| 26-08-2022 17:56 |
HarveyH55 ★★★★★
(5196) |
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:[quote]IBdaMann wrote:Obviously, no man has ever drilled that deep, or dug a tunnel to visit. It's just a philosophical possibility,
While it is true that no human has ever observed the formation of hydrocarbons, a rational adult can nonetheless understand the Fischer-Tropsche process, note that the same conditions necessary for that process exist within the earth and can use that as a rational basis for believing that to be the mechanism for the formation of hydrocarbons.
Your belief, however, is as irrational as it apparently is deeply-held. You begin with the same premise that no human has ever observed the formation of hydrocarbons, and you are also aware of the very real ability to synthesize hydrocarbons using the Fischer-Tropsche process. From that point on, however, you capriciously reject the Fischer-Tropsche process for unknown reasons in deference to believing that hydrocarbons are a product of a violation of thermodynamics, i.e. that decaying biological matter somehow rots into higher forms of energy. You cannot point to any examples of decaying matter forming into fuel, yet you feel threatened by those who have differing beliefs, to the point that you make lame attempts to mock them (I write "lame" because they are rational views and your attempts to mock have no rational support).
Of course, you are free to hold any irrational belief you wish. Your mockery of rational beliefs is comical, however.
HarveyH55 wrote: so it must be 'amphibian'. It's faith-based, just as much as global warming.
In this case, your need to reject rational views in order to cling to your violation of physics is a direct parallel to the manner in which warmizombies cling to greenhouse effect for dear life. Even after the violation of physics which they hold dear has been revealed, they cannot let go. When they are asked why they reject rational explanations, they become dishonest and EVASIVE, just as you became when I tried getting you to help me understand why you recoil at basic science. I asked very politely. You EVADED. Oh well.
Do you really want to take this out of the realm of rationality and make it a mud-slinging fest? We can certainly do that but I would much rather understand why you believe what you believe. Could you tell me without trying to change the subject?
.
You're the one selling a process, that has never been observed. No samples ever taken that deep, to even support that everything needed, actual exists at those depths. It's entirely faith-based, and a circular argument. The Fischer-Tropsche process, is your 'God'. It's possible, but no way to observe or measure. It's your personal belief, which is fine. Well, until you start selling it, and ridiculing others who don't worship your 'God'.
Maybe, the Fischer-Tropsche process does happen, sometimes in nature, just not sure all the parts always come together, all the time, to keep the reaction going. Most are consumables, and need replaced. Kind of tight for space, stuff doesn't shift around. What's produced, blocks new materials from being exposed to be reacted. For me, nature seems pretty good at breaking things down, and finding a new use. Most everything gets 'recycled'. Why would dead, organic matter be any different? But, of course, the IPCC seems to have the only working time-machine, and they'll never tell. But, it seems likely that by the end of the last inter-glacial, there was a huge abundance of vegetation, which didn't do so well during the long 'winter' that followed.
Just theories, and I don't worship either. I trust nature, over man though, and believe we'll survive. Some will do a better job at adapting to the changing environment. Some will fail, trying to control the environment. Nature always wins... |
| 27-08-2022 03:03 |
IBdaMann ★★★★★
(14394) |
HarveyH55 wrote:You're the one selling a process, that has never been observed.
I am successfully explaining why a rational person should believe that hydrocarbons are produced by a natural geological activity that has never been directly observed.
The Fischer-Tropsche process, however, has been observed, and proven. Hydrocarbons can be routinely synthesized given proper equipment that adequately emulates the geological conditions in question.
HarveyH55 wrote: No samples ever taken that deep, to even support that everything needed, actual exists at those depths.
Humanity has documented countless soil samples at many depths all over the earth's crust. Carbon accounts for about 0.04% and Hydrogen accounts for about 0.15%, i.e. considering the amount of crust that the earth has, these elements are plentiful. You cannot very well claim that it is not rational to believe that these figures hold for depths closer to the mantle.
Perhaps you have heard of volcanoes. Natural geological activity gives us very high temperatures and pressures closer to the mantle. You cannot very well claim that it is somehow not rational to believe that there are high temperatures and pressures closer to the mantle.
Ergo, I claim that it is not rational for you to presume that the earth's crust somehow does not hold these conditions.
HarveyH55 wrote: It's entirely faith-based, and a circular argument.
Now you are using these terms as meaningless slurs, almost as if you don't know what a circular argument is.
Since no one has ever directly observed hydrocarbons form in the lower crust, the Fischer-Tropsche-generation theory remains as speculation; however, it is a rational explanation. There is no rational argument explaining why it would not be the case ... only religious arguments like yours by people who deny science.
HarveyH55 wrote: The Fischer-Tropsche process, is your 'God'.
Nope. It has been demonstrated. It is repeatable. There is nothing preventing you from synthesizing hydrocarbons using the Fischer-Tropsche process.
Your claim is silly.
HarveyH55 wrote:It's your personal belief, which is fine. Well, until you start selling it, and ridiculing others who don't worship your 'God'.
I am fully justified in mocking science deniers for denying science without falsifying it, and I think I will continue.
HarveyH55 wrote:Maybe, the Fischer-Tropsche process does happen, sometimes in nature, just not sure all the parts always come together, all the time, to keep the reaction going.
This is a fair statement. You are not required to accept anyone else's belief about how hydrocarbons form in the earth until such a time that natural hydrocarbon formation is observed (or falsified) at which point we will all need to accept the reality we observe.
But always remember, it was you who initially got red-faced at my (thorough) explanation of the Fischer-Tropsche process and began to treat me as though I were stupid for not believing in your precious violation of physics (see below). Not only were you belittling, you didn't offer any rational rebuttal and you wouldn't even explain your position.
You have clung to a physics violation that you hold dear. That makes it your "holy miracle" and I recommend you ditch it rather than let it control you thought process on this topic.
HarveyH55 wrote: For me, nature seems pretty good at breaking things down, and finding a new use. Most everything gets 'recycled'. Why would dead, organic matter be any different?
I wish you would have asked this long ago. I could have answered this question and put you back on the right track.
You are conflating two very different concepts, one being the totally understandable and almost universally recognized cycle of nature, and the other being an egregious violation of thermodynamics. You don't realize you are conflating the two so your error is totally forgivable, but you really should take this to heart.
We are not confused by dung beetles; we recognize that nature will seek to recycle everything, even shit. Nonetheless, this concept does not confuse us into thinking that putting an ice cube into hot coffee will somehow make the ice even colder and the coffee hotter. That would be an egregious violation of thermodynamics. We also do not allow the concept of the cycle of nature to cause us to believe that a tall water tower can be filled without pumps by simply opening the tank door and letting water from a nearby lake somehow defy gravity, fly upward and fill the tank. That would be an egregious violation of thermodynamics.
Fuel, e.g. hydrocarbons, is a substance of high chemical potential energy (otherwise it wouldn't burn as fuel). It requires work to come into existence, just as water needs to be pumped to achieve a higher elevation, or just as matter needs additional thermal energy to increase in temperature. Otherwise water will seek the lowest elevation possible and ice will only cool the coffee. Without high temperatures and pressures, hydrocarbons cannot increase in energy potential. Biological matter that simply rots cannot possibly achieve a higher chemical energy potential; that would be an egregious violation of thermodynamics.
If you recall that no one has ever observed any corpse of any animal decay into petroleum and that no graveyard has ever become an oil well, I think you can put two and two together.
I hope that helps. Please let me know if you have any questions.
HarveyH55 wrote:I trust nature, over man though,
That stance will serve you well until someone like me tries to correct one of your misunderstandings about nature. You will then need to either trust a man over the misunderstanding you were given by nature, or continue with the misunderstanding.
Your quip above reminds me of the warmizombies who quip "I trust the scientists."
I wish you luck in finding the knowledge you seek.
HarveyH55 wrote: Nature always wins...
Correct. You will occasionally see me using the wording "Physics applies always, everywhere." |
| 28-08-2022 04:01 |
Swan ★★★★★
(5719) |
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Roj475 wrote:IBdaMann wrote:What fuel do fossils use, i.e. fossil fuel? It is one term available in the American accepted Dictionary(ies) ...
Another "accepted" term is "pivot" ... which is what you just did. You did not answer my question. For your convenience, I'll ask again:
What fuel do fossils use, i.e. fossil fuel?
Roj475 wrote:I am not asking you to accept the definition in dictionaries
Irrelevant. You are intent on getting me to accept the term itself.
I do not.
Answer the question: What fuel do you believe fossils use?
Thereafter you can explain what fossils you believe are sold commercially as fuel.
At the end of all this, I will be asking you why you accept that term. You have every right to not be a Marxist dupe, and to reject the term as I have.
Roj475 wrote:The understanding of a dictionary is [amongst other things] defining words.
Incorrect. I just explained to you why it is not. Apparently, you are too stupid to learn.
One more time. No dictionary owns the English language. I don't understand why you believe that any particular dictionary somehow does. The answer might be that you really are that stupid.
I'll just presume that's the reason.
You might very well be too stupid to realize that there are many English dictionaries, and no two provide identical usage descriptions. Hence, it should be obvious to anyone cognizant enough to master a light switch that none can possibly be definitions, and that they can only be usage descriptions.
If you can't grasp that then I can see why you have no hope of understanding the concept of science's unambiguous definitions.
Roj475 wrote: You say that is not the case, but that I would hope is what the majority of the population see one of the uses as.
I get it. As a Marxist, you need the on-demand capability to hijack words, and to present dictionary descriptions of incorrect usage as "definitions."
I understand why you rest your hope on that form of enablement of your dishonesty. You should just realize why it will never work on me.
.
Why not just put out your paper that what is being called fossil fuel or crude oil is really produced by underground aliens from Europa?
See the Fischer-Tropsche process. The conditions for this reaction to run exist naturally underground.
Not without the right fuels to fuel the process
There are no requirements. All you need is high temperature, some source of carbon (like CO2), and hydrogen. That naturally exists underground.
Take the pink pills, all of them
IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.
According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC
This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop
I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.
ULTRA MAGA
"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA
So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?
It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.
Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL |
| 28-08-2022 05:55 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14394) |
Were you aware that "Ultra-MAGA" means "Outside of MAGA" and specifically "Something other than MAGA"?
It doesn't mean "Very MAGA."
Swan wrote:Take the pink pills, all of them
Attached image:
 |
| 28-08-2022 16:45 |
HarveyH55★★★★★
(5196) |
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:You're the one selling a process, that has never been observed.
I am successfully explaining why a rational person should believe that hydrocarbons are produced by a natural geological activity that has never been directly observed.
The Fischer-Tropsche process, however, has been observed, and proven. Hydrocarbons can be routinely synthesized given proper equipment that adequately emulates the geological conditions in question.
HarveyH55 wrote: No samples ever taken that deep, to even support that everything needed, actual exists at those depths.
