Earth Sciences: Geology
“Loyalty to a petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul.” – Mark Twain
There is no new wisdom in science and any knowledge accrued along the way is more by accident than design. Science consists of “facts” learned by rote and used as a means to perpetuate scientific political power and the economic status quo through education and the media. All that we think we know is wrong, with tidbits of truth interwoven to enhance the narrative.
The word “fact” as used by science, has very little to do with the word truth, its a fact because science and the text book say so. It’s a fact because it supports current scientific theory and a theory is not supposed to be a permanent fact. Many scientific facts from the past are no longer facts. Geology contains many facts but few truths…
The Earth Sciences are the Swiss cheese of science, having so many anomalous holes in their theories that it’s hard to know where to begin. I was told apologetically by a scientist, that with all its faults “science is doing its best”, while at the same time we have the sceptics telling us that science is a kind of ideal or in some extreme cases an absolute, a cornucopia of all knowledge. No one is quite sure what it is.
Contrary to popular belief nothing is known about what lies more than a mile or two beneath our feet as will be seen, and yet the geologists claim to know about the structure of the Earth all the way down to its core, disregarding the fact that seismic reflection surveys could not be more wrong, as we will soon see. A series of super-deep boreholes demolished all the preconceived ideas of theoretical geology, but geology continues regardless, as if nothing had happened:
The Kola Superdeep Borehole
“Over forty years ago, researchers in the Soviet Union began an ambitious drilling project whose goal was to penetrate the Earth’s upper crust and sample the warm, mysterious area where the crust and mantle intermingle, the Mohorovic discontinuity, or Moho. So deep is this area that the Russian scientists had to invent new ways of drilling, and some of their new methods proved quite inventive. But despite the valiant effort which spanned several decades, the Russians never reached their goal, and many of the Earth’s secrets were left undiscovered. The work done by the Soviets did, however, provide a plethora of information about what lies just beneath the surface, and it continues to be scientifically useful today.” 1
The seismic reflection surveys of the Kola site predicted discontinuities (changes) that failed to materialise in the expected transition from granite to basalt at 3-6 kilometres beneath the surface. Seismic waves travel significantly faster below that depth and this was wrongly interpreted as being a change in the rock composition. This has also been the pattern for other deep hole projects with discontinuities not being present where geology predicted. It’s almost 4,000 miles to the centre of the earth and seismology got the first seven miles wrong.
Wiki: “Discontinuity in geotechnics is a plane or surface marking a change in physical or chemical properties in a soil or rock mass.” 2
Anomalies and the Failure of Geology at Kola Superdeep Borehole
The temperature predictions were proven wrong and the project had to be abandoned short of its goal for this reason. At maximum drill depth the rock responded to the drill more like a plastic than a rock, making the recovery of already drilled holes impossible.
Flowing Water and Fossils at great depths
Water was flowing at depths totally unexpected, rationalised in terms of existing geology theory as having arrived from below in the form of out-gassing, the water then being trapped by impervious rocks above. If this is the case and the water is sealed, how do we explain the fossils?:
Microscopic fossils were found at 6.7 kilometres below the surface. Twenty-four distinct species of plankton microfossils were found with carbon and nitrogen coverings rather than the limestone or silica. The heat and pressure seems not to have affected them as the microscopic remains were remarkably intact. 3
One would think that in the light of these discoveries a serious rethink of geological theory would ensue, but it’s doubtful if it made any impression whatsoever… academic science is entrenched and fossilised in a geology of its own design. everythingselectric.com:
Geogate – is geology a skyscraper built upon the sand?
Germany’s KTB superdeep borehole
“Another hole drilled into the Earth’s Crust was the KTB superdeep borehole (Kontinentales Tiefbohrprogramm de Bundesreplik Deutschland or German Continental Deep Drilling Program). The results found here were even more surprising. Firstly there is much more available data from the superdeep drilling and also it was carried out by Germans so you would expect everything to have been planned and modelled correctly. They had also reviewed the Russians attempt and results.” 4
Surprises – Some Welcome, Some Not: everythingselectric.com tells us:
“…At a depth of about 7000 m (22,966 ft) they had expected to drill through the boundary between two tectonic plates that collided 320 millions years ago, forming the Eurasian plate. However, this boundary was never crossed, and the geologists have had to redraw most of the subsurface picture.
