Oil Doesn't Come From Dead Dinosaurs

[DwayneD.L.Rabon]

Ok well, carbon or on titan would be reactive, meaning capable of making hydrocarbons,(chemicaly negative) having extra charge, emitting themal energy, and capable of forming compexed chemicals.
So volcanic plumes/ spouts of hydrocarbons on titan as mention would be a correct assement/ likly correct observation.

However those carbon deposits would not be native to Titan. To those that study Titain that would be interesting information because carbon that has a subterrrainian depth means that the skim of the crust has many other componets that must be non-native or means that Titain has a active geological surface that has allowed the coverage of carbon or hydrocarbon deposits.

DwayneD.L.Rabon

 

[OilIsMastery]

Many organic chemistry textbooks talk about it (although many of the basic ones discuss specific cases.

Specific references?

Solomons Organic Chemistry, Fifth Edition. T W Graham Solomons. Page 798.

A link is a link to an internet website. A citation is not a link...

Falsehood. It was you that stated (or implied) that Oxidation prevented the formation of methane in the crust.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1962076&postcount=168

ROFLMAO. You take the cake. You're the one who cited Glasby. Glasby said it he didn't imply it. Why would I imply the opposite of what I believe? Yeah I'm a fossil fuel theorist...

 

[Trippy]

How did they form? Were they generated by decaying aliens?

Strawman fallacy - no one has claimed this, nor is it implicit anyt any claims, it has already been explained to you multiple times that different mechanisms prevail in different regimes.

Or are you going to tell us that the interior of 10 Hygiea is at temperatures of over 150°C and pressures of over 30kpa?

No one is talking about conditions on earth being different from conditions in outer space. That is not the topic of this conversation.

Falsehood - in considering the origin of the hydrocarbons in each system, one must consider the differences in conditions, for reasons that I have already alluded to.

In what way are the mechanisms of formation different? In what way are hydrocarbons on earth different from extraterrestrial hydrocarbons?

Strawman fallacy.

Different conditions neccessitate the consideration of different mechanisms - there is no UV light in the mantle, 10 Hygeia is not sufficiently large to reach the temperatures and pressures required by your own paper.

The hydrocarbons are the same chemical, however the precise mechanisms and pathways of formation are substantially different in substantially different conditions.

 

[OilIsMastery]

First and foremost is the fact that the mantle is too oxidizing for methane to form there in abundance.

:crazy:

 

[Trippy]

A link is a link to an internet website. A citation is not a link...

The internet is not the only source of information. I provided a relevant and useful citation. If you don't like it, or want further information DYOR.

I'm not talking groundbreaking or new science. I'm talking chemistry that is well characterized, and an extension of a process of oxidation (starting with a primary alcohol).

ROFLMAO. You take the cake. You're the one who cited Glasby. Glasby said it he didn't imply it. Why would I imply the opposite of what I believe? Yeah I'm a fossil fuel theorist...

Strawman fallacy.

I did not deny citing Glasby.
I cited Glasby because he presented a balanced discussion.
You did not imply anything, you explicitly stated that the earths crust is so oxidizing that methane has a half life of 7 years.
You have explicitly stated on multiple occasions that you believe the earth is too oxidizing to form hydrocarbons, and this is why abiogenesis must be a fact.

You have contradicted yourself.

 

[OilIsMastery]

Or are you going to tell us that the interior of 10 Hygiea is at temperatures of over 150°C and pressures of over 30kpa?

At one point it must've been.

there is no UV light in the mantle

Irrelevant.

10 Hygeia is not sufficiently large to reach the temperatures and pressures required by your own paper.

At one point it must've been. It's a fragment of a larger body.

The hydrocarbons are the same chemical, however the precise mechanisms and pathways of formation are substantially different in substantially different conditions.

And you have evidence of that?

 

[OilIsMastery]

You have explicitly stated on multiple occasions that you believe the earth is too oxidizing to form hydrocarbons, and this is why abiogenesis must be a fact.

You have contradicted yourself.

ROFLMAO. You are a master of the strawman fallacy. I never once claimed that. Ever. This whole time I've been saying how idiotic it is for you and Glasby to believe that. You are a liar.

