FRACTAL ECONOMICS

New Zealand, survival without gold reserves

noreply@blogger.com (Blair Macdonald) — Tue, 27 Jan 2026 08:30:00 +0000

Can New Zealand and other countries, like Norway and Canada, survive as we know them without gold reserves?

In this blog, I've always kept away from politics; I just see patterns. With the current rising gold price, it is no different; I see it as a fractal question. I see an economy as a fractal, and the measuring stick of the economy as money, and money is (historically) gold (and silver). Hyperinflations are exponential, and fractals point to the mathematics of exponentiality.

I have a strong interest in money, aways have, even if I'm hopeless at making it. I think fractal thinking may help us think about how this could play out. Before I go there, it is, to reiterate, my fractal thinking that underpins my view of the importance of gold and silver as a measuring stick in an economy. They are a unit of measure. I have discussed this inflation comparison or analogy with the coastline paradox. This is my claim on what price inflation is.

Fractal thinking is scale-free thinking: what would happen to an individual with no gold reserves in a hyperinflation? Well, I'm asking the same question, not for the individual, but at a country scale, and for me, I'm thinking of my country of birth, New Zealand. Also, for a country I've lived in and been a resident of, Norway. Neither of these countries has any gold reserves. Nor does Canada have gold reserves.

They could, like the individual, lose a lot, or all, of their wealth if it isn't indexed to something secure, and it doesn't look like it is. These countries are clearly not thinking about this. For Norway, will their immense wealth from petroleum save them, secure them? I don't think so. Oil is not gold; it is not money.

As a fractal thinker, the only solution I have for these countries is to form alliances with countries that have gold and silver, and they need to start doing this soon. The fractal insight is, what would a person do if they had no gold reserves? They would experience a potential loss of everything; history tells us this. They would be very interested in knowing anyone close who has gold reserves that can help back them. This should work for countries, too?

I think these events will pay for themselves because some countries, not saying who, will be interested in buying out countries like New Zealand.

Gold, as I write, is broken through 5000, and silver through US$100, and yesterday's action suggests its increase is not going to stop any time soon.

This issue of zero gold reserves should be a priority for these countries.

It is amazing to think that Zimbabwe has been increasing its gold reserves, the country that educated me on hyperinflation. The country that inspired my thinking around exponentials, inflation and fractals.

Google AI searches:

What are New Zealand's gold reserves

The Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) holds

no gold reserves. The central bank sold its entire gold holdings in 1991 and maintains its foreign exchange reserves in other assets. Therefore, as of 2026, New Zealand does not officially hold monetary gold as a part of its reserve assets.

RBNZ Position: The Reserve Bank of New Zealand confirmed in 2023 that no gold is held as part of its foreign reserves.
Total Reserves: While the bank does not hold gold, it does maintain substantial foreign exchange reserves, which in 2024 were reported at over 22 billion USD.
Gold Mining: Although the central bank holds no gold, New Zealand still mines gold, with significant operations in areas like Otago and the Coromandel.

Norway holds

essentially zero official gold reserves, having sold off the majority of its holdings in 2004, which amounted to approximately 33.5 tonnes. While and other central banks have increased gold holdings, Norway's central bank (Norges Bank) currently keeps no, or near zero, gold in its official reserves, preferring to manage its wealth through the Government Pension Fund Global.

Current Status: As of late 2025, Norway's central bank holds almost 0 tonnes of gold in its official reserves.
Historical Sales: In 2004, Norges Bank sold the vast majority of its gold reserves, retaining only a few bars for historical and commemorative purposes.
Wartime History: During World War II, Norway famously evacuated 50 tonnes of gold to the U.S. and UK to prevent it from falling into German hands, most of which was later sold to fund the government-in-exile.
Investment Strategy: Instead of physical gold, Norway holds its national wealth in foreign currencies, equities, and bonds, primarily through the Oil Fund.

Norway is unique among many nations in its minimal reliance on gold as a reserve asset.

Listen

As of mid-2025, Zimbabwe holds approximately 3.4 metric tons of gold in its reserves, managed by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ) to back the Zimbabwe Gold (ZiG) currency. This amount represents a significant increase from 1.6 tonnes in mid-2024, with a goal to further increase reserves for economic stability.

Key details regarding Zimbabwe's gold reserves include:

Currency Backing: The 3.4 tonnes of gold, along with $100 million in foreign currency reserves, underpin the ZiG, which was introduced in April 2024 to curb inflation.
Accumulation Strategy: The increase to 3.4 tonnes was achieved through a policy requiring mining companies to pay 50% of their royalties in the form of physical gold (in-kind).
Target: The central bank has aimed to reach 5 metric tons of gold reserves by the end of 2025.
Value: The gold-backed reserves were reported to be near the US$1 billion mark by late 2025.

The reserves are intended to provide stability to the local currency, which replaced the previous Zimbabwean dollar, which had suffered from severe hyperinflation.

Changing acceleration rate of the universe fractal paper

noreply@blogger.com (Blair Macdonald) — Sun, 04 Jan 2026 20:37:00 +0000

On New Year's Eve, I worked away at finishing a paper I'd started a month or two earlier. I wanted it to be a paper in a day it ended up being a month or two because I left it and worked on my book. But I knew I had to finish it before the end of the year, and when I set my mind to something, it usually gets done if I stick with it.

Anyway, I published a paper in my usual(s). Changing Acceleration Rate (Cosmological Constant) Endogenous to Empirical Fractal Cosmology Model

In it, I linked the recent observations—be they Sigma 4—that the acceleration rate is decreasing with time (it is less now than in the past)—to my fractal model, which I published in the International Journal of Quantum Foundations and which demonstrates this property.

The following diagram is pulled empirically from a model of a growing fractal. It directly demonstrates how the acceleration rate changes with time and distance. This is precisely what the universe is doing, along with Hubble expansion and accelerated expansion. Not only that, but the model fits the distribution of galaxies and their demographics. This model directly links to a geometry that also demonstrates 'quantum mechanics'. Fractal geometry, in cosmology and light, is a contender for explaining these phenomena.

