Why "Fossil Fuels" are not Fossil Fuels

Hydrocarbon Carbohydrate

The claim that petroleum originates with biological materials seems strange, because biology

is too dynamic for such one-way diversions. The real proof that petroleum is not biological in

its origins is in the chemistry.

Petroleum is called hydrocarbon because of hydrogen attached to carbon. Hydrogen-carbon

bonds are very high in energy. Biological material has oxygen with it, called carbohydrate,

which has less chemical energy.

There is no way to increase chemical energy other than radiation. (ATP and similar reactions

do not increase energy; they transfers energy with some loss.) Heat and pressure will not

increase chemical energy, because they act upon nuclei, while chemical energy is in electrons

which spin around nuclei. There is nothing that can be done to nuclei which will increase the

relative motion of electrons which spin around them short of a nuclear reaction. (All chemical
reactions go down-hill energetically with some energy loss as heat. There is not a one which

does not lose energy apart from photochemical reactions.)

It means so-called fossil fuels did not originate with biological materials, because they were

not exposed to light in a way which would increase the chemical energy from carbohydrates

to hydrocarbons.

There could be an energy neutral shift through oxidation of some molecules and reduction of

carbon. But the oxidized molecules do not exist with fossil fuels. You say they evaporated.

They didn't. Some alcohols would not be highly volatile, and the volatile hydrocarbons, such

as methane and benzene did not evaporate away.

Also significant is the degree of hydrogenation. Chemical reactions would not have left so

much hydrogen on the carbon and no other oddities than hydrogenated carbon. The

aromatics in liquid petroleum are interesting but too homogeneous to explain major

chemical reactions.
Some crude oil is high in sulfur, while biological materials are extremely low in sulfur. None

of the hydrocarbons have significant nitrogen, while all biological materials are high in

nitrogen. The mineral proportionalities would have to be similar regardless of volatility of

other components.

How can physicists know what they are doing in more complex areas and not know what

chemical energy is? Quantum mechanics is a study of electrons which spin around nuclei.

In fact, physicists have quantum mechanics wrong also. What they mean by quantum is that

radiation exists as particles as well as waves. They admit that the two concepts contradict

each other but continue down that path anyway.

The reason for assuming radiation is like a particle is that it imparts energy to orbiting

electrons in large leaps. Electrons which orbit nuclei will only increase their energy in stages,

as they jump from one "orbital" to another. The radiation which imparts energy to orbiting

electrons has to be just the right wavelength. The assumption is that the reason why the

wavelength has to be just right is because there are different amounts of energy in each

wavelength, and a particle of energy seems to be required.

That isn't what happens. Particles have length, width and height; energy does not. The
reason why the wavelength has to be just right is because a wave must bump the electron on

one side of its orbit only. If both sides are bumped, one effect will neutralize the other. When

the wavelength is just right, an electron can be bumped repeatedly, until it acquires enough
energy to jump to a higher orbit. With repeated bumps, a wave does not have to have the

same energy within it as the electron acquires.

How can physicists be so wrong with quantum mechanics and be such wizards on subjects
such as relativity? Relativity is nonfalsifiable, because it is totally contrived. It is only the

obscurity which makes it unquestionable fact.

Physicists do something similar in the study of ATP. Several rotating proteins have been

found in the mechanism for energizing the chemical energy carrier, ATP, through respiration.

Biophysicists said that "binding force" and motion transfer energy from the rotating proteins

to the ATP precursor. They assume chemical energy is derived from the kinetic energy of

force and motion. Kinetic energy cannot be transformed into chemical energy; only radiant

energy can.

Where Hydrocarbons Came From

In the formation of Earth, carbon would have come into contact with hydrogen before

oxygen resulting in carbon forming hydrocarbons. The more volatile hydrocarbons were

oxidized to form water creating the oceans and carbon dioxide creating chalk. There is no

other explanation for the origins of the oceans. Comets are too rare to explain the oceans.
Some gaseous oxygen probably came into contact with the hydrocarbons early on resulting

in water forming early on, but there would have been perchlorates which provided oxygen
later. Perchlorates would have produced oxygen somewhat gradually. The oxygen would

have run out before the heavier hydrocarbons were oxidized.

The oceans are only 3% salt, which might indicate that only 3% of the water came from
perchlorates. However, there are salt deposits with large amounts of salt, which could also

have been derived from perchlorate. It means a large part of the water in the oceans could

have originated with oxygen derived from perchlorates, which would have been a more

gradual process than gaseous oxygen reacting with hydrocarbons.

Jupiter's largest moon, called Titan, has huge lakes of hydrocarbons, much more than on

planet earth. There has never been significant or noticeable biology on Titan. It shows that

hydrocarbons were formed without biological materials.