An apology to all future generations: Sorry we used up your oil...

  • Thread starter Zardoz
  • 438 comments
  • 18,499 views
Sorry VeilsideR33sub, oil is not cooked animals.
Read "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil" By Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. and Craig R. Smith, which says what oil companies have known for a long time:
"Oil is not a product of fossils and prehistoric forests but rather the bio-product of a continuing biochemical reaction below the earth's surface that is brought to attainable depths by the centrifugal forces of the earth's rotation." In "Black Gold Stranglehold," Jerome Corsi and Craig Smith expose the fraudulent science that has made America so vulnerable: the belief that oil is a fossil fuel and that it is a finite resource.
I worked in Texas with oil companies for many years and can tell you that people in the business know this. There is so much oil out there, just need to be allowed to get it.
There is a big field in LA that they pumped dry and capped off about 25 years ago. When they went to check it a few years ago, they found that it had filled back up - with oil.
I remember when "scientists" said that there was too much methane in our atmosphere - and that it was caused by cow flatulence. HA! Imagine their surprise when abundant methane of a non-biologic nature was found on Saturn's giant moon Titan, a finding that validates the contention that oil is not a fossil fuel.


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47675


It’s not your fault for not knowing this though. It’s just what you’ve been taught all these years.

Many people on this thread are clever and convincing in their arguments. But they are reciting learned propaganda. Makes you wonder who and why the misleading information is so ardently supported through bad science (developing “proof” for a predetermined hypothesis).

Another big lie: carbon dating, but we’ll save that for another time.
 
If you are really interested, you’ll find out on your own, without me having to tell you. I get the feeling that you will not consider anything that I may say, or that goes against what you want to believe. So, research it yourself, convince yourself. I have given you the first bit of information, so start your own journey down the “road of enlightenment” dude.

By the way, the title “Mr. Texas” has already been assigned to one much more worthy than me. Thanks anyway.
 
OGLE B
"centrifugal forces"

[...]

In "Black Gold Stranglehold," Jerome Corsi and Craig Smith expose the fraudulent science...

Irony.
 
OGLE B
Sorry VeilsideR33sub, oil is not cooked animals.
[snip]

It’s not your fault for not knowing this though. It’s just what you’ve been taught all these years.

Many people on this thread are clever and convincing in their arguments. But they are reciting learned propaganda. Makes you wonder who and why the misleading information is so ardently supported through bad science (developing “proof” for a predetermined hypothesis).

Another big lie: carbon dating, but we’ll save that for another time.
What the **** are you talking about?
 
Famine, ha good one: irony. There is allot of that in this thread! I respect your opinions, but check it out. The earth produces oil. Some oil fields are replenished as they are being pumped.
By the way, what do you think of the story on methane being discovered on Titan's moon?
 
OGLE B
Famine, ha good one: irony. There is allot of that in this thread! I respect your opinions, but check it out. The earth produces oil. Some oil fields are replenished as they are being pumped.
By the way, what do you think of the story on methane being discovered on Titan's moon?

Do you know WHY I labelled it as ironic?


I think nothing of methane being discovered on Titan. Nor do I think anything of it being present in the atmospheres of Neptune, Uranus, Jupiter, or many extrasolar planets. I give methane on Titan a big, fat, "So what?".
 
Methane is extremely simple molecule. It's no surprise it pops up all over the universe. The fact that it exists on Titan is no evidence at all that oil has no biologic origin. Methane ON EARTH is a result of biologic processes, typically from decomposition of organic matter, just like oil. Methane also forms from the decomposition of the heavy molecules in oil. Therefore, wherever there is oil, there is also methane on top of it (though the converse is not true).

Earth is funny that way. What happens here is unique to our position in the solar system. Example: hydrogen gas is the most abundent molecule in the universe (by a country mile), yet it does not exist on Earth.
 
EARTH is a BIOSPHERE .

Different Engine .