I used to have so much enthusiasm for this kind of thing, but I'm losing it. Maybe the reason for my lack of enthusiasm or apathy is written into the code of the fractal. That is, as with the 80/20 principle, it's hard to do the last part. In this case, I feel a little humiliated, a little foolish, and a little stupid. No call for empathy here, just a bit of the blues.

I really just don't think it's possible to get anything like this taken seriously today. And if they did take it seriously, what am I gonna do with it?

I'd like to say thanks to my maths colleague who sits next to me in my office. When I told her what I had because I do get quite excited, she said, " Do it, just write it up and do it. Yeah, just do it.

Happy New Year, everyone, and hope it's a safe one.

Blair

Global Hyperinflation Proof of Coastline Paradox Fractal Economy

noreply@blogger.com (Blair Macdonald) — Sat, 20 Dec 2025 07:53:00 +0000

We are in a Global Hyperinflation.

It's 04:00 in the morning; I can't sleep.

It's been a great day, all finished up and a few beers with colleagues, nice, but I didn't drink that much, so that's not what's keeping me up.

What it is is what I am watching, what I always watch, the silver and gold prices. Both are now exponential across all currencies... I just checked again. All currencies, with respect to what has traditionally been 'money', are in freefall. That's a hyperinflation across the board.. and I don't think (well, I know) there is no one in the cockpit. If there are, then they are pushing the stick forward; it seems that way.

The one guy calling this out, drawing attention to it, Peter Schiff ( like him or not), was called 'a Loser and a Jerk' for doing so by the President last week. Amazing!

...There is noone in the cockpit.

This week in our meeting, I presented my work on the atmosphere and the fractal in a 5-minute elevator pitch to my colleagues. I said to those there, if you have me talking economics, even logic, my response will all come from, fall back on, the geometry I hold to, focus on, study, write about, and it is the fractal.

Years back, I made the claim that an economy is a fractal, and that the measuring tool or stick, or unit, of the economy is 'money'. Nothing new there. But what I added to this claim is that the relationship between money, 'the measuring stick' and the economy is best demonstrated by the fractal 'coastline paradox' (search that for yourself on YouTube or AI). That the two, their relationship, historically, are proof of a fractal economy.

I think there is an exponential relationship between the two, and right now, if it is true, our measuring sticks, our currencies, are shrinking exponentially. Imagine if it were length or weight; that the unit of them, the metre or the kilo, or whatever, was shrinking, exponentially... what happens to the total weight or length? !!!

I really hope I am so wrong.

(now i feel better, back to sleep.... no, sorry)

Does gold rise exponentially in a hyperinflation?

Just out of interest, these are the Google AI results for 'does gold rise exponentially in a hyperinflation?':

"Yes, historically, the price of gold has risen dramatically—often in a manner that can be described as exponential relative to the collapsing local currency—during periods of hyperinflation. This is because gold serves as a safe haven asset and a store of value when confidence in fiat currency is lost.

Historical Examples

Weimar Germany (1919-1923): This is the most frequently cited example. As the German Mark became nearly worthless, the price of an ounce of gold skyrocketed from 170 marks in 1919 to 87 trillion marks by November 1923. Gold not only matched the inflation rate but actually increased the purchasing power of those who held it.

Zimbabwe (2000s): During Zimbabwe's hyperinflation, people sought real assets like gold to preserve their wealth as the Zimbabwean dollar became devalued.

Venezuela (recent): The Venezuelan Bolivar has been crushed by hyperinflation, and the price of gold in local currency has similarly surged as citizens abandon the local currency for more stable stores of value.

Why Gold's Price Soars

Loss of Currency Value: Hyperinflation is caused by excessive money printing, which erodes the purchasing power of the currency. Gold, being a tangible asset with a limited supply, retains its intrinsic value.

Safe Haven Demand: Investors and individuals flock to gold as a safe haven during economic turmoil and uncertainty, increasing demand and driving up its price in the devaluing currency.

Independent from Financial System: Gold ownership is independent of the traditional banking system, making it an appealing option when there are concerns about the stability of banks or government policies.

While gold does not always track minor inflation rates in the short term, during catastrophic events like hyperinflation, its price in the local currency rises dramatically to reflect the currency's collapse.

Curse of dyslexia; re-edit of my papers

noreply@blogger.com (Blair Macdonald) — Tue, 16 Dec 2025 20:10:00 +0000

Curse of dyslexia; re-edit of my papers

Can I share with you my personal story, one that culminated with the re-edit of my very special papers on the fractal, quantum, and cosmology?

These days, as I am writing my book, I am making use of a kind of artificial intelligence, in the form of an assistant editor, Grammarly.

It's just a breakthrough for me; all my life, I've been cursed with dyslexia. I only learnt that word when I became a teacher. Yes, I'm a teacher, and I know how to read and write, but I have serious issues with it and have had problems in the past.

With Grammarly, I have been editing my old work and even this blog. And it's been a great feeling doing this.

However, last week I did something that threw me into a pit of humiliation: I looked over the papers I submitted to the International Journal of Quantum Foundations and found them riddled with grammatical errors. What to do? To cut a long story short, I wrote to the editor and said to him that they are not of standard, for me, nor for you. What can we do? I asked. It is not the content that is a problem, but the presentation.

I explained my situation, that I wrote the paper on my own and thought I had it covered; it means my blindness to grammar. Well, I didn't, and he was kind enough to accept a solution: I could resubmit or exchange the papers with the updated, edited versions. Which I did. "An unusual request, but I understand," he said.

If you look at my papers, you won't see that they are updated in early December 2025, but they are.

Makes me feel so happy. Rereading my papers, I know I've done something special and unique, and all the way through I can see again that my work has new ideas, but also it was always an invitation to grow this idea, not more.

Thanks for your patience, and as I said to the editor, "It will be my story; it is my story."

You can read it here.

