. Because oil producers were extracting at maximum effort to profit from high oil prices, this plateau is a clear indication of Peak Oil.

Then in August and September of 2008 while oil prices were still very high, global crude oil production fell nearly one million barrels per day, clear evidence of Peak Oil (See Rembrandt Koppelaar, Editor of "Oil Watch Monthly," December 2008, page 1) http://www.peakoil.nl/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/2008_december_oilwatch_monthly.pdf.

Peak Oil is now.

Credit for accurate Peak Oil predictions (within a few years) goes to the following (projected year for peak given in parentheses):

* Association for the Study of Peak Oil (2007)

* Rembrandt Koppelaar, Editor of “Oil Watch Monthly” (2008)

* Tony Eriksen, Oil stock analyst; Samuel Foucher, oil analyst; and Stuart Staniford, Physicist [Wikipedia Oil Megaprojects] (2008)

* Matthew Simmons, Energy investment banker, (2007)

* T. Boone Pickens, Oil and gas investor (2007)

* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2005)

* Kenneth S. Deffeyes, Princeton professor and retired shell geologist (2005)

* Sam Sam Bakhtiari, Retired Iranian National Oil Company geologist (2005)

* Chris Skrebowski, Editor of “Petroleum Review” (2010)

* Sadad Al Husseini, former head of production and exploration, Saudi Aramco (2008)

* Energy Watch Group in Germany (2006)

* Fredrik Robelius, Oil analyst and author of "Giant Oil Fields" (2008 to 2018)

Oil production will now begin to decline terminally.

Within a year or two, it is likely that oil prices will skyrocket as supply falls below demand. OPEC cuts could exacerbate the gap between supply and demand and drive prices even higher.

Independent studies indicate that global crude oil production will now decline from 74 million barrels per day to 60 million barrels per day by 2015. During the same time, demand will increase. Oil supplies will be even tighter for the U.S. As oil producing nations consume more and more oil domestically they will export less and less. Because demand is high in China, India, the Middle East, and other oil producing nations, once global oil production begins to decline, demand will always be higher than supply. And since the U.S. represents one fourth of global oil demand, whatever oil we conserve will be consumed elsewhere. Thus, conservation in the U.S. will not slow oil depletion rates significantly.

Alternatives will not even begin to fill the gap. There is no plan nor capital for a so-called electric economy. And most alternatives yield electric power, but we need liquid fuels for tractors/combines, 18 wheel trucks, trains, ships, and mining equipment. The independent scientists of the Energy Watch Group conclude in a 2007 report titled: “Peak Oil Could Trigger Meltdown of Society:”

"By 2020, and even more by 2030, global oil supply will be dramatically lower. This will create a supply gap which can hardly be closed by growing contributions from other fossil, nuclear or alternative energy sources in this time frame."

With increasing costs for gasoline and diesel, along with declining taxes and declining gasoline tax revenues, states and local governments will eventually have to cut staff and curtail highway maintenance. Eventually, gasoline stations will close, and state and local highway workers won’t be able to get to work. We are facing the collapse of the highways that depend on diesel and gasoline powered trucks for bridge maintenance, culvert cleaning to avoid road washouts, snow plowing, and roadbed and surface repair. When the highways fail, so will the power grid, as highways carry the parts, large transformers, steel for pylons, and high tension cables from great distances. With the highways out, there will be no food coming from far away, and without the power grid virtually nothing modern works, including home heating, pumping of gasoline and diesel, airports, communications, and automated building systems.

Documented here:
http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html
http://survivingpeakoil.blogspot.com/

OilIsMastery said...

Hi Clifford,

Welcome.

While we are extremely open minded, you're wasting your time preaching your religion, pseudoscience, and mythology here. This is a science website which means hydrocarbons are infinite and renewable.

Can I borrow your crystal ball or your time machine so I can see the future production rates? I must admit that I'm not trained in clairvoyance, witchcraft, sorcery, magic, and the occult like mainstream scientists.

Hopefully we'll have moved onto electricity and the production rate will peak...LOL.

I should change the name of this blog...haha.

Clifford J. Wirth, Ph.D. said...

Hi OilssMastery,

The National Academy of Sciences states that oil is a finite resource.

Cheers,

Cliff Wirth

BF said...

Moved to here from: Abandoning Geocentrism and Gravity

http://oilismastery.blogspot.com/2009/02/abandoning-geocentrism-and-gravity.html

Anaconda said: "The "big bang" requires an expanding Universe..."

Or, on the other hand, expansion is real, as evidence suggests, but we have no need of a "Big Bang" to explain the origin of our universe and its subsequent trajectory.

The following short paper offers an exposition along these lines. I'd be grateful if contributers could read it and share their thoughts.

Thanks.


THE CONCEPT OF SYMMETRY IN BIOLOGY

SYMMETRICAL-ASYMMETRICAL
By Nasif Nahle

To quote this article, copy the next two lines:

Nahle, N. 2006. Didactic Article: The Concept of Symmetry in Biology. Biology Cabinet Organization. New Braunfels, TX. http://www.biocab.org/Symmetry_Asymmetry.html

Published: 29th October 2006. Last Update: 9th February 2009.

Symmetry refers to the homogeneity of a system.

All living beings and all their thermal states are asymmetric.

We say that a system is symmetric when each of its parts offers identical effects, characteristics and conditions through the rest of its parts, anywhere and every time that the system exists or produces its influences.

