Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?

[notnewton]

I have just become aware of this site and it excellent threads and links. It may stand for awhile for many readers and I at least wanted tp clarify and add to the record. While slightly touched on, Charles Warren Hunt was the originator of the Abiotic Oil Theory with a paper he presented at a conference at Kazan, Tatarstan (on the Volga, SE of Moscow) on Dec. 18-19, 1997. His paper was entitled "Anhydride Theory: a New Theory on how Petroleum & Coal was Generated." Thomas Gold followed on the dais. Gold published an excellent book in 1999, The Deep Hot Biosphere, which should be read by all, but which unfortunately did not credit Hunt. Hunts letter to Infinity Magazine can be viewed here: http://www.gasresources.net/HuntLetter- ... rgy,ed.htm There is a typo in the paper indicating the conference was in 1998; in actuality it was 1997.

Hunt is now 85 years old and is the only source I know of for his 4 books (for those interested) at http://www.polarpublishing.com/

I have great interest in the Expanding Earth Theory and thereby discovered Hunt and became a corresponding friend. One of his articles I found so compelling (but with little visibility) was his views on the Hydridic Theory and so with his approval placed it on my site at http://eearthk.com/Articles03.html. It brings forth the work of V Larin, and the tremendous forces from below of hydrogen and its component parts which are far different than expected when put under pressure. Hunt has developed another article on the true source of atmospheric gases which he hasn't been able to publish and so I will put it on my site in a few weeks. With Hunt and another small group we have been concluding that the earth's core is likely not formed as standard science indicates, is not iron-nickle but more likely a cold plasma or "intermetals" enriched by the ions of hydrogen stripped of their electrons. The tremendous amount of Hydrogen - with all its possibilities - residing within the earth may be of interest to the group. Science teaches that most Hydrogen would have been dispersed in the heat of earth formation.

Thunderbolts Electrical theories have been seen to be in conflict with the Expanding (or Growing) Earth Theories. I do not see that to be the case. My personal "discovery" is documented on my website (http://www.eearthk.com) that indicates that continental structures are being moved, reshaped, and dictated to by solar and magnetic energies. This can be very consistent with Thunderbolts. I have found that the use of Great Circles can be very elucidating, and seldom utilized. As to oil locations I have plotted the major oil fields onto a globe (taking out flat map distortions) and show there is a predictive nature again related to Great Circles and solar and magnetic influences. This article is at http://eearthk.com/Articles04.html . One doesn't need to follow the theory to use the graphics.

Thank you for your time and allowing me some voice for clarifying the historical record.

[archeanb]

The opening statement of Keith Wilson, "that I am the originator of the "Abiotic Theory of Oil" is a mistake. I am the originator of the "Anhydride Theory of Petroleum and Coal Generation."

The abiotic theory of the origin of oil was prevalent back into the 19th century, advocated by the renowned Austian scientist, Mendele'ev (sp?) and others. I originated Anhydride Theory, attributing the origin of petroleum and coal to the archaea and bacteria that reside in upper crustal rocks. Abiotic methane effuses from the planetary interior worldwide through crustal fractures and volcanic vents. Archaea consume methane and along with bacteria acquire their metabolic energy by stripping away its hydrogen, and in the process creating partial methane ions, CH3, CH2, CH ("ANHYDRIDES OF METHANE"), which then recombine to create other alkane molecules, C2H5, C3H8, etc. and the myriad petroleum molecules with higher carbon numbers up to bitumens and tars. The methane, which is abiotic, is the predecessor of petroleum, which is biotic, i.e. organic, being created by living organisms. The same process acts within peat. Migrating methane is attracted to the electrically positive plant residue comprising peat. Methane is converted to water and native carbon, the latter supplementing the carbon naturally in the peat and thus creating coal with entombed plant macerals.

Thus, the distinction, that oil is created by microflora rather than from fossils, supports the overwhelming evidence for the organic origin of petroleum, as evidenced by its ubiquitous protein molecules. These are created only by living systems.