The Fractal Corresponds with Light and Foundational Quantum Problems

Also, see my second paper:

Experiment on Inverted Fractal Corresponds with Cosmological Observations and Conjectures

Thermal Camera Germanium real heat radiation experiment.

noreply@blogger.com (Blair Macdonald) — Sat, 06 Dec 2025 12:44:00 +0000

My morning experiment. This is what I do these days, teach (sometimes before class I play these 'toys' with my students), research and write ... and exercise in between.

Germanium is interesting to me because, as a solid, it shares a property that most air does: it is transparent to thermal (infrared) radiation.

Just as an afterthought, the tape can leak infrared radiation, so it is not a perfect (blackbody) absorber of infrared radiation, but is very close.

I am interested in the detector. I think it is the most important detector humans have ever developed (outside the compass). In fact, it helped us understand magnetism and its connection to light. It is the thermopile and its kin (in this demonstration), the bolometer (the thermal camera). But it is old, 19th-century, as is, as a result of the detector, our common knowledge of heat radiation. This instrument is central to greenhouse theory (it defines the greenhouse gases) and quantum mechanics. It is the detector behind the blackbody radiation curve, the Earth's and the Sun's emission curve, and the quantum revolution. But we are not taking on board the 20th-century quantum knowledge, the topic of my book.

But I have found problems with it that no one seems to be addressing. I think its use is limited, problematic and has led to major inconsistencies, including the current Hubble Tension - the age and expansion behaviour disagreement of the universe, the age of the universe through the 'cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR), also detected by the bolometer, and the main topic of my book, the thermal radiation properties of gases ( the atmosphere).

Anyway, I'm procrastinating, again: get back to writing, Blair!

Also see my earlier blog entry on this topic: Refuting Greenhouse Theory Kitchen Experiment: GHGs and glass transparent to real IR heat and Germanium non-transparent

Keynesian Wrong: Fractal Price Elasticity of Supply

noreply@blogger.com (Blair Macdonald) — Sun, 26 Oct 2025 08:29:00 +0000

Keynesian Wrong: Fractal Price Elasticity of Supply

It's Sunday morning, a time I like to share with you, but I've been thinking about recently.

Well, if I were to do that and its totality, it'll be way too much. I have my book I'm working on—the cosmology problem—and the topic of this post: price elasticity of supply and the fracture.

One of my early insights into the fractal was elasticity. I teach economics and have just gone through the section on elasticity, which I find absolutely fascinating and an absolute insight into reality. It is a place where economics becomes physics, and it is a property of everything, revealed in economics: elasticity, namely, the price elasticity of demand (PED) and the price elasticity of supply (PES).

My 2011 blog entry on this topic.

For years, I have been trying to make this work, make this correspond. If the economy is a fractal, then elasticity should be explained by the fractal. I find myself at the risk of trying to make this fit; confirmation bias.

But for some reason, this year I've had some clarity of thought, and it came to me very quickly that, with respect to the supply curve, the elasticity along it must run from left to right: inelastic at low prices and elastic at high prices. Now this corresponds with what I've experienced in life when it comes to selling things. At low prices, I am not interested in selling; as prices rise, I become more enthusiastic. That makes sense and aligns with the understanding I get from a search.

This interpretation is not how I have had it in the past; instead, I have had the opposite, elastic to inelastic, the same as the Keynesian Aggregate Supply Curve. This was my thinking at the time: that as I produce more bits on the snowflake, it comes at a greater cost, and I am unable to produce any more. Put another way, producing comes at a cost, and it is easier to produce in the early stages. Hence, an inelastic-to-elastic curve.

Yesterday, it occurred to me that if I were given an incentive —a price to produce —then I would produce more, I would iterate the curve more, and therefore more would be produced, and this corresponds with reality. The more I am paid, the more I produce. This will result in an inelastic-to-elastic supply curve.

As a sidenote, the Keynesian Aggregate Supply Curve is wrong. I think he's conflated his understanding of elasticity. Sure, at low-capacity factories can produce more (at any price), but more importantly, they won't produce more at low prices. My point is that the low prices dominate the actual shape of the curve. It is not perfectly elastic at low prices, but it is inelastic!

Anyway, this post was more of a note for me than anything. A marker in my thinking. Someday I'll get around to finishing my fractal theory of the economy. There could be a book in it.

Have a nice Sunday

Macdonalds Law: Increasing cosmological constant with time, a property of an expanding fractal

noreply@blogger.com (Blair Macdonald) — Mon, 05 May 2025 18:27:00 +0000

Cosmic Increasing Acceleration of Cosmological Constant or Dark Energy with Time Explained by the Fractal

Update 2025 10 06

I spent the last two days reviewing the commentary on the changing cosmological constant and examining the papers. As a consequence, I would like to retract my previous update, as it is incorrect. My original post remains correct, to the best of my knowledge. The more I examine it, the more it aligns precisely with my model's predictions.

What am I to do? Maybe I need to write another short paper bringing these two 'things' together.

View from 10:00 minutes.

View from 21:00 minutes

Update 2025 09 29

I would like to update what I have written below, as I may have it incorrect.

It looks like it's the opposite, actually. Sadly for me, the rate of change is greater now than it was in the past, and that is what it's been saying along, and I misinterpreted that.

The one thing I can take from this is a look at my own character. When I saw it, I had misinterpreted this. I took it on board quickly and realised that what I had claimed was wrong. It's important to correct this, and so I'm doing this now. But I'll keep the post up, and I see it as part of my character; I hope you do too.

What does this mean for my fractal model? I don't know. It is not what I expect to see, but that many other properties are observed still keeps me interested, and I hope you too.

Original post:

I think I may have discovered a law of nature. And in my own little room here .. with my cat, I'm calling it Macdonald's law. (m a c, small d). lol!

In my fractal model of the universe, which I published a couple of years back, one of the predictions is that the acceleration rate will increase with time, the further we look out to its origins. This is an inextricable aspect of fractal growth.