Humanity has documented countless soil samples at many depths all over the earth's crust. Carbon accounts for about 0.04% and Hydrogen accounts for about 0.15%, i.e. considering the amount of crust that the earth has, these elements are plentiful. You cannot very well claim that it is not rational to believe that these figures hold for depths closer to the mantle.
Perhaps you have heard of volcanoes. Natural geological activity gives us very high temperatures and pressures closer to the mantle. You cannot very well claim that it is somehow not rational to believe that there are high temperatures and pressures closer to the mantle.
Ergo, I claim that it is not rational for you to presume that the earth's crust somehow does not hold these conditions.
HarveyH55 wrote: It's entirely faith-based, and a circular argument.
Now you are using these terms as meaningless slurs, almost as if you don't know what a circular argument is.
Since no one has ever directly observed hydrocarbons form in the lower crust, the Fischer-Tropsche-generation theory remains as speculation; however, it is a rational explanation. There is no rational argument explaining why it would not be the case ... only religious arguments like yours by people who deny science.
HarveyH55 wrote: The Fischer-Tropsche process, is your 'God'.
Nope. It has been demonstrated. It is repeatable. There is nothing preventing you from synthesizing hydrocarbons using the Fischer-Tropsche process.
Your claim is silly.
HarveyH55 wrote:It's your personal belief, which is fine. Well, until you start selling it, and ridiculing others who don't worship your 'God'.
I am fully justified in mocking science deniers for denying science without falsifying it, and I think I will continue.
HarveyH55 wrote:Maybe, the Fischer-Tropsche process does happen, sometimes in nature, just not sure all the parts always come together, all the time, to keep the reaction going.
This is a fair statement. You are not required to accept anyone else's belief about how hydrocarbons form in the earth until such a time that natural hydrocarbon formation is observed (or falsified) at which point we will all need to accept the reality we observe.
But always remember, it was you who initially got red-faced at my (thorough) explanation of the Fischer-Tropsche process and began to treat me as though I were stupid for not believing in your precious violation of physics (see below). Not only were you belittling, you didn't offer any rational rebuttal and you wouldn't even explain your position.
You have clung to a physics violation that you hold dear. That makes it your "holy miracle" and I recommend you ditch it rather than let it control you thought process on this topic.
HarveyH55 wrote: For me, nature seems pretty good at breaking things down, and finding a new use. Most everything gets 'recycled'. Why would dead, organic matter be any different?
I wish you would have asked this long ago. I could have answered this question and put you back on the right track.
You are conflating two very different concepts, one being the totally understandable and almost universally recognized cycle of nature, and the other being an egregious violation of thermodynamics. You don't realize you are conflating the two so your error is totally forgivable, but you really should take this to heart.
We are not confused by dung beetles; we recognize that nature will seek to recycle everything, even shit. Nonetheless, this concept does not confuse us into thinking that putting an ice cube into hot coffee will somehow make the ice even colder and the coffee hotter. That would be an egregious violation of thermodynamics. We also do not allow the concept of the cycle of nature to cause us to believe that a tall water tower can be filled without pumps by simply opening the tank door and letting water from a nearby lake somehow defy gravity, fly upward and fill the tank. That would be an egregious violation of thermodynamics.
Fuel, e.g. hydrocarbons, is a substance of high chemical potential energy (otherwise it wouldn't burn as fuel). It requires work to come into existence, just as water needs to be pumped to achieve a higher elevation, or just as matter needs additional thermal energy to increase in temperature. Otherwise water will seek the lowest elevation possible and ice will only cool the coffee. Without high temperatures and pressures, hydrocarbons cannot increase in energy potential. Biological matter that simply rots cannot possibly achieve a higher chemical energy potential; that would be an egregious violation of thermodynamics.
If you recall that no one has ever observed any corpse of any animal decay into petroleum and that no graveyard has ever become an oil well, I think you can put two and two together.
I hope that helps. Please let me know if you have any questions.
HarveyH55 wrote:I trust nature, over man though,
That stance will serve you well until someone like me tries to correct one of your misunderstandings about nature. You will then need to either trust a man over the misunderstanding you were given by nature, or continue with the misunderstanding.
Your quip above reminds me of the warmizombies who quip "I trust the scientists."
I wish you luck in finding the knowledge you seek.
HarveyH55 wrote: Nature always wins...
Correct. You will occasionally see me using the wording "Physics applies always, everywhere."
Still a circular argument, where it comes back around to your faith, beliefs, hopes, and dreams. Which according to your past arguments, it's a religion. You sort of ignore that Fischer-Tropsche, is sort of sterile, they don't just shovel any sort of crap into a chamber, fire it up under pressure. The flow rates, temperature, and pressure are all controlled. Just as only the materials needed or added, and nothing else. How many other reactions happen in similar conditions? Fischer-Tropsche happens, to the exclusion of all else going on, that use similar conditions and materials. Still a lot of heat and pressure, and a long distance for the oil to travel. How can you be certain it doesn't burn up, or continue to change?
Just because the conditions exist (mostly), does't always make it so. Did you ever look into what else will react and be produced, if thrown into the Fischer-Tropsche process? Sure, they want only a specific, pure product. But how many compounds/materials can never be used, because they produce a competing reaction? Only the right conditions and materials needed, and nothing else to interfere with Fischer-Tropsche in nature, is stretching it quite a bit. Mankind synthesis a lot of things, but the process has nothing to do with nature.
It's an 'Amphibian' argument, since it only exists in your head. Alligators live in water, but they don lay eggs in water, or go through a development phase where they breath with gills. You can play with it all you want, run around in your religious circle logic. |
|
| 28-08-2022 20:38 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14394) |
HarveyH55 wrote:Still a circular argument, where it comes back around to your faith, beliefs, hopes, and dreams.
You are insisting on being silly. I have offered a very rational speculation and you have not identified any problems with it whatsoever, nor have you identified any motivation that I have for making my current speculation a predetermined conclusion. You are simply attacking me for offering a speculation that is rational and that makes you feel threatened by making your irrational, faith-based physics violation look particularly silly.
HarveyH55 wrote:... they don't just shovel any sort of crap into a chamber, fire it up under pressure. The flow rates, temperature, and pressure are all controlled.
Yes, to match conditions within the earth. I don't understand why you find this to be a problem.
Metal catalysts work at different temperatures, depending on the metal, and there is plenty of metal in the earth's crust. There is a rather wide latitude within the range of working conditions. You haven't explained how this rather likely process is somehow "unlikely."
HarveyH55 wrote: How many other reactions happen in similar conditions? Fischer-Tropsche happens, to the exclusion of all else going on, that use similar conditions and materials.
You are mischaracterizing what occurs. Differing hydrocarbon chains are formed. If a resulting chain is a liquid then it mixes in with the other liquid hydrocarbons and forms a pool of petroleum. If a hydrocarbon chain is a gas then it joins the other gas chains and forms into "natural gas". Oil wells have petroleum and natural gas, both of which are mixes of differing hydrocarbons.
HarveyH55 wrote: Still a lot of heat and pressure, and a long distance for the oil to travel.
Hydrocarbons don't have much else on their schedules. They will seep upwards until they hit impermeable rock that halts their progress. They tend to congregate at those points.
HarveyH55 wrote: How can you be certain it doesn't burn up, or continue to change?
The 2nd law of thermodynamics tells me that if I see hydrocarbons, they haven't burned yet. Once pulled out of the earth, I do not know if hydrocarbons formed as they were found or if they formed in one form and thereafter changed into the form in which they entered the well. Would you care to speculate?
Either way, they did not form initially from rotting bio-matter.
HarveyH55 wrote:Just because the conditions exist (mostly), does't always make it so.
Correct. We can convince ourselves of this by noting that there are many places where hydrocarbons have not formed (recently), or have not yet formed hydrocarbons that have been discovered.
HarveyH55 wrote: Did you ever look into what else will react and be produced, if thrown into the Fischer-Tropsche process?
Yes, I have. This is why I am comfortable with what I understand as the range of operating conditions, and why I view hydrocarbons as a naturally renewable resource.
HarveyH55 wrote: Sure, they want only a specific, pure product.
That is accomplished at refineries.
HarveyH55 wrote: But how many compounds/materials can never be used, because they produce a competing reaction?
They are removed either at refineries or by not being collected in the first place.
HarveyH55 wrote: Only the right conditions and materials needed, and nothing else to interfere with Fischer-Tropsche in nature, is stretching it quite a bit.
I don't see how it is stretched at all. Could you elaborate?
If the necessary conditions exist, hydrocarbons will form. They will not not form. I'm still struggling to understand your objection.
HarveyH55 wrote: Mankind synthesis a lot of things, but the process has nothing to do with nature.
It has everything to do with nature. Technology uses science to control nature. Labs use the Fischer-Tropsche process to control the formation of hydrocarbons ... because they want to form hydrocarbons.
HarveyH55 wrote:It's an 'Amphibian' argument, since it only exists in your head.
The Fischer-Tropsche process exists in the labs that use it. Again, you are free to synthesize hydrocarbons yourself using the Fischer-Tropsche process.
HarveyH55 wrote: Alligators live in water, but they don lay eggs in water, or go through a development phase where they breath with gills.
Neither of those are required to be amphibious. Your argument that those are somehow required to be amphibious is objectively false.
That means you are incorrect.
HarveyH55 wrote: You can play with it all you want, run around in your religious circle logic.
I have no religion, no theism, no agenda and I am not selling anything.
You, however, are clearly threatened by hydrocarbon synthesis and amphibious things. I am not.
I wish you luck overcoming your anxieties. I suspect that evidence will only mount for Fischer-Tropsche in nature. Are you going to retreat further and further into denial every time that happens?
I, on the other hand, can change my mind tomorrow if there is some science or some compelling observation that runs counter to the idea of Fischer-Tropsche in nature. It is a wonderful feeling not having to deny anything, especially the word "amphibious."
Once again, good luck with that.
. |
| 28-08-2022 23:23 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21588) |
HarveyH55 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:You're the one selling a process, that has never been observed.
I am successfully explaining why a rational person should believe that hydrocarbons are produced by a natural geological activity that has never been directly observed.
The Fischer-Tropsche process, however, has been observed, and proven. Hydrocarbons can be routinely synthesized given proper equipment that adequately emulates the geological conditions in question.
HarveyH55 wrote: No samples ever taken that deep, to even support that everything needed, actual exists at those depths.
Humanity has documented countless soil samples at many depths all over the earth's crust. Carbon accounts for about 0.04% and Hydrogen accounts for about 0.15%, i.e. considering the amount of crust that the earth has, these elements are plentiful. You cannot very well claim that it is not rational to believe that these figures hold for depths closer to the mantle.
Perhaps you have heard of volcanoes. Natural geological activity gives us very high temperatures and pressures closer to the mantle. You cannot very well claim that it is somehow not rational to believe that there are high temperatures and pressures closer to the mantle.
Ergo, I claim that it is not rational for you to presume that the earth's crust somehow does not hold these conditions.
HarveyH55 wrote: It's entirely faith-based, and a circular argument.