The transition from a state where the most minimum value in which the symmetric system resides on the point of zero toward a state of asymmetry with a value from almost zero to one -or close to one- is called “Symmetry Breaking". (Barrow; 2000). 1

The laws of Nature are symmetrical because they produce their effects in the same way, at every place and every moment in the Universe; however, the results of the symmetrical laws are asymmetrical systems (states and/or structures).

There is no special place in the Universe where the laws of Nature behave differently, that is to say, where the laws behave asymmetrically. Nature’s laws operate generating a vast range of systems and states which are complicatedly asymmetrical.

Consequently, the Universe started out from a symmetric state, that is to say, in a minimum zero value. (Randall et al; 1996) 2. Time has never been symmetric because it has always been different from zero.

In this Universe, time would always adopt a value distinct from zero. If we could go back in time, splitting it into smaller and smaller parts of time, we would always be left with a minimal fraction of time, but we would never arrive at an absolute zero of time. So, the mathematical concept of time is infinite if we implement it en route for processes presently occurring in the Universe and before it started off, as long as we understand that time is the trajectory of the entropy of the Universe. (Hivon & Kamionkowski; 2002). 3

The idea of a Universe beginning from a Big Bang or from a series of Big-Bangs is mathematically possible, but unfeasible in Nature. It is not rare to find this kind of inconsistency between the procedures created by the human mind and Nature in the real. Our observations of the Universe indicate that the Universe began an expansion of indefinite duration once it had started off from a bubble of false vacuum.

That there could be a prior Universe from which our Universe emerged, and another Universe earlier than the universe that brought about our Universe, is only a hypothesis, but it has a bulk of evidence.

There are no symmetric structures or states in the real Universe. To exist, a state or a system must be asymmetric in relation to the symmetry of Nature’s laws. (See figure)

Living beings are not systems stretched out from the field of action of those symmetrical laws. All states and structures in the Universe are subject to the laws of Nature, even when they are asymmetrical systems.

Our Universe grew out from a black hole produced in an older and bigger Universe. The history goes something like this:

1. A black hole is an asymmetric connection between two bubbles of false vacuum.

2. When the temperature of the black hole increased to more than 10^34 K, the particles with mass (hadrons) comprised by the system, separated into elementary particles without mass (gluons, quarks and photons).

3. The particles formed together a symmetric gluon-quark-plasma into the horizon of the black hole and a bubble of false vacuum formed that extended “out” from the Mother Universe through a highly unstable wormhole.

4. The highly unstable wormhole disappeared after a few microseconds of existence, separating the bubble of quark gluon plasma from the ancient Universe to form another asymmetric system.

5. The temperature of the quark-gluon plasma decreased and adopted an asymmetric liquid-like phase whose enormous internal pressures drove the whole system into an accelerated expansion.

6. Then a new asymmetric structure (our Universe) began to exist. Quarks and gluons gathered to form asymmetries which are those familiar particles with mass, such as protons, neutrons, electrons, neutrinos, positrons, etc.

7. As the system speedily expanded, the temperature decreased and the formation of more asymmetric structures (galaxies) with billions of more asymmetric structures (stars) was possible.

8. The laws that generated those asymmetric structures remain symmetrical at present.

9. Perhaps many of the stellar systems inside galaxies are hospitable to living beings and, perhaps, many of the worlds forming part of those stellar systems hold living beings.

10. At least, one planet in one stellar system has living beings, the Earth.

11. Many universes will breed from our Universe; perhaps many young universes have already arisen from our Universe in the past. Who knows?

That “who knows?” refers to our inability to see or detect universes beyond the horizon of our own Universe, or the universe that engendered our Universe, as the bend of the horizon of our Universe renders it unobservable from our place in the cosmos.



REFERENCES

1. Barrow, John D. The Book of Nothing. Pantheon Books; 2000, New York, New York.

2. Randall Lisa, Soljacic, Marin, and Guth, Alan H. (MIT). Supernatural Inflation: Inflation from Supersymmetry with No (Very) Small Parameters. 1996, Nuclear Physics B472, 377-408.

3. Hivon, E. and Kamionkowski, M. A New Window to the Early Universe. Science; 15 November 2002: Vol. 298. No. 5597, pp. 1349 - 1350.

Quantum_Flux said...

I know, the ancients were on drugs.

Anaconda said...

@ BF:

I'll offer some thoughts to your comment, but first I need to respond to Clifford J. Wirth, Ph.D.

Bloggin' Brewskie said...

Clifford,

The debate as to whether the world has hit “peak oil” has been going on for years, and has yet to be truly officiated. Some in the peak oil community insisted production peaked in 2005; it increased over 2006, 2007, and hit 87 mbpd in 2008. Even a valued peak oil website, like the Oil Drum, has not “officiated” a peak among non-OPEC producers.

OPEC, Canada and Russia have decreased production this year because of slack demand. This is the reason why production is lower this year than last. The continuous cuts have failed to revitalize price, or stymie the glut - a slew of floating oil tankers sitting brim full; Cushing, OK, is ready to burst; America’s stockpile of oil is at its highest in years, despite lower global production, and continues to be added to.

Over the years, myths have been generated among the peak oil community. One example is the Ghawar Oil Field being in decline since 2005, at an annual decline rate of 8%; ditto for Saudi Arabia. Both increased production last year, with Saudi Arabia pumping an additional 500,000 bpd, helping OPEC increase production to record levels last summer.