ANHYDRIDE THEORY was rejected for publication in 1999 by the American Association of Petroleum Geoogists, but was published in COALBED METHANE: Scientific, Environmental and Economikc Evaluation, ISBN 0-7923-5698-5, 1999, Kluwer.

ANHYDRIDE THEORY is one phase of the more general theory wherein the planetary interior is made up of METAL HYDRIDES. Some of these rise to the base of the crustal level, the interface between interior and exterior earth. At that point or above, within the crust, they meet with non-metals of the planetary exterior and either dissociate due to pressure reduction, deposit as native metals (AU, Pt, Pb, U etc.), or oxidize to create rock-forming minerals. The crust, along with its metal ores, volcanic heat, and earthquakes all originate from these processes.

The interior of the earth below the upper mantle is not necessarily very hot; and the core is likely hydrogen-rich and certainly not iron-nickel.

THE PRIMORDIALLY HYDRIDIC CHARACTER OF OUR PLANET AND PROVING IT BY DEEP DRILLING was published in PROCEEDINGS OF AN INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF FRONTIERS OF FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICS, Olympia,, Greece, 1993, ISBN 0-306-44825-4, Plenum Press.

TRIPLE GEOSPHERES: OXIDIC CARAPACE, HYDRIDIC MANTLE, ULTIMETAL CORE, Frontier Perspectives, Vol 15, #2, 2006

METAL OREFIELDS AND PETROLEUM DEPOSITS RESULTING FROM SILANE AND HYDROCARBON EMANATIONS THROUGH CRYSTALLINE TERRANES, Theophrastus Publications, 1996, ISBN 960-7457-10-2

Copies of some papers can be provided by email.

CHARLES WARREN HUNT, PROFESSIONAL GEOLOGIST, ALBERTA
archeanb@telus.net
http://www.polarpublishing.com
It is perhaps noteworthy that my theory

[GaryN]

Very interesting posts gentlemen. I was just thinking last night, that if oil could be produced through purely abiotic processes, should we also find oil, tar, etc, rising to the surface on other planets or moons that we know are venting, or swimming in, methane?

While most methane on Earth is produced by microbes, Titan's methane probably has a non-biological origin, says Lunine. "Methane is the easiest organic molecule to make in an environment like Titan's; it does not call for a biogenic explanation." Titan's large store of methane may have been trapped when the satellite formed along with Saturn, or it could have been made in the moon's interior, through a reaction among carbon dioxide, water and rocks.

Must Titan have a hot interior for abiotic methane production?
Hyperion is a really strange bird:

Hyperion yielded some of its secrets to the battery of instruments aboard Cassini as the spacecraft flew close by in September 2005. Water and carbon dioxide ices were found, as well as dark material that fits the spectral profile of hydrocarbons.

http://www.physorg.com/news102870255.html

What if the 'dark material' was oil, or bitumen?

[notnewton]

GaryN:
Good clarification question. I believe CW Hunt was going to answer, but hasn't, so let me try. According to his theory - which I accept - but somewhat poorly presented, in haste, Hydrogen and thus Methane are abiotic, ie not caused by life forms. They either reside (hydrogen) or are produced (methane) without life, within the earth.The Russians believed that OIL was also abiotic, but it is not (according to the theory). Oil has all of the signatures of life, as does coal, but Methane, does not have such signatures. So the lower form - the simplist hydrocarbons are not from life, but the higher forms are caused by life. So very likely a number of solar bodies (and beyond) should produce Methane somewhere beneath the surface. The Titan example shows pools, lakes, rivers and perhaps oceans of methane. It is not oil. It is methane. Frozen. At 278 degrees below zero there is no life there. They can look the same and cause confusion. Your moon example - if a hydrocarbon - is likely frozen Methane, not frozen oil.