Now you are using these terms as meaningless slurs, almost as if you don't know what a circular argument is.
Since no one has ever directly observed hydrocarbons form in the lower crust, the Fischer-Tropsche-generation theory remains as speculation; however, it is a rational explanation. There is no rational argument explaining why it would not be the case ... only religious arguments like yours by people who deny science.
HarveyH55 wrote: The Fischer-Tropsche process, is your 'God'.
Nope. It has been demonstrated. It is repeatable. There is nothing preventing you from synthesizing hydrocarbons using the Fischer-Tropsche process.
Your claim is silly.
HarveyH55 wrote:It's your personal belief, which is fine. Well, until you start selling it, and ridiculing others who don't worship your 'God'.
I am fully justified in mocking science deniers for denying science without falsifying it, and I think I will continue.
HarveyH55 wrote:Maybe, the Fischer-Tropsche process does happen, sometimes in nature, just not sure all the parts always come together, all the time, to keep the reaction going.
This is a fair statement. You are not required to accept anyone else's belief about how hydrocarbons form in the earth until such a time that natural hydrocarbon formation is observed (or falsified) at which point we will all need to accept the reality we observe.
But always remember, it was you who initially got red-faced at my (thorough) explanation of the Fischer-Tropsche process and began to treat me as though I were stupid for not believing in your precious violation of physics (see below). Not only were you belittling, you didn't offer any rational rebuttal and you wouldn't even explain your position.
You have clung to a physics violation that you hold dear. That makes it your "holy miracle" and I recommend you ditch it rather than let it control you thought process on this topic.
HarveyH55 wrote: For me, nature seems pretty good at breaking things down, and finding a new use. Most everything gets 'recycled'. Why would dead, organic matter be any different?
I wish you would have asked this long ago. I could have answered this question and put you back on the right track.
You are conflating two very different concepts, one being the totally understandable and almost universally recognized cycle of nature, and the other being an egregious violation of thermodynamics. You don't realize you are conflating the two so your error is totally forgivable, but you really should take this to heart.
We are not confused by dung beetles; we recognize that nature will seek to recycle everything, even shit. Nonetheless, this concept does not confuse us into thinking that putting an ice cube into hot coffee will somehow make the ice even colder and the coffee hotter. That would be an egregious violation of thermodynamics. We also do not allow the concept of the cycle of nature to cause us to believe that a tall water tower can be filled without pumps by simply opening the tank door and letting water from a nearby lake somehow defy gravity, fly upward and fill the tank. That would be an egregious violation of thermodynamics.
Fuel, e.g. hydrocarbons, is a substance of high chemical potential energy (otherwise it wouldn't burn as fuel). It requires work to come into existence, just as water needs to be pumped to achieve a higher elevation, or just as matter needs additional thermal energy to increase in temperature. Otherwise water will seek the lowest elevation possible and ice will only cool the coffee. Without high temperatures and pressures, hydrocarbons cannot increase in energy potential. Biological matter that simply rots cannot possibly achieve a higher chemical energy potential; that would be an egregious violation of thermodynamics.
If you recall that no one has ever observed any corpse of any animal decay into petroleum and that no graveyard has ever become an oil well, I think you can put two and two together.
I hope that helps. Please let me know if you have any questions.
HarveyH55 wrote:I trust nature, over man though,
That stance will serve you well until someone like me tries to correct one of your misunderstandings about nature. You will then need to either trust a man over the misunderstanding you were given by nature, or continue with the misunderstanding.
Your quip above reminds me of the warmizombies who quip "I trust the scientists."
I wish you luck in finding the knowledge you seek.
HarveyH55 wrote: Nature always wins...
Correct. You will occasionally see me using the wording "Physics applies always, everywhere."
Still a circular argument, where it comes back around to your faith, beliefs, hopes, and dreams.
The Fischer-Tropsche process is not a circular argument. It is a bit of engineering based on chemistry, made up of theories of science.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Which according to your past arguments, it's a religion.
Redefinition fallacies (engineering<->religion, science<->religion, chemistry<->religion).
HarveyH55 wrote:
You sort of ignore that Fischer-Tropsche, is sort of sterile, they don't just shovel any sort of crap into a chamber, fire it up under pressure.
Heh. I'd like to see you try to shovel a gas! Any source of carbon in gaseous form is fine, including CO2. Any source of hydrogen gas is fine.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The flow rates, temperature, and pressure are all controlled. Just as only the materials needed or added, and nothing else. How many other reactions happen in similar conditions?
None.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Fischer-Tropsche happens, to the exclusion of all else going on, that use similar conditions and materials. Still a lot of heat and pressure, and a long distance for the oil to travel. How can you be certain it doesn't burn up, or continue to change?
It doesn't. Once the hydrocarbon forms, the only change that occurs to it is to lengthen it. It is still a hydrocarbon.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Just because the conditions exist (mostly), does't always make it so.
It always makes it so. Chemistry always behaves the same way.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Did you ever look into what else will react and be produced, if thrown into the Fischer-Tropsche process?
Yes. If sulfur is present, it gets incorporated into the result as sulfur oxides (such as sulfur dioxide) and sulfur hydrates. The result is 'sour' crude, which also exists in the wild, so to speak. Iron is required as a catalyst, also available underground.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Sure, they want only a specific, pure product.
If you combine chlorine gas and sodium metal, you will get an explosion and salt (NaCl). I highly entertaining way (if dangerous!) method of salting your popcorn! It will happen every time. It does not matter if the popcorn is present or not.
Chemical reactions don't just arbitrarily pick and choose when they occur. If the materials and the conditions are present, they WILL occur.
HarveyH55 wrote:
But how many compounds/materials can never be used, because they produce a competing reaction?
There is no such thing as a 'competing reaction'. Reactions aren't out to win a medal.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Only the right conditions and materials needed, and nothing else to interfere with Fischer-Tropsche in nature, is stretching it quite a bit.
No, you can't discard the Fischer-Tropsche reaction that way! If the raw materials are present, and the conditions of the reaction are present, the reaction WILL occur. You can't stop it.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Mankind synthesis a lot of things, but the process has nothing to do with nature.
Everything in science is nature. Everything.
HarveyH55 wrote:
It's an 'Amphibian' argument, since it only exists in your head. Alligators live in water, but they don lay eggs in water, or go through a development phase where they breath with gills.
And they are amphibian. They spend most of their time in water, but have no problem walking across dry land (they tend to get everywhere!). They also mate in water.
HarveyH55 wrote:
You can play with it all you want, run around in your religious circle logic.
Redefinition fallacy (circular argument<->religion).
A religion is not a circular argument by itself. A religion is based on some initial circular argument with argument extending from that. A circular argument is not a fallacy. It is also known as the argument of faith.
A chemical reaction not a circular argument. No theory of science is a circular argument.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 28-08-2022 23:40 |
HarveyH55★★★★★
(5196) |
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:Still a circular argument, where it comes back around to your faith, beliefs, hopes, and dreams.
You are insisting on being silly. I have offered a very rational speculation and you have not identified any problems with it whatsoever, nor have you identified any motivation that I have for making my current speculation a predetermined conclusion. You are simply attacking me for offering a speculation that is rational and that makes you feel threatened by making your irrational, faith-based physics violation look particularly silly.
HarveyH55 wrote:... they don't just shovel any sort of crap into a chamber, fire it up under pressure. The flow rates, temperature, and pressure are all controlled.
Yes, to match conditions within the earth. I don't understand why you find this to be a problem.
Metal catalysts work at different temperatures, depending on the metal, and there is plenty of metal in the earth's crust. There is a rather wide latitude within the range of working conditions. You haven't explained how this rather likely process is somehow "unlikely."
HarveyH55 wrote: How many other reactions happen in similar conditions? Fischer-Tropsche happens, to the exclusion of all else going on, that use similar conditions and materials.
You are mischaracterizing what occurs. Differing hydrocarbon chains are formed. If a resulting chain is a liquid then it mixes in with the other liquid hydrocarbons and forms a pool of petroleum. If a hydrocarbon chain is a gas then it joins the other gas chains and forms into "natural gas". Oil wells have petroleum and natural gas, both of which are mixes of differing hydrocarbons.
HarveyH55 wrote: Still a lot of heat and pressure, and a long distance for the oil to travel.
Hydrocarbons don't have much else on their schedules. They will seep upwards until they hit impermeable rock that halts their progress. They tend to congregate at those points.
HarveyH55 wrote: How can you be certain it doesn't burn up, or continue to change?
The 2nd law of thermodynamics tells me that if I see hydrocarbons, they haven't burned yet. Once pulled out of the earth, I do not know if hydrocarbons formed as they were found or if they formed in one form and thereafter changed into the form in which they entered the well. Would you care to speculate?
Either way, they did not form initially from rotting bio-matter.
HarveyH55 wrote:Just because the conditions exist (mostly), does't always make it so.
Correct. We can convince ourselves of this by noting that there are many places where hydrocarbons have not formed (recently), or have not yet formed hydrocarbons that have been discovered.
HarveyH55 wrote: Did you ever look into what else will react and be produced, if thrown into the Fischer-Tropsche process?
Yes, I have. This is why I am comfortable with what I understand as the range of operating conditions, and why I view hydrocarbons as a naturally renewable resource.
HarveyH55 wrote: Sure, they want only a specific, pure product.
That is accomplished at refineries.
HarveyH55 wrote: But how many compounds/materials can never be used, because they produce a competing reaction?
They are removed either at refineries or by not being collected in the first place.
HarveyH55 wrote: Only the right conditions and materials needed, and nothing else to interfere with Fischer-Tropsche in nature, is stretching it quite a bit.
I don't see how it is stretched at all. Could you elaborate?
If the necessary conditions exist, hydrocarbons will form. They will not not form. I'm still struggling to understand your objection.
HarveyH55 wrote: Mankind synthesis a lot of things, but the process has nothing to do with nature.
It has everything to do with nature. Technology uses science to control nature. Labs use the Fischer-Tropsche process to control the formation of hydrocarbons ... because they want to form hydrocarbons.
HarveyH55 wrote:It's an 'Amphibian' argument, since it only exists in your head.
The Fischer-Tropsche process exists in the labs that use it. Again, you are free to synthesize hydrocarbons yourself using the Fischer-Tropsche process.
HarveyH55 wrote: Alligators live in water, but they don lay eggs in water, or go through a development phase where they breath with gills.
Neither of those are required to be amphibious. Your argument that those are somehow required to be amphibious is objectively false.
That means you are incorrect.
HarveyH55 wrote: You can play with it all you want, run around in your religious circle logic.
I have no religion, no theism, no agenda and I am not selling anything.
You, however, are clearly threatened by hydrocarbon synthesis and amphibious things. I am not.
I wish you luck overcoming your anxieties. I suspect that evidence will only mount for Fischer-Tropsche in nature. Are you going to retreat further and further into denial every time that happens?
