Talk:Thomas Gold

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
 
WikiProject Physics / Biographies  (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by Biographies Taskforce.
 
WikiProject Biophysics (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biophysics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Biophysics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.



Russian theory[edit]

In the Wiki Petroleum page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum there is a discussion of the Russian theory of the origins of oil with a link to http://www.gasresources.net/ where this alternative theory is discussed with references to original articles in Russia. But this site also contains the page http://www.gasresources.net/toc_Plagiarism.htm which is a discussion about plagiarism by Professor Gold.

The Russians claim, in the page linked by Wiki's petroleum page, that Gold has plagiarized Russian work, the very work that Wiki extolls Gold for contributing

Not tectonic forces[edit]

I think it should be noted that Gold did NOT propose that the origins of hydrocarbons were "tectonic forces", as stated in the "Origins of Hydrocarbons" section of this Wiki article, but rather that they are actually primordial (cf: Gold, Thomas; "The Deep Hot Biosphere", Ch.1,2,4,6,7; 1999, Copernicus.) Common astronomical knowledge confirms that every other body in our solar system likely formed from an admixture of hydrocarbons and solids (ex: Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto, etc.), his question being, why not Earth?

Profound insights[edit]

"his profound insights" could be less POV. Whether an insight is profound depends not only on the outcome but an individual's perception. Gold also proposed the 'Steady State Universe' which was not profound and has been disproven.208.114.132.151 18:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Paper reviewers[edit]

In "Dark Life" by Michael Ray Taylor it is mentioned that Norman Pace, Carl Woese, and one other scientist had approved the PNAS "The Deep Hot Biosphere" article. Just mentioning it in case it becomes relevant to the article. (SEWilco 06:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC))

pre breakfast talk for the Red Queen[edit]

It is generally agreed that the sun is cooler than it should be; it is said to be in a cool phase of a cycle. Furthermore, while some of its energy generation is tempered by nuclear fission that resists gravetic compression, the sun is a nuclear power force. However, the reactions are of a reversable nature. Fission from hydrogen to iron releases energy (fusion of heavier elements to iron also release energy. The obvious conclusion is that the great energy concentraion in a star would cause iron to break into lighter elements and hydrogen.

So where then does iron come from: The opposite conditions. As temperatures of deep space fall toward zero Kelvin, matter becomes unstable and elements lighter than iron trend toward becoming iron. Therefore, the stars and the enveloping space are an engine which switch material, turning it to hydrogen in the star and catching iron, gathering hydrogen in space and converting it to iron. This is why the surface of the sun is hydrogen while meteors and planets are essentially iron, either almost pure or embedded with grains of iron.

That's two impossibles. The Red Queen needs three before breakfast.

The earth and other planets gathered cold as iron from outer space has similar processes within them. Under deep pressure and great heat deep within, it converts iron to hydrogen and other light elements. As gravity compacts the earth, these are forced up and out. Clearly petrocarbons are lighter than the solid earth and it makes no sense that they sink into the earth. As unreasonable as that is, the notion that pools of hydrocarbons could exist for a billion years just staggers the immagination. (Not much staggers my immagination.) But, this in any case is my third impossible: the source of natural gas, oil, coal and (for that matter) water.

BW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.163.188 (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


204.169.161.1 (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Our sun is above the 90th percentile in hot. That 10% is divided evenly between the stellar collapses that produce heavy elements and black holes. The northern solar hemisphere collapse of 2011 showed the nuclear core theory in default. A closer reading of The Deep Hot Biosphere gives information as to how graphite might form in space, what we now know happens. While I agree with T Gold's deep hot biosphere, I feel it is more accurately described through S W Carey's expanded Earth theory. An expanded Earth, after first experiencing compression, then passing out of compression into expansion, would allow the biosphere to be 'refueled' with hydrocarbons. This scenario would fit the 5,000 y myth cycle.

Deep Hot Biosphere[edit]

Removed the following as bio/abio quibbling and recent discoveries not directly related to the book, which is the section subject:

Most western geologists and petrologists consider petroleum abiogenic theories implausible[citation needed] and believe the biogenic theory of fossil fuel formation adequately explains all observed hydrocarbon deposits. Most geologists do recognize the geologic carbon cycle includes subducted carbon, which returns to the surface, with studies showing the carbon does rise in various ways. Gold and geology experts point out the biogenic theories do not explain phenomena such as helium in oil fields and oil fields associated with deep geologic features.
However, recent discoveries have shown that bacteria live at depths far greater than previously believed. Though this does not prove Gold's theory, it may lend support to its arguments.
A thermal depolymerization process which converts animal waste to carbon fuels does show some processes can be done without bacterial action, but does not explain details of natural oil deposits such as magnetite production.
An article on abiogenic hydrocarbon production in the February 2008 issue of the journal Science reported how the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons in nature may occur in the presence of ultramafic rocks, water, and moderate amounts of heat.[1]
  1. ^ Proskurowski, Giora; Lilley, Marvin D.; Seewald, Jeffery S.; Früh-Green, Gretchen L.; Olson, Eric J; Lupton, John E; Sylva, Sean P.; Kelley, Deborah S. (2008), "Abiogenic Hydrocarbon Production at Lost City Hydrothermal Field", Science 319 (5863): 604–607, doi:10.1126/science.1151194, PMID 18239121 

Vsmith (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)