Monday, February 9, 2015

Natural fractal lake, Arethusa Pool, the worlds only?

Is Arethusa Pool (New Zealand) and its island's the worlds only natural fractal lake?

I was there with my family in January: it was a wonderful day, and very exciting for me - mathematically speaking.

Arethusa Pool (and its island) is on Mou Waho Island, which is on Lake Wanaka, which is on the South Island of New Zealand, which is in the South Pacific Ocean.

Water (the South Pacific Ocean), land (South Island New Zealand), water (lake Wanaka), land (Mou Waho Island) , water (Arethusa Pool), land (islands on Arethusa Pool); water in a puddle after rain (or when I filled it), land as small as a square centimeter inside the puddle, .....water??



 
Arethusa Pool, and Lake Wanaka New Zealand 2015.





 


Saturday, November 22, 2014

Observed Galaxy Distribution Transition with Increasing Redshift a Property of the Fractal



I just published my third paper. This one is in response to this discovery:





I have found the universe is a standard, common garden variety fractal. It looks like a fractal – it is agreed by cosmologists to show fractal structure up to around 1 billion light years out, and thereafter is smooth, just as the clip shows, saving General Relativity (apparently) – and acts like a fractal – it has a beginning, and expands exponentially – it is a fractal. All fractals show a Hubble’s Law( increasing recessional velocity with distance from an observer) – and a cosmic microwave background –this is the trunk of your garden(fractal) tree. 

My presentation.




Full article at academia.edu


Abstract
Is the universe a fractal? This is one of the great – though not often talked about –questions in cosmology. In my publication I modelled the inverted (Koch snowflake) fractal and demonstrated Hubble’s Law, accelerating expansion, and a singularity beginning. Surveys of the universe – the most recent and largest, the 2012 WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey – show, galaxy distribution on small scales to be fractal, while on large-scales, homogeneity holds. There appears to be new anomaly to explain: a galaxy distribution transition from rough to smooth with cosmic distance. From my model I derived a Fractal-Hubble diagram. On this diagram, measurement points along the curve are clustered near the origin. This clustering was not addressed in discussions or part of the conclusion of my earlier experiment. Can this clustering of points account for the observed galaxy distribution transition? Could this transition be another property of fractals, and therefore could the universe – itself – be fractal? It was found, yes they do. Clustering of measurement points (and of galaxies) is as a result of observation position in the fractal. On small scales – relative to large scales – the cosmic surveys are what one would expect to see if one were viewing from within an iterating – growing – fractal. If trees – natural fractals that have also been found to grow at accelerating rates – are used to demonstrate this fractal: the large-scale smoothness maybe akin to a tree’s trunk; and the rough (fractal) on small-scales, to its branches. This discovery unifies the anomalies associated with the standard cosmological model. Together they are – through the mechanics of the fractal – inextricably linked.

Keywords: Fractal Cosmology, WiggleZ, Hubble’s Law, General Relativity, Galaxy Distribution, Cosmological Principle
 

Sunday, May 25, 2014

Who Shot Vincent Nigel Murray?


Who shot my favourite squint Vincent  Nigel-Murray: it can't have been who we think it was, Jacob Broadsky.
The scene at 2:10 minutes is impossible: glass is opaque to infrared heat radiation, It is impossible for an Infrared camera to see through glass.

Any squint would know that.







Verify my claim yourself: watch this clip -


Thursday, March 13, 2014

Malaysia Air MH370 theory suicide by volcano plunge



 I have a theory with some evidence on the disappearance of MH370 that I think should ruled out. 

There is one place on the ping ring map where an aircraft could be made to disappear, and this is if it were flown into an active volcano. 

I have deep interests in geology and (as an economist) game theory.

I believe the reason MH370 has not been found, or any wreckage of it, is because the pilot has put it in a place where it will not be found. He knows the black boxes will survive any crash and will tell the truth: this would shame him (his good record) and his family.  

The only way to erase all information of the terrible crime is to bury the aircraft. The only way to do this is to crash it into a volcano. 

Before you think this is too crazy for words. There is a massive volcano on the last ping ring: within his endurance, and has been erupting since and around (maybe just before) the 8th of March 2014 from being quiet for some time. It is the massive 3400m Mt Slamet on Java



http://www.thehuntformh370.info/blogs/kstaubin (I do not support this mans theory, but I totally agree with his proposed MH370 track).

On the morning of the disappearance the mountain (from what I understand) may have been out of bounds to hikers because of small eruptions days before. The mountain had been quiet for years before this. Did he know the mountain was awakening: if so, he'd know no one was on the mountain to see him come in. Did he have an interest in geology. All pilots in that area will know the great volcanos, they are a land mark and a hazard: he may have received a CAAS of NOTAM signalling the eruption. If he missed the summit, a crashed aircraft will mix with the eruption plumes. Slamet has been active for the last year. 

Put another way: on the last ping ring, where is the only place an aircraft could disappear without any trace? A volcano.

It is plausible that he has evaded radar again (as he did earlier in the flight) and rather than gone south, has gone east, and then north as shown below (this is not my image.