Other unexpected results include core and log evidence for a network of conductive pathways through highly resistive rock, and in rock devoid of matric porosity, an ample supply of water.”
Where then is the theoretical Eurasian plate?
Germany’s Superdeep Telescope into the Earth’s Crust (pdf) 5
Fluids – “The scientists at KTB expected deep crystalline rock to be bone dry, but to their surprise, water influx occurred at several depths from open fractures.” 6
Thermal Studies – “…During the initial temperature mapping, KTB-VB held the unwelcome surprise that the formation temperature gradient was higher than anticipated. This disappointing result meant that 300C – the set limit of current technology – would be reached at about 10,000 m – much shallower than originally predicted.”
(page 18) The KTB Borehole – Germany’s Superdeep Telescope into the Earth’s Crust 7
The German borehole showed more or less the same pattern of misinterpretation of seismic reflections as did the Russian. One would expect an all-out effort to set the record straight, but this has not happened. Science is incapable of rectifying its own mistakes and usually ignores them or reasserts itself with self-justifying, blustering, hand waving exercises. But it is clear to all but the most hypnotised of the scientific true faithful that there is something seriously amiss within geology when all of its predictions are wrong.
The geology lecturer enters a room filled with students and bangs his lever arch notes onto his desk. His notes were probably given to him by his retired predecessor and the changes made during the two generations can be counted on one hand. Woe betide any student who dares to question what is contained within, words chiselled into the stone edifice that is geological theory for two or more hundred years. Neither the contrary evidence from deep boreholes, nor Thomas Gold’s petroleum theories that we will encounter below, will be discussed, as to do so would delay qualification, not to mention awkward questions for the lecturer. Geology unmindful, marches, oblivious to the stark realities of experiment and practical experience.
Coal and its Origins
Not too long ago, I found myself with a group of students in a coal mine. The somewhat uncomfortable tour had ended and we were waiting to ascend in the lift. A miner approached me and handed me a piece of coal. “Look at the pattern”, he said. I nodded recognising regular undulations throughout the lump. “That pattern can be found in the coal throughout this mine and other mines have their own distinctive pattern.” Taking the coal back he walked away, leaving me to wonder how coal, the result of buried plant matter, could have a uniform pattern throughout a whole seam? Such things do not appear in geology theory.
Wiki explains: “About 300 million years ago, the earth had dense forests in low-lying wetland areas. Due to natural processes such as flooding, these forests were buried under the soil. As more and more soil deposited over them, they were compressed. The temperature also rose as they sank deeper and deeper. For the process to continue, the plant matter was protected from biodegradation and oxidization, usually by mud or acidic water. This trapped the carbon in immense peat bogs that were eventually covered and deeply buried by sediments. Under high pressure and high temperature dead vegetation were (was) slowly converted to coal. As coal contains mainly carbon, the conversion of dead vegetation into coal is called carbonization.” 8
A theory dependent on soil and mud and sediments, but somehow the soil, mud and sediment disappears, leaving only coal as we will see shortly.
William Corliss Coal.
“Two sorts of anomalies arise in the case of coal: (1) the large quantity of carbon locked up in coal deposits; and (2) the remarkable thickness of some coal deposits.
The carbon problem
“Our planet’s immense inventory of coal, along with giant oil fields and, most important of all, carbonate rocks, constitute the so-called “carbon problem”. Briefly, these minerals contain so much carbon that the earth’s crust is anomalously enriched in this element with respect to the carbon inventory expected in the primordial crust. The source of this “extra” carbon may be outgassing from deeply buried carbon. T. Gold’s theories about the origins of methane, oil, and coal (See below) depend upon deep crustal sources of carbon. A less likely source of additional carbon, but one which must still be considered, is the influx of extraterrestrial debris in carbonaceous meteorites and comets.”
Theories of coal and oil are at odds with the theory of carbon quantities.
The Thickness Problem.
Some coal beds are so thick (up to 800 feet in Australia) that it is difficult to imagine a succession of peat bogs, one atop the other, with no evidence of soil in between, that could account for such accumulations. This problem is made more acute by the great purity of many coals. When one finds very thick coal beds containing little ash, one has to wonder how the vegetation that supposedly ended up as coal ever grew in the first place. These thick coal strata challenge the in-situ theory of coal’s origin.”
Neglected Geological Anomalies, Large Sedimentary Deposits William R Corliss.