The fear generated by “millions of gallons of water being injected into Ghawar” is unwarranted. Water injection is a secondary recovery method; it’s standard operating procedure in the oil industry, has been for decades. One cannot simply stick pipe into the ground, and expect oil to come up continuously like gas - this plays out fairly quickly. Secondary recovery methods are implemented when, the oil field is still in its prime. Like other secondary recovery methods - such as steam and gas injection - this can be carried on for years or decades before decline hits. As a field ages, water cuts do rise, but Ghawar’s current water cut, 30-40%, is perfectly acceptable - indicative of the field being in its prime. Texas oil production - which peaked in 1972 at 3.4 mbpd, and now sees production somewhere over 900,000 - has a water cut of over 90%; Alaska production, which peaked in 1988, sees a water cut well over 80%.

Another myth postulated earlier in the decade is that America would experience a gas crisis this decade, with production “falling off a cliff.” This was heavily pronounced by Mathew Simmons, who predicted at mid-decade, America would hit a gas crisis within several years. Last year, at one point, America experienced a near 9% increase in gas production - the biggest increase since the late 1950s. This was largely the result of shale gas production, a source of gas largely ignored or shot down by the peak oil community, because it was “too difficult and expensive,” or “the technology didn’t exist.” On top of this, a high possibility exists of America experiencing a monster gas glut later this year.

Anyways, monster offshore oil fields are being discovered. This blog lists a number of amazing discoveries made by Petrobras (these guys could find oil in a fish bowl); my blog has a listing of some, as well. On top of this, we have other sources of oil as well, such as the Alberta tar sands, and Venezuela’s heavy crude (though both extract a heavy environmental price). America’s shale reserves are a possibility, too, though processing methods that minimize or negates water usage will need to be developed before this become viable. Research is being conducted at this moment.

And other prospects for energy exist, too. Natural gas, nuclear (those who insist uranium’s going to peak soon need to find out how much there is; recycling spent rods is also an option), hydrogen (the biggest obstacle is infrastructure), solar (so-so for now, but wait to see what the future brings), geothermal and next-generation biofuels like algae (much better potential than corn-based ethanol, which is abhorrent).

Best of luck.

Anaconda said...

"IS OIL ABIOTIC OR NOT?" THAT IS THE QUESTION

@ Clifford J. Wirth, Ph.D.:

Welcome to the Oil Is Mastery website. I appreciate your time and attention to the question of "Peak" oil and your comment, substantiating your belief in "Peak" oil, here, on this website.

I reviewed your profile.

I appreciate your educational background and qualifications, noting your professional advocacy of "Peak" oil.

Obviously, you subscribe to "Peak" oil theory and you aren't alone by any means. There is a whole industry devoted to convincing individuals and organizations of the validity of "Peak" oil.

I take a different tack than OilIsMastery, in that I invite your comments and discussion at whatever level of reason and persuasion you feel will be effective to persuade and convince readers of this website of the validity of "Peak" oil.

I don't assume that your position is based on "pseudoscience" or "myth" and I'm interested in whatever evidence you choose to bring to bare for your proposition.

Obviously, you provide a lot of material to respond to, so I hope you are willing to engage in a dialogue over serveral comments.

I'll cover serveral topics in this initial response and follow up over time. Please feel free to interject and I hope you will answer questions I might have of you in response to your comment.

The first threshold question I have in response to your comment is this:

Do you subscribe to Abiotic Oil theory? If not, what theory of hydrocarbon formation do you subscribe to?

I ask that because your comments never explicitly state what theory oil formation you subscribe to.

Of course, the answer is implicit in your confident assertion of "Peak" oil and undoubtedly explicit in the materials you refer to in your comments.

But oil's origin is the threshold question in any discussion or debate regarding the merits of "Peak" oil theory, so that has to be the start of any discussion or debate because how oil is formed in the interior of the Earth dictates how much is available at any given point in time and the likelyhood of future availability at any given demand level.

Clifford J. Wirth, Ph.D., you state: "The National Academy of Sciences states that oil is a finite resource."

The National Academy of Sciences subscribes to the out-dated and disproved "fossil" theory.

This website provides a substantial and overwhelming body of scietific evidence to the contrary. This website also synthesizes and marshalls the scientific evidence in the course of the posts and comments.

Also, this website provides 'gloss', defined as: a continuous commentary accompanying a text (scientific papers, news articles, and geological reports of in situ oil discoveries).

I, along with OilIsMastery , are the chief proponents of Abiotic Oil theory on this website.

Although, I suspect that there are many readers of this website that also subscribe to Abiotic Oil theory based on the scientific evidence provided, herein.

The readers subscription to Abiotic Oil theory is well taken based on the evidence provided.

So, the threshold question remains: Which theory of hydrocarbon formation is valid?

I could simply state, "review the scientific evidence at the side-bar and in the posts." But reason and persuasion rest in discussing specifics and particulars. Not in pointing to a list, or a bunch of authorities, or a series of scientific papers.

Cliff, I'll respond to your assertion that oil is "finite".

It might surprise you to know I agree with you that at any given point in time there is a quantified amount of oil in the crust of the Earth (hold on gentle readers), but the relevant questions are these: How much oil is still in the crust of the Earth, yet to be produced, and what rate of oil formation is taking place.

