Methane Myopia: 7 – Miles Mathis

Methane Myopia - Miles Mathis

A critique of mainstream theory by Miles Mathis is always a joy a read and his latest offering is a scorcher: The Great Methane Stink.

Reading Miles Mathis’s magnificent mauling of mainstream mythology is a wonder to behold and underlines just why the mainstream has developed methane myopia.

To start this paper, we will look at a webpage on Methane created by a United Kingdom textbook author from Cambridge.

I don’t mean to pick on him; I link to him only for convenience sake.

He is no worse than anyone else, and is only teaching mainstream theory.

I usually start at Wikipedia in my analysis of mainstream theory, since so many people go there to get basic questions answered; but Wiki has nothing for us on this topic.

So to help my readers start at ground level, I searched on “why is Methane diagrammed as a tetrahedron?”

That might be the first question one would ask, supposing one were not prone to accept uncritically everything one were told.

Jim Clark’s site is the first site that comes up on that question, and I found it to be pretty transparent.

Clark admits very quickly that there is “a mismatch” between data and theory regarding Methane.

If we try to create the bonds using electron orbital theory, we find Carbon only has two unpaired electrons. Clark tells us,

The only electrons directly available for sharing are the 2p electrons.
Why then isn’t methane CH2?

That’s a great question.

But an even better one is already buried: how can sharing electrons create a bond?

Is the bond supposed to be created by overlapping paths, and if so, how?

Or is the bond created by overlapping probabilities?

How, exactly, does superimposed math create a physical bond?

Further, how can elements share electrons?

Further, why would elements that aren’t ionized wish to share electrons?

Aren’t they already stable?

Why and how would an element become unstable in order to create a bond that re-created stability?

Isn’t that illogical?

The mainstream doesn’t answer any of those questions, it simply dodges them.

The Great Methane Stink – Miles Mathis – November 2013
http://milesmathis.com/meth.pdf

The great strength in Miles Mathis’s work is his strong emphasis upon mechanics which effectively sweeps away the mainstream mythology [bogus dross] before he provides a robust mechanical model.

Within the context of the Malaga Bay postings the Miles Mathis paper provides many insights but none more startling than the concept that methane “isn’t created up from Carbon, it is created down from Carbon Dioxide”.

In the biological domain this confirms the established formula that methanogens are transforming CO2 into methane and water [see the formula in the header graphic].

However, this observation leads directly to another question.

Where do the methanogen get the necessary eight free atoms of hydrogen from?

This question is particular pertinent for methanogens living in the hot, deep biosphere [as per Thomas Gold] or the cold deep cryosphere [as per Greenland’s ice cores].

Within the ice cores the methanogens have a plentiful supply of water [H2O] from which they could liberate the necessary hydrogen: 4H2O -> 8H + 2O2.

This suggests the methanogens [in ice cores] reduce CO2 levels while increasing the levels of CH4 and O2.

This, off course, completely scuppers the “settled science” of extracting “climate data” and “atmospheric gas levels” from ice cores.

Within the hot, deep biosphere there is the possibility that methanogens metabolise water to liberate the necessary free hydrogen atoms.

However, this additional effort might be mitigated if there was a plentiful supply of hydrogen outgassing from within the Earth.

The possibility of planetary outgassing becomes increasing likely when the phenomenon of volcanic lightning is considered in association with the third input into the methane equation is: eight free electrons.

The presence of free electrons within the material expelled by volcanoes would provide the charge necessary to trigger volcanic lightning.

Personally, planetary outgassing seems more far credible than the mainstream alternative.

A study in the journal Science indicated that electrical charges are generated when rock fragments, ash, and ice particles in a volcanic plume collide and produce static charges, just as ice particles collide in regular thunderstorms.

Volcanic lightning above an eruption of Mount Rinjani.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_lightning

Advertisements
Gallery | This entry was posted in Astrophysics, Earth, Inflating Earth, Science, Solar System. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Methane Myopia: 7 – Miles Mathis

  1. Pingback: Methane Myopia: 6 – Space Science | MalagaBay

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s