If it is really oil then it will have the signatures of life. The Anhydride theory of Hunt's says that the Methane is a feed source for that life. Life requires a small but continuous amount of food to survive. Rising methane is that food. The organisms strip off hydrogen as their food. Early earth life forms were anearobic - oxygen hating. When oxygen developed on the earth where did those organisms go? Did they just die out or fight for survival? They likely went subsurface (much more pleasant a place to live then the ever changing surface) and survived in locals where there was no oxygen but was a continuous stream of methane.

Forgive the repetition, but sometimes it is necessary to repeat to engrain a thought. If I am incorrect, one can be assured that Dr. Hunt will explain that I have it a "little bit wrong", but that too will clarify the picture.

[Lloyd]

NotNewton said: The Titan example shows pools, lakes, rivers and perhaps oceans of methane. It is not oil. It is methane. Frozen. At 278 degrees below zero there is no life there.

* I think you're listening to conventional science speculation, rather than to definite facts. I think methane has only been found in that atmosphere of Titan, not on its surface. I may be wrong about that, but I'd like to know what the data source is for your info. The Titan probe didn't have a spectrometer on it, that found methane on the ground; did it? And, if you'll read some of the TPODs about Titan, they suggest that there is no evidence of rivers or lakes of anything on Titan, but only electrically carved rilles that look like river beds.

* Here's another interesting experiment that I think agrees with the abiotic source of petroleum etc and that shows transmutation likely involved in disappearance of hydrogen and carbon in electrical production of ethylene and acetylene condensation products from http://www.rexresearch.com/adept/aa3car~1.htm

(2) Milorad Jovivitsch
In 1908, Milorad Z. Jovivitsch (Bergau-Akademie in Belgrad) published two unique articles in the journal Monatschrift fur Chemie, describing "The Mysterious Deficiency of Carbon in the Condensation Products from Ethylene and Acetylene."

Jovivitsch had been experimenting with electrical discharges in these gases, following the methods used by Berthelot.The latter had shown that the action of a silent electric discharge upon saturated or unsaturated hydrocarbons will split off hydrogen and produce condensation products. (4, 6, 12)

Jovivitsch introduced pure dry ethylene or acetylene and oxygen into an ozonizer containing copper oxide, and electrified the mixture with 100 volts/3 amps for 3 days and 2 nights. His analysis of the resulting compounds showed a deficiency in the theoretical amount of carbon and hydrogen, and an excess of oxygen. Several determinations of the carbon and hydrogen taken together indicated a 7% deficiency in the ethylene reaction product, and a 22% deficiency in the case of acetylene.

Berthelot had accounted for these losses by attributing them to oxygen absorption from the atmosphere. Jovivitsch excluded that possibility by employing pure gases, and he immediately preserved the products in hermetically sealed tubes. There was practically no possibility of absorbing any significant amount of atmospheric oxygen. He also determined that the condensed ethylene loses no carbon on exposure to air, and that the condensed acetylene remains unchanged after many weeks. Comparative analysis of the reaction products preserved in tubes and those exposed to air showed them to be in close agreement.

Jovivitsch attempted to explain the scientific riddle of this chemical anomaly by attributing it either to experimental error or the transformation of elements. Because he took great care and made very precise analyses, Jovivitsch was convinced that a transmutation had occurred. His opinion was reinforced by the fact that the condensation products were radioactive.

[webolife]

Notnewton,
Have you read through the similar [to yours] arguments I put forth earlier on this thread?
I have believed for many years that [abiotic] methane stimulated and catalyzed the production of oil by anaerobic processes in buried organic debris, incl fossilized [or "fossilizing"] organisms, and that in a catastrophic [relatively geologically instant] manner. Anaconda puts forth some good astronomical arguments for a total abiotic picture, which I am slowly being persuaded by. Archeanb has a different view than this, but also involving the action of organisms. Methane, while it can be and is produced by decomposer organisms, that biotic production of methane is not sufficient for an catastrophic oil production method. However primordial, or abiotic methane from deep earth sources, is a good pro.