I, on the other hand, can change my mind tomorrow if there is some science or some compelling observation that runs counter to the idea of Fischer-Tropsche in nature. It is a wonderful feeling not having to deny anything, especially the word "amphibious."
Once again, good luck with that.
.
"I have offered a very rational speculation..." Is all that needed to be said. Speculation, is you belief. Rational, is of course subjective to your beliefs. You can spend all the time you want, justifying your beliefs, explaining them, selling them. But, it's still just speculation, which stuff in a separate folder. You do realize, that a lot of science fiction, is loosely based on science fact... Sometimes some elements of those stories inspire people to make some of it real.
We all speculate, and I have no problem with that. But, that's all they will ever be, speculation. |
| 28-08-2022 23:50 |
HarveyH55★★★★★
(5196) |
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:You're the one selling a process, that has never been observed.
I am successfully explaining why a rational person should believe that hydrocarbons are produced by a natural geological activity that has never been directly observed.
The Fischer-Tropsche process, however, has been observed, and proven. Hydrocarbons can be routinely synthesized given proper equipment that adequately emulates the geological conditions in question.
HarveyH55 wrote: No samples ever taken that deep, to even support that everything needed, actual exists at those depths.
Humanity has documented countless soil samples at many depths all over the earth's crust. Carbon accounts for about 0.04% and Hydrogen accounts for about 0.15%, i.e. considering the amount of crust that the earth has, these elements are plentiful. You cannot very well claim that it is not rational to believe that these figures hold for depths closer to the mantle.
Perhaps you have heard of volcanoes. Natural geological activity gives us very high temperatures and pressures closer to the mantle. You cannot very well claim that it is somehow not rational to believe that there are high temperatures and pressures closer to the mantle.
Ergo, I claim that it is not rational for you to presume that the earth's crust somehow does not hold these conditions.
HarveyH55 wrote: It's entirely faith-based, and a circular argument.
Now you are using these terms as meaningless slurs, almost as if you don't know what a circular argument is.
Since no one has ever directly observed hydrocarbons form in the lower crust, the Fischer-Tropsche-generation theory remains as speculation; however, it is a rational explanation. There is no rational argument explaining why it would not be the case ... only religious arguments like yours by people who deny science.
HarveyH55 wrote: The Fischer-Tropsche process, is your 'God'.
Nope. It has been demonstrated. It is repeatable. There is nothing preventing you from synthesizing hydrocarbons using the Fischer-Tropsche process.
Your claim is silly.
HarveyH55 wrote:It's your personal belief, which is fine. Well, until you start selling it, and ridiculing others who don't worship your 'God'.
I am fully justified in mocking science deniers for denying science without falsifying it, and I think I will continue.
HarveyH55 wrote:Maybe, the Fischer-Tropsche process does happen, sometimes in nature, just not sure all the parts always come together, all the time, to keep the reaction going.
This is a fair statement. You are not required to accept anyone else's belief about how hydrocarbons form in the earth until such a time that natural hydrocarbon formation is observed (or falsified) at which point we will all need to accept the reality we observe.
But always remember, it was you who initially got red-faced at my (thorough) explanation of the Fischer-Tropsche process and began to treat me as though I were stupid for not believing in your precious violation of physics (see below). Not only were you belittling, you didn't offer any rational rebuttal and you wouldn't even explain your position.
You have clung to a physics violation that you hold dear. That makes it your "holy miracle" and I recommend you ditch it rather than let it control you thought process on this topic.
HarveyH55 wrote: For me, nature seems pretty good at breaking things down, and finding a new use. Most everything gets 'recycled'. Why would dead, organic matter be any different?
I wish you would have asked this long ago. I could have answered this question and put you back on the right track.
You are conflating two very different concepts, one being the totally understandable and almost universally recognized cycle of nature, and the other being an egregious violation of thermodynamics. You don't realize you are conflating the two so your error is totally forgivable, but you really should take this to heart.
We are not confused by dung beetles; we recognize that nature will seek to recycle everything, even shit. Nonetheless, this concept does not confuse us into thinking that putting an ice cube into hot coffee will somehow make the ice even colder and the coffee hotter. That would be an egregious violation of thermodynamics. We also do not allow the concept of the cycle of nature to cause us to believe that a tall water tower can be filled without pumps by simply opening the tank door and letting water from a nearby lake somehow defy gravity, fly upward and fill the tank. That would be an egregious violation of thermodynamics.
Fuel, e.g. hydrocarbons, is a substance of high chemical potential energy (otherwise it wouldn't burn as fuel). It requires work to come into existence, just as water needs to be pumped to achieve a higher elevation, or just as matter needs additional thermal energy to increase in temperature. Otherwise water will seek the lowest elevation possible and ice will only cool the coffee. Without high temperatures and pressures, hydrocarbons cannot increase in energy potential. Biological matter that simply rots cannot possibly achieve a higher chemical energy potential; that would be an egregious violation of thermodynamics.
If you recall that no one has ever observed any corpse of any animal decay into petroleum and that no graveyard has ever become an oil well, I think you can put two and two together.
I hope that helps. Please let me know if you have any questions.
HarveyH55 wrote:I trust nature, over man though,
That stance will serve you well until someone like me tries to correct one of your misunderstandings about nature. You will then need to either trust a man over the misunderstanding you were given by nature, or continue with the misunderstanding.
Your quip above reminds me of the warmizombies who quip "I trust the scientists."
I wish you luck in finding the knowledge you seek.
HarveyH55 wrote: Nature always wins...
Correct. You will occasionally see me using the wording "Physics applies always, everywhere."
Still a circular argument, where it comes back around to your faith, beliefs, hopes, and dreams.
The Fischer-Tropsche process is not a circular argument. It is a bit of engineering based on chemistry, made up of theories of science.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Which according to your past arguments, it's a religion.
Redefinition fallacies (engineering<->religion, science<->religion, chemistry<->religion).
HarveyH55 wrote:
You sort of ignore that Fischer-Tropsche, is sort of sterile, they don't just shovel any sort of crap into a chamber, fire it up under pressure.
Heh. I'd like to see you try to shovel a gas! Any source of carbon in gaseous form is fine, including CO2. Any source of hydrogen gas is fine.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The flow rates, temperature, and pressure are all controlled. Just as only the materials needed or added, and nothing else. How many other reactions happen in similar conditions?
None.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Fischer-Tropsche happens, to the exclusion of all else going on, that use similar conditions and materials. Still a lot of heat and pressure, and a long distance for the oil to travel. How can you be certain it doesn't burn up, or continue to change?
It doesn't. Once the hydrocarbon forms, the only change that occurs to it is to lengthen it. It is still a hydrocarbon.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Just because the conditions exist (mostly), does't always make it so.
It always makes it so. Chemistry always behaves the same way.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Did you ever look into what else will react and be produced, if thrown into the Fischer-Tropsche process?
Yes. If sulfur is present, it gets incorporated into the result as sulfur oxides (such as sulfur dioxide) and sulfur hydrates. The result is 'sour' crude, which also exists in the wild, so to speak. Iron is required as a catalyst, also available underground.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Sure, they want only a specific, pure product.
If you combine chlorine gas and sodium metal, you will get an explosion and salt (NaCl). I highly entertaining way (if dangerous!) method of salting your popcorn! It will happen every time. It does not matter if the popcorn is present or not.
Chemical reactions don't just arbitrarily pick and choose when they occur. If the materials and the conditions are present, they WILL occur.
HarveyH55 wrote:
But how many compounds/materials can never be used, because they produce a competing reaction?
There is no such thing as a 'competing reaction'. Reactions aren't out to win a medal.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Only the right conditions and materials needed, and nothing else to interfere with Fischer-Tropsche in nature, is stretching it quite a bit.
No, you can't discard the Fischer-Tropsche reaction that way! If the raw materials are present, and the conditions of the reaction are present, the reaction WILL occur. You can't stop it.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Mankind synthesis a lot of things, but the process has nothing to do with nature.
Everything in science is nature. Everything.
HarveyH55 wrote:
It's an 'Amphibian' argument, since it only exists in your head. Alligators live in water, but they don lay eggs in water, or go through a development phase where they breath with gills.
And they are amphibian. They spend most of their time in water, but have no problem walking across dry land (they tend to get everywhere!). They also mate in water.
HarveyH55 wrote:
You can play with it all you want, run around in your religious circle logic.
Redefinition fallacy (circular argument<->religion).
A religion is not a circular argument by itself. A religion is based on some initial circular argument with argument extending from that. A circular argument is not a fallacy. It is also known as the argument of faith.
A chemical reaction not a circular argument. No theory of science is a circular argument.
"It doesn't. Once the hydrocarbon forms, the only change that occurs to it is to lengthen it. It is still a hydrocarbon." So, all living things have hydrocarbons. These can only be changed in length, as the dead body decomposes. So where do they all go? Oh, that's right, only petroleum products are hydrocarbons. There are no hydrocarbons in a living body. Least, in the scope of the Fischer-Tropsche process. |
| 29-08-2022 00:44 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14394) |
HarveyH55 wrote:"I have offered a very rational speculation..." Is all that needed to be said.
I am happy to say it.
HarveyH55 wrote: Speculation, is you belief.
Correct. It is also my operating assumption.
HarveyH55 wrote: Rational, is of course subjective to your beliefs.
Incorrect. You simply misunderstand the word "rational" and view it as a self-serving subjective term.
The word "rational" as I use it, means it has a rational basis. It is not merely a claim but the conclusion of a sound argument which is fully supported by logic and verifiable observations, i.e. before you can simply dismiss my belief you need to explain what you find wrong with my rational basis.
You have not yet done so, and I have laid my complete basis out for you to scrutinize.
1. Fischer-Tropsche is a repeatable process and is thoroughly documented. Again, you can use this process to synthesize hydrocarbons yourself.
2. The composition of the earth's crust is exhaustively documented. You have not disputed said composition nor have you provided any rational basis for believing that the composition of the earth's crust somehow differs beneath the lowest samples.
3. Direct observations of temperature gradients in the earth's crust and overwhelming volcanic and geological observations (including the formation of diamonds), make it entirely rational to presume high temperatures and pressures above the mantle.
4. Physics predicts nature; it is all about cause-effect. If the conditions (causes) exist in nature then the reactions (effects) will occur. There's no way around that.
Clearly you have a problem with some or all of the above. Please identify which parts rub you the wrong way.
HarveyH55 wrote: You can spend all the time you want, justifying your beliefs,
I don't have to spend any time justifying beliefs when I have a rational basis that others can pick apart ... if they can.
HarveyH55 wrote: .. explaining them, selling them.
I'm not selling anything. The fact that you consider the presentation of a rational argument as a "sales job" is very telling.
You should either explain what you find erroneous about my rational basis or you should admit that my logical conclusion rubs your belief system the wrong way.
One or the other.
HarveyH55 wrote: But, it's still just speculation,
It is speculation, yes. But when you use the word "just", you are implying that there is no compelling rational basis for the speculation and is merely irrational guesswork.
