6. wikifractal.org

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).

(http://www.fractalnomics.com/2013/03/the-fractal-record-of-heat-trapping-co2.html  and http://www.fractalnomics.com/2013/04/fractal-profile-of-co2.html ).

This morning I published a complementary ‘wiki website (www.wikifractal.org) 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.  

Wikifractal.org 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 Wikipedia.org deals with the what? and the how? (definitions and the like), Wikifractal.org deals with 'the where?' – the evidence, and the examples (of 'the what').The aim of Wikifractal.org 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.

Wikifractal.org 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

1. A fractal derived theory of religion: survival

Introduction

The fractal, far from being only interesting images, and complex mathematics, is also – as I am discovering – an instrument of great insight, and one that I am finding complements science and its ‘mission’ to understand 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 total of six 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. The fourth is on the fractal the fractal profile (of CO2), the fifth on the Fractal record of CO2, and the finally the sixth – a new fractal inspired web application to (help) source truth.

4. Fractal Profile of CO2

(4 of 6) Fractal Profile of CO2

In this entry I aim to analyse the properties of CO2 (in relation to the climate) – and demonstrate the fractality (the repeating) of this knowledge and properties. Does (heat trapping) CO2 shape up to our general knowledge, and 'laws' of physics. I am not an expert, but am curious to investigate.

1. Heat trapping - Specific Heat Capacity
2. Infrared Opaqueness
3. Mixing behaviour
4. Emissivity
5. Lags: Does CO2 drive temperature - or does Temperature drive CO2?
6. Density
7. Solubility - buffers

I have now published a wiki website: www.wikifractal.org/ to help democratise the science-

1.  'Heat trapping' CO2:   Specific Heat Capacity  

In my next entry (5. The Fractal record of heat trapping CO2) I will expose the instances where CO2 should trap heat, but doesn't - at least to be measurable.

5. The fractal record of (heat trapping) CO2

5 (of 6) The Fractal Record of heat trapping CO₂
I have been working on this entry - totally on my own - for some 5 years, you should be able to tell this from the my style of writing. Someday I will find an editor. To date the fractal has expanded my world and lead me to insights on economics, 'quantum mechanics' and the expanding universe. I have been writing my discoveries in this blog, but it is this entry on the issue of the climate (the last in a series of 4 or 5 on truth and the fractal) that is by far more interesting to me. 

I have now published a wiki website: www.wikifractal.org/ to help democratise the science-

Abstract

The fractal record shows that there is no (measurable) evidence to support the deductive argument:  CO₂ traps heat, and is the cause of climate change, and feedbacks to climate change. At least at a level to be measurable or dangerous.
Aims
To develop the fractal (record) as an instrument of reason. 
To end carbon-climate debate.
Introduction
The fractal record should help settle the deductive argument (set by carbon-climatology) and show the truth and real relationship between heat and CO₂. CO₂ and infrared heat are next to ubiquitous (at least) on Earth: in this entry I shall (crudely, as I am not an expert) identify and analyse the occurrences where the two (heat and CO₂) are present and should point to truth. If CO₂ traps heat, and is the cause of climate change – it should also be the cause of, and form part of our general understanding of the below:

1. respiration 
2. weather forcasting, the (micro atmosphere) 
3. the snowpack 
4. plate tectonics 
5. termite mounds 
6. why (heat trapping) CO2 is not part of a market solution.

The fractal record?
The fractal record is directly inspired by the fossil record of life: it aims to show a record of  instances or examples of a said rule or object (at all different scales or places) – in this case CO₂’s said heat trapping property (of carbon-climatology). It will show us (or not) if and where the premise repeats in nature; and reveal the expected (or 'inferred') effect the said gas has on temperature and (should have) on its surrounding environment  – given our understanding of the premise.
I could have equally developed a fractal record on the premise of orbiting bodies, but that would not be so interesting  – at least today in the 21 Century – to demonstrate the fractal.
In the previous entry 'the CO₂ profile' I will show that the premise 'CO₂ is a heat trapping gas' is mis-interpreted. It may - compared to the vaccum of space - trap heat, but nothing like water.

