FRACTAL ECONOMICS

 In response to Paul Sutter's,  Is the Universe a Fractal?  Yes, it is. His response is lazy and outdated. It is Clickbait. I am not saying this because I just wanted to; I am because I've tested it; I've modelled the growth of a fractal, and the fractal is the best fit. I wonder if any other person has done that, modelled a geometry to the movements of the universe?  Put another way, if you model the growth of a fractal, which I have, the universe's evolution is precisely what you would expect to see. The distribution of galaxies is exactly what you expect to see. The large, smooth structure of the observable universe — the space that the sceptics of fractal cosmology point to as evidence of a breakdown in the theory — is, by my modelling, the trunk of a fractal structure. All fractals have this hierarchical structure. Take a look at a tree, and I have modelled tree growth too; the trunk is the majority of the area of a tree, and that trunk is the smooth outer unive...

New Age for Universe.  In an attempt to reconcile the problem of developed galaxies observed near the cosmic microwave background (CMB) limit of the observable universe, the author normalised the age of the universe by projecting local Hubble expansion redshift values out to correspond with the redshift value of the CMB. The new value places the universe's age at 8.8 trillion years old. The rationale for this recalculation was twofold: the large discrepancy between the redshift values at the CMB and near to it observed new galaxies, and that space expanding at the speed of light at this location and special relativity effects may distort observations. Normalisation of CMB Redshift with Local Hubble Redshift Values Increases the Age of the Universe to 8.8 Trillion Years

  It has been a week at the cutting edge of AI. There was no plan to it, but what I experienced in three days of this week at the cutting edge of humanity, I think. And it really has me thinking. On Tuesday, I spent the morning listening to our close family friend defend his PhD on the topic of machine learning and, basically, AI. It was right at the cutting edge and something I can tune into with my insights from fractal, and my family friend knows that. When we get together and start talking, it is quite a conversation. Part of his thesis addressed the question: Can your automated car safely pull out and pass a truck? So simple, yet so complex. And one of the biggest questions I think you would all agree on the planet. Of course, my brain is firing, thinking about economics: costs, biases, rationality, etc., and I know the fractal, from my work, has things to say about this. I thought that this is evolution; answer that question and replicate it; that's the beginning of a totall...

Universe is 640 times older than we think Update: I have since writing this blog published this paper: Normalisation of CMB Redshift with Local Hubble Redshift Values Increases the Age of the Universe to 8.8 Trillion Years Not 13.8 billion years old, but 8.8 trillion years old. (Madness!) For a while now, I have had Sunday mornings as a special time to work on things that I haven't touched on in a while, as a break away from writing. This morning, within 20 minutes less, I cracked something that is of real interest, the real age of the universe. I don't care if I'm out or crude, but it makes a lot more sense, and it has me thinking even more. I have not been able to reconcile the current claimed age of the universe is some 13.8 billion years — say 14. I think it is older. This age is all derived from astronomical observations and cosmological models. Two other strange things: how can we have the CMB (that has cooled from around 3000 Kelvin to 2.7 Kelvin temperature), and...

 The following is my Sunday thought, and it came to me in the last half hour. I have long been wondering about what is going on with our universe and our current interpretation of it. Of course, I have a theory about the large-scale structure of the universe: that it is a fractal, an inverted fractal. That theory has had no traction, but it allows me to think freely, perhaps more freely than others. And I have no skin in the game.  The following are my thoughts this morning on the age of the universe. I have recently been thinking that we are getting a distorted picture (more than we think) of the universe and are not taking into account special relativity at its outer reaches. I also think that our current age of the universe — 13.8 billion years old — is too young. I think this number is about as wrong as thinking the Earth is 3000 or 4000 years old. I think we need to be thinking 'deep cosmic time', like Hutton's geological deep time, and if this is true then the age of ...