Planets have a physical chemistry not brought into the cycles that Life and , in our case , it's Carbon - dominated compounds have engaged that are cycles beyond , not present , in such cases .
 
Nope. The earth produces oil.
Here is some other info on Titan :

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6876518/

Saturn's largest moon contains all the ingredients for life, but senior scientists studying data from a European probe ruled out the possibility Titan's abundant methane stems from living organisms.
"This methane cannot be coming from living organisms,"

But unlike water in Earth's atmosphere that continually renews itself, methane is destroyed by ultraviolet light, so Titan must have a source deep inside, scientists said.
…a hydrogeological process between water and rocks deep inside the moon could be producing the methane.
The process is called serpentinization and is basically the reaction between water and rocks at 212 to 752 degrees Fahrenheit (100 to 400 degrees Celsius), he said.
Oil on earth is produced much the same way.
I'll dig up some proof if you can't find it yourselves.
 
OGLE B
"This methane cannot be coming from living organisms,"

Oil on earth is produced much the same way.
I'll dig up some proof if you can't find it yourselves.
You are making an ENORMOUS leap there. I'd love to see the proof of that.
 
Ok, It’s late, but I here is what I came up with in 5 minutes.

To your question:
Petroleum originating from plant matter decayed by bacteria, similar to bacteria that decay backyard garden-compost piles, would resemble a microbial product. Instead, petroleum is chemically similar to a pure hydrocarbon that has been contaminated with microbial material. That contamination, he argues, occurred as petroleum seeped upward through rock now known to contain enormous amounts of bacterial life. In moving upward, petroleum also collected helium, explaining why oil wells are such a rich source of helium.

“"competent physicists, chemists, chemical engineers and men knowledgeable of thermodynamics have known that natural petroleum does not evolve from biological materials since the last quarter of the 19th century."


Check it out this article : http://www.prouty.org/oil.html


Here are some highlights in case you don’t want to read the whole thing:

The Origins of Oil and Petroleum

-- -- -- -- --
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 17:54:57 PDT
From: "Daniel E. Reynolds"
Subject: Oil - A REWEWABLE and ABIOTIC FUEL?



On June 20th, 1996 Col. Prouty stated...
"Oil is often called a 'fossil' fuel; the idea being that it comes from formerly living organisms. This may have been plausible back when oil wells were drilled into the fossil layers of the earth's crust; but today, great quantities of oil are found in deeper wells that are found below the level of any fossils. How could then oil have come from fossils, or decomposed former living matter, if it exists in rock formations far below layers of fossils - the evidence of formerly living organisms? It must not come from living matter at all!"

"Any geologist will tell you, well, most geologists will tell you that OIL IS CREATED BY THE MAGMA OF THE EARTH. The oil wells in Pennsylvania that were pumped out dry at the turn of the century and capped are now filled with oil again."…….


Dan, your use of the word "abiotic" is good. As a non-fossil fuel, petroleum has no living antecedent. It contains chemical elements found in living matter; but it is not "formerly living matter." There has not been enough true "formerly living matter"through all of creation to account for the volume of petroleumthat has been consumed to date……..

Kantrowitz turned to the geologist beside him and asked, "Do you really believe that petroleum is a fossil fuel?" The man said,"Certainly" and all four of them joined in. Kantrowitz listened quietly and then said, "The deepest fossil ever found has been at about 16,000 feet below sea level; yet we are getting oil from wells drilled to 30,000 and more. How could fossil fuel get down there? If it was once living matter, it had to be on the surface. If it did turn into petroleum, at or near the surface,how could it ever get to such depths? What is heavier Oil or Water?" Water: so it would go down, not oil. Oil would be on top, if it were "organic" and "lighter."

"Oil is neither."