[notnewton]

1st Lloyd
I had no special knowledge of Titan, just the standardly released piks and texts from Cassini-Huygens and so was unaware of a contraversy on the subject. With your post I googled Titan Lakes Methane which yielded these 2 relevant sites. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakes_of_Titan and http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/ ... elakes.htm

The 1st gives continual Huygens info from 2004, 2006, 2007, and 2008. It indicates that the 1st "dark Lake" turned out to be indeed dry, but that other likely "lakes" (no oceans) were at the poles. To me the depressions look like they were once liquid filled and the "3mm" quoted also looks pretty good for a filled depression. The second site is a Thunderbolts rejoiner and a different theory. I'll keep that as a possible explanation (an alternative) but am not compelled yet in that direction. One hesitation is that too often, one theorist finds a need to debunk anothers observation. Thunderbolts did this with the Expanding Earth Theory. I found that unnecessary because I think the two observations/theories can work in harmony. Many EE'ers also find the need to push their own pet total or partial theories and demean others, so I do watch for and am influenced by that stuff. I will hold your interpretations in my mind awaiting future data.

I (we, Hunt) also find that "Transformations" occur and standard science avoids these important observations and potential wide spread implications.

2nd Webolife
No, I have not gone back and reviewed this entire thread and yours in particular. I will. My long term interest was in following the thought of "If EE, what does that mean for Fossil fuel, and other alternative arguments and where does that information concerning Hydrogen lead us?" There are so many subjects that EE interfaces with, that unfortunately leads to a skimming of the surface of too many. I like Einstein's comment that when asked to find a needle in a haystack, most people find one and stop. He said he (tries to) continue through the haystack and finds all the needles and then selects the best one. I perhaps misquoted, but the important idea holds. Each new needle - when considered in its differences - gives a broader insight on the whole subject. I'm pretty convinced that the fuels aren't fossils and that science, industry and government are irresponsible in not pursueing the possibility. I'll review your work.

Both. Thanks for the needles, and not the needling.

[Anaconda]

notnewton & archeanb:

Welcome, I appreciate your participation on the Thunderbolts Forum

I have reviewed the Expanding Earth Knowledge Company website and there are many valuble insights and articles, I agree with your analogy about "needles in a haystack". Nobody has all the answers, but potentially each of us has something to contribute to the discussion, an insight, a fact, or a chain of evidence. And, together, in collaboration, sometimes in a give and take fashion, yes, often with disagreement, but not disagreeable, yet, always having in mind a willingness to explore the possibilities in goodfaith, we can move the quest for knowledge forward -- we can advance Man's scientific understanding of his world...even the Universe

And, as you well know, it's often the "outsider" who does contribute that ultimate paradigm-shifting insight which pushes the scientific "establishment" to finally acknowledge the old body of scientific ideas is no longer tenable.

I found that unnecessary because I think the two observations/theories [Expanding Earth and Electric Universe theories] can work in harmony.

I have stated that same sentiment many times on this website.

Indeed, the scientific evidence leads me to subscribe to the idea that there is a hiarchy of physical relationships starting with the Electric Universe, flowing into the Expanding Earth, and, including Abiotic Oil theory.

Actually, the irony is that Abiotic Oil theory is the least of the three theories, as simply a result of chemical reactions dependent on the dynamics of an Expanding Earth, which in turn flows from Electric Universe ideas which ultimately rely on the Fundamental Force of Electromagnetism. But because of the central importance of oil & gas, as a low cost and versatile energy source for Man's civilization, economically, it's the most important of the three theories, and, thus, demonstrating the reality of Abiotic Oil, and, gaining wide-spread public knowledge & acceptance is perhaps the most important objective that can be presently achieved.

notnewton, I appreciate your willingness to review the entire thread, in that review you will see that I am a major contributor, that I already identified Tommy Gold as not being original, in fact, did commit plagiarism, although, perhaps, in compensation, did a tremendous service by publicizing Abiotic Oil theory to a much wider swath of the general public (although, I didn't know Gold even plagiarized the idea of a "deep biosphere" from Charles Warren Hunt until I read your website).

