I need to rewrite almost everything I have bothered with on this Blog.
Sort of feels like more of a web page event than a diary.
It is supposed to reflect new things learned though, so until I acquire a new home and resettle, I will just have to plod on.
Today's enlightenment came from Thomas Gold: Austrian–American astronomer (1920–2004) and his book: The deep hot biosphere. …
Life cycles produce proof of life in sedimentary rock. Which is where oil prospectors look for crude and why they do so. Macrobes you and me or tube worms (or whatever above uni-cellular life forms) produce waste. So where is the sediment from that and the fossils?
Yet in chapter two (or three?) he notes that fossilised microbes were found in igneous rock (non sedimentary rock -created as in fire.)
My take on this problem is the obvious one:
The igneous rocks are the sediment from the life in the deep hot biosphere.
I have found my geni and am on the road to recovery.
When Galileo Galilei died he left a profound work that detailed a great deal on astronomy and optics but by far his finest hour came with the development of mechanical engineering based on his understanding of gravity.
I sequential discoveries some time directly following, Newton propounded the laws of physics that nearly encompassed all physical constants:
Now in that same vein, I am taking over from Thomas gold.
Galileo died the year Newton was born.
And although Galilei devoted a lot of time to the telescope it was invented by him -it was widely used at sea among other places several decades before his efforts made better use of glass type lenses. Newton, of course, went one better and used silver imaging processes.
But the greatest work from both of them was on engineering. Newton defined the three laws of motion that Galileo set out:
Why things move, the way they do and what happens next.
What Newton could not know and it answers the problem left in his work on the movements of worlds, is that the third law devolves into much more than mere motion. He had not realised the philosopher's stone was in his hands.
But then so many other stones were beckoning him.
Thomas Gold wrote (after describing the work of Petra Reuter's "Anabolic oxidation of hydrocarbons in crude oil by new types of sulphate reducing bacteria")
"It is difficult to sample, culture and identify the presence of indigenous life at depth. It is even more difficult to determine the foundation of the food web and fuel-material source son which the primary metabolism is base.
Until the primary metabolism is identified, however, one can not be sure whether a particular chemical constituents original resource or biological product."
(He wants to steer clear of volcanic vents in his theories But that is a side issue pun included.) He goes a little later:
Among the most interesting aspects of hydrothermal vent communities is that the methane involved in the life support in that realm has no biogenic explanation (biogenic caused by life forms and yet methane is known to be abundant in hydrothermal vent fluids.
A biogenic explanation is implausible because there is little surface derived sediment on, below, or even near the active rifting zones of the deep ocean floor.)
Which was when I had my epiphany:
That could not be because the sediment is in fact igneous rock perhaps?
It just came to me after struggling to find my page for half an hour and "doing a bit" whilst having my breakfast cuppa. Now I feel I have a just cause to continue once more as such a profound truth need a diligent Cassandra.
At least I now know that Thomas Gold shared the low points of the otherwise euphoriphic prescience of not having one's thoughts considered by others as worth listening to.
Still what else is new?
One important point to consider with accusations against Thomas Gold's epiphanies is that the only evidence the oil industry has for their argument against him is their methods and their yields are solely based on their beliefs. It is then unacceptable for impartial use in courts of most lands (as not in east Texas, for coincidence.)