Over the last month or so, I have been reading the new discoveries made by the modern telescopes, that they are observing changes in the accelerated rate of the universe, and that the 'dark energy', the 'cosmological constant', may change over time. That it was stronger in the past! https://www.scientificamerican.com/.../why-evolving-dark.../
When I first read this, I interpreted it as working against my model, and I just swallowed it as something that I can't explain and not what I expected, and it was a little disappointing. (..you have other things to do, move on, Blair)

Two nights ago, I reread and focused in on them again, and I realised that I may have my interpretation wrong and that these new discoveries do not contradict my model but are precisely what I expect or predict.

My model already demonstrates Hubble-Lemaitre expansion, accelerated expansion, and now a changing rate of acceleration. It also predicts the distribution and demographics of galaxies. See image. Note that the bottom graph shows increasing acceleration with time.

Don't worry, I can't make sense of it either (yes, i can), it is crazy stuff, but the geometry does it. All I've done is taken measurements on the growth of a known geometry, the fractal. Nothing special, really; anyone could do it. But I've applied it to everything, including the universe itself.

What to do now?
I intend to write to the journal's editor and request a discussion.

I'll keep you in touch.

The above graph in my image is from a YouTube clip in which observations are used to argue that the universe is not fractal. The WiggleZ team argues that the universe is fractal, but only within the pink box in the diagram—out to half 1 billion years. It shows the distribution of galaxies is high and fractal structured in small scales but smooth and non-fractal at large scales. I argued, from my model, that that is what you would expect to see in a growing fractal.
The second and third graphs are directly pulled from a mathematical model analysing velocity with distance and acceleration with distance when observed within a growing fractal.

In other words, think of a tree—that is what I have basically modelled. A tree is a fractal. The crosses on the graph represent the size of branches. The cross to the far right represents the size of the tree's trunk. So, each branch size accelerates away from the other size as the tree grows. And this has actually, in studies, been shown to be true.

Communication check

noreply@blogger.com (Blair Macdonald) — Mon, 05 May 2025 16:39:00 +0000

Hello readers,

I am writing this just to check if anybody can communicate with me through this blog. If you could kindly send me a thumbs up or whatever you like, it would be much appreciated.

Maybe you can email me also at fractalnomics@gmail.com

Thank you,

Regards,

Blair Macdonald.

My rejected Application to FQXi on Quantum 2016

noreply@blogger.com (Blair Macdonald) — Sun, 06 Apr 2025 15:55:00 +0000

Tegmark FQXi BBC Quantum Fractal

I still haven't heard anyone ask any questions about my paper that I published in the International Journal of Quantum Foundations. I still think it's remarkable that someone like me got accepted to publish, not peer reviewed, not one paper, but two. Two complementary papers, the first on the quantum and the fractal, and a second on the fractal, the large-scale structure of the universe, and I'm not even a physicist. And I haven't heard a word.

I wrote a comment on a YouTube clip recently that 'I feel unmeasured'. I understand that I could be seen as a crank, but the journal editor didn't think so. There's no way he would've let it go in if he thought that. He wrote to me that he thought my work was 'interesting'. Maybe they just needed my money. Joking.

I'd like to share with you a little backstory of how I applied for a grant from the FQXI foundation on the topic of the observer. It was back in 2016, and I had all my ideas on the fractal all laid down on this blog, and I really wanted to put it down on paper and work with it with my then-supervisor. When I saw that there was a grant and that I was out of work by 50% at the time, I thought I could get a little help and maybe some extra supervision to get down what I discovered. So I applied for the grant.

I'm going to leave you my grant application and also the rejection letter that I received. What annoyed me is that it seemed that the bulk of the grants, several millions of US dollars, went to the big universities and the big names that we all hear of in the field of quantum. If I recall I saw Sean Carroll, was on that list. I felt a little dejected at the time, but I knew that I would carry on anyway. And I did.

The following inspired me to keep an eye out for the FQXI: it is an interview with Max Tegmark on the BBC show Stargazing (I believe). Dara O Briain interviewed him.

This is a transcript that I have taken from my television hard drive.

O Briain:

From the enigmatically titled Foundational Questions Institute at MIT, Professor Max Tegmark: What qualifies as a foundational question?

Tegmark:

"They are the big questions that are the foundations of what we know. We want to support people who go after these questions, even if it's likely to not work. For instance, if some guy had written a grant proposal today to a government saying my name is Albert Einstein, you know, I'm working at a patent office.. cause I couldn't get a job in physics, and I'd you to give me some money to think about time. ( Tegmark shows a thumbs down and makes the sound of a negative peep!!! ) Said the review panel.

There would have been no way to predict that that research would lead to an understanding that energy and matter are the same thing, and that you can get nuclear power from this and that might be keeping these lights on. I think it's very important for humanity to invest in things are probably gonna fail, but we have enormous transformative effects if they work. "

No, I'm not saying I'm a Einstein, no but I am saying that my work is unique and pertains to topics that Einstein published on. I cited Albert Einstein's work several times in my paper including entanglement and light speed. Not to mention my second paper on cosmology.

The following is my application for the 2016 grant on the topic of: the physics of the observer.

I knew I was going to write about the measurement problem so I use that as a tool to get in. At least I hoped.