You will also see upon review that I don't subscribe to the "deep biosphere" hypothesis. Keith & Swan, through their scientific papers and abstracts linked, herein, provide compelling evidence that abiotic oil formation is entirely abiotic and not dependent on any participation by biotic organisms. Perhaps, after reviewing the thread, you will give thought to reconsidering your views, as difficult as that always is.

Also, I encourage you and archeanb to review the "Are the planets growing?" thread, here, on the Thunderbolts Forum.

I am in the process of articulating the mechanism for an Expanding Earth and the hydrilic hydrogen idea is central to my ideas.

Thank you for making the hydrilic hydrogen article available on your website, that article and the physical relationships it describes are central to the mechanism of an Expanding Earth and partially to Abiotic Oil, as well.

[archeanb]

My assertion that methane is abiotic and petroleum and coal biotic, well absorbed by notnewton and partially by others, deserves expansion. Hydrogen science is not yet understood very well:
1. Hydrogen is the first building block of matter. All other elements are multiples of it.
2. Because of this, hydrogen is the "only" true element.
3. Hydrogen nucleii under high pressures penetrate the electron shells of the 91+ other Mis-named "elements"
4. The penetrations transmute said "elements" and thus perform "cold fusion" notwithstanding the widespread disbelief that such fusion is possible.
5. Transmuted "elements" are unstable in reduced pressure environments (e.g. volcanic eruptions) and either dissociate or react with non-metal "elements" and produce rock-forming minerals and ores.
6. Living organisms utilize these properties: for example, chickens raised with absolutely no calcium in heir diets still lay eggs with calcium carbonate shells, evidently by combining potassium 39 with hydrogen 1 to make calcium 40 (Conclusion to be drawn: chickens are smarter than nuclear scientists.)
7. Hydrogen, according to conventional science, combines with all "elements" but the noble gases.
8. But Joseph Papp developed an engine (a modified Volvo) that he demonstrated, running, on a boardroom table with no intake and no exhaust. He injected a little special liquid into a cyhlinder before starting it. Its nature, he claimed vaguely, involved noble gas.
9. In a later demonstration before some 80 people, invited from industry and academe, Papp set the engine running and all went well, attendees asking questions, when Richard Feinman (a physicist) darted forward and yanked a small wire off the engine, while Papp wildly exclaimed "No, No;" and the engine blew up, a fragment of the block killing a representative of Mattel Toys who was standing 50 feet away. The subject was hushed up by Caltech, Feinman's employer, and Papp's lawsuit was settled. Papp died without revealing his formula - but surely a property of hydrogen must be involved!

Charles Warren Hunt ("archeanb")

[Lloyd]

* CW Hunt's info on hydrogen etc is interesting, and I've read some of your interesting info about petroleum on the net, but I just want to comment now on Expanding Earth theory.

Anaconda said: I am in the process of articulating the mechanism for an Expanding Earth and the hydrilic hydrogen idea is central to my ideas.

* I posted a message against EE, offering a better theory, called Shock Dynamics, on that thread at http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 209#p36207.

[notnewton]

Anaconda: Well stated. Its important to have a "Band of Brothers", as we are too few. Interestiong insight that the Abiotic issue is the least important and yet the most important. But . . . if future catastrophe's are going to develop, then it is not quite the most important. I make two points re Gold: a) he plagarized, and b) Thank you for putting out an excellent book on the subject. Funny how knowledge advances. It is messy and requires 2 things; a) the breakthrough, and b) the communication of the message. Not always the same character can do both, and people are motivated by their own reward system. I have much reading to catch up on. These are long threads.

Warren (archeanb): A correct spelling would be the world famous "Richard Feynman" and that would add more credence. But . . . I have not found one super fuel car that wasn't a hoax or bad science, and so I won't be convinced without some substantial evidence.