They all agreed water was heavier, and therefore if there was some crack or other open area for this "Organic matter" to go deep into the magma of Earth, water would have to go first and oil would be left nearer the surface. This is reasonable. Even if we do agree that "magma" is a "crude mixture of minerals or organic matters, in a thin pasty state" this does not make it petroleum, and if it were petroleum it would have stayed near the surface as heavier items, i.e. water seeped below……….

there is no way that petroleum could be an organic, fossil fuel that is created on or near the surface, and penetrate Earth ahead of water. Oil must originate far below and gradually work its way up into well-depth areas accessable to surface drilling. It comes from far below. Therefore, petroleum is not a "Fossil" fuel with a surface or near surface origin.

It was made to be thought a "Fossil" fuel by the Nineteenth oil producers to create the concept that it was of limited supply and therefore extremely valuable. This fits with the "Depletion"allowance philosophical scam.

…….there are within the Earth virtually limitless stores of energy in the form of gas and oil as yet untapped. This energy is of non-biological origin and there is far more of it in the Earth than geologists have ever imagined -- and IT IS ACCESSIBLE!......

FOSSIL-FUEL THEORY DEBUNKED: OIL, GAS DEPOSITS CALLED PRIMORDIAL by Toldedo Blade

SEATTLE - The public's most widely known piece of geological knowledge--how petroleum and natual-gas deposts formed on Earth---is false, a noted scientist says. Surprisingly, his campaign to rewrite school textbooks and encyclopedias is getting grudging support from some geologists, who acknowledge that petroleum's origins may be dramatically different than what people believe.

Millions of Americans learned in grade school that oil deposits originated in the age of dinosaurs, when vegetation in lush forests was buried and subjected to high heat and pressure. Those extreme conditions supposedly transformed the hydrocarbons in vegetation into the hydrocarbons of petroleum.

"That's nonsense," snapped Thomas Gold, a scientist at Cornell University. "There's not a shred of evidence from chemistry, geology, or any other science to support it. It has no place in textbooks and school classrooms."…….

……..also presented evidence that oil and gas deposits on Earth are primordial. That means they came with the planet. They were part of the original raw material that formed the sun and planets, and deposited deep below Earth's surface when the planet formed……..Some of the oil gradually oozes upward from these original deposits 100 to 200 miles below the surface and collects where oil drillers can reach it……..

In one presentation, Gold described shafts that he and associates drilled in an ancient meteorite impact crater in Sweden. They drilled into a kind of rock that was not sedimentary, not associated with the sediments believed to produce oil deposits.

At a depth of about 4 miles, they encluntered a hydrocarbon oil similar to light petroleum that Gold believes was primordial oil. He noted a variety of evidence to support the belief. Gold estimated that this single site contained "more petroleum than all of Saudi Arabia." With current technology, however, pumping it out would be impossible, he added. Gold contended that many other planets and planetary bodies in the solar system have similar deep deposits of hydrocarbons, which are the stuff of oil and natural gas. Gold argues that a primordial origin for petroleum is the only way to explain its chemical composition……..