To both questions the answer is, "Science doesn't know." But the evidence is that there is a substantial amount of oil (and other hydrocarbons) and that oil does abiotically form in a meaningful economic time frame. (Oil wells consistently keep producing longer and stronger than was orginally expected, in example, Ghawar still is producing after 55+ years).

Also, vast new virgin geological environments are being explored and vast new supplies of oil are being found and produced. (presalt oil deposits in ultra-deepwater, ultra deep below the sea bottom.)

I'll link four recent Oil Is Mastery posts on Abiotic Oil theory (most important read the comments sections and links therein):

Another 10 Billion Barrels in Brazil, January 27, 2009

Oil Closes at $36.22, January 14, 2009

Petrobras Oil Hunter Fights To Keep Finds For Brazil, December 19, 2008

Oil Seeps Now Monitored By Satellite, December 8, 2008

There is much more, but this gives an initial flavor of the evidence.

Cliff, please dispute any particulars you disagree with and I'll be happy to answer accordingly.

Note: I'll provide other additional scientific evidence in future comments.

Thanks, again, I look forward to your response.

OilIsMastery said...

Cliff,

If hydrocabrons are finite, how many hydrocarbon molecules has the National Academy of Sciences quantified in the universe?

OilIsMastery said...

Q_F,

"I know, the ancients were on drugs."

So are the moderns and contemporaries, obviously, so that doesn't explain anything.

Anaconda said...

500 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT OIL

Cliff, another inconvient item.

"Fossil" theory has a corollary called the "oil window", which supposedly describes how deep organic detritus can be and turn into oil. The key factor for the “oil window” is temperature. Supposedly, the temperatures at depths below about 15,000 feet are high enough (above 275 degrees F) to break hydrocarbon bonds (Heinberg). Also, organic detritus has to be deep enough as well, thus the oil "window".

Here is a link: Brazil Oil Trapped by 500-Degree Heat, Salt Barrier, April 28 (Bloomberg) — “Brazil’s plan to become one of the world’s biggest oil exporters hinges on exploiting crude 6 miles below the ocean surface in deposits so hot they can melt the metal used to carry uranium to nuclear plants.”

Another report: May 6 (Bloomberg) — “Wells drilled 7 kilometers beneath Louisiana into a formation known as the Tuscaloosa Trend encountered temperatures of 485 degrees Fahrenheit, said John Rogers Smith, a petroleum engineering professor at Louisiana State University.” From the same news report: “The U.S. Energy Department predicted temperatures reaching a metal-melting 500 degrees Fahrenheit.”

Here is a McClatchy news report: “Temperatures 30,000 feet below the ocean floor can reach 400 degrees Fahrenheit, hot enough to turn oil into natural gas.”

Cliff, these temperatures are way beyond anything predicted by "fossil" theory. In fact, these temperatures according to "fossil" theory should turn oil into natural gas, but apparently it doesn't.

What it demonstrates is that oil is deep and hot and rises from below the salt barrier and then pools under the layer of salt.

One presalt oil deposit off the coast of Brazil, Carioca is estimated at possibly as high as 33 billion barrels of oil.

Bloggin' Brewskie said...

Clifford,

A simple examination of the graphs found in your link - along with a mere memory jog of 2008 events - reveals the September decline of roughly one mbpd is not a prelude to a larger trend.

Most of the decline you refer to came from one source: the United States. A festive hurricane season late last summer walloped oil production in the Gulf of Mexico, which supplies 25% of America’s crude production of roughly 5 mbpd (2008 statistic). September the same month Hurricane Ike spawned. Examining America’s oil production for 2008 reveals that America lost roughly 1 mbpd in production for the month of September.

Ultimately, the 1 mbpd cut was the result nature’s fury, and is not a reflection of a current or future trend. A simple examination of the graphs reveals this. In the future, please hold such theories under tighter scrutiny before proclaiming them to others.

Anaconda said...

@ BF:

The basic premise of the citation you provided speaks of multiple Universes. I can't subscribe to that premise. It's conjecture and speculation. To claim that science knows how the Universe started is beyond science in my opinion, so to claim there have been multiple Universes certainly goes beyond science.

Science is based on observation & measurement.

Anaconda said...

HYDROCARBONS UNDER IMMENSE PRESSURE

As my previous post covered the extreme temperature of the ultra-deep presalt oil, pressure is also intense.

This link: The Hydrothermal Mud Theory, by Martin Hovland, an oil geologist for HydroStatoil has a remarkable picture at the bottom of the scoll on that link.

The caption on the picture states: "Natural supersonic gas blowout from mud volcano photographed from Baku, 1958. Flame height = 750 m, distance = 20 km."

So the picture was taken from 20 miles away and the height of the flame was 2,300 feet.

Organic detritus doesn't generate the pressure needed to generate a flame 2,300 feet high.

Anaconda said...

KEROGEN GETS DEFINED ABIOTICALLY

Cliff, "kerogen" is often brought up as "proof" of oil's origin, but there is scientific evidence that explains how "kerogen" is abiotically derived and also explains the two major types of "kerogen" and further explains the two major types of petroleum.

Here is an abstract that updates and defines kerogen abiotically:

Peridotites, Serpentinization, and Hydrocarbons

Stanley B. Keith and Monte M. Swan
MagmaChem, L.L.C, Sonoita, AZ

Kerogen: "Type I kerogen in black shale vents from Mg peridotite-sourced brines whereas Type II kerogen in black shale vents from quartz alkalic peridotite-sourced brines."