The sheer quantity of coal in the Earth’s crust and the lack of soil do not auger well for geological theory.
Origin of Coal
Low mineral content of most coals.
“W. M. Williams, over a century ago, pointed out that true coal leaves only 0. 5-3% ash after complete combustion. He goes on to state: “I state these figures because they have an important bearing on the interesting question of the origin or formation of coal. They demolish at once the prevailing theory that a coal seam is simply an ancient forest or a woodland marsh that has been submerged and buried where it stood.
No such forest, no such marshy woodland as we see so prettily displayed in the fancy pictures of the vegetation of the coal period could be formed without soil for the roots of the calamites, the sigilariae, the lepidodendra, the stigmariae, the ferns, &c. , to grow in. A single generation of such reeds and trees, if thus buried in-situ, would form but a few inches of coal; to produce a seam, many generations piled one above another are required, and each demands a soil. Conifera, such as described, cannot grow on the top of another, nor in the purely vegetable soil formed by the decay of their ancestors.
The quantity of ash contained in our most abundant coals leaves absolutely nothing to represent the soil. The average amount of incombustible ash contained in the roots, stems, and leaves of forest trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants is actually in excess of that found in ordinary coal. “
As we can see from the above, this problem was pointed-out a century ago, but such logical dilemmas have never presented any difficulty when a good theory is at stake.
“The above facts were not lost on T. Gold, who recently provided similar figures for the mineral content of the great coal measures: “Some coal seams are as much as 100 feet thick, and the mineral content may be as low as 4%. The bulk of the material is just carbon, with a little hydrogen, oxygen and sulphur mixed in various compounds. For a swamp to produce such a seam, it would need to have grown to a depth of 1000 feet, with a mineral content in that volume of less than 1 percent. No such swamps are recognized, and it seems unlikely that they could ever be created or that plants would grow in such circumstances. ”
From: Anomalies in Geology, Physical, Chemical, Biological. William R Corliss
The Ice Ages
Wiki: “An ice age, or more precisely, a glacial age, is a period of long-term reduction in the temperature of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental ice sheets, polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Within a long-term ice age, individual pulses of cold climate are termed “glacial periods” (or alternatively “glacials” or “glaciations” or colloquially as “ice age”), and intermittent warm periods are called “interglacial”. Glaciologically, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres. By this definition, we are still in the ice age that began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Paleocene epoch, because the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets still exist…
…There have been at least five major ice ages in the Earth’s past (the Huronian, Cryogenian, Andean-Saharan, Karoo Ice Age and the Quaternary glaciation). Outside these ages, the Earth seems to have been ice-free even in high latitudes.” 9
Although evidence of past glaciation cannot be denied, ice age theories assume the cause of extensive glaciation to be the result of low temperatures over an extended period. A major barrier arises in that the formation of such large quantities of ice requires energy and energy in the form of heat. The oceans must evaporate huge amounts of water that then needs to be transported to the northern regions – at a time of plummeting temperatures; a paradox.
This is not a recent flash of inspiration by the author but has been known by science for a hundred years or more; glaciation needs heat and the process is hampered if not halted by cold. Temperatures may drop, but this only makes it cold and glaciation in the form of miles-thick ice sheets will not take place. It was pointed-out long ago, by someone who did the calculations, that the heat required to move the ice from the oceans to the polar regions is equal that of melting the same amount of iron. And to do this at a time of plummeting temperatures requires some serious rationalising on the part of science.
A Glacial Period
Wiki: “A glacial period (or alternatively glacial or glaciation) is an interval of time (thousands of years) within an ice age that is marked by colder temperatures and glacier advances. Interglacials, on the other hand, are periods of warmer climate within an ice age. The last glacial period ended about 15,000 years ago; The Holocene epoch is the current interglacial.” 10
Wiki: “During the most recent North American glaciation, during the latter part of the Wisconsin Stage (26,000 to 13,300 years ago), ice sheets extended to about 45 degrees north latitude. These sheets were 3 to 4 km thick.” 11
Science has not a clue as to what caused past ice ages but theories abound, all with their own problems. We can surely be excused when looking at such maps as the one on the next page, if we are tempted to think the unthinkable in scientific terms. The lack of glaciation in northern Asia and Alaska, within the present Arctic Circle during the previous ice ages would almost lead us to the conclusion that the present geographic pole itself had shifted from somewhere within the area indicated by the triangle or even further south.