About 80 miles off of the coast of Louisiana lies a mostly submerged mountain, the top of which is known as Eugene Island. The portion underwater is an eerie-looking, sloping tower jutting up from the depths of the Gulf of Mexico, with deep fissures and perpendicular faults which spontaneously spew natural gas. A significant reservoir of crude oil was discovered nearby in the late '60s, and by 1970, a platform named Eugene 330 was busily producing about 15,000 barrels a day of high-quality crude oil.
By the late '80s, the platform's production had slipped to less than 4,000 barrels per day, and was considered pumped out. Done. Suddenly, in 1990, production soared back to 15,000 barrels a day, and the reserves which had been estimated at 60 million barrels in the '70s, were recalculated at 400 million barrels. Interestingly, the measured geological age of the new oil was quantifiably different than the oil pumped in the '70s.
Analysis of seismic recordings revealed the presence of a "deep fault" at the base of the Eugene Island reservoir which was gushing up a river of oil from some deeper and previously unknown source.
Similar results were seen at other Gulf of Mexico oil wells. Similar results were found in the Cook Inlet oil fields in Alaska. Similar results were found in oil fields in Uzbekistan. Similarly in the Middle East, where oil exploration and extraction have been underway for at least the last 20 years, known reserves have doubled. Currently there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 680 billion barrels of Middle East reserve oil.
Creating that much oil would take a big pile of dead dinosaurs and fermenting prehistoric plants. Could there be another source for crude oil?
An intriguing theory now permeating oil company research staffs suggests that crude oil may actually be a natural inorganic product, not a stepchild of unfathomable time and organic degradation. The theory suggests there may be huge, yet-to-be-discovered reserves of oil at depths that dwarf current world estimates.
The theory is simple: Crude oil forms as a natural inorganic process which occurs between the mantle and the crust, somewhere between 5 and 20 miles deep. The proposed mechanism is as follows:
• Methane (CH4) is a common molecule found in quantity throughout our solar system – huge concentrations exist at great depth in the Earth.
• At the mantle-crust interface, roughly 20,000 feet beneath the surface, rapidly rising streams of compressed methane-based gasses hit pockets of high temperature causing the condensation of heavier hydrocarbons. The product of this condensation is commonly known as crude oil.
• Some compressed methane-based gasses migrate into pockets and reservoirs we extract as "natural gas."
• In the geologically "cooler," more tectonically stable regions around the globe, the crude oil pools into reservoirs.
• In the "hotter," more volcanic and tectonically active areas, the oil and natural gas continue to condense and eventually to oxidize, producing carbon dioxide and steam, which exits from active volcanoes.
• Periodically, depending on variations of geology and Earth movement, oil seeps to the surface in quantity, creating the vast oil-sand deposits of Canada and Venezuela, or the continual seeps found beneath the Gulf of Mexico and Uzbekistan.
• Periodically, depending on variations of geology, the vast, deep pools of oil break free and replenish existing known reserves of oil.
There are a number of observations across the oil-producing regions of the globe that support this theory, and the list of proponents begins with Mendelev (who created the periodic table of elements) and includes Dr.Thomas Gold (founding director of Cornell University Center for Radiophysics and Space Research) and Dr. J.F. Kenney of Gas Resources Corporations, Houston, Texas.

Helium is so often present in oil fields that helium detectors are used as oil-prospecting tools. Helium is an inert gas known to be a fundamental product of the radiological decay or uranium and thorium, identified in quantity at great depths below the surface of the earth, 200 and more miles below. It is not found in meaningful quantities in areas that are not producing methane, oil or natural gas. It is not a member of the dozen or so common elements associated with life. It is found throughout the solar system as a thoroughly inorganic product.

Deeply entrenched in our culture is the belief that at some point in the relatively near future we will see the last working pump on the last functioning oil well screech and rattle, and that will be that. The end of the Age of Oil. And unless we find another source of cheap energy, the world will rapidly become a much darker and dangerous place.
If Dr. Gold and Dr. Kenney are correct, this "the end of the world as we know it" scenario simply won't happen. Think about it ... while not inexhaustible, deep Earth reserves of inorganic crude oil and commercially feasible extraction would provide the world with generations of low-cost fuel. Dr. Gold has been quoted saying that current worldwide reserves of crude oil could be off by a factor of over 100.
 
OGLE B
• Methane (CH4) is a common molecule found in quantity throughout our solar system – huge concentrations exist at great depth in the Earth.
• At the mantle-crust interface, roughly 20,000 feet beneath the surface, rapidly rising streams of compressed methane-based gasses hit pockets of high temperature causing the condensation of heavier hydrocarbons. The product of this condensation is commonly known as crude oil.
Methane polymerization appears to be the foundation of the natural oil theory...

...but like all miracle energy sources, it is thermodynamically impossible. Sorry.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies here. Methane is a light hydrocarbon with a low chemical potential. Heavier hydrocarbons (ethane, propane, butane, pentane....) have higher potentials, owing to the increasing number of C-H and C-C bonds. (This is why there is more energy in a mole of gasoline than a mole of methane). In a spontaneous chemical reaction, the overall chemical potential must decrease (Second Law). This proposed methane polymerization is taking multiple methane molecules (low-potential) and creating much larger, high-potential molecules. This is analogous to a coffee mug spontaneously re-assembling itself after it has been shattered on the floor.
 