And the abstract goes on to indicate this basic division in hydrocarbon chemistry leads to the two broad catagories of oil: Sweet low sulfur content and 'sour' high sulfur content oil.

The abstract states: "Correspondingly hydrocarbon chemistry divides oil and gas into 2 major types: 1) magnesian sweet, low-sulfur paraffinic-naphtheric, 2) quartz alkalic sour, high-sulfur aromatic asphaltic. Geochemical markers that tie oil and gas to specific peridotite hydrothermal sources include nano-particle native metals and diamonds, and V-Ni porphyrins."

The mystery surrounding "kerogen" is solved with abiotic chemistry and another leg is knocked out from underneath "fossil" theory.

Abiotic oil is basic chemistry.

Anaconda said...

THE "OIL WINDOW" REVISITED

The issues, temperature and pressure, have been brought up in the last several comments contradicting "fossil" theory's corollary, the "oil window".

So it seems appropriate to link the Oil Is Mastery post: The "Oil Window", May 30, 2008

For a further definition of the "oil window" as provided by oil geologists themselves.

Cliff, you list Dr. Kenneth Deffeyes and Richard Heinberg is a well known "Peak" oil advocate, both privide definitions of the "oil window" in the link.

Ultra-Deep oil (oil deeper than 20,000 feet TVD) completely contradicts "fossil" theory's "oil window".

BF said...

Anaconda said: The basic premise of the citation you provided speaks of multiple Universes. I can't subscribe to that premise. It's conjecture and speculation. To claim that science knows how the Universe started is beyond science in my opinion, so to claim there have been multiple Universes certainly goes beyond science. Science is based on observation & measurement.

Anaconda: Thank you for responding. I forwarded your comments to Dr Nahle and he has very kindly responded. His reply to your comment is posted below.


With regard to Anaconda's response - one can reconstruct the past based on the observation and measurement of the present. This is the way evolutionary sciences work and is the reason why we identify the scientific method as the “hypothetical-deductive method”. I cannot propose a hypothesis if I do not have a source of real information with which I could support my hypothesis.

For example, we have observed the conservation of the baryonic number, which has been measured in the current Universe and it is 10^78. Since our observation indicates that the baryonic number is preserved even in particle accelerators, we have DEDUCED that the Universe at its beginning contained a baryonic number of 10^78. This indicates that the Universe could not have begun from 0 baryons, but had to be forcibly initiated by another field with a similar baryonic number, i.e. a mother (or father) Universe. This is not simple speculation, but a deduction based on observation and experimentation (Cyclotrons).

Another example is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMR), which is observable and has been and presently is being measured. The CMR, although it displays minimum fluctuations, is a roadway to understanding that the Universe was symmetrical at its beginning. The small fluctuations of the CMR are a clear indication that the inflationary period of the Universe didn’t finish at the same time at each point of the inflationary bubble of false vacuum, but that quantum disturbances of the density of energy were generated and agglutinated by gravity when the period of exponential inflation finished.

Another example is the current one plane distribution of the Universe, which has no other explanation other than a hypercooling of the false void at the end of the period of exponential expansion and the beginning of the classical expansion.

If some discrepancy between the hypothesis and the observable Universe exists, then we look for a solution to the problem; if there isn’t a feasible solution to that discrepancy by means of experimentation and/or observation, the hypothesis is discarded. We have not found any feasible solution for the problems raised by the Big Bang (BB) hypothesis, so it must be discarded now. However, the field of cosmology is dominated by supporters of the BB hypothesis and any dissent is not permitted, even though nature tells us that it is false.

If we look for more observable and measurable tracks with which we could clarify the history of the Universe, we would find them immediately. The clues are everywhere and the interpretation of those clues is not a random work, but a work based on evidence.

On the other hand, if we adopt Anaconda’s philosophy, then we would not have science and we could never predict any phenomena in this Universe. When a hypothesis is validated through the predictability of natural phenomena, the hypothesis becomes a theory. If a theory is valid, we could predict future steps on the track before they occur.

Does the Inflationary Universe Theory (IUT) predict any process or phenomenon which could validate the theory? The answer is yes, the theory made predictions which have been corroborated by experimentation. IUT has predicted the distribution of the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) into a scale of disturbances of energy density which took place during the inflationary process. In 1982, the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE), which carried the Differential Microwave Radiometer (DMR) made measurements of the photons of the CBR. The allotment of the disturbances predicted by the IUT and the distribution found by the COBE team matched almost perfectly, which means that the Universe originated in a homogenous state from an exponential expansion (inflation) of a bubble of false vacuum which experienced a later expansion of the Universe, which is still observed right now.

He will correct me if I am wrong, but I think Anaconda’s answer reflects his adherence to the BB hypothesis and to the Oscillating Spherical Universe (OSU) hypothesis because the plasma homogeneity hypothesis leans categorically on both hypotheses, BB and OSU. On the other hand, the theory of an Inflationary Universe, which includes the existence of mother universes, explains the homogeneity and the disturbances of the plasma density in correspondence with the observed reality. The present hypothesis on a Plasma Universe does not explain where the enormous amount of energy came from. The theory of the Inflationary Universe explains the origin of the energy in a natural way, excluding the forcing of any parameter or direct observation of nature.

Best wishes

Nasif Nahle

Anaconda said...

@ Dr. Nasif Nahle & BF:

Thank you for the detailed response.

To answer your most pressing question, no, I don't subscribe to the "big bang, black hole" theory.