My application

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION

Name: Blair Macdonald

Address:-
Sweden

Email: fractalnomics

Phone:

Institution: My school at the time

ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATOR INFORMATION

no co-investigators

PROPOSAL INFORMATION

Project Title: Observation: Augmenting Quantum Mechanics with Fractal Geometry

Project Summary: I am an economics teacher, working totally independently. I have been examining fractals, particularly isolated fractals, trying to decipher them, and in doing so, I have had to address the observer problem firsthand. My findings have direct relevance to – at least – quantum mechanics and cosmology, but also ‘reality’, and if what I have found is found valid, it will have an impact such as to help codify the great problems of modern physics. I was drawn to QM by necessity, ‘from left field’, because QM seemed to be the only area of knowledge that made sense of what I saw. I am not looking at the images or using my emotions, but rather studying them objectively, with mathematics.
In my teaching, I noticed that the properties of the fractal were revealing themselves in economic theory, so I started to question and test whether these were a coincidence and what they meant. I have since conducted experiments on the simplest/cleanest of fractals, the Koch Snowflake, and with the support of my maths and physics colleagues, began describing what I was seeing/thinking. I would imagine things like: where am I in an ‘infinite’ fractal – if ‘I’m’ in one? What is it doing when I am not looking at it or in it? What is its size, when I ‘observe’ it? What about time and speed of propagation? And what is happening to the space and points in space between (to an observer) as it iterates?
I wrote a (unpublished) paper (see ref) on ‘observation’ from within a fractal: I found the fractal demonstrate many of the problems (and conjectures) associated with cosmology and astronomy: offering a geometric explanation to (lambda), inflation expansion, Hubble’s Law (and more) and being scale invariant, insights into the size and ‘empty’ structure of the atom. I am in discussion with an astrophysicist on this.
This was exhausting, but I now need to write up the background premises of the above paper: the ‘quantum’ like behaviour of the isolated fractal. The ‘isolated’ fractal surprisingly demonstrates key features of described by QMs, including wave and particle duality, superposition, and the measurement (observation) problem; (wave) propagation speed (the speed of light?), and it can possibly deal with the issue of decoherence. Are the fractal and QM equivalent? Is the EMS is one aspect of the fractal? The above paper does not function without this premise.
I have much more to write that relates the fractal to epistemological issues, but my life is busy, and I just can’t find the space and time to write. It is a heavy and unexpected burden I have brought upon myself: I would like to talk to the right people to discuss my discoveries. I am convinced fractal geometry is to the universe what elliptical geometry is to orbiting bodies – it is the geometry. With this geometry, things fit. My work should complement previous work, and start a new branch of thought.

Budget: $24,248

Budget Description: I would like to spend a year on my project, 50% of my work. I am currently a secondary school teacher on at 34,000 SEK monthly salary. At an exchange rate of 0.12 SEK to US dollar (DEC 2016) this equates to $24,248. If successful, I would also like to have mentorship, discussion, and help with editing publishing. I have no idea of the expense at this stage.

My rejection letter:

Dear Blair,

Thank you for your submission to FQXi's Physics of the Observer grant program. Our initial review panel has now concluded. We're sorry to let you know that our review panel did not select your proposal as one of our finalists.

Due to our limited budget and a strong pool of entries, competition was tough. We had to decline many promising entries. This two-stage review process avoids inflicting the community with a very small acceptance rate for long proposals that take great effort to prepare.

We can't provide individual feedback on the entries, but in general, the panel looked closely at a proposal's relevance to the FQXi mission and the program topic, and to the estimated scientific impact-per-dollar.

Thank you again for the work and time spent on preparing your proposal. Please look out for more FQXi programs in the future, including further Grant competitions.

Sincerely,

Brendan Foster
Scientific Programs Coordinator
Foundational Questions Institute

Like I said, I carried on anyway, eventually. I was writing about the atmosphere and quantum mechanics at the time, so I was busy anyway. It wasn't until the COVID times that I decided, along with my supervisor, to finally put together my quantum paper without any help or any financing from anybody. Ultimately, I did it without my supervisor and entirely on my own. I did not have AI to help me with my writing. I have trouble, unlike others, with my writing, which I call dyslexia.

I don't want any of this to be seen as a fallacy of pity. I have since moved on with my life, and I am proud of what I've done. However, I am concerned that I may forget what I've done, and I am going to be a researcher into what I wrote.

From time to time, when I hear people talking about quantum mechanics and the quantum problem, I give myself a little smile and say, "Hey, I've written on that." Since then, I've only been satisfied that I actually have written an interpretation of quantum mechanics, and not one piece of feedback.

Incidentally, the names on the FQXI foundation committee are much the same as the ones in the international Journal of quantum foundations.

I say to many; I am not pretending to be somebody I am not. It's just that the fractal does these very strange things and it just so happens that the only other thing that is just a strange is what is described as the quantum.

The Fractal Corresponds with Light and Foundational Quantum Problems .

Experiment on Inverted Fractal Corresponds with Cosmological Observations and Conjectures

The Multiverse must be true.

noreply@blogger.com (Blair Macdonald) — Sat, 29 Mar 2025 08:19:00 +0000

The Multiverse must be true.

Last night, while listening to an audiobook on physics and the topic of the Multiverse, I realized that the Multiverse may well be true. Up until this point, I had thought it was just absolute nonsense, a little bit woo-woo, something that is not useful, and, like they all say, out of the reach of the scientific method. But then it had me thinking, and very quickly, I came to the conclusion that why not?

My thinking at the time went something like this: what if I were so isolated that all there was was me, what would I be thinking about my origins? I would have no information to know that my story is the story we know now, the human story, the life story, the story of life on Earth. So are we in that room when it comes to the universe, the Big Bang universe? Already, the universe is far older than I led to believe it is, and what if it is just a node, a branch on this? I pause to say it is an infinite tree. I'll stop there because it is a little bit crazy, really, but it is plausible, and I guess I'm in.

So, under the fractal, both the Multiverse and the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics are possible. Just as the fractal points out, they are dualities at the extreme, as extreme as can be.

What interests me is that both concepts are in a state of superposition in my fractal thinking. They are the imagination; we do not witness these possibilities as observers. We live in what we observe, in one universe and one reality on that branch.

The Drake equation should include the abundance of elements.

noreply@blogger.com (Blair Macdonald) — Tue, 28 Jan 2025 07:29:00 +0000

I just wrote this in a comment to the following clip.

The Drake equation should include the abundance of elements. It is amazing to think we have them all, but do others?