Kylehnat
...analogous to a coffee mug spontaneously re-assembling itself after it has been shattered on the floor.
Very good analogy.

As much as I'd like to believe I had a never ending packet of tim-tams it just won't happen in real life!
 
Yes, I understand Famine.
However, consider the widely held theory on the origination of oil, and ask any biologist worth their salt how much plant life it would take to produce 100 million barrels of oil. They would laugh. 1 billion barrels, 1 trillion barrels of oil? It gets even funnier! 300 trillion? A little irony there…..
If plant life were the only producer of oil, Zardoz would be right, but about 30 years late, as we would have run out of oil long ago! By the way Zardoz, I appreciate your research, and especially like the one article you linked to: The “Abiotic Oil” Controversy, by Richard Heinberg, which said: There is no way to conclusively prove that no petroleum is of abiotic origin. While also saying: “What if oil were in fact virtually inexhaustible—would this be good news? Not in my view. It is my opinion that the discovery of oil was the greatest tragedy (in terms of its long-term consequences) in human history. Finding a limitless supply of oil might forestall nasty price increases and catastrophic withdrawal symptoms, but it would only exacerbate all of the other problems that flow from oil dependency—our use of it to accelerate the extraction of all other resources, the venting of CO2 into the atmosphere, and related problems such as loss of biodiversity. Oil depletion is bad news, but it is no worse than that of oil abundance.”
Irony, irony.

The opponents to the abiogenic theory have never explained how the earth could have ever had enough plant life in total to equal the amount of oil that is found in just one of the giant oil fields in Kuwait. Regarding plant life found within oil, all this shows is that some petroleum deposits may have been in contact with ancient plant residues, though it does not show that either is the origin of the other. There is only one generator that could produce the absolutely spectacular volumes of oil: The Earth.

Kylehnat, abiogenic conversion of inorganic carbon to hydrocarbons can be a simple process. Toss a few scraps of cast iron into a bottle and add some diluted pool acid. The gas that forms will be mostly H2, but will also contain some hydrocarbons, from methane right up to gasoline-range compounds. The carbon source is carbide that is normally present in cast irons. Consider what is thought to be at the earth’s core. Another example is the reaction between calcium carbide and water, forming acetylene gas. This was used for headlamps on early automobiles, and for the lamps on old-timey miners' helmets. Both of these reactions occur at room temperature and pressure, with no special catalysts or promoters needed. The methane on Titan is abiogenic, from any one or several of hundreds of possible reactions. Abiogenic formation of oil from natural carbonates (like limestones) requires conditions that occur very deep in the Earth's crust.

You are of course free to disagree, but please do not simply dismiss as a crackpot conspiracy theory. Most people don’t know about it at all, and as new discoveries are made, like Titan’s methane, it may gain more notoriety, and support. Of course, there are those who definitely do not want this to be true, for their own economic, political, and personal reasons, and will fight it all the way.

This is an opinion thread, and this is my humble opinion.
 
OGLE B
Kylehnat, abiogenic conversion of inorganic carbon to hydrocarbons can be a simple process.
Please don't make me laugh any harder; I might rupture something.

Please post the details of a methane polymerization reaction, complete with an explaination of how these purpoted conglomerated heavy-hydrocarbons are thermodynamically stable at atmospheric temperature and pressure (where they are to be extracted and refined).

OGLE B
Of course, there are those who definitely do not want this to be true, for their own economic, political, and personal reasons, and will fight it all the way.
And there are those who definately want to make everyone think it's true for their own economic, political, and personal reasons, and will fight for it all the way.

You can't ignore the scientific process. This theory of abotic oil, like many others, hinges on an argument of "it's magic". That's not going to convince anyone.
 
OGLE B
Yes, I understand Famine.