 
Check:
  1.  the weather around the mountain on the morning - if it were cloudy, no one would see anything
  2. the detailed hourly seismic records of Mt Slamet (maybe  another on the Java??)  
  3. Radar records south of Java
  4. Anyone in the crew with interest in geology. Are there any searches from the crews computers - on the said volcanos? 
I have contacted and informed both the ATSB who advised me to also inform Malaysian Investigators with my theory.


Update March 10th 2015

I have found a seismic record for Mt. Slamet for 2014 (below). It shows an anomaly VB and VA (shallow and deep earthquakes on volcano respectively) on and around the 8th of March 2014. Was this triggered by and aircraft impact? Slamet has been erupting on and off for a year. 






Waspada = alert
Siaga = standby ??
Letusan = eruption
Hembusan = Blast
VA = shallow earthquake (GNS NZ expert told me 0 to 10 must be a Count of quakes rather than Richter scale)
VB = deeper quake

On radar: I think they (he) could have got through radar. They don't pick up everything, and he must have got past Cocos and Christmas Islands also.



Update March 8th 2015


After 12 months of no sign of MH370 – not even a piece of flotsam – I still think my volcano (Mt Slamet plunge) theory (I came to just days after the loss) is still plausible. I’ve tried to share it with the authorities, but well, it’s too crazy for words - isn’t it? The more I look at it, the more evidence points to it. Have you seen the ‘ping rings’? He could have flown my route, and the last ping ring is near the volcano. Mount Slamet (just left of central Java) was erupting on the day (and days before) no one was on the mountain. It was early Sunday morning when it would have gone in; all attention was in the South China Sea at the time – looking for it up there – so maybe they just missed it on radar near Java.


Put yourself in his seat – assuming it’s the captain (he’s the most likely suspect) – where do you put this aircraft down so no one can ever know what you’ve done? Your nice guy, spotless 12,000hr record is over. How do you do this so there’s no shame on you, or your family. Black-boxes survive a lot! Plunges into land, and certainly plunges into water. But not plunges into the Earth. Gone, forever. Every time I’ve flown that route over Indonesia (many times now), the geologist in me comes out: I have my head out the window (when it’s clear) looking at those massive volcanos on Java. Awesome massifs.

Original entry:
March 2014

I’ve been thinking a lot about the disappearance of flight MH370 as I guess we all have, where’s it gone?!
Being a bit of an ‘air crash investigation’ buff, here’s my theory for what it’s worth.
If it’s a suicide plunge, then there’s no evidence of any wreckage to date - nowhere.
I think they have plunged it alright, not into the sea or land, but into a place where it will never be found: they’ve plunged it into a molten volcanic crater - that way there will be no record of t...heir actions.
So tonight I did a Google Earth search of the nearby volcanoes to where MH370 was last recorded/ lost contact: there are plenty of them to the south and south-east, but the largest and most obvious is Mount Slamet on Java, around 1.5 to 2 hrs. flight time.
Turns out Mt Slamet has had (small) eruptions since the 8th (same day) and is now closed off to the public. In the dead of night they’ve flown down over the sea with transponders off. Mt. Slamet’s summit crater is said to be spectacular, and glows in the night.
 
I would sure like to see seismic records of Mount Slamet, (or others nearby), 1 to 3 hour after loss of contact.
Just a thought.


Update:
December 2014
For my theory to be true, MH370 would have to have missed military radar off the coast of Java, unlikely.


Update 18/03/2014
Given that the aircraft has still not been found, and no one has checked out my idea, I am now concerned and would like to draw attention to the officials. My theory is plausible given all the knowledge we have so we have to at least rule out rule it out.  Mount Slamet (or others on the chain) is within the search range, and it did erupt on the 8th. 
Please check the seismic records and recent history of the volcano.
I am only thinking of the families. 

Blair Macdonald

Thursday, February 13, 2014

Tree growth acceleration explanation fractal

Update 2014 10 01
I have published at academia.edu
Fractal Geometry a Possible Explanation to the Accelerating Growth Rate of Trees

Original entry:
".. most species mass growth rate increases continuously with tree size." : Nature.com

A recent podcast interview on Radio New Zealand 'Nights' (see below) between host Bryan Crump and Ecologist Professor Mark Harmon on the topic of trees growth rate accelerating caught my attention. At the moment I am writing a publication on expansion and the fractal (fractspansion) and I have used trees as an analogy and example in my paper to explain what I believe to be the dark energy in the accelerating expansion of the observable universe.
Even if I could not find proof of my finding that trees growth also accelerated, I stuck with trees, and now I hear this – wow, supporting evidence! It is no coincidence that both trees and the universe expand exponentially - all things fractal do. I just have to prove the universe is a fractal. Of course I can't do that, but I can list all the properties of the fractal - exponential growth as one - and we then be able to infer that the universe is fractal. 

This clip shows the expansion of a (tree) fractal. Note: there is no reference to time - only iteration time; and  no reference to scale of the tree. For new growth branches to be added, the original stem (the truck) must expand. This expansion is exponential.   