I have presented my rational basis which leads to the logical conclusion of the Fischer-Tropsche process of natural hydrocarbon formation within the earth. It's all laid out for you to pick apart, so have at it. But if you cannot pick it apart then you are not rational for simply dismissing it.
HarveyH55 wrote: You do realize, that a lot of science fiction, is loosely based on science fact...
You do realize that all science fiction carries at least one science violation that requires a certain suspension of disbelief on the part of the reader/viewer.
My speculation carries no physics violations, only a compelling logical conclusion.
Once again, it's all out there for you to pick apart. If you find a physics violation then point it out so I can modify my view. If you notice some bogus observations, point them out so I can modify my view.
Good luck in your pursuit of knowledge. At the end of your journey, you will realize, among other things, that decaying/rotting bio-matter does not increase in chemical energy potential.
. |
| 29-08-2022 09:03 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
HarveyH55 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:You're the one selling a process, that has never been observed.
I am successfully explaining why a rational person should believe that hydrocarbons are produced by a natural geological activity that has never been directly observed.
The Fischer-Tropsche process, however, has been observed, and proven. Hydrocarbons can be routinely synthesized given proper equipment that adequately emulates the geological conditions in question.
HarveyH55 wrote: No samples ever taken that deep, to even support that everything needed, actual exists at those depths.
Humanity has documented countless soil samples at many depths all over the earth's crust. Carbon accounts for about 0.04% and Hydrogen accounts for about 0.15%, i.e. considering the amount of crust that the earth has, these elements are plentiful. You cannot very well claim that it is not rational to believe that these figures hold for depths closer to the mantle.
Perhaps you have heard of volcanoes. Natural geological activity gives us very high temperatures and pressures closer to the mantle. You cannot very well claim that it is somehow not rational to believe that there are high temperatures and pressures closer to the mantle.
Ergo, I claim that it is not rational for you to presume that the earth's crust somehow does not hold these conditions.
HarveyH55 wrote: It's entirely faith-based, and a circular argument.
Now you are using these terms as meaningless slurs, almost as if you don't know what a circular argument is.
Since no one has ever directly observed hydrocarbons form in the lower crust, the Fischer-Tropsche-generation theory remains as speculation; however, it is a rational explanation. There is no rational argument explaining why it would not be the case ... only religious arguments like yours by people who deny science.
HarveyH55 wrote: The Fischer-Tropsche process, is your 'God'.
Nope. It has been demonstrated. It is repeatable. There is nothing preventing you from synthesizing hydrocarbons using the Fischer-Tropsche process.
Your claim is silly.
HarveyH55 wrote:It's your personal belief, which is fine. Well, until you start selling it, and ridiculing others who don't worship your 'God'.
I am fully justified in mocking science deniers for denying science without falsifying it, and I think I will continue.
HarveyH55 wrote:Maybe, the Fischer-Tropsche process does happen, sometimes in nature, just not sure all the parts always come together, all the time, to keep the reaction going.
This is a fair statement. You are not required to accept anyone else's belief about how hydrocarbons form in the earth until such a time that natural hydrocarbon formation is observed (or falsified) at which point we will all need to accept the reality we observe.
But always remember, it was you who initially got red-faced at my (thorough) explanation of the Fischer-Tropsche process and began to treat me as though I were stupid for not believing in your precious violation of physics (see below). Not only were you belittling, you didn't offer any rational rebuttal and you wouldn't even explain your position.
You have clung to a physics violation that you hold dear. That makes it your "holy miracle" and I recommend you ditch it rather than let it control you thought process on this topic.
HarveyH55 wrote: For me, nature seems pretty good at breaking things down, and finding a new use. Most everything gets 'recycled'. Why would dead, organic matter be any different?
I wish you would have asked this long ago. I could have answered this question and put you back on the right track.
You are conflating two very different concepts, one being the totally understandable and almost universally recognized cycle of nature, and the other being an egregious violation of thermodynamics. You don't realize you are conflating the two so your error is totally forgivable, but you really should take this to heart.
We are not confused by dung beetles; we recognize that nature will seek to recycle everything, even shit. Nonetheless, this concept does not confuse us into thinking that putting an ice cube into hot coffee will somehow make the ice even colder and the coffee hotter. That would be an egregious violation of thermodynamics. We also do not allow the concept of the cycle of nature to cause us to believe that a tall water tower can be filled without pumps by simply opening the tank door and letting water from a nearby lake somehow defy gravity, fly upward and fill the tank. That would be an egregious violation of thermodynamics.
Fuel, e.g. hydrocarbons, is a substance of high chemical potential energy (otherwise it wouldn't burn as fuel). It requires work to come into existence, just as water needs to be pumped to achieve a higher elevation, or just as matter needs additional thermal energy to increase in temperature. Otherwise water will seek the lowest elevation possible and ice will only cool the coffee. Without high temperatures and pressures, hydrocarbons cannot increase in energy potential. Biological matter that simply rots cannot possibly achieve a higher chemical energy potential; that would be an egregious violation of thermodynamics.
If you recall that no one has ever observed any corpse of any animal decay into petroleum and that no graveyard has ever become an oil well, I think you can put two and two together.
I hope that helps. Please let me know if you have any questions.
HarveyH55 wrote:I trust nature, over man though,
That stance will serve you well until someone like me tries to correct one of your misunderstandings about nature. You will then need to either trust a man over the misunderstanding you were given by nature, or continue with the misunderstanding.
Your quip above reminds me of the warmizombies who quip "I trust the scientists."
I wish you luck in finding the knowledge you seek.
HarveyH55 wrote: Nature always wins...
Correct. You will occasionally see me using the wording "Physics applies always, everywhere."
Still a circular argument, where it comes back around to your faith, beliefs, hopes, and dreams.
The Fischer-Tropsche process is not a circular argument. It is a bit of engineering based on chemistry, made up of theories of science.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Which according to your past arguments, it's a religion.
Redefinition fallacies (engineering<->religion, science<->religion, chemistry<->religion).
HarveyH55 wrote:
You sort of ignore that Fischer-Tropsche, is sort of sterile, they don't just shovel any sort of crap into a chamber, fire it up under pressure.
Heh. I'd like to see you try to shovel a gas! Any source of carbon in gaseous form is fine, including CO2. Any source of hydrogen gas is fine.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The flow rates, temperature, and pressure are all controlled. Just as only the materials needed or added, and nothing else. How many other reactions happen in similar conditions?
None.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Fischer-Tropsche happens, to the exclusion of all else going on, that use similar conditions and materials. Still a lot of heat and pressure, and a long distance for the oil to travel. How can you be certain it doesn't burn up, or continue to change?
It doesn't. Once the hydrocarbon forms, the only change that occurs to it is to lengthen it. It is still a hydrocarbon.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Just because the conditions exist (mostly), does't always make it so.
It always makes it so. Chemistry always behaves the same way.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Did you ever look into what else will react and be produced, if thrown into the Fischer-Tropsche process?
Yes. If sulfur is present, it gets incorporated into the result as sulfur oxides (such as sulfur dioxide) and sulfur hydrates. The result is 'sour' crude, which also exists in the wild, so to speak. Iron is required as a catalyst, also available underground.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Sure, they want only a specific, pure product.
If you combine chlorine gas and sodium metal, you will get an explosion and salt (NaCl). I highly entertaining way (if dangerous!) method of salting your popcorn! It will happen every time. It does not matter if the popcorn is present or not.
Chemical reactions don't just arbitrarily pick and choose when they occur. If the materials and the conditions are present, they WILL occur.
HarveyH55 wrote:
But how many compounds/materials can never be used, because they produce a competing reaction?
There is no such thing as a 'competing reaction'. Reactions aren't out to win a medal.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Only the right conditions and materials needed, and nothing else to interfere with Fischer-Tropsche in nature, is stretching it quite a bit.
No, you can't discard the Fischer-Tropsche reaction that way! If the raw materials are present, and the conditions of the reaction are present, the reaction WILL occur. You can't stop it.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Mankind synthesis a lot of things, but the process has nothing to do with nature.
Everything in science is nature. Everything.
HarveyH55 wrote:
It's an 'Amphibian' argument, since it only exists in your head. Alligators live in water, but they don lay eggs in water, or go through a development phase where they breath with gills.
And they are amphibian. They spend most of their time in water, but have no problem walking across dry land (they tend to get everywhere!). They also mate in water.
HarveyH55 wrote:
You can play with it all you want, run around in your religious circle logic.
Redefinition fallacy (circular argument<->religion).
A religion is not a circular argument by itself. A religion is based on some initial circular argument with argument extending from that. A circular argument is not a fallacy. It is also known as the argument of faith.
A chemical reaction not a circular argument. No theory of science is a circular argument.
"It doesn't. Once the hydrocarbon forms, the only change that occurs to it is to lengthen it. It is still a hydrocarbon." So, all living things have hydrocarbons.
Nope. They don't.
HarveyH55 wrote:
These can only be changed in length, as the dead body decomposes.
Not hydrocarbons.
HarveyH55 wrote:
So where do they all go? Oh, that's right, only petroleum products are hydrocarbons.
Dead bodies are not a petroleum product.
HarveyH55 wrote:
There are no hydrocarbons in a living body. Least, in the scope of the Fischer-Tropsche process.
Non-sequitur fallacy. Nonsense statement.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 29-08-2022 19:40 |
HarveyH55★★★★★
(5196) |
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:You're the one selling a process, that has never been observed.
I am successfully explaining why a rational person should believe that hydrocarbons are produced by a natural geological activity that has never been directly observed.
The Fischer-Tropsche process, however, has been observed, and proven. Hydrocarbons can be routinely synthesized given proper equipment that adequately emulates the geological conditions in question.
HarveyH55 wrote: No samples ever taken that deep, to even support that everything needed, actual exists at those depths.
Humanity has documented countless soil samples at many depths all over the earth's crust. Carbon accounts for about 0.04% and Hydrogen accounts for about 0.15%, i.e. considering the amount of crust that the earth has, these elements are plentiful. You cannot very well claim that it is not rational to believe that these figures hold for depths closer to the mantle.
Perhaps you have heard of volcanoes. Natural geological activity gives us very high temperatures and pressures closer to the mantle. You cannot very well claim that it is somehow not rational to believe that there are high temperatures and pressures closer to the mantle.
Ergo, I claim that it is not rational for you to presume that the earth's crust somehow does not hold these conditions.
HarveyH55 wrote: It's entirely faith-based, and a circular argument.
Now you are using these terms as meaningless slurs, almost as if you don't know what a circular argument is.
Since no one has ever directly observed hydrocarbons form in the lower crust, the Fischer-Tropsche-generation theory remains as speculation; however, it is a rational explanation. There is no rational argument explaining why it would not be the case ... only religious arguments like yours by people who deny science.
HarveyH55 wrote: The Fischer-Tropsche process, is your 'God'.
Nope. It has been demonstrated. It is repeatable. There is nothing preventing you from synthesizing hydrocarbons using the Fischer-Tropsche process.
