Thursday, March 13, 2014

Malaysia Air MH370 theory suicide by volcano plunge

It's looking like they have the Aircraft on the ocean floor.
Update 05/04/2014
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
New Zealander

Mount Slamet. TEMPO/Aris Andrianto

Original entry:
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.

Thursday, February 13, 2014

Tree growth acceleration explanation fractal

".. most species mass growth rate increases continuously with tree size." :

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?

Friday, December 27, 2013

The Gassy Messenger: the magic of IR thermopiles

Updated to include Raman 4th 1, 2014.

The Gassy Messenger.

IR detectors - like all instruments in wrong hands - are deceptive and discriminate from the reality.


Modern climate science's fundamental premise - by all parties in the great climate debate - is that the greenhouse gases (around 2% of the atmosphere) are special because they absorb radiant infrared (IR) heat (as derived by IR spectroscopy), and because of this are (to some proponents) a main climate driver because of this special property. 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) are distinguished from the greenhouse gases by their  inferred inability to absorb (infrared) heat - deduced from the same experiment. Modern practical application of Tyndall's apparatus, the thermopile in the form of thermal cameras and the like, suggest he (and many scientists today) confused absorption with opacity - a property of light and so wrongly conclude that the said (inferred from the experiment) greenhouse gases are special, when it is in fact, the instrument that is special.  N2 nitrogen and O2 oxygen are also greenhouse gases, it is just that they are invisible to IR detectors. IR detectors (wrongly) associate IR opacity with heat. IR detectors discriminate on substance properties that are not at all thermal properties, and so give a wrong, and nonsense picture of our atmosphere - leading to a false belief in, and development of, the so called greenhouse climate theory. A whole culture of knowledge and policy is rests upon this one premise: it is arguably the most controversial issue in science ever.  

Tuesday, October 8, 2013

The 'Dark' Climate and its 'Dark' Gases

There is a climate paradox: modern greenhouse climate theory states or infers 98% of gases (nitrogen and oxygen) have no thermal role in the atmosphere. All thermal activity is due to the 2% greenhouse gases.  This paradox I have termed the Dark Climate, or the Dark Gases.

I have continued this entry at:
See you there.

Saturday, July 6, 2013

The Denomination Standard: regularity in money through time and place

The Denomination Standard (as opposed to the 'gold standard'): regularity in currency through time and place.

A unit of gold is said to (give and take a little) buy the same good through time - hence the gold standard. My hypothesis is: does the denomination 'size' of fiat money (currency) buy the same goods (opposed to the nominal size which will differ from time to time, place to place). How many of the lowest paper notes does it take to buy 'x' good - my case a big mac. I have found that in the developed world it costs generally around 2 of the lowest denomination notes for a McDonald's Big Mac (2012). Of course the amount grows the less developed the country - Sri Lanka 29. I conclude there maybe a 'standard note' (thank you to my student Paul) that will stand like a 'standing wave' over time and place; nominal prices will flow (rise) through it. Difficult to find a standard good, and there are lag times of course as note stay in circulation for some time in stable economies.

Friday, May 17, 2013


A momentous morning for me.  As Copernicus and Galileo as my inspirers, and after (this morning) uncovering and clearing some critical details, I’m now not afraid any more – to speak, to show. Last month I published on my blog two entries I had been working on for last 5 years:  one on the fractal record of CO2, and the other on the fractal profile of CO2 (still in progress).
(  and ).
This morning I published a complementary ‘wiki website ( to these entries that will show and democratise ‘the where(?)’ (the examples of a phenomena – at all scales) (or not!). Where does a phenomena do as it is ‘said’ to do? Orbiting bodies and a sun centred ‘universe’ is a good case: before the telescope and evidence, a world of dogma; and after, a world of ‘science’. With the Hubble and (broken) Kepler telescopes we are now seeing orbiting bodies wherever we look.
Wikifractal will reveal ‘the said’ CO2 properties (heat trapping) and the instances of a heat relationship – do not repeat, anywhere; that the experiments and demonstrations used to prove CO2 is a heat trapping gas are wrong, and make up what is (using the words of Richard Dawkins) the greatest magic show on Earth and of all time. aims to reveal the (true) shape – or fractal structure – of knowledge claims.
It is an instrument: 
as a compass is to navigation, a tuning-fork to a musician – it is a truth detector.

Where deals with the what? and the how? (definitions and the like), deals with 'the where?' 
– the evidence, and the examples (of 'the what').The aim of is not necessarily to show proof of a knowledge claims, but rather, show that there is no proof, shape, or repetition to the claim. It aims to falsify, to clarify claims for all to see, for all to get the picture.By allowing the public to log the repeating presence (or not) of a said claim, and accumulating these logged cases at the claims different scales, a (fractal) shape of knowledge of the claim will develop (or not). If not, the claim is false. If yes when not expected, then the claim will be understood by all. What Wikifractal will shows is the 'claims' fractal record, its tree of occurrence  the ‘different’ occurrences of the 'same' knowledge claim.
The fractal record – like the fossil record that inspired its name – will help expose the shape of the claim, not through time (though it may) as in the fossil record, but through the present, the now. uses mathematicalinsights found in the fractal(what a termed 'the Laws of Knowledge'uncovered atfractalnomics.comby wikifractals creator.
As an example (insight)
  • (scientific) phenomema have fractal structure, they repeat– inthe 'same', but ‘different’ way, at all (relevant) scales;order among the chaos.
  • this is to sayif something not fractal - or it does not repeat - it either surreal or myth.
  • viewing an object phenomena (or claim) when it is in a state ofceteris paribus– a monotonic environment, absent of any other fractal objects – truth and thus knowledge can be determined from the shape , but the scale or size of that object (or claim) cannot be discerned.moon image

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

A fractal derived theory of religion: survival

Religion, an emergent structure formed from the life force survival 

The fractal, far from being only interesting images, and complex mathematics, is also (as I am discovering) an instrument of great insight: one that I am finding complements science, and its ‘mission’ to understand and explain the workings of the universe. In this blog (fractalnomics) I have been attempting to decipher and understand this instrument: from classical economics, to evolution, on quantum mechanics, and the expanding universe the fractal has not yet failed – with its insight. Could it also help us explain and understand other more humanistic issues too, the likes of religion? The answer – I find – is yes. 
To share my findings I aim to publish a series of entries, three entries on these fractal insights, and three on direct applications in science. In this first entry, I will show that religion is an emergent phenomena formed as a result of the life force we call survival; in the second I shall go on to explain that the religious nature is innate – is part of us – and repeats in the (modern day) secular world, science, and even atheism; and in the third entry I will reveal the fractal as a source or instrument of direct (scientific) truth.