Also, looking at the maps, it must be born in mind that the Atlantic around the previous polar area would also have been frozen and a line just south of Greenland will suffice for our purposes.
A shift in the position of the pole is not as fantastic as it sounds. I’m told by the astronomers that the poles of Mars have shifted and that past Martian polar regions now reside at the equator. Some astronomers have even suggested that our moon has swapped its pole position sometime in the past. They even have a name for this phenomenon – True Polar Wander or TPW or just plain Pole Shift.
This is not a shift of the entire globe, but a sliding of the crustal rock over the molten magma beneath, like the skin of an orange sliding around on the inner fruit, thereby maintaining the rotation axis of the bulk of the Earth’s mass.
We are however, unlikely to see this theory introduced into the mainstream, as it has connotations of Velikovsky and several other catastrophists attached. Geology having had few changes since the Victorian era and still very uniformitarian is loathe to consider such ‘outlandish ideas’ when applied to the Earth.
Record of several past Ice Ages
Extent of today’s ice cover
If we follow the logic of polar shifting, we find that there is no real need to include theories of ice ages at all, as shifting the icecap around on the earth’s surface will suffice.
Changes in ocean levels can then be explained by the difference in sea-level caused by moving the icecap off the land and into the ocean. The North American ice sheet is moved to the Arctic Ocean if the triangle (past polar position) is moved to the present pole, causing a rise in sea level by displacement.
Using various methods, Charles Hapgood in “The Path of the Pole” identified the locations of the paleopoles and their paths.
Position # 1 — 63 degrees N, 135 degrees W (the Yukon area – 75,000 B.C.)
Position # 2 — 72 degrees N, 10 degrees E (in the Greenland Sea – 50,000 B.C.)
Position # 3 — 60 degrees N, 73 degrees W (the Hudson Bay area – 12,000 B.C.)
Position # 4 — the current position 12
Wiki: “In 1958, (Charles Hutchins Hapgood (1904–1982) published ‘The Earth’s Shifting Crust’ which denied the existence of continental drift and featured a foreword (an endorsement) by Albert Einstein.
(It is more than likely that Einstein was impressed by Hapgood’s theory because a very similar historical scenario had been presented to him by Immanuel Velikovsky, a personal friend.)
In Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings (1966) and The Path of the Pole (1970), Hapgood proposed the hypothesis that the Earth’s axis has shifted numerous times during geological history. In Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings he supported the suggestion made by Arlington Mallery that a part of the Piri Reis Map was a depiction of the area of Antarctica known as Queen Maud Land. He used this to propose that a 15 degree pole shift occurred around 9,600 BCE (approx. 11,600 years ago) and that a part of the Antarctic was ice-free at that time, and that an ice-age civilization could have mapped the coast. He concludes that “Antarctica was mapped when these parts were free of ice”, taking that view that an Antarctic warm period coincided with the last ice age in the Northern hemisphere, and that the Piri Reis and other maps were based on “ancient” maps derived from ice-age originals. Later research concerning the palaeoclimatology and ice sheets of Antarctica have completely discredited the interpretations by Hapgood that an Antarctic warm period coincided with the last ice age in the Northern hemisphere and any part of it had been ice-free at and prior to 9,600 BCE (approx. 11,600 years ago).” 13
I’m stunned at the complete misunderstanding of the Wiki writer, that a southern hemisphere warm period paleoclimate is required in order that Antarctica should become ice-free in the limited area shown on the Piri Reis Map. The basis of Hapgood’s theory is a polar shift, that would not require an over-all climactic temperature-change. Part of the continent would have been in a warmer region leaving the rest still within the Antarctic Circle. The last southerly shift of the crust to the poles present position would have moved the area shown in the Piri Reis map towards the south pole and a more frigid climate.
It is also interesting that Albert Einstein was completely ignored in this respect.
Einstein and the Pole Shift 2012 Hoax website
Albert Einstein did not support a rapid geographic pole shift 2012hoax.org:
I chose this web site as an example of the scientific opposition opinion and typical sceptical bias that says that the scientific version always gets priority. As we would expect, the argument is circular, using present dominant theory as if it were a sacred touchstone of truth:
The author of 2012hoax.org is trying, unsuccessfully, to debunk Hapgood for reasons inscrutable, because the mainstream which he supports has never given any credence, or even a second glance, at Hapgood’s theories.