Your claim is silly.
HarveyH55 wrote:It's your personal belief, which is fine. Well, until you start selling it, and ridiculing others who don't worship your 'God'.
I am fully justified in mocking science deniers for denying science without falsifying it, and I think I will continue.
HarveyH55 wrote:Maybe, the Fischer-Tropsche process does happen, sometimes in nature, just not sure all the parts always come together, all the time, to keep the reaction going.
This is a fair statement. You are not required to accept anyone else's belief about how hydrocarbons form in the earth until such a time that natural hydrocarbon formation is observed (or falsified) at which point we will all need to accept the reality we observe.
But always remember, it was you who initially got red-faced at my (thorough) explanation of the Fischer-Tropsche process and began to treat me as though I were stupid for not believing in your precious violation of physics (see below). Not only were you belittling, you didn't offer any rational rebuttal and you wouldn't even explain your position.
You have clung to a physics violation that you hold dear. That makes it your "holy miracle" and I recommend you ditch it rather than let it control you thought process on this topic.
HarveyH55 wrote: For me, nature seems pretty good at breaking things down, and finding a new use. Most everything gets 'recycled'. Why would dead, organic matter be any different?
I wish you would have asked this long ago. I could have answered this question and put you back on the right track.
You are conflating two very different concepts, one being the totally understandable and almost universally recognized cycle of nature, and the other being an egregious violation of thermodynamics. You don't realize you are conflating the two so your error is totally forgivable, but you really should take this to heart.
We are not confused by dung beetles; we recognize that nature will seek to recycle everything, even shit. Nonetheless, this concept does not confuse us into thinking that putting an ice cube into hot coffee will somehow make the ice even colder and the coffee hotter. That would be an egregious violation of thermodynamics. We also do not allow the concept of the cycle of nature to cause us to believe that a tall water tower can be filled without pumps by simply opening the tank door and letting water from a nearby lake somehow defy gravity, fly upward and fill the tank. That would be an egregious violation of thermodynamics.
Fuel, e.g. hydrocarbons, is a substance of high chemical potential energy (otherwise it wouldn't burn as fuel). It requires work to come into existence, just as water needs to be pumped to achieve a higher elevation, or just as matter needs additional thermal energy to increase in temperature. Otherwise water will seek the lowest elevation possible and ice will only cool the coffee. Without high temperatures and pressures, hydrocarbons cannot increase in energy potential. Biological matter that simply rots cannot possibly achieve a higher chemical energy potential; that would be an egregious violation of thermodynamics.
If you recall that no one has ever observed any corpse of any animal decay into petroleum and that no graveyard has ever become an oil well, I think you can put two and two together.
I hope that helps. Please let me know if you have any questions.
HarveyH55 wrote:I trust nature, over man though,
That stance will serve you well until someone like me tries to correct one of your misunderstandings about nature. You will then need to either trust a man over the misunderstanding you were given by nature, or continue with the misunderstanding.
Your quip above reminds me of the warmizombies who quip "I trust the scientists."
I wish you luck in finding the knowledge you seek.
HarveyH55 wrote: Nature always wins...
Correct. You will occasionally see me using the wording "Physics applies always, everywhere."
Still a circular argument, where it comes back around to your faith, beliefs, hopes, and dreams.
The Fischer-Tropsche process is not a circular argument. It is a bit of engineering based on chemistry, made up of theories of science.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Which according to your past arguments, it's a religion.
Redefinition fallacies (engineering<->religion, science<->religion, chemistry<->religion).
HarveyH55 wrote:
You sort of ignore that Fischer-Tropsche, is sort of sterile, they don't just shovel any sort of crap into a chamber, fire it up under pressure.
Heh. I'd like to see you try to shovel a gas! Any source of carbon in gaseous form is fine, including CO2. Any source of hydrogen gas is fine.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The flow rates, temperature, and pressure are all controlled. Just as only the materials needed or added, and nothing else. How many other reactions happen in similar conditions?
None.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Fischer-Tropsche happens, to the exclusion of all else going on, that use similar conditions and materials. Still a lot of heat and pressure, and a long distance for the oil to travel. How can you be certain it doesn't burn up, or continue to change?
It doesn't. Once the hydrocarbon forms, the only change that occurs to it is to lengthen it. It is still a hydrocarbon.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Just because the conditions exist (mostly), does't always make it so.
It always makes it so. Chemistry always behaves the same way.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Did you ever look into what else will react and be produced, if thrown into the Fischer-Tropsche process?
Yes. If sulfur is present, it gets incorporated into the result as sulfur oxides (such as sulfur dioxide) and sulfur hydrates. The result is 'sour' crude, which also exists in the wild, so to speak. Iron is required as a catalyst, also available underground.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Sure, they want only a specific, pure product.
If you combine chlorine gas and sodium metal, you will get an explosion and salt (NaCl). I highly entertaining way (if dangerous!) method of salting your popcorn! It will happen every time. It does not matter if the popcorn is present or not.
Chemical reactions don't just arbitrarily pick and choose when they occur. If the materials and the conditions are present, they WILL occur.
HarveyH55 wrote:
But how many compounds/materials can never be used, because they produce a competing reaction?
There is no such thing as a 'competing reaction'. Reactions aren't out to win a medal.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Only the right conditions and materials needed, and nothing else to interfere with Fischer-Tropsche in nature, is stretching it quite a bit.
No, you can't discard the Fischer-Tropsche reaction that way! If the raw materials are present, and the conditions of the reaction are present, the reaction WILL occur. You can't stop it.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Mankind synthesis a lot of things, but the process has nothing to do with nature.
Everything in science is nature. Everything.
HarveyH55 wrote:
It's an 'Amphibian' argument, since it only exists in your head. Alligators live in water, but they don lay eggs in water, or go through a development phase where they breath with gills.
And they are amphibian. They spend most of their time in water, but have no problem walking across dry land (they tend to get everywhere!). They also mate in water.
HarveyH55 wrote:
You can play with it all you want, run around in your religious circle logic.
Redefinition fallacy (circular argument<->religion).
A religion is not a circular argument by itself. A religion is based on some initial circular argument with argument extending from that. A circular argument is not a fallacy. It is also known as the argument of faith.
A chemical reaction not a circular argument. No theory of science is a circular argument.
"It doesn't. Once the hydrocarbon forms, the only change that occurs to it is to lengthen it. It is still a hydrocarbon." So, all living things have hydrocarbons.
Nope. They don't.
HarveyH55 wrote:
These can only be changed in length, as the dead body decomposes.
Not hydrocarbons.
HarveyH55 wrote:
So where do they all go? Oh, that's right, only petroleum products are hydrocarbons.
Dead bodies are not a petroleum product.
HarveyH55 wrote:
There are no hydrocarbons in a living body. Least, in the scope of the Fischer-Tropsche process.
Non-sequitur fallacy. Nonsense statement.
Methane is a hydrocarbon, correct? Eat lunch at Taco Bell sometime... There are also fats and oils. Some people carry a considerable quantity around... I'm not sure what gas was produced, but the roadkill dog, swelled up like a balloon, over a few days. Smelled bad too, driving by. Not sure if it exploded, but it was finally gone by the end of the week. |
| 29-08-2022 23:30 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
HarveyH55 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:You're the one selling a process, that has never been observed.
I am successfully explaining why a rational person should believe that hydrocarbons are produced by a natural geological activity that has never been directly observed.
The Fischer-Tropsche process, however, has been observed, and proven. Hydrocarbons can be routinely synthesized given proper equipment that adequately emulates the geological conditions in question.
HarveyH55 wrote: No samples ever taken that deep, to even support that everything needed, actual exists at those depths.
Humanity has documented countless soil samples at many depths all over the earth's crust. Carbon accounts for about 0.04% and Hydrogen accounts for about 0.15%, i.e. considering the amount of crust that the earth has, these elements are plentiful. You cannot very well claim that it is not rational to believe that these figures hold for depths closer to the mantle.
Perhaps you have heard of volcanoes. Natural geological activity gives us very high temperatures and pressures closer to the mantle. You cannot very well claim that it is somehow not rational to believe that there are high temperatures and pressures closer to the mantle.
Ergo, I claim that it is not rational for you to presume that the earth's crust somehow does not hold these conditions.
HarveyH55 wrote: It's entirely faith-based, and a circular argument.
Now you are using these terms as meaningless slurs, almost as if you don't know what a circular argument is.
Since no one has ever directly observed hydrocarbons form in the lower crust, the Fischer-Tropsche-generation theory remains as speculation; however, it is a rational explanation. There is no rational argument explaining why it would not be the case ... only religious arguments like yours by people who deny science.
HarveyH55 wrote: The Fischer-Tropsche process, is your 'God'.
Nope. It has been demonstrated. It is repeatable. There is nothing preventing you from synthesizing hydrocarbons using the Fischer-Tropsche process.
Your claim is silly.
HarveyH55 wrote:It's your personal belief, which is fine. Well, until you start selling it, and ridiculing others who don't worship your 'God'.
I am fully justified in mocking science deniers for denying science without falsifying it, and I think I will continue.
HarveyH55 wrote:Maybe, the Fischer-Tropsche process does happen, sometimes in nature, just not sure all the parts always come together, all the time, to keep the reaction going.
This is a fair statement. You are not required to accept anyone else's belief about how hydrocarbons form in the earth until such a time that natural hydrocarbon formation is observed (or falsified) at which point we will all need to accept the reality we observe.
But always remember, it was you who initially got red-faced at my (thorough) explanation of the Fischer-Tropsche process and began to treat me as though I were stupid for not believing in your precious violation of physics (see below). Not only were you belittling, you didn't offer any rational rebuttal and you wouldn't even explain your position.
You have clung to a physics violation that you hold dear. That makes it your "holy miracle" and I recommend you ditch it rather than let it control you thought process on this topic.
HarveyH55 wrote: For me, nature seems pretty good at breaking things down, and finding a new use. Most everything gets 'recycled'. Why would dead, organic matter be any different?
I wish you would have asked this long ago. I could have answered this question and put you back on the right track.
You are conflating two very different concepts, one being the totally understandable and almost universally recognized cycle of nature, and the other being an egregious violation of thermodynamics. You don't realize you are conflating the two so your error is totally forgivable, but you really should take this to heart.
We are not confused by dung beetles; we recognize that nature will seek to recycle everything, even shit. Nonetheless, this concept does not confuse us into thinking that putting an ice cube into hot coffee will somehow make the ice even colder and the coffee hotter. That would be an egregious violation of thermodynamics. We also do not allow the concept of the cycle of nature to cause us to believe that a tall water tower can be filled without pumps by simply opening the tank door and letting water from a nearby lake somehow defy gravity, fly upward and fill the tank. That would be an egregious violation of thermodynamics.