I'm reluctant to offer any ideas, but it seems that plasma likely would have been more unbiquitous than at present. How that was so, I don't know.

I subscribe to the idea that it is impossible to know how the Universe started or if it did start based on the limited availability of observation & measurement.

Dr. Nahle states: "[O] ne can reconstruct the past based on the observation and measurement of the present."

That requires that no intervening discontinuities were interspaced between the present and the past.

It relies on the assumption that the past and the present are on the same continuum.

Frankly, in the study of geology, Lyell's dictum that "the present is the key to understanding the past," known as Uniformitarianism, has been found inadequate in a number of instances and led to erroneous conclusions about Earth's geologic past.

Although, when desiring to understand the past, it's hard to do anything else besides making observations & measurements of the present (some observations & measurements are more useful than others).

But still one must recognize the inherent stumbling blocks and limitations in the method, particularly when trying to deduce "events" at the extreme end of the continuum between present and origins or beginnings.

Dr. Nahle states: "we identify the scientific method as the “hypothetical-deductive method”.

I prefer compulsion (if A and B are so then C must be so), but understand deductions must be made at times. But to deduce is to make assumptions.

Assumptions are okay if properly labelled as "hypothesis".

After all, science progresses by making hypothesis about the unknown based on the known.

Then one must test the hypothesis and only after much testing and validation does it become a theory which is also always subject to revision -- in the formal distillation of the scientfic method.

Too many times a "hypothesis" is prematurely labelled as a "theory" before adequate testing can be conceived and conducted.

Big questions such as the "beginning of the Universe" provide challenges of deciding if there are any "tests" that can provide sufficient observation & measurement which can confirm or falsify the hypothesis.

Dr. Nahle states: "I cannot propose a hypothesis if I do not have a source of real information with which I could support my hypothesis."

Agreed.

But the challenge as you properly outline is having a source of real information.

Attemping to deduce the "beginning of the Universe" is fraught with danger of relying on tests that aren't really tests, simply apperances that may or may not actually confirm or falsify the hypothesis.

Dr Nahle states: "we have DEDUCED that the Universe at its beginning contained a baryonic number of 10^78."

But that is also an assumption based on the premise that, "the baryonic number is preserved even in particle accelerators," so, therefore means the Universe started with 10^78.

It may have, but also any number of tests may not reveal the true baryonic number at the "beginning".

(I'm not offering an opinion on the validity of the number or your conclusions, simply offering perspective on my view of the scientific method and the possibility of the introduction of error through faulty assumptions.)

Dr Nahle states: "[B] ut had to be forcibly initiated by another field with a similar baryonic number, i.e. a mother (or father) Universe."

Had to be?

No, that's another assumption.

Why does there have to be a beginning? Maybe what I should really ask is, "Why does there have to be a 're-cocking' of the Universe?"

This seems to be based on the idea of the "wheel" or "cycling."

But one can't tell if it is a linear pattern from a start to a finish or a wheel pattern of re-cycling, from youth to decay and cycled back to youth and so on.

That is beyond my kin and frankly, I think beyond science's kin as well.

There may well have been a start, there may have not. Same for the recycling idea, there may have been a recycling, there may have not.

Possibly there has been undefined steady state with limited expansion, which there is evidence for, and limited recycling which there is some evidence for.

But most firmly, I don't know and I'm unpersuaded that science can offer a determative answer.

Dr. Nahle states: "Another example is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMR), which is observable and has been and presently is being measured."

I submit science can't claim to understand the significance of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.

Inside the heliopause, here, on Earth, it is difficult to determine the true nature of the cosmic backgound radiation, it is like looking through a thick window in a well insulated house and thinking you understand all that going on with the outside beyond the window.

Also, even if Man's observation is better than I allow in my analogous example of the looking glass window, there are many assumptions about what the data may mean. There isn't a lot to compare and contrast those observations & measurements to in order to gain perspective.

In other words, science doesn't know if its assumptions about the CMR are even on the board, let alone accurate.

Dr. Nahle states: "Another example is the current one plane distribution of the Universe, which has no other explanation..."

"no other explanation"???

Maybe, but maybe there is another explanation scientists haven't thought of.

Again, an assumption is made.

Dr. Nahle: "If some discrepancy between the hypothesis and the observable Universe exists, then we look for a solution to the problem; if there isn’t a feasible solution to that discrepancy by means of experimentation and/or observation, the hypothesis is discarded."

Agreed.

Dr. Nahle states: "We have not found any feasible solution for the problems raised by the Big Bang (BB) hypothesis, so it must be discarded now."

Agreed!!!

Dr. Nahle states: "...even though nature tells us that it [BB] is false."

Agreed.

Dr. Nahle states: "The clues are everywhere and the interpretation of those clues is not a random work, but a work based on evidence."

I hope you are right, although, but I'm reasonably sceptical on the outcome.

Dr. Nahle states: "if we adopt Anaconda’s philosophy, then we would not have science and we could never predict any phenomena in this Universe."

You are misinterpreting my "philosophy."

Rather, I subscribe to the scientific method and suggest your method, the scientific method is required to make too many assumptions to reach a reasonable conclusion, that isn't one step ahead of an educated guess.

I'm sorry that I disagree with you, but that doesn't disqualify "my philosophy" or my adherence to the scientific method.

Or my belief in scientific advancement in understanding our world. I do subscribe to the utility of the scientific enterprise, but not all projects can be concluded with an solution.