The author of 2012hoax tells us: “In this (his second) letter to Hapgood, Einstein wrote that the idea of earth crust displacement should not be ruled out a priori, but also said that Hapgood needed solid “geological and palaeontological facts.””
He continues with Appeal to Authority
“Another problem for the Einstein ‘endorsement’ of the “Rapid Pole Shift” (RPS) idea is that it is essentially an appeal to authority: “Einstein was very smart, and he liked the “Rapid Pole Shift” theory, therefore the Rapid Pole Shift theory is correct.”
Even if the second premise were correct (and we have shown that it is incorrect), and even if Einstein was a world-renowned authority on geology (which he wasn’t) then the argument would still be a fallacious one, because, even as smart as he was, Einstein did not define the entire field of geology. Theories are not valid because they have big-name support, they are valid if (and only if) they make testable predictions that are shown to be supported by evidence.” http://www.2012hoax.org/einstein
The geological facts (evidence) are hardly likely to be forthcoming in an academic scientific context, because pole shift is not an issue in plate tectonics and therefore will not be addressed. The writer knows this and he knows he is on is on safe ground.
He calls Einstein’s endorsement ‘an appeal to authority’ when used by other authors supportive of Hapgood, whereas his own version is an appeal to geological science to prove something that obviously has not been proven for reasons of a seismic nature described above. The continental plates needed to support plate tectonics were not found at Kola, KTB or any other deep boring project. We therefore need an alternative explanation as to how the continents move.
He then admits, contrary to the point and the title of his article that: “In 1954 Einstein wrote a very favourable foreword for Hapgood’s upcoming book (eventually published in 1958)”.
Something that cannot be denied. He then uses the usual but tired ‘qualification card’, pulling out all the usual stops by telling us what we already know: That Einstein was not a geologist and that he had no right to pontificate on something for which he was not qualified, even though Alfred Wegener of Continental Drift theory fame was also not a geologist. The selective author of 2012hoax seems not to like multidisciplinary scientists. Information via those who will support science come-what-may is loyal but it can be very unreliable.
The point of all of this is not a campaign in support of Charles Hapgood, but to point to the other protagonist who’s record on prediction is without equal. It was Einstein’s pal, Emmanuel Velikovsky, who originally suggested the idea to Einstein as a “rapid pole shift”, something not mentioned at all by the writer at 2012hoax.
Alfred Wegener’s Continental Drift
At the time when the theory of Continental Drift was being proposed, there was a second contender theory. Both were rejected by geologists of the day and it was some considerable time before it was agreed to embrace the idea of Continental Drift; even though the two theories were all but identical.
Alfred Wegener, an astronomer, became a meteorologist, earned his Ph.D. in astronomy in 1905. He addressed the Geological Association in Frankfurt with his paper, “The Formation of the Major Features of the Earth’s Crust (Continents and Oceans)” in 1912. It was based on a theory by cartographer and geographer, Abraham Ortelius14 dating back to the 1500’s. Wegener published his theory of continental drift in “The Origin of Continents and Oceans” in 1915, the first of four books with the others following in 1920, 1922 and 1929. Wegener’s theory was ignored or ridiculed until the 1950’s, twenty years after his death. The objection to his idea was built around the lack of a force that could move the continents. 15
The 1950’s parallel theory was that of an Expanding Earth, also not new, but championed by Samuel Warren Carey (1911-2002), Professor of Geology at the University of Tasmania from 1946 to 1976. This was also rejected because of the lack of a mechanism by which expansion could work. (Just like Continental Drift)
It’s interesting that the subduction element in Wegener’s Continental Drift theory was also unexplained for many decades, but this is the theory that eventually received acceptance.
Also of interest is the fact that a geologist was rejected by the geological community in favour of an astronomer/meteorologist; even more so considering the close affinity of the two theories.
All of the evidence supporting Continental Drift, now developed into Plate Tectonics, also supports the theory of Earth Expansion with subduction being the only deviation.
Although information about subduction is confidently offered, very little is known about this hypothesis, relying solely on seismic data that is often confused and uncertain as we see with the Kola and KTB superdeep boreholes above.
(Note: A persistent theme in these pages is that most of the major changes and revolutions in science are originally presented by scientists from other disciplines or even people from outside of academic science itself.)