Then why are you persisting in espousing this theory which claims to go up against "bad science" while being based on stated non-science?

OGLE B
The methane on Titan is abiogenic, from any one or several of hundreds of possible reactions.

You also don't seem to understand that we've known about methane existing on other worlds for decades now. The discovery of it on Titan is not only unshocking but completely to be expected - and it seems that your favourite authors have hijacked it, with little knowledge, to advance their tosh (and it seems to be rather Creation-based tosh at that).
 
It's not "magic" any more than lava spewing out of Mount St. Helens is. If you want to laugh, go ahead. What I find laughable is that all the oil is thought to be cooked plants and animals.

Hmmm, “.Creation-based tosh”? So, you are saying that God created the earth with oil already in it? I can’t argue with that…..
 
OGLE B
Hmmm, “.Creation-based tosh”? So, you are saying that God created the earth with oil already in it? I can’t argue with that…..

No, I'm saying the exact opposite.

One of the cornerstones that Creationists like to target is the origins of oil, because it disproves "Young Earth Theory". If they can cast doubt on where oil came from, they can cast doubt on what they call "Old Earth Theory", which gives them a foothold for yet more non-scientific babble.


I ask again - why are you persisting in espousing this theory which claims to go up against "bad science" while being based on stated non-science?
 
I know you meant the opposite, I’m just having fun with ya.

The way I read it, the science is there, and the abundance of oil is there. What is not feasible is that the huge amount of oil already known about was produced by plants & animals. Listening to some convincing arguments of the men in the oil business that I met, was what led me to look into this. I felt like I had got some disturbing “insider information”, and was extremely skeptical, as it goes against common knowledge.
If it upsets you too much for me to talk about it, I'll stop now.
 
So, is CENTIFUGAL FORCE the only the only issue you disagree with? There is allot of other info that I didn't include, about internal pressures, etc. Pretty technical really, and too much to list in this post. Most is in the book, and in the Russian scientist's papers, publications, etc.
Question for you, do you think that there is definitive proof that oil ONLY comes from cooked plants/animals?

Sorry if I misinterpreted “why are you persisting in espousing this theory”…. I thought you wanted me to stop.
 
OGLE B
The way I read it, the science is there
Then how come you aren't addressing any of the scientific issues I've brought up? This is the essence of a new scientific theory: you must disprove what is already known and tested.
OGLE B
Listening to some convincing arguments of the men in the oil business that I met, was what led me to look into this.
Who were they, and what was their job? Even excutives in oil companies have no clue about the science that goes into their product. And they shouldn't have to; their job is to keep the business profitable. The details are left to the engineers.
OGLE B
I felt like I had got some disturbing “insider information”, and was extremely skeptical, as it goes against common knowledge.
If it upsets you too much for me to talk about it, I'll stop now.
I don't think any of us are "upset" by you bringing it up. We just want more concrete evidence than:
OGLE B
The earth produces oil. Some oil fields are replenished as they are being pumped.
OGLE B
The process is called serpentinization and is basically the reaction between water and rocks at 212 to 752 degrees Fahrenheit (100 to 400 degrees Celsius), he said.
Oil on earth is produced much the same way.
OGLE B
The methane on Titan is abiogenic, from any one or several of hundreds of possible reactions. Abiogenic formation of oil from natural carbonates (like limestones) requires conditions that occur very deep in the Earth's crust.
OGLE B
Regarding plant life found within oil, all this shows is that some petroleum deposits may have been in contact with ancient plant residues, though it does not show that either is the origin of the other. There is only one generator that could produce the absolutely spectacular volumes of oil: The Earth.
OGLE B
It's not "magic" any more than lava spewing out of Mount St. Helens is.
 
OGLE B
So, is CENTIFUGAL FORCE the only the only issue you disagree with? There is allot of other info that I didn't include, about internal pressures, etc. Pretty technical really, and too much to list in this post. Most is in the book, and in the Russian scientist's papers, publications, etc.
Question for you, do you think that there is definitive proof that oil ONLY comes from cooked plants/animals?