Dr. Nahle states: "When a hypothesis is validated through the predictability of natural phenomena, the hypothesis becomes a theory. If a theory is valid, we could predict future steps on the track before they occur."

Agreed.

But notice you talk about "future steps before they occur," not backword extrapolation from present "events", observations & measurements, to proclaim an understanding of a beginning or a prior stage in a recycling wheel.

I offer no comment on the section dealing with results regarding "inflation," other than note not all people agree with this theory.

Dr. Nahle states: "The theory of the Inflationary Universe explains the origin of the energy in a natural way, excluding the forcing of any parameter or direct observation of nature."

"natural way"?

That is an opinion that, although, may be desirable, or not, is problematic based on the evidence available.

Thank you, again, for the response.

Best of luck in your endeavors.

Anaconda said...

POSTSCRIPT: On Response To Dr. Nahle

@ Dr. Nahle & BF:

I felt it might help to illuminate my reasoning regarding Dr. Nahle's hypothesis.

As was evident, I am quite conscious of assumptions and cautious concerning their validity and how those assumptions effect the results of scientific questions.

The reason is that my original purpose for commenting on the Oil Is Mastery website was to support Abiotic Oil theory.

It was clear that geologists had made numerous assumptions that had influenced their conclusions.

I had to battle my way through all those erroneous assumptions.

Same thing with Expanding Earth theory, where, again, many assumptions were made by geologists that were false or unsupported by the evidence.

Now, I come to the Plasma Cosmology debate and it's the same thing all over again.

Numerous assumptions that weren't warranted by the scientific evidence are relied on in "modern" astronomy.

Plasma Cosmology on the other hand is strictly based on scientific observation & measurement.

In fact, in my opinion all three positions supporting Abiotic Oil theory, Expanding Earth theory, and Plasma Cosmology theory are solidly supported by observation & measurement.

This has been a eye openning and learning experience. I was much like others that placed great confidence in the scientific community and assumed they were right.

I learned to my chagrin, such is not the case.

Everybody is a product of their experience.

My experience recently is that scientists make hypothesis, then based on flimsy or little additional evidence have turned their hypothesis into unwarranted theories and in extreme cases have turned their hypothesis straight into facts.

Or attempted to do so.

And most of these cases arose because the scientists made assumptions and treated those assumptions as if they were facts.

This must be avoided if the scientific method is to be successfully employed and science is to advance.

I hope this postscript gives added depth and clarity to my response to Dr. Nahle.

BF said...

Anaconda said: "I felt it might help to illuminate my reasoning regarding Dr. Nahle's hypothesis. As was evident, I am quite conscious of assumptions and cautious concerning their validity and how those assumptions effect the results of scientific questions..."

A second reply from Dr Nahle:

I understand perfectly well Anaconda’s position given the current state of biased knowledge on scientific issues which have been generated by innumerable attempts to create something related more closely to the incubation of power and wealth than with the integrity of science. Anaconda rightly argues against ideas which are generated by the human mind which are not based on real situations observed in nature, for which their creators look for “evidence” after the fact of them thinking of them. Examples of this kind are countless, Big Bang, continental drift, global warming, biotic oil, intelligent design, etc. In all these cases, people who call themselves “research scientists” rely on a rudimentary deductive approach which is diametrically opposite to the hypothetical-deductive method.

The IUT wasn’t merely generated from the minds of a handful of cosmologists, but arose as a scientific solution to several problems that the Big Bang hypothesis was incapable of explaining. Our observations of cosmological events do not support the BB hypothesis; hence we looked for the correct solution to the current observed phenomena by means of a proper review based on current observable processes. It was not contrary to, but exactly as the scientific methodology requires.

For example, in our time we observe an accelerated expansion of the Universe; we have looked for a solution or hypothesis that suitably explains this accelerated expansion of the Universe; however, we have not put forward crazy hypotheses, but hypotheses which are adjusted to the theory of truth, i.e. hypotheses that are based on observable reality.

Currently, we have theories which have emerged from careful observations of the Universe and experimentation; nevertheless, we are aware of those ideas which have not emerged from careful observations of the Universe, but from fantastic science fiction tales. The latter is the case with the Big Bang hypothesis. There is not a single process in the Universe which gives support to the idea of a Big Bang. Based on both quantum physics and classical physics, Big Bang is an impossible event.

In our theory, nonhypothesis, we took into account those things which we can observe and evaluate at the present time; the way in which particles interact, the formation of monopoles above the Curie temperature, the range and limits of the four universal fundamental forces, the disposition and existence of the quantum vacuum and void space, the absence of idolized objects like black holes and the physical and thermodynamic impossibility that they exist, the absence of deformities, twists, whirlpools, etc. of space and time, and on and on. We have not created a theory from nothing, but have deduced it from observable things. Personally, I was surprised when I saw the simplicity of the Universe in its origins because I already knew beforehand the laws which govern it.

If Anaconda needs a deeper explanation on any of these assertions, I'm in a good disposition to answer them.

Best wishes

Nasif Nahle

Anaconda said...

@ Dr. Nahle & BF:

(Thank you BF for being an intermediary in this discussion.)

Dr. Nahle, I appreciate the time and attention you have given to your responses.