“Although never mentioned by most geologists these days, there is a plethora of evidence in favour of Earth Expansion. For example: one of the most compelling pieces of evidence is that the paleomagnetism of the continents seems to show that they have retained their relative positions over geological time-scales and had common polar wandering paths. In other words they are in the same relative position today as they were in the most remote geological times, something that is impossible if subduction occurs.” 16 Stewart, AD, “The Expanding Earth” Nature
Wiki: “…Then during the early 1960s (Sir Edward “Teddy” Crisp Bullard FRS) (He was not a geophysicist) and his associates used a computer to try to fit all of the continents together. Instead of using the shorelines, like other geophysicists had done, he used a depth of 2000 meters (6560 ft) below sea level. This depth corresponds to about halfway between the shoreline and the ocean basins and represents the true edge of the continents. By doing this he discovered a near perfect fit among the continents put together. With this discovery he helped further the idea of a supercontinent that earlier geophysicist, Alfred Wegener, had suggested calling (it) Pangaea.” 17
“The name was coined during a 1927 symposium discussing (astronomer/meteorologist) Alfred Wegener’s theory of continental drift. In his book The Origin of Continents and Oceans (Die Entstehung der Kontinente und Ozeane) first published in 1915, he postulated that all the continents had at one time formed a single supercontinent which he called the “Urkontinent”, before later breaking up and drifting to their present locations.” 18
The reader will note that the above supports the Earth Expansion every bit as much as it does Continental Drift, the Earth being smaller in the past and thereby the continents closer together.
Science Frontiers Geophysics: the sick man of science.
I just had to include this one and I hope that the late William Corliss will forgive me for copying it:
indiana.edu: “In order to be a famed geo-scientist and belong to the inclusive club of fully accepted geophysicists in their unknown thousands, one must kneel on the hassock and swear allegiance to the following tenets regardless of any scientific considerations:
* “Tenet 1. That the moment-of-inertia of the Earth has never changed.
* “Tenet 2. That the Earth contains a large central core composed of iron.
* “Tenet 3. That the continents are drifting as a result of unknown forces.
“These must be held with religious fervour, dissenters are just not to be tolerated, the devotees feeling it their right, and indeed duty, to defend the creed against all criticism by any means of chicanery and of sharp-practice within their power, however crude and improper, so long as they judge they can get away with it, but all the time representing themselves to the world as acting with judicial calm in the best interests of their science. It will be shown that all three of these tenets are wrong, and how their (naive) acceptance has hamstrung the believers from making progress in the deep waters of terrestrial science, though not of course in the worldly world of ‘modern science.’ Shades of Sir Cyril Burt. 19
So begins a long technical article by R.A. Lyttleton, author of many scientific books and papers. (He may lose his union card after this paper!) Lyttleton proceeds to demonstrate the in-correctness of the first two tenets above. Lyttleton’s reasoning is buttressed by many scientific observations and so much quantitative reasoning that it is impossible to encapsulate it all here. Suffice it to say that it all looks correct, serious, and above-board.
(Lyttleton, R.A.; “Geophysics: The Sick Man of Science,” ISCDS Newsletter, 5:3, December 1984.)
Comment. Now this is interesting. The ISCDS is the International Stop Continental Drift Society, now defunct. The Society’s Newsletter, if you don’t already know, is usually a tongue-in-cheek publication. Not so here, Lyttleton is deadly serious. Either that or the joke is lost amid all the equations in the body of his paper!” From Science Frontiers #38, MAR-APR 1985. 1985-2000 William R. Corliss 20
Petroleum, Origins and Thomas Gold
The basics of the dominant geological theory for the origin of (crude) oil (petroleum) are that it was originally derived from vast quantities of ancient fossilized organic materials, buried by sediment in ancient seas or lake bottoms. It is postulated that it then become subject to intense heat and pressure beneath layers of the earth’s crust where a change in its chemistry took place. It became the liquid and gas used for energy and as such is classified as fossil fuel.
It’s important to remember that this is only a theory and no such process has been found to occur within the modern Earth’s crust. This gives rise to the notion that the oil reserves are finite which, in turn, leads to conclusions of future oil depletion, shortage and expensive fuel costs. 21 This of course is not science but unashamed support for the financial status quo.