Sorry if I misinterpreted “why are you persisting in espousing this theory”…. I thought you wanted me to stop.

I'll requote for you:

"Oil is not a product of fossils and prehistoric forests but rather the bio-product of a continuing biochemical reaction below the earth's surface that is brought to attainable depths by the centrifugal forces of the earth's rotation." In "Black Gold Stranglehold," Jerome Corsi and Craig Smith expose the fraudulent science that has made America so vulnerable

Now you're referring to a text exposing fraudulent science, but quote a passage from it which talks about centrifugal force.

THIS is why I labelled it as ironic, which I didn't think you caught in the first place.

Centrifugal force does not exist. It's a myth we teach to children to save having to explain what really happens when they whirl a bucket round. Anyone wishing to be taken seriously in science who talks about "centrifugal force" is on a downer to start with, because they haven't bothered with anything so mundane as learning things.

This described method takes apart their whole argument within the first quoted line.
 
Ah, rule # 4 in use here.

Yes, I understand that centrifugal force does not actually “exist”. Nevertheless, it appears quite real to the object being rotated.

Fc = mv2/r, where Fc = centrifugal force, m = mass, v = speed, and r = radius.

An object traveling in a circular motion is constantly accelerating and is therefore never in an inertial frame of reference. Since the centrifugal force appears so real, it is often very useful to use as if it were real. The equation above shows that the force depends on v-squared over r. Because v increases with radius, the force will actually increase with radius as well.

Found this in The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. .

centripetal force and centrifugal force, action-reaction force pair associated with circular motion. According to Newton's first law of motion, a moving body travels along a straight path with constant speed (i.e., has constant velocity) unless it is acted on by an outside force. For circular motion to occur there must be a constant force acting on a body, pushing it toward the center of the circular path. This force is the centripetal (“center-seeking”) force. For a planet orbiting the sun, the force is gravitational; for an object twirled on a string, the force is mechanical; for an electron orbiting an atom, it is electrical. The magnitude F of the centripetal force is equal to the mass m of the body times its velocity squared v 2 divided by the radius r of its path: F=mv2/r. According to Newton's third law of motion, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The centripetal force, the action, is balanced by a reaction force, the centrifugal (“center-fleeing”) force. The two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. The centrifugal force does not act on the body in motion; the only force acting on the body in motion is the centripetal force. The centrifugal force acts on the source of the centripetal force to displace it radially from the center of the path. Thus, in twirling a mass on a string, the centripetal force transmitted by the string pulls in on the mass to keep it in its circular path, while the centrifugal force transmitted by the string pulls outward on its point of attachment at the center of the path. The centrifugal force is often mistakenly thought to cause a body to fly out of its circular path when it is released; rather, it is the removal of the centripetal force that allows the body to travel in a straight line as required by Newton's first law. If there were in fact a force acting to force the body out of its circular path, its path when released would not be the straight tangential course that is always observed.

Will you concede the term “centrifugal force” is valid, based on the above definitions?
 
kylehnat
you must disprove what is already known and tested.


kylehnat, good questions. I feel that, you being a chemical engineer and all, that I would not be able to provide you sufficient verification to effectively answer your questions. After all, Gold wrote a whole book explaining the subject, and is the best source of information. You may want to check it out sometime. Answers are there, and it might change your mind about few things. .

Therefore, I’ll resign the topic – you are wearing me out, and I don’t have your passion for argument.
 
A lot of oil goes into the raising of livestock. That's why I'm a vegetarian; when oil runs out, I can look at everyone else and say, "It wasn't me."
 
KaffeinE 86
...That's why I'm a vegetarian; when oil runs out, I can look at everyone else and say, "It wasn't me."

Wrong. Most pesticides are petroleum-based, and all commercial fertilizers are ammonia-based. Ammonia is produced from natural gas, which we're also going to eventually run out of.

We're really going to miss oil and gas...
 
Back