Lloyd: I had to determine if you wrote the Shock Dynamics site, because it was familiar to me. Then I reviewed my e-mails and I found that I have 63 back and forths with Michael Fischer the site originator. He actually bought one of my globe stands (please don't consider ordering because I lose $ on everyone and they are a pain. They are there primarily to indicate you cannot seriously study a globe without the proper tools, and there are none available. How can that be?). Michael is very knowledgeable and intelligent, and we ended up agreeing to disagree. I once thought also that a catastropic impact could have caused the movements, but then came to the conclusion that slow movements and EE could do better. Michael is a constant size earth guy, and I think he avoids the EE evidence against same. Michael did not initially see why my Great Circles (don't know if he does now) were important nor why I specifically selected the land mass examples I did. On his site he states "Offers Only Generalizations", denegrating other theories. What does that mean? Now I see that his April 2006 e-mail with me, he stated "My criteria for getting off the list of "Offers Only Generalizations" is, does the formation of the Lord Howe Rise, the New Hebrides Arc, and the position of New Zealand follow from this theory?" Now, how is that for restricting narrow based hand selected evidence to support your theory? I didn't remember that but now I see I can do 2 out of 3 just with those misunderstood great circles (not the New Hebrides arc specifically). Don't expect me to change my mind, nor I yours. Convincing each other to change is hardly the point. Convincing a goodly portion of the remaining 9 Billion is more interesting. Please pursue your line of interest, as will I. As Feynman once said, "You know when you are onto something when you put in a quarter and get $2 in change." I had that moment awhile ago, and haven't presented some of the good stuff, because too few gave a "s**t". (pardon my french). Now I need to read more.

[StefanR]

Apologies for interrupting the discussion, just wished to point out that the
Tectonic Banana-site, mentioned on page 9 of this thread, is back up and functioning again.
It is still as enigmatic as always, but it also seems a bit revamped with a little bit more clarity.

So there is the:

TECTONIC BANANAS and The ENIGMA of the
1000 year Fake Planet Conspiracy
http://tectonicbanana.org/

with some more recent information:

2010 The Season of Big Tectonic Storms and Swindles Continues
http://tectonicbanana.org/K-Storms-2010.htm

And a certain kind of introduction to some of the "concepts":

DISCOVERING NEW FOOTPRINTS OF TECTONIC MOVEMENTS
http://tectonicbanana.org/bbb/B-Intro-1.htm

(Please do mind that on these pages further links are sometimes hidden in images and figures).

[notnewton]

Anaconda: First the compliment. I have reviewed this site over the last several days, and I have comprehended and absorbed enough to say, "What a great body of work." You have provided links and thought evidence in a clear manner that is both extra-ordinary and significant. I like forward to your future article. With most of these alternative science discussions one must dumb down the debate, and protect oneself from the abuse. In this instance I feel like the kid who stepped onto a ball field, and got the tar kicked out of him, and realized, "Boy, here you better step up your game."

To the others, (I'd miss a name if I tried to remember them all) you all bring up very interesting points that push along the debate and add insight to the exploration. It is much appreciated and done in such an open minded way. The basics don't have to be continually re-covered as the basic premises are in much agreement.

The second point. I hope to add more relevant insights, alternative directions and thoughtful questions in the future, in a higher caliber way. But . . . that just reiterates my first point. Nice work, gentlemen.

Keith Wilson

[Anaconda]

My assertion that methane is abiotic and petroleum and coal biotic, well absorbed by notnewton and partially by others, deserves expansion. Hydrogen science is not yet understood very well:
1. Hydrogen is the first building block of matter. All other elements are multiples of it.
2. Because of this, hydrogen is the "only" true element.
3. Hydrogen nucleii under high pressures penetrate the electron shells of the 91+ other Mis-named "elements"
4. The penetrations transmute said "elements" and thus perform "cold fusion" notwithstanding the widespread disbelief that such fusion is possible.
5. Transmuted "elements" are unstable in reduced pressure environments (e.g. volcanic eruptions) and either dissociate or react with non-metal "elements" and produce rock-forming minerals and ores.
...