First and foremost is the fact that the mantle is too oxidizing for methane to form there in abundance.

:crazy:

 

[Trippy]

:crazy:

Falsehood.
Implied ad hominem fallacy.

You've quote me out of context (yet again).
The post in question: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1959625&postcount=56

I was quoting Glasby, not commenting on the validity of his statement, and demonstrating how your own source contradicted you.

 

[OilIsMastery]

You've quote me out of context (yet again).

All you do is quote me out of context.

I was quoting Glasby

As I have told you a million times, only an idiot thinks oxidation prevents hydrocarbon generation.

 

[Trippy]

At one point it must've been.

Unjustified assumption.

Irrelevant.

Completely relevant as it represents (one of) the mechanism(s) for the production of hydrocrabons on Titan.

At one point it must've been. It's a fragment of a larger body.

Unjustified assumption.

And you have evidence of that?

Sure, simple thermodynamics - a reaction that requires temperatures of >150°C, and pressures >30kpa will be viable on the surface of pluto.

 

[OilIsMastery]

Unjustified assumption.

It's not an assumption it's a conclusion.

Completely relevant as it represents (one of) the mechanism(s) for the production of hydrocrabons on Titan.

The mantle and volcanoes are the only mechanism for hydrocarbon production on Titan. UV light does not generate hydrocarbons. It melts them...

Unjustified assumption.

A conclusion is not an assumption.

 

[Trippy]

ROFLMAO. You are a master of the strawman fallacy. I never once claimed that. Ever. This whole time I've been saying how idiotic it is for you and Glasby to believe that. You are a liar.

:crazy:

And yet here you are, saying exactly that:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1962076&postcount=168

Only a retard thinks that oxidation doesn't take place in the earth's crust. Methane has a 7 year halflife (hardly a "fossil" fuel).

Are you denying that this is your post?

 

[OilIsMastery]

Are you denying that this is your post?

Nope. I take it you disagree with that statement?

 

[Trippy]

All you do is quote me out of context.

Falsehood. I have not once quoted you out of context.
I have not once (deliberately) left contextual information out of my quotes of your post,

As I have told you a million times, only an idiot thinks oxidation prevents hydrocarbon generation.

And yet you have argued precisely this as being one of the reasons that biogenesis of hydrocarbons must be false.

 

[Trippy]

Nope. I take it you disagree with that statement?

Whether I agree or disagree is irrelevant.

I've already stated that one of your own sources states that at least one big oil field occurs in a part of the earths crust that is less oxidized then is normally found.

 

[DwayneD.L.Rabon]

Here is a picture of the thought assumed hydrocarbons on titan.

Lakes of hydrocarbons on Titan


Dwayne D.L.Rabon

 

[Trippy]

It's not an assumption it's a conclusion.
A conclusion is not an assumption.

A conclusion based on the assumption that all hydrocarbons must be made by carbonates at high temperatures and pressures. An assumption that contradicts observational evidence.

The mantle and volcanoes are the only mechanism for hydrocarbon production on Titan. UV light does not generate hydrocarbons. It melts them...

Falsehood.

http://www.astrobio.net/news/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2829

Ethane is a simple hydrocarbon produced when ultraviolet light from the sun breaks up its parent molecule, methane, in Titan's methane-rich, mostly nitrogen atmosphere.

 

[OilIsMastery]

And yet you have argued precisely this as being one of the reasons that biogenesis of hydrocarbons must be false.

I never argued that. What I said is that if oxidation prevents the formation of methane as claimed by you and Glasby, that biogenic formation in the crust would be impossible, which is correct.

 

[OilIsMastery]

A conclusion based on the assumption that all hydrocarbons must be made by carbonates at high temperatures and pressures.

A conclusion is not an assumption.

 

[OilIsMastery]

“ Ethane is a simple hydrocarbon produced when ultraviolet light from the sun breaks up its parent molecule, methane, in Titan's methane-rich, mostly nitrogen atmosphere.

Hilarious. Methane (CH4) can't break apart into ethane (CH3CH3) since ethane is more complex. It's chemically impossible. I suggest you go take a high school chemistry class.