I had a chance to chat about EE recently with a senior scientist with one of the world’s major oil companies. He is a Cal Tech physicist now working in the field of petroleum geology.

He informed me that all the majors have numerous models of the Earth at “all� times past – although this was later clarified to mean only the period of interest for petroleum exploration---a “few hundred million years�. He immediately mentioned Pangaea, and I responded by pointing out that the continents fit together best on a smaller globe, eliminating by stages the newer ocean floor of both the Atlantic and Pacific.

At this point, he got sort of vague. He dropped the Pangaea discussion, and said “sure, you can fit it together in different ways, but we’re only interested in what will help us find oil.� Then he went on to discuss the features they are looking for to identify petroleum deposits. I am not certain, not being a geologist, but I believe these could all be characterized as micro features as opposed to the macro question of EE vs. Pangaea.

There was also an MIT physics student present, and I briefly engaged both of them in discussion as to whether they were aware of any actual observed cases of energy conversion to matter. The MIT undergrad was quick to point out that when chemical bonding takes place, there appears to be a very slight increase in mass associated with the bonding energy. But---none of us (including me) was willing to suggest that this mechanism, or any other known mechanism, could account for the increase of mass that would apparently be required for an expanding earth. It’s that pesky e=mc2 thing. (Yes…I know there are some theories on this board, but none that I have bought into yet … Sorry. I’m still working on it though, as the macro-evidence of EE is seemingly irrefutable and I realize there must be a mechanism.)

Turning back to the EE question, the oil company scientist seemed to skirt the issue again and again. He seemed relieved when I afforded him the graceful exit of admitting that there is no accepted mechanism for the accretion of mass that would seem to be involved. “We’re not here to do basic science,� was his refrain. That’s for academics. I said, “Sure, I admit that I have one great advantage by not working in the field, that of being able to have whatever fun I want with my ideas. It’s like psychology, where an amateur psychologist (such as myself) can engage in all kinds of remote interpretation, diagnosis and even public discussion without being encumbered by professional ethics.�

He laughed at this and said, “That’s a very good analogy.