Fuel, e.g. hydrocarbons, is a substance of high chemical potential energy (otherwise it wouldn't burn as fuel). It requires work to come into existence, just as water needs to be pumped to achieve a higher elevation, or just as matter needs additional thermal energy to increase in temperature. Otherwise water will seek the lowest elevation possible and ice will only cool the coffee. Without high temperatures and pressures, hydrocarbons cannot increase in energy potential. Biological matter that simply rots cannot possibly achieve a higher chemical energy potential; that would be an egregious violation of thermodynamics.
If you recall that no one has ever observed any corpse of any animal decay into petroleum and that no graveyard has ever become an oil well, I think you can put two and two together.
I hope that helps. Please let me know if you have any questions.
HarveyH55 wrote:I trust nature, over man though,
That stance will serve you well until someone like me tries to correct one of your misunderstandings about nature. You will then need to either trust a man over the misunderstanding you were given by nature, or continue with the misunderstanding.
Your quip above reminds me of the warmizombies who quip "I trust the scientists."
I wish you luck in finding the knowledge you seek.
HarveyH55 wrote: Nature always wins...
Correct. You will occasionally see me using the wording "Physics applies always, everywhere."
Still a circular argument, where it comes back around to your faith, beliefs, hopes, and dreams.
The Fischer-Tropsche process is not a circular argument. It is a bit of engineering based on chemistry, made up of theories of science.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Which according to your past arguments, it's a religion.
Redefinition fallacies (engineering<->religion, science<->religion, chemistry<->religion).
HarveyH55 wrote:
You sort of ignore that Fischer-Tropsche, is sort of sterile, they don't just shovel any sort of crap into a chamber, fire it up under pressure.
Heh. I'd like to see you try to shovel a gas! Any source of carbon in gaseous form is fine, including CO2. Any source of hydrogen gas is fine.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The flow rates, temperature, and pressure are all controlled. Just as only the materials needed or added, and nothing else. How many other reactions happen in similar conditions?
None.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Fischer-Tropsche happens, to the exclusion of all else going on, that use similar conditions and materials. Still a lot of heat and pressure, and a long distance for the oil to travel. How can you be certain it doesn't burn up, or continue to change?
It doesn't. Once the hydrocarbon forms, the only change that occurs to it is to lengthen it. It is still a hydrocarbon.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Just because the conditions exist (mostly), does't always make it so.
It always makes it so. Chemistry always behaves the same way.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Did you ever look into what else will react and be produced, if thrown into the Fischer-Tropsche process?
Yes. If sulfur is present, it gets incorporated into the result as sulfur oxides (such as sulfur dioxide) and sulfur hydrates. The result is 'sour' crude, which also exists in the wild, so to speak. Iron is required as a catalyst, also available underground.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Sure, they want only a specific, pure product.
If you combine chlorine gas and sodium metal, you will get an explosion and salt (NaCl). I highly entertaining way (if dangerous!) method of salting your popcorn! It will happen every time. It does not matter if the popcorn is present or not.
Chemical reactions don't just arbitrarily pick and choose when they occur. If the materials and the conditions are present, they WILL occur.
HarveyH55 wrote:
But how many compounds/materials can never be used, because they produce a competing reaction?
There is no such thing as a 'competing reaction'. Reactions aren't out to win a medal.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Only the right conditions and materials needed, and nothing else to interfere with Fischer-Tropsche in nature, is stretching it quite a bit.
No, you can't discard the Fischer-Tropsche reaction that way! If the raw materials are present, and the conditions of the reaction are present, the reaction WILL occur. You can't stop it.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Mankind synthesis a lot of things, but the process has nothing to do with nature.
Everything in science is nature. Everything.
HarveyH55 wrote:
It's an 'Amphibian' argument, since it only exists in your head. Alligators live in water, but they don lay eggs in water, or go through a development phase where they breath with gills.
And they are amphibian. They spend most of their time in water, but have no problem walking across dry land (they tend to get everywhere!). They also mate in water.
HarveyH55 wrote:
You can play with it all you want, run around in your religious circle logic.
Redefinition fallacy (circular argument<->religion).
A religion is not a circular argument by itself. A religion is based on some initial circular argument with argument extending from that. A circular argument is not a fallacy. It is also known as the argument of faith.
A chemical reaction not a circular argument. No theory of science is a circular argument.
"It doesn't. Once the hydrocarbon forms, the only change that occurs to it is to lengthen it. It is still a hydrocarbon." So, all living things have hydrocarbons.
Nope. They don't.
HarveyH55 wrote:
These can only be changed in length, as the dead body decomposes.
Not hydrocarbons.
HarveyH55 wrote:
So where do they all go? Oh, that's right, only petroleum products are hydrocarbons.
Dead bodies are not a petroleum product.
HarveyH55 wrote:
There are no hydrocarbons in a living body. Least, in the scope of the Fischer-Tropsche process.
Non-sequitur fallacy. Nonsense statement.
Methane is a hydrocarbon, correct?
Yes.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Eat lunch at Taco Bell sometime... There are also fats and oils. Some people carry a considerable quantity around... I'm not sure what gas was produced, but the roadkill dog, swelled up like a balloon, over a few days. Smelled bad too, driving by. Not sure if it exploded, but it was finally gone by the end of the week.
Methane is easily produced by any of several methods, the Fischer-Tropsche process being one of them.
You will also find methane gas in land fills, swamps, compost piles, produced by the action of sunlight on carbon dioxide and hydrogen in the atmosphere, or as the result of any of several chemical reactions.
You won't find oil at any landfill, swamp, compost pile, digestive system, or in the atmosphere; unless someone put it there.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 29-08-2022 23:36 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14394) |
HarveyH55 wrote:Methane is a hydrocarbon, correct? Eat lunch at Taco Bell sometime...
You just made another conflation error.
Living matter can certainly do work. The methane you produce from eating particular foods comes from the living process of digestion, never from leaving the food to rot in the gutter. Wood burns as fuel, but the wood comes into existence while the tree is alive, never after the tree dies and begins to rot.
Rotting bio-matter cannot increase in chemical energy potential through any sort of decay process. The Fischer-Tropsche process accomplishes work through high temperatures and pressures that increase chemical energy potential in the transformation of hydrogen and carbon into hydrocarbons, just like a steam engine accomplishes work that moves the train/steamboat.
HarveyH55 wrote: I'm not sure what gas was produced, but the roadkill dog, swelled up like a balloon, over a few days. Smelled bad too, driving by.
Gases can be produced by decaying bio-matter, but you didn't see anyone trying to capture it in a tank for Sunday's barbeque.
. |
| 30-08-2022 01:37 |
HarveyH55★★★★★
(5196) |
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:Methane is a hydrocarbon, correct? Eat lunch at Taco Bell sometime...
You just made another conflation error.
Living matter can certainly do work. The methane you produce from eating particular foods comes from the living process of digestion, never from leaving the food to rot in the gutter. Wood burns as fuel, but the wood comes into existence while the tree is alive, never after the tree dies and begins to rot.
Rotting bio-matter cannot increase in chemical energy potential through any sort of decay process. The Fischer-Tropsche process accomplishes work through high temperatures and pressures that increase chemical energy potential in the transformation of hydrogen and carbon into hydrocarbons, just like a steam engine accomplishes work that moves the train/steamboat.
HarveyH55 wrote: I'm not sure what gas was produced, but the roadkill dog, swelled up like a balloon, over a few days. Smelled bad too, driving by.
Gases can be produced by decaying bio-matter, but you didn't see anyone trying to capture it in a tank for Sunday's barbeque.
.
The body/living thing had energy before it died and decayed. Are you saying that energy is destroyed, just vanishes after death? Doesn't that violate a law. Energy is neither created or destroyed, only changed?
Self justify all you want. All you really have, is speculation, and your faith. I just attend a different church. I think differently, because I didn't care for philosophy, mostly because the intent was to get me to think in a different way. What I have, works well enough. |
|
| 30-08-2022 02:22 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14394) |
HarveyH55 wrote:The body/living thing had energy before it died and decayed.
Correct.
HarveyH55 wrote: Are you saying that energy is destroyed, just vanishes after death?
Nope.
The energy disperses and diseminates, much in the same way a warm object cools or the way water from a popped water balloon sprays about, with some soaking into the ground, some evaporating, some getting on your shirt, etc..
It is not the case that water flies into, and fills, an empty balloon.
It is not the case that thermal energy from all around seeks a particular body of matter in which to concentrate and increase its temperature.
It is not the case that fractured shards pull together (a la Terminator 3) to form a large, solid pane of glass.
It is not the case that energy flows into decaying matter to increase its chemical energy potential; any energy the rotting material might have was put there before it started to rot.
HarveyH55 wrote: All you really have, is speculation, and your faith.
Nope. I have my complete rational argument of which you have not found any flaw.
HarveyH55 wrote: I just attend a different church.
That you do. If it serves your purposes then more power to you.
I wish you luck wrapping your head around this one.
. |
| 30-08-2022 07:54 |
HarveyH55★★★★★
(5196) |
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:The body/living thing had energy before it died and decayed.
Correct.
HarveyH55 wrote: Are you saying that energy is destroyed, just vanishes after death?
Nope.
The energy disperses and diseminates, much in the same way a warm object cools or the way water from a popped water balloon sprays about, with some soaking into the ground, some evaporating, some getting on your shirt, etc..
It is not the case that water flies into, and fills, an empty balloon.
It is not the case that thermal energy from all around seeks a particular body of matter in which to concentrate and increase its temperature.
It is not the case that fractured shards pull together (a la Terminator 3) to form a large, solid pane of glass.
It is not the case that energy flows into decaying matter to increase its chemical energy potential; any energy the rotting material might have was put there before it started to rot.
HarveyH55 wrote: All you really have, is speculation, and your faith.
Nope. I have my complete rational argument of which you have not found any flaw.
HarveyH55 wrote: I just attend a different church.
That you do. If it serves your purposes then more power to you.
I wish you luck wrapping your head around this one.
.
There is no need to add energy, because it's already there... Lot of potential chemical energy, which doesn't just instantly vaporize, and disperse into the universe. Or a soul heading toward heaven, or in some cases, hell.
Bot, as mentioned before, your speculation is your belief. I didn't just discard it. I put it off to the side, as one possibility. End of the day, it doesn't really matter much to me, since fossil-fuels still come out of the ground, regardless how they got there. |
| 30-08-2022 15:59 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14394) |
HarveyH55 wrote:There is no need to add energy, because it's already there...
It's not fuel ... and it cannot somehow rot/decay into a higher energy fuel.
HarveyH55 wrote: Lot of potential chemical energy, which doesn't just instantly vaporize, and disperse into the universe.
Correct. Lots of good stuff for the cycle of nature ... yet nothing that is able to defy thermodynamics and somehow decay into fuel.
HarveyH55 wrote:Bot, as mentioned before, your speculation is your belief. I didn't just discard it. I put it off to the side, as one possibility. End of the day, it doesn't really matter much to me, since fossil-fuels still come out of the ground, regardless how they got there.