Charles Warren Hunt ("archeanb")

archeanb:

You present many important insights, let me briefly comment on those insights because it's just as important, if not more important, to acknowledge & discuss areas of agreement as to air areas of disagreement.

Hydrogen science is not yet understood very well:

Yes, particularly as it relates to hydrogen in the depths of the Earth and how hydrogen and its negative ion (a proton) spurs chemical reactions, localized expansion due to chemical reactions and hydrogen exhalation from metal lattices deep in the Earth, and energy transfers, plus overall earth expansion. (See Expanding Earth Knowledge Company article, Dual Geospheres of the Expanding Hydridic Earth.)
http://eearthk.com/Articles03.html

I would add free electrons and protons (negative hydrogen ions) are central in Earth's electromagnetic dynamics which is the focus of this forum's section. As a side note to notnewton, there is one brief article on Earth's electromagnetic dynamics on the Expanding Earth Knowledge Company website. An expanded treatment of Earth's electromagnetic dynamics would be a valuble addition (See Expaning Earth Knowledge Company section, New Electro-Magnetic Cause.)
http://eearthk.com/Expand.html#t41

The penetrations transmute said "elements" and thus perform "cold fusion" notwithstanding the widespread disbelief that such fusion is possible. Transmuted "elements" are unstable in reduced pressure environments (e.g. volcanic eruptions) and either dissociate or react with non-metal "elements" and produce rock-forming minerals and ores.

I would add that electrodynamics also is central to transmutation and has been discussed in this thread and has a thread dedicated to "transmutation":
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... ?f=3&t=209

So, it seems there are areas of agreement.

[notnewton]

I would like to first review the basic categories, as often there are overlooked alternatives, and/or definitions used are not quite appropriate or frequently misunderstood. This is an Einstein "Needles" example. There are 3 categories I see (but I have likely missed some). I list them as A) Fossil Fuel, Standard accepted science definition that organic debris compressed in heat over long periods of time formed Oil and Coal and other hydrocarbons. Explains the organic signatures found. B) Totally Abiotic (non-biological) sources for Oil and Coal, etc. ex. Soviet work, Larin's work, apparently Electronic Universe sub category, Anaconda ?, etc . and C) Some combination of Totally Abiotic (Hydrogen, Methane) with on-going organic processes, ex Hunt, Gold, Wilson. (My or others inclusion does not mean we can't be swayed, but is for initial clarity).

Is there additional Categories - D and E etc ? What Sub - category theories are out there - within the categories - and who or what represents them?

Anaconda: There is additional work that much more closely ties the emissions from the sun to my MACO-SPIRE findings, but it requires extensive graphics and explanations. Much easier done face to face or over a beer and a computer screen. When I have attempted to provide what I consider a simplified story, few seem to even understand it. My article showing a cause, or at least a uniquely plausible explanation, for the crack between Africa and South America ( http://eearthk.com/Articles08.html ) elicited little shock, and apparently few understood it (or quickly rejected it out of hand). And, it is an explanation and experiment any child could replicate at home. So, yes I have held some things back, as I saw them too quickly jumping the more linear explanation. You will notice on the "Is the Earth Growing" board, what you find is some initial interest in excellent graphics (primarily by Adams)but then a too fast immediate leap into "But I don't understand how new mass can be created" discussion and refutation. That is just the wrong point. The discussion should be on "What other evidence is there that the earth is expanding?" Only when there is sufficient understanding of the evidence do the options and ideas start unfolding like the pages of a book. Others want to focus on "Is the Universe or other planets growing?" Perhaps, but 99% of the evidence is to be found on the earth and leaping into areas we can't sample becomes just another game of argumentation of opinion, with little fact.