Dr. Nahle states:

"I understand perfectly well Anaconda’s position given the current state of biased knowledge on scientific issues which have been generated by innumerable attempts to create something related more closely to the incubation of power and wealth than with the integrity of science. Anaconda rightly argues against ideas which are generated by the human mind which are not based on real situations observed in nature, for which their creators look for “evidence” after the fact of them thinking of them. Examples of this kind are countless, Big Bang, continental drift, global warming, biotic oil, intelligent design, etc. In all these cases, people who call themselves “research scientists” rely on a rudimentary deductive approach which is diametrically opposite to the hypothetical-deductive method."

Agreed.

There is much to say for the wisdom in the above passage.

I appreciate your recognition of the many problems in today's climate of scientific inquiry.

Your explanation of your research is thoughtful, and takes into consideration the pitfalls encountered in cosmology questions.

Being aware of the assumptions or failings of others in a particular field of scientific inquiry has a general tendency to make one more conscious to avoid those same pitfalls.

Your response suggests you have taken that to heart.

And while rival scientific explanations for natural phenomenon all start at the same starting line, i.e., the scientific burden of proof is the same for each competing hypothesis or theory, practical considerations seem to dictate that scientific areas with an established hierarchy, do require alternative, competing theories to offer more evidence and better explanations for the phenomenon than the established consensus.

The above is not fair or according to scientific method, but it does reflect human nature.

Dr. Nahle, your response seems to take the above into account.

It's a natural impulse for Man to want to explain origins or beginnings, and science steps in to try and provide answers for those questions based on reason, observation, and measurement.

I would not discourage you in your quest, not that my few comments would in any event, but I appreciate your search for answers and that you are doing the best you can to base those answers on observation & measurement.

Dr. Nahle, I do, however, pose one objection to your assumption of a rapidly expanding Universe. Is your assumption based on cosmological 'redshift'?

If so, are you familiar with Halton Arp's work with quasars and galaxies and the observed & measured plasma connection or bridge between galaxies and quasars of significantly different 'redshifts' which calls into question the scientific conclusion that 'redshift' equals distance and rapid expansion?

Halton Arp's work suggests there is expansion, but in a more organic fashion which doesn't require the Universe to "start" or "regroup" from some "location", neither does it require the Universe to undergo rapid expansion, and also suggests the Universe is much older, or ageless, than the hypothesis of 14 to 20 billion years ago in the "big bang".

What is your theory regarding the age of the current Universe?

Stating my objection and that being said, I offer my encouragement for continued progress in your work.

I hope you continue to find answers based on observation & measurement, but, also, I would hope, you and your co-workers have the courage to acknowledge when observations & measurements don't line up with your proffered theory and corollary hypothesis.

I look forward to reading of a broad based re-evaluation of the "big bang" consensus that considers your alternative theory, and fully debates the merits of your theory and all competing theories on a equal "playing field" based on reason, observation, and measurement.

Thanks, again, for your time and attention to this discussion.

With that in mind, I hope nothing, but success in your current endeavors.

BF said...

Anaconda said: "Thank you BF for being an intermediary in this discussion."

My pleasure Anaconda. Thank you for constructively engaging in the exchange so far.

Anaconda said: "Dr. Nahle, I do, however, pose one objection to your assumption of a rapidly expanding Universe. Is your assumption based on cosmological 'redshift'?"

Most advocates of the Inflationary Universe are based on redshift as the main indicator of an accelerated expansion of the Universe. However, the redshift as an indicator of accelerated expansion falls by itself because it can change depending on the age of the particles which are received by observers and detectors, their energy, frequency, speed and angle of collision, scattering, etc. Besides, the MBR temperature is definitely anisotropic. Discrepancies of the MBR temperature, although minuscule, indicate that the expansion of the Universe is not homogeneous, but that it is expanding at different speeds from one place to another. Expansion is isotropic, however, because it is taking place towards all possible trajectories from any position of the Universe. In brief, I base my theory on the exponential shrink of the co-moving radial coordinates of event horizons, not on redshift.

Regarding Anaconda’s specific question about my theory on the age of the Universe, here is my answer:

The observed Universe is the product of a motherverse which was perhaps the product of another motherverse, etc. Thus, I can only determine the age of the observed Universe through extrapolating to the first effect of the false vacuum, and it goes back to about 14 billion years. On the other hand, the hypothesis that the Universe had an infinite density, at infinite temperature, everything gathered in an infinitesimal point in space, at time zero, is absurd. There is not and has never been time zero (t = 0). When we introduce t = 0 into any of our equations, the result becomes zero, so the whole Universe becomes zero, and zero cannot, by any means, generate something. In conclusion, I could say that the Universe is eternal and that the expansion is also eternal, not without an origin, however.

Something of extreme importance is how the Big Bangers consider that the entire Universe fitted into an infinitesimal parcel of space (10^-31). They argue that all observable matter and energy at this moment already existed within that infinitesimal parcel of space. They think in exactly the opposite way to the way nature actually works. If we know that time is the trajectory of the entropy of the Universe, how is it possible that the early Universe, before the pseudo-Big Bang, contained so huge a density in flagrant defiance of the natural trajectory of entropy?

The Universe's entropy increases instantaneously. If we argue for a young Universe packed into an infinitesimal point of space with energy and matter densities of extraordinary magnitude, we would be arguing at the same time that the entropic state of the Universe was at an unimaginably high level, how is it reasonable to deduce that the Universe aged from a state of maximum entropy to a state of minimum entropy to go back, with the passing of time, to a state of increasing entropy?

Best wishes

Nasif Nahle