I'm happy to leave it at that. |
| 30-08-2022 22:24 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
HarveyH55 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:Methane is a hydrocarbon, correct? Eat lunch at Taco Bell sometime...
You just made another conflation error.
Living matter can certainly do work. The methane you produce from eating particular foods comes from the living process of digestion, never from leaving the food to rot in the gutter. Wood burns as fuel, but the wood comes into existence while the tree is alive, never after the tree dies and begins to rot.
Rotting bio-matter cannot increase in chemical energy potential through any sort of decay process. The Fischer-Tropsche process accomplishes work through high temperatures and pressures that increase chemical energy potential in the transformation of hydrogen and carbon into hydrocarbons, just like a steam engine accomplishes work that moves the train/steamboat.
HarveyH55 wrote: I'm not sure what gas was produced, but the roadkill dog, swelled up like a balloon, over a few days. Smelled bad too, driving by.
Gases can be produced by decaying bio-matter, but you didn't see anyone trying to capture it in a tank for Sunday's barbeque.
.
The body/living thing had energy before it died and decayed. Are you saying that energy is destroyed, just vanishes after death? Doesn't that violate a law. Energy is neither created or destroyed, only changed?
Conflation. Discard of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. You cannot decrease entropy...ever. You cannot create or destroy energy...ever. Word stuffing.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Self justify all you want. All you really have, is speculation, and your faith. I just attend a different church. I think differently, because I didn't care for philosophy, mostly because the intent was to get me to think in a different way.
Discard of philosophy. Redefinition fallacies (engineering<->speculation, science<->speculation, science<->religion).
HarveyH55 wrote:
What I have, works well enough.
What you have is illiteracy and fundamentalism.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 30-08-2022 22:27 |
| 30-08-2022 22:31 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
HarveyH55 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:The body/living thing had energy before it died and decayed.
Correct.
HarveyH55 wrote: Are you saying that energy is destroyed, just vanishes after death?
Nope.
The energy disperses and diseminates, much in the same way a warm object cools or the way water from a popped water balloon sprays about, with some soaking into the ground, some evaporating, some getting on your shirt, etc..
It is not the case that water flies into, and fills, an empty balloon.
It is not the case that thermal energy from all around seeks a particular body of matter in which to concentrate and increase its temperature.
It is not the case that fractured shards pull together (a la Terminator 3) to form a large, solid pane of glass.
It is not the case that energy flows into decaying matter to increase its chemical energy potential; any energy the rotting material might have was put there before it started to rot.
HarveyH55 wrote: All you really have, is speculation, and your faith.
Nope. I have my complete rational argument of which you have not found any flaw.
HarveyH55 wrote: I just attend a different church.
That you do. If it serves your purposes then more power to you.
I wish you luck wrapping your head around this one.
.
There is no need to add energy, because it's already there... Lot of potential chemical energy, which doesn't just instantly vaporize, and disperse into the universe. Or a soul heading toward heaven, or in some cases, hell.
Discard of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. You cannot reduce entropy...ever. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Bot,
Failed Turing test.
HarveyH55 wrote:
as mentioned before, your speculation is your belief.
Redefinition fallacies (speculation<->religion, science<->religion).
HarveyH55 wrote:
I didn't just discard it.
Lie. You are discarding it.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I put it off to the side, as one possibility.
Lie. You are discarding it.
HarveyH55 wrote:
End of the day, it doesn't really matter much to me,
Lie. It does, obviously. You are spending inordinate amounts of time posting over it.
HarveyH55 wrote:
since fossil-fuels still come out of the ground, regardless how they got there.
Fossils are not fuel. They don't burn.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 31-08-2022 06:18 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2932) |
@Harvey55,
I don't know why a common sense guy like yourself would dismiss the Fischer-Tropsche process for a "dinosaurs make oil" explanation. Dead animals make plant food, and when the plant dies, it makes topsoil. I really don't even get how anything from and animal could be turned to oil. Most dead critters I see are scarfed up by scavengers (crows, eagles, coyotes) within days, and the bones get chewed up by rodents. It's the cycle of life.
The term "fossil fuels" was coined long ago, and there seems to be some argument over who first used it and whether or not it was for monetary profit. The only reason it is still used today is to remind everyone that oil is going to run out, because we are using all the "dinosaur fuel". Do you realize estimates are over a trillion barrels removed from the earth and no end in sight?
To me, the only oil producing process has to be the Fischer-Tropsche process, and planet Earth is an oil producing machine. Just my opinion. |
| 31-08-2022 17:31 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14394) |
GasGuzzler wrote:@Harvey55, I don't know why a common sense guy like yourself would dismiss the Fischer-Tropsche process for a "dinosaurs make oil" explanation.
In an effort to be completely fair, I don't think Harvey is dismissing the Fischer-Tropsch process. I think he is focusing on the fact that nobody has ever observed natural hydrocarbon formation within the earth. As such, that as-of-yet-unseen process remains a matter of speculation.
Harvey's speculation does not favor the Fischer-Tropsch process.
My speculation of Harvey's speculation is that he favors a more theological view, that God gives the energy of life, and that life energy never simply vanishes, and that hydrocarbons and their high energy potential, are a confirmation of life that God had given previously ... or something along those lines ... and that that kind of view resonates with Harvey moreso than a purely chemical view that eliminates God and life from the equation.
As far as I am concerned, he and I both agree that hydrocarbons come out of the ground in the form of which we are familiar and I have absolutely no interest in anyone's belief in their origin ... insofar as we can agree that hydrocarbons are renewable ... and I think that is where the rub is.
I don't know how Harvey can reconcile the renewability of hydrocarbons with the view of hydrocarbons forming from previously living things. I don't know how Harvey can reconcile oil wells refilling after having been drained and capped with the perception that hydrocarbons are not formed from mere raw materials in the crust.
... but he doesn't need to, and Harvey is not pressing for added hydrocarbon taxation or for us to rush to drop Big Oil and to convert to wind and solar. I don't have any disagreement. Whatever speculation resonates with him, that's what he needs to pursue.
After all, he could be correct, right?
. |
| 31-08-2022 19:48 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:@Harvey55, I don't know why a common sense guy like yourself would dismiss the Fischer-Tropsche process for a "dinosaurs make oil" explanation.
In an effort to be completely fair, I don't think Harvey is dismissing the Fischer-Tropsch process. I think he is focusing on the fact that nobody has ever observed natural hydrocarbon formation within the earth. As such, that as-of-yet-unseen process remains a matter of speculation.
Harvey's speculation does not favor the Fischer-Tropsch process.
My speculation of Harvey's speculation is that he favors a more theological view, that God gives the energy of life, and that life energy never simply vanishes, and that hydrocarbons and their high energy potential, are a confirmation of life that God had given previously ... or something along those lines ... and that that kind of view resonates with Harvey moreso than a purely chemical view that eliminates God and life from the equation.
As far as I am concerned, he and I both agree that hydrocarbons come out of the ground in the form of which we are familiar and I have absolutely no interest in anyone's belief in their origin ... insofar as we can agree that hydrocarbons are renewable ... and I think that is where the rub is.
I don't know how Harvey can reconcile the renewability of hydrocarbons with the view of hydrocarbons forming from previously living things. I don't know how Harvey can reconcile oil wells refilling after having been drained and capped with the perception that hydrocarbons are not formed from mere raw materials in the crust.
... but he doesn't need to, and Harvey is not pressing for added hydrocarbon taxation or for us to rush to drop Big Oil and to convert to wind and solar. I don't have any disagreement. Whatever speculation resonates with him, that's what he needs to pursue.
After all, he could be correct, right?
.
Not likely. Oil is found in wells almost 2 miles deep, well below any fossil layers.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 01-09-2022 03:14 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14394) |
Into the Night wrote:IBdaMann wrote:After all, he could be correct, right? Not likely. Oil is found in wells almost 2 miles deep, well below any fossil layers.
I would point out that "not likely" means "could be."
Natural hydrocarbon production is a Schroedinger's cat, i.e. it has not been observed, the wave function has not collapsed and we don't know. Until such a time, Harvey needs to speculate in whatever way helps him best understand his world.
He just needs to anticipate certain logic issues surrounding hydrocarbons being renewable ... but he can cross that bridge when he gets to it. |
| RE: Definition of terms13-03-2023 22:05 |
Im a BM★★★☆☆
(595) |
Roj475 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
[Your question is not genuine since you cannot offer any.
I offered three above for definition on fossil as opposed to fossil fuel...
Do you pick,
a) Harvard University and the Oxford Dictionary.
b) The widely accepted Merriam-Webster Dictionary, or
c) dictionary.com which seemingly is tied to Trump.
Pick an alternative one that is the basis of education here if you like.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trying to have a rational discussion, and attempting to comply with the absurd demand for an "unambiguous definition".
Roj475 was operating in good faith. |
| RE: Roj475 gave up, like virtually all new members13-03-2023 22:16 |
Im a BM★★★☆☆
(595) |
Roj475 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Roj475 wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:
[Your question is not genuine since you cannot offer any.
I offered three above for definition on fossil as opposed to fossil fuel...
Fossils are not used for fuel. Fossils don't burn.
Fossils and Fossil Fuels are different... Putting a fossil on a fire would be strange, putting a fossil fuel would not be.
Into the Night wrote:
Roj475 wrote:
Do you pick,
a) Harvard University and the Oxford Dictionary.
b) The widely accepted Merriam-Webster Dictionary, or
c) dictionary.com which seemingly is tied to Trump.
Pick an alternative one that is the basis of education here if you like.
No dictionary defines any word. That is not the purpose of a dictionary. No dictionary owns any word.
What is the purpose of a dictionary?
What would you use to understand the meaning of a word on the basis it was new to you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't even agree that a dictionary might offer valid definitions for terms.
So every discussion goes back to square one.
Which is a whole lot of fun for up to ten people.
Roj475 hung in there longer than most before giving up.
Grizzled veterans with eight years of experience preventing discussion.
They have more than 33,000 posts between the two of them. |
| 13-03-2023 23:06 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
Im a BM wrote:
I offered three above for definition on fossil as opposed to fossil fuel...
Do you pick,
a) Harvard University and the Oxford Dictionary.
b) The widely accepted Merriam-Webster Dictionary, or
c) dictionary.com which seemingly is tied to Trump.
Pick an alternative one that is the basis of education here if you like.
None of the above. None of these define the word 'fossil'.
There is no such thing as a 'fossil fuel'. Fossils don't burn. They are not used as fuel.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 13-03-2023 23:07 |
| 13-03-2023 23:11 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
Im a BM wrote:
Can't even agree that a dictionary might offer valid definitions for terms.
They don't.
Im a BM wrote:
So every discussion goes back to square one.
No. RQAA.
Im a BM wrote:
Which is a whole lot of fun for up to ten people.
Roj475 hung in there longer than most before giving up.
Grizzled veterans with eight years of experience preventing discussion.
They have more than 33,000 posts between the two of them.
Apparently you've not been paying attention to the number of posts regularly posted here each day.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