Response to Paul Sutter: Is the universe a fractal? Yes it is!

noreply@blogger.com (Blair Macdonald) — Wed, 25 Dec 2024 10:15:00 +0000

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. By my modelling, 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 the trunk of a fractal structure. All fractals have this hierarchical structure. 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 universe that they claim to refuse fractal cosmology. And it is out there in that smooth outer universe where the large-scale structures are the large quasar groups; that's what I call the boughs of the fractal universe. And these structures are old, just what you would expect to see.

Moreover, by my model, you would expect to see Hubble expansion and, importantly, accelerated expansion. All fractals' growth accelerates with time. Plants are classic fractals. The universe is not like any other fractal. It is expanding away, surrounding us. And that CMB was once a seedling, to use the analogy.

So, Paul Sutter, you're wrong, and I challenge you to repeat my model.

By the way, the fractal is an amazing geometry. I have found its key property—there are many—is duality. Not only does it explain the structure of the universe, but it uncannily explains what is described as quantum. I, too, have done that work and modelled it.

I have worked on this for some 20 years and have had two papers published in the International Journal of Quantum Foundations. They are not peer-reviewed, but the editor, the author of four books on quantum mechanics, thought they were interesting. They are the best I can do as an amateur.

International Journal of Quantum Foundations, Speculations:

The Fractal Corresponds with Light and Foundational Quantum Problems .

Experiment on Inverted Fractal Corresponds with Cosmological Observations and Conjectures

By the fractal, I have written an interpretation of quantum mechanics, and I think I can explain the phenomenon. By the fractal, I have explained the life scale structure of the universe, continuing what was begun by the early fractal cosmologists. I have unified the two.

Nobody has asked me any questions about my work.

Why don't you be the first Paul?

Else, in the words of Richard Dawkins, you are lazy.

Age of Universe 8.8 Trillion Years Old CMB

noreply@blogger.com (Blair Macdonald) — Mon, 16 Dec 2024 07:03:00 +0000

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

AI Spellng the End of Education

noreply@blogger.com (Blair Macdonald) — Sun, 15 Dec 2024 11:42:00 +0000

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 totally new world. Total automation. If a computer can reason and safely make decisions, it's game over. It's not so easy for us (to overpass), and by the sounds of the PhD discussions, it is not easy for the computer either... yet.

Congratulations, it was a spectacular morning, something I will never forget. And though I'm not the judge, your PhD well deserved.

The next morning, Wednesday, in our team meeting, we discussed.. AI. Wow, of all things? Here we go again. In small groups, we had to discuss — not that we don't and not that we haven't already — the role that AI has in our programme and how we should deal with student students using it.

Ever the pessimist, or is that the realist, I made the claim that I think education will go this way of the music industry, the arts, in the media, and for the same reasons. Something that I claimed more than 15 years ago now is that the Internet is creating a desert for the market, a black hole. What I call e Public Goods, not the topic of this entry. Ask me about them if you're interested. Education won't survive this, something I'll come back to soon.

My recent pessimism has led me to think the following. I am inspired by chemistry to call this the age of disassociation. The Internet is splitting us politically, like electricity splits —disassociates— molecules apart. And I see no end to it.

Thursday, our school was honoured with a visit from the Nobel laureates in chemistry. Of course, I would never miss out on listening to that, and I had no idea what they would talk about. I did not go to the lectures this year, and I wasn't that happy about the physics prize; it was an AI, and I expected the chemist to talk about crystals and other things. But no, it was on AI. The cutting edge of AI. I'm not going to explain it here: go to the Nobel lectures and watch them; these guys are very good communicators, and we were all taken away by it all. It was rock 'n' roll.

But again, I was left thinking about how we navigate this new world. The paper that I wrote on the quantum and the fractal I dealt with the problem, in quantum mechanics called the measurement problem: how do we know what's true? How do you know position? I think this is the same problem we faced with AI. That is the challenge that we have. On Tuesday, I could've asked — at the table surrounded by Professors — that very question, but I chose not to; it was not my day, not my style. And on Thursday, if I could've talked to those laureates, especially the English guy whose path started out by playing games and designing games, and asked them the question, how do we navigate this? This is the ultimate game. Again, I'm not sure we can.

In a discussion with my colleagues, a language teacher, a biology teacher, and a chemistry teacher, the four of us quickly came together and agreed that this technology may be like the birth of the nuclear age. I said, yes, it's as if we were listening to Oppenheimer: either this is a thing for good or a thing for bad.

And as a last word on education. The problem is, of course, how can we know that the work we're marking is not the work of an AI? In the programme that I teach in, we're at the cutting edge of this problem because we are global and we are challenged already. Our global exam routines have been disrupted, and this is just the start it, probably.

So, I'll let this be a mark in time and see where it runs. But I will be thinking of a solution. We need to find an instrument that can navigate this whiteout. We need a compass, and we need a radar of kinds. And fast.

(by the way, I dictated this to my computer and had an AI Grammarly assistant help me edit it; amazing)

Universe 640 times older than we think

noreply@blogger.com (Blair Macdonald) — Sun, 08 Dec 2024 10:43:00 +0000

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 at the same location galaxies that have redshifted only in the visible. That is a dissonance: 'cosmic dissonance'. Finally, we are said to collide with our nearest galaxy, the Andromeda Galaxy, in 5 billion years, yet our pre-solar system universe, 9 billion years of it, is said to be a story of constant collision. 9 billion years of it!! Something is wrong, and the only thing missing is deep time. Include it, then it would make sense.

I have been thinking for some time now that the universe must be much older than we think it is. I am inspired by the geological concept or principle of deep time. I think we need to think cosmological deep time. And I have for some time been thinking that the large-scale observations may well be a frozen picture due to special relativity. They are not telling us the true story; they are distorting a picture.

This morning I put my number on the age of the universe. I think the universe is not 14 billion years old but 8800 billion years old. And here is how I come to this crude figure.