Abiogenic petroleum origin Thomas Gold
Wiki: “Thomas Gold (May 22, 1920 – June 22, 2004) was an Austrian-born astrophysicist, a professor of astronomy at Cornell University, a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and a Fellow of the Royal Society (London). Gold was one of three young Cambridge scientists who in the 1950s proposed the now mostly abandoned ‘steady state’ hypothesis of the universe. Gold’s work crossed academic and scientific boundaries, into biophysics, astronomy, aerospace engineering, and geophysics.” 22
All of his non-standard work including that on oil origin has been rejected and completely ignored by the mainstream. As we will see below, his ideas were vindicated but that made no impact on geology. Even today, new ideas about about petroleum origins are vigorously opposed.
Wiki:”Supporters of the abiogenic hypothesis suggest that a great deal more petroleum exists on Earth than commonly thought, and that petroleum may originate from carbon-bearing fluids that migrate upward from the mantle.” 23
rumormillnews.com: “Gold maintains that these deposits are not fossil fuels in the normal sense, but the products of primordial hydrocarbons dating from the time of the Earth’s formation. He claims that over the aeons the volatile gases migrate towards the surface through cracks in the crust, and either leak into the atmosphere as methane, become trapped in sub-surface gas fields, or are robbed of their hydrogen to become oil, tar or carbonaceous material like coal. In other words, these substances are formed from the bottom up, rather than the top down. It follows that there must be reserves of fuel vastly in excess of the quantities that the gas and petroleum industry estimates.
When Gold proposed this theory in the early 1980s, few scientists took him seriously. However, he did persuade the Swedish State Power Board to drill into a slab of granite fractured by an ancient meteor impact. Since oil is supposed to be found only in sedimentary rocks, it was a good test of Gold’s theory. If gas is coming up from deep in the Earth, it might be expected to accumulate beneath the dense granite cap, and migrate slowly up through any fissures, perhaps turning into oil or tar. In the event, the prospectors did strike oil – about 12 tons of it. This was not enough to make the well commercially successful, but it did confirm that Gold was on to something.
It was not the Swedish oil that proved the most significant discovery though. Mixed in with the sludge at the bottom of the well, at a depth of over 6 km, was a large quantity of magnetite – a reduced form of iron oxide often associated with bacterial activity. After further investigation, Gold announced to the world that life exists not only on the surface of our planet but, in microbial form, deep inside the crust too.
The claim that the biosphere extends far underground was, if anything, even more heretical than the theory of upwelling hydrocarbons. At the time it was greeted with widespread scepticism. But I, for one, immediately found the basic idea plausible. As it happened, within a few years other researchers also obtained evidence for deep-living microbes, not only beneath the land, but also under the sea bed. Soon, microbes were being extracted from deep bore holes and cultured in the laboratory. Today there is no doubt that the underworld teems with life, as Gold asserted all along, although the precise extent of this subterranean realm remains uncertain.” 24
The bottom line is that the source of oil (and coal) is a mystery created by the bad science of geology.
Geology and Education.
Wiki: “Geology is the science comprising the study of solid Earth, the rocks of which it is composed, and the processes by which it evolves. Geology gives insight into the history of the Earth, as it provides the primary evidence for plate tectonics, the evolutionary history of life, and past climates. In modern times, geology is commercially important for mineral and hydrocarbon exploration and for evaluating water resources; it is publicly important for the prediction and understanding of natural hazards, the remediation of environmental problems, and for providing insights into past climate change; plays a role in geotechnical engineering; and is a major academic discipline.” 25
Geology is theorising like its big brother physics.
As we have seen, the discipline is based on outdated theory and refuses to evolve even with the benefit of direct experiment and experience.
The history of the Earth is based on a manufactured age that is convenient to geology and other branches of science and as we have also seen in another chapter, rocks are impossible to date.
The evidence for Earth’s internal structure and plate tectonics are based on seismic data that is probably wrong, as is the evaluation of mineral resources like oil and coal.
The prediction of natural hazards, presumably referring in part to earthquakes, leaves much to be desired.
The lecturer closes his notes and the student achieves his qualification, elated, having become a scientist in a discipline that achieves very little.
Such is our science and education in which thinking for yourself is taboo.
6 (Page 19) The KTB Borehole – Germany’s Superdeep Telescope
into the Earth’s Crust
Immanuel Velikovsky: Pole Shift video
16 Reference: Stewart, AD, “The Expanding Earth” Nature, 289;627,
1981. Source William Corliss.