Possible meeting with Lawrence Krauss

Tomorrow (Friday 15, 3, 2013) the school and program I am working at (IB ybc Stockholm Sweden) will have a visitor: Cosmologist Lawrence Krauss is coming to lecture, and be with our student's. What a wonderful thing. But for me, since I have know this coming, it has been very disturbing - as I am hoping to get time with him to pitch my discoveries. And I know if I do, and he 'gets it' that things will change.

I am a concerned that as I have not officially published then my work, but am in the process of doing so, I will be giving my knowledge to an expert who can produce paper and publish very quickly, and take the credit. So I am writing this entry to expose this concern. But I have little choice: before I knew he was coming, I was at an end, near breakdown: I could not go any further on the topic of the expanding fractal and it relevance to quantum mechanics, expanding universe, dark energy and so on.. as it is too much for one person, I need support, I need an ego massage. My health is not good for this stuff. So I am hoping for the best tomorrow.

Today, in my economics class, I showed my student's what I am going to present Lawrence, and the got it in 20 minutes - amazing. One of the students who said he had been following this topic for years, had tears in his eye, and was moved.
 So if it doesn't work for Lawrence, I will produce a lecture, and publish it on youtube, because I am tired of searching for help.

As of now, 15:30 Thursday, I know not if I will get to see him: the organiser has sent him two of my links - one on quantum and the fractal, and one on the expanding fractal - but I know not if he has seen them.
I don't want to be a dork! And push it on him, I would like him to see what I have done.
Tomorrow is a special day.
The fact of the matter is: if we do meet, and I get the message to him, he will never do his speech in the same way again.
To me, all the lectures on youtube, on the subject, are boring, and are out dated.

Blair

Measuring the fractal wavelength

An attempt to measure the fractal wavelength.
Rational
This entry came (to me) from working on the fractal spiral, the fractal wave, and de Broglie demand curve entries. I thought - as it is impossible to measure both time and distance - that it may be possible to measure - even if only in principle - the distance of the wavelength - based on a known dimension, the length of the triangle side (l).

Background.
Fig. 1 below shows the fractal and its (while developing) 'wave like' nature. It shows the wave takes 6 iterations to repeat or produce one cycle, but it does not show the length of the wave, the wavelength (λ).

Fig. 1 

Measuring the wavelength, an experiment.
I came to me that through a simple 'experiment', the wavelength (λ) may be measure, or at least better understood.
Method:

1. Take the iteration 0 triangle, and post it on a wall. 
2. Cut out from a paper print the iteration 1 triangle from the fully developed Koch snowflake 
3. Hold the paper at arms length and sight the triangle 0 through the triangle 1 hole.
4. The arm length will be known as a standard distance* 
5. Move forward or back with the paper extended at standard distance, and find the place where the triangle 0 appears the same size as triangle 1. 
6. Make a mark of this distance.
7. Repeat the process, this time for triangle 2, mark the distance. 
8. Repeat the process, this time for triangle 3, mark the distance. 
9. Record the distances (in metres) then divide these distances by the triangle base length.

*There is an issue with the 'standard distance': The accuracy and thus validity of the distances measured in process 6,7,8 and 9 are dependent on the standard distance, and as this distance is subjective, there is a measurement problem. And thus no standard distance.
Knowing this,

Koch Snowflake and Fibonacci

This entry is to state that I looked at whether the Koch Snowflake has a Fibonacci number in it: for some reason I did not publish it.

In the earlier entry 'the Fractal Multiplier' I noticed that the total area is 1.6 times the area of the first triangle.

• It is of interest to me (the author), and of my mathematician colleague’s, that the Koch snowflake fractal multiplier is 1.6. This 1.6 is very close to (but not the same as!) the Fibonacci or Golden ratio of 1.618.