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

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?

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


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

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.

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

Why N2 and O2 are also greenhouse gases?
Using Raman Spectroscopy to re-determine the 'greenhouse gases'.

Original entry:


  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?

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.
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.