For an explanation for why trees grow exponentially we have to look at the mechanics of the fractal as fractals grow exponentially - it is a property of fractals. Trees are a classic fractal, and now we know they too grow exponentially. For a fractal – or a tree – to grow, it must iterate, and with iteration all segments of the fractal must grow – exponentially. The seasonal growth rings of a tree maybe a red hearing: they are a (regular) time keeper, but not an explanation to acceleration.
To have a new growth segment implies an accelerating base growth. Again, fractal growth is separate from annual growth.

The question is: how many iterations do the old trees have? Does the iteration count increase with age?

All will be revealed in my paper, which I expect to submit very soon.

References:
http://www.nature.com/news/tree-growth-never-slows-1.14536
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12914.html

Update: 2014 05 14
I am in the process of publishing, very happy with my paper, looking forward to peer Review.

Friday, December 27, 2013

The Gassy Messenger: the magic of IR thermopiles

Update: 15 01 31
I am currently writing this work up in a formal way. I have more supporting references, and have found an explanation in physics under  the thermoelectric effect.  I have a spectroscopy expert distinguishing between IR active (the greenhouse gases), and IR inactive substances (the non greenhouse gases) and how thermal and thermoelectric and not the same.
Updated to include Raman 4th 1, 2014.
Reworked 2014 05 27

The Gassy Messenger.

Refuting the greenhouse effect: John Tyndall's thermopile apparatus and experiment is inadmissible in climate theory. 

Explaining the missing 98% of our 'greenhouse' atmosphere.




Introduction
Modern climate science's fundamental premise - stated by all parties in the great climate debate - is that the greenhouse gases (less than 2% of the atmosphere) are so because they absorb radiant infrared (IR) heat (as derived by IR spectroscopy), and are (to carbon-climatologists) a main climate driver, past present and future.

This premise has its origins with the John Tyndall 1859 thermopile infrared gas analysis experiment. The (remaining) non-greenhouse gases (N2 nitrogen and O2 oxygen, more that 98% of the atmosphere) are distinguished from the greenhouse gases by their (said) inability to absorb (infrared) heat - deduced or inferred from the same experiment.

All IR instruments use the same basic technology, thermopiles. Tyndall's apparatus is today cheaply and easily available and is used in infrared thermal cameras and non contact infrared thermometers. Standard practice of these instruments suggests his findings and conclusions to be false, and extrapolations thereafter an illusion.

Is Tyndall's experiment a lasting remnant of 19th century trickery surrounding electricity - electrickery?

Greenhouse proponents argue: it is the gases - due to their molecular vibrations - that are special. They either trap heat, or don't.
I argue: it is the instrument that is special,  they either register a gas - on its molecular vibrations - or they don't.
My argument is supported by the facts:
  1. The non greenhouse gases trap heat, they have a temperature;
  2. The physics: substances are either IR active, or not; or a mixture of both;
  3. Standard practice and knowledge of IR instruments.
  4. Knowledge surrounding Raman spectroscopy.

 It is well understood by practitioners of (thermopile) IR instruments that (thermopile) IR detectors do not always measure the real temperature of a substance: they discriminate on substance properties that are not at all thermal properties, and so give a wrong picture of our atmosphere. This premise has lead to a false belief in, and development of, the so called greenhouse climate theory. The cause of this transparency is to do with the symmetric vibration of some substances. 

Correcting for this discrimination, N2 nitrogen and O2 oxygen are also greenhouse gases; they have a measured real temperature, they 'trap heat',  but as they are invisible to IR detectors. IR (thermopile) instruments will, by the laws of physics, register them as having no temperature.

Tyndall has confused absorption with opacity - a property of light; and so wrongly concluded that the said greenhouse gases (inferred from the experiment) are special, when it fact it the instrument that is special.  

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

The gassy messenger: N2 and O2 are also greenhouse gases

Update Feb 2015
I am currently writing this work up in a formal way. I have more supporting references, and have found an explanation in physics under  the thermoelectric effect.  I have a spectroscopy expert distinguishing between IR active (the greenhouse gases), and IR inactive substances (the non greenhouse gases) and how thermal and thermoelectric and not the same.
 
Original entry:
Why N2 and O2 are also greenhouse gases?
Using Raman Spectroscopy to re-determine the 'greenhouse gases'.




Abstract

  Raman spectroscopy (a complement to IR spectroscopy) challenges this greenhouse gas / non greenhouse gas paradigm, and reveals that this assumption and conclusion, based on IR spectroscopy measurements, to be false or incomplete. It can be shown that N2 and O2 absorption bands are by their nature - due to their symmetric vibration - totally transparent to all IR detectors, but are not transparent to Raman detectors and show an 'absorption' band in the mid infrared. Ramon Spectroscopy shows: CO2   and the other greenhouse gases to be typical and not special as are N2 and O2 . N2 and O2 are 'greenhouse gases'. If this premise is refuted, the question is: what are the greenhouse gases, and what is the greenhouse effect?