Showing posts from 2017

Koch Snowflake Area paradox: it's infinite I say.

I don't agree the area of the Koch snowflake is finite as claimed. The calculation may give the result of finite number - from a fixed point - but as the system is iterating infinity, as is assumed, the area of each added triangle will be real, and these areas infinitely diminishing - asymptotically.  If we were to zoom into the 'last' iteration area size where the area goes finite, I am sure we would 'see' iteration continuing and with this diminishing added area. Infinite Series and convergence. There seems to be a paradox here, a practical result conflicting with a calculated result. I think in reality it is both: these infinite series must go on (convergi ng), presenting ever diminishing values, and thus the 'limit' must be irrational, not finite. But I am not going to challenge the finite calculation, I have not the authority or ability to do that. Interesting.

Debunking Greenhouse Theory Physics

I have now published my updated theory of the atmosphere.  Augmenting 19th Century Thermoelectric Greenhouse Theory with 20th Century Quantum Mechanics Raman Spectroscopy: Towards a Coherent Radiation Theory of the Atmosphere Debunking Greenhouse Theory Physics The Gassy Messenger. Abstract Modern climate science's fundamental premise (or assumption) is that the greenhouse gases (around 2% of the atmosphere) absorb radiant infrared (IR) heat (as derived by  IR spectroscopy) , and are the main climate driver because of this speciality. This premise has its origins with the  John Tyndall 1859 thermopile infrared detection experiment . The (other)  non-greenhouse  gases  (N 2  nitrogen and O 2  oxygen)  are distinguished from the  greenhouse  gases by their (said * ) inability to absorb (infrared) heat, as deduced from the same experiment: here absorption is confused with opacity.   Raman spectroscopy (a complement to IR spectroscopy) challenges this greenhouse gas non-greenh

I picked the 2008 financial market crash.

In response to hearing 'economists didn't pick the crash', I did . In 2004 I was teaching economics when I saw and recorded this program (below). I would show it to my student's, and spent the next 4 years being very unpopular to my friends and family saying it's going to slide and the global economy will go with it. They would laugh at me. Quite proud of that now. I had, at the time never heard of Austrian Economics, Peter Schiff or Michael Burry. I argued the crash on the property wealth effect (illusion) and the elasticity of goods in the developed world: if the 'wealth' bubble popped the elastic goods will dry up, and it would be over. Mortgage Madness (1/3): BBC2 - 29/10/2003    There is not a moment I don't think about the real slide coming. My current students don't know about 2008 where I live in Sweden, it was paved over; so I have to teach it as a kind of history lesson. And the current property market is rocketing  - everywhere!