What we have is good (linear) data, corresponding with Hubble expansion out to about 8 billion years back (point 'a' on the diagram below). We also have the cosmic microwave background (CMB), the claimed cooled and redshifted remnants of the so-called Big Bang, at around 14 billion years out. I lined the two up, ignoring the current claimed 14 billion-year age of the CMB. 8 billion years out sees a red shift change (z value) of 1, and then the current Big Bang CMB (not on the diagram) swings out to right a redshift (z) value of around 1100. This high value corresponds to the amount of redshifting that has taken place.

So, using 'the good' Hubble expansion data that we have to point a, I continued the line straight line out to include the CMB z value of 1100, point b on the diagram. How many years would that be? 1100 times 8 = 8800 billion or 8.8 trillion.

Diagram adapted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

What I have done is accepted the Hubble expansion is true, and that the CMB is true, and married them together, but relied on the Hubble data.

Keep in mind that at the current 14 billion years out, the universe is expanding at the speed of light. I am applying special relativity to this light-speed expansion: that an observer (us) will see a frozen picture due to this phenomenon. And that is what I think is happening.

Ernest Rutherford, the father of radiocarbon dating (true), is said to have increased our understanding of the age of the Earth by a factor of 100. With this crude figure, I would have increased our understanding of the age of the universe by a factor of 640.

Now, those fully developed galaxies we are observing with the James Webb space telescope right near the CMB make more sense. Not complete sense, but more. At least to me.

Don't worry; I am still deeply confused, too.

See my:

https://www.fractalnomics.com/2024/12/universe-640-times-older-than-we-think.html

https://www.fractalnomics.com/2024/12/the-age-of-universe-much-older.html

https://www.fractalnomics.com/2024/07/a-paper-in-day-time-dilation-at-edge.html

https://www.fractalnomics.com/2024/07/age-of-universe-really-time-dilation.html

Update:

Upon delving into how the rare elements were created, there is a mechanism for them, colliding neutron stars, so I withdraw that concern or paradox. https://youtu.be/MmgMboWunkI?t=576

The age of the universe much older

noreply@blogger.com (Blair Macdonald) — Sun, 01 Dec 2024 08:50:00 +0000

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 the universe will be older by magnitudes of several thousand.

What is more, I don't think there has been enough time for us to get all the elements of the elementary table that we have on Earth. We have them all, and they have been produced in some 14 billion years. Those elements had to have come before the formation of our star, the Sun, so that leaves only eight or 9 billion years. And from my quick evaluation of our galaxy, it doesn't appear to be many element-producing stars. Something is wrong, and I'd really like to discuss it. At least open the discussion to new thinking.

Here are my thoughts from this morning.

What if we assume the CMB is valid but not its current conjectured age and position? It is believed that the universe has cooled from an 'infinitely hot beginning' to its current, CMB, 2.7 Kelvin.

Also, what if we assume that Hubble's red-shifting, expanding universe is also valid.

I think because there is a discrepancy between visual observations of galaxies at the outer reaches of the known universe right near the Big Bang CMB I said to be, there has to be a rethink.

This is what I think.

That the universe is much older, and a clue may be in the CMB. How long would it really take for the universe to cool down if we use red-shifting principles? That is to say, even at the outermost reaches, we can still see galaxies in visible just before they redshift to the infrared. Use those principles to calculate how long it would take to cool from an extremely high temperature to 2 Kelvin. A long time — deep time, and that is what I think the universe is telling us.

With respect to the observations of galaxies by the James Webb space telescope, I think they may be frozen because of special relativity. Yes, they are snapshots of the past, but that past is frozen. In reality, they have moved on more than we think. I think the only reliable or useful Hubble numbers are the red shifting in the near universe.

Beyond that, I think the universe takes on a hierarchical structure, assembling the growth of what is called a fractal. Observation seems to show this. This does challenge the cosmological principle, but that is not my problem.

Of course, I can see problems with what I'm suggesting, but I would sure like to discuss it. I have long been thinking that the CMB is just a red herring and may have to go. That it is only a property of the universe but nothing special. This is not me saying that there was no Big Bang; it's just saying that it, the Big Bang, is far further out and far further back in time than we think. There had to be a Big Bang origin, just as the standard model says. But on the other hand, I look at what the fractal tells me, and it tells me that things are emergent. That the universe should be bottom-up, just like an economy. So I still have a lot of thinking to do.

My thoughts for the day. Have a nice one.

Blair

Cosmic Dissonance Big Bang CMB wrong

noreply@blogger.com (Blair Macdonald) — Fri, 29 Nov 2024 06:35:00 +0000

Cosmic Dissonance: Big Bang CMB wrong?

Here I go again. I just wrote this comment on astrophysicist Dr Becky's channel. I'll probably hear nothing, lol, but..

I actually got this idea in my dreams, listening to a cosmology audiobook, as I do. I was arguing in my dream with what I was hearing, and when I woke up, I said, "Wooo! That's a pretty cool idea."

My comment. I call it cosmic dissonance. (CMB is the cosmic microwave background, and the EMS, is the electromagnetic spectrum - check them out).

"How is it that the CMB (which apparently is the decayed/cooled signature of the hot big bang) is right by stars that can be observed in the visible (of the EMS)?

How can we have 'snapshots in time' observations of stars, but the CMB is not a snapshot; it has, by all accounts, cooled to the microwave, some 2 Kelvin, from an 'infinite' temperature at the same/similar location as the observed stars.

I think your CMB is a red herring. It's interesting but a distraction. We should be seeing a snapshot of an infinitely hot Big Bang, just like we do the early stars, and we are not.

Yes, the stars and their galaxies have redshifted, but nothing like the close CMB is claimed to have.

Something is wrong with our picture, our understanding."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

The Great Disassociation.

noreply@blogger.com (Blair Macdonald) — Sun, 24 Nov 2024 08:31:00 +0000

The topic of this post is my claim that the Internet is separating us. That it is like the electricity used to separate the atoms in the molecule H2O the negative and the positive, oxygen and the hydrogen, what is called in chemistry disassociation. Are we living in the age of disassociation? Where the electricity is the Internet. Just a thought.

I've been wanting to write this for some time. I have a few posts like this. I've been thinking about how, recently, more than ever in history, we have been separated and divided in our opinions. It's dividing people everywhere. Good luck trying to find somebody who is not affected.

Now, what I found about the fractal is that it is a foundational geometry that points to different interpretations. It is even, defined by differences. Now I think that there is only one truth to the mechanics of this fracture and the other side is an illusion. There is a duality of knowledge.

I've also written on how I think the computer is affecting knowledge. This is quite separate from the fractal work and came directly from my teaching in economics. I claim that the Internet is creating public goods from everything it processes or runs through it.

The following is an insight from both of these disciplines.

Disassociation.

I find it very peaceful to listen to a science talk. I will fall asleep to a good science audiobook or a good science documentary. There's something about it. I don't know what it is, but it does not antagonise me or wake me up. I used to listen to the news, and I used to listen to the BBC in the same way as I listen to science. But those days are long gone for me. They would for sure wake me up. I don't think I've listened to the BBC, PBS, or my beloved Radio New Zealand for over a year. They've all gone from my listening. Now, what does that say about me? Well, that is a discussion on its own, but like I say to people, I turn off these channels like I used to turn off religious radio. Because I write about religion, I think the answer can be found in understanding what religious talk is like. But that is another topic. Maybe another day. But I will say, I can't even listen to a lot of the new podcasts either. What's going on here? I can't be alone.

One of my relaxation listens is the history of chemistry, and I was inspired to write this entry while learning about the discovery of atomic disassociation using electricity. Humphrey Davies was the first to use electricity to separate hydrogen and oxygen from the molecular H2O water.

In a similar metaphor, I wonder if the Internet is the electricity that is separating the so-called left and the so-called right more than ever. Separating the negative and the positive.

I will say that we need to find a way of correcting this bias. I call it bias for the want of a word. I think it is something that can be studied and better understood. We need an instrument that can see us through this new age, this age of disassociation.

discussions with a physicist on age of universe

noreply@blogger.com (Blair Macdonald) — Fri, 25 Oct 2024 06:45:00 +0000

I was about to write a diary entry but then thought, "Well, why not make it a blog entry instead?"

I was going over my thoughts on a discussion I had with my colleague in my staff room office. I teach in the IB program, and our office has a mathematician who actually works with string theory and similar — wow— language teachers, a psychology teacher, and an environmental studies teacher. But when I walked in yesterday morning, I got chatting with my physics colleague on my left.

He talked about what he was about to teach, special relativity. I said to him 'why don't you tell the students the crazy economist thinks the universe is telling us with respect to special relativity?' And he didn't remember our conversation from the past where I told them —the math teacher too — that I think the universe is a frozen image at its outer limits, the Big Bang, due to the phenomenon of special relativity. That special relativity doesn't allow us to see beyond.

What I find funny is that as much as I like, even love, my colleagues, they very much pigeonhole you, and so he went on to 'science -splain' —not mansplain— about the Hubble expansion of the universe and everything else. I guess he just couldn't take it that I could even think of such concepts. And I guess I have a wee bit of humility in me, even if I did drop that well. I've written about these things and thought long and hard about them.

He does know and would understand that I've written an explanation of the Hubble expansion and the universe's large-scale structure. For me, these are now like old battles of the past, memories in a sense, something that I experienced at the time and kind of proud that I was part of (in my own little world). There is no call for empathy, but I sometimes feel a little sorry for myself.

My string theory mathematician colleague does (what I have published), and he praises me for it and he also mentors me for it. He comforts me in that he thinks the science world is a very strange place, but you should be proud that you have done what you've done.

I am still waiting to discuss what I've put out.

My Phone Call to Dr Clauser on Quantum

noreply@blogger.com (Blair Macdonald) — Tue, 24 Sep 2024 06:18:00 +0000

My call to John Clauser.

The following is not a call for empathy. I’m not doing it to win any points; I’m doing it just to share a story that I think is (personally) quite remarkable. It’s part of my story.

I called one of the greatest scientists of our time, Dr John Clauser, wanting to discuss the paper that I submitted and had published in the International Journal of Quantum Foundation on the topic he won his Nobel Prize in, quantum entanglement. It ended up that he hung up on me. I was shattered, but what did I expect? Well, I expected a little curiosity, a bit of time, maybe a "I’ll give it a look, and I’ll get back to you," but no, this was not to be. It was very harsh and not very constructive at all. On his side, he must get a lot of this, and I understand that. Even I do, and I am not supportive of people all the time.

I had written a letter to Dr Clauser and sent it to him, covering two topics I had been involved in and wanted to share with him. The first was my paper on quantum mechanics, for which I wrote a section on quantum entanglement, and the second was on the oversight of Raman spectroscopy and climate science atmospherics. I knew his supervisor was the inventor of the laser (Charlie Townes) and that he (Towns) knew of Raman's work and the potential for lasers.

I wrote a detailed letter, and he never got back to me, so I tried calling him. I found his number, worked out the times, and dialled on Skype.

Before I go into the conversation about how it went or didnt, I would like to say that I’m deeply inspired by Dr Clauser and still am. I studied his story and was at his Nobel lecture in Stockholm in 2022. I sat five rows behind, listening to them, proud that I had written something on this esoteric topic. Knowing that someday, someone will pick up on this.

I recall that at the end of Clauser's and the others' presentations, he/they didn’t understand (rightly) how it (entanglement) works, only that it does. What was crazy for me was that I wrote about it, connecting it to the fractal. And it remains that way, crazy. But I think I have an interpretation and an explanation of it, something universal in this geometry we are surrounded by. So that is what I wanted to share with him.

The conversation started cordial, and I was just polite and respectful. I found myself being clear even if I was rather nervous. I asked him if he had seen my letter, and he came with a rather gruff grandfather sort of voice as if I was bothering him from the beginning. I knew this wasn’t going to go quite like I thought. He said, "I haven’t got time to look at my emails all the time. What have you got? Tell me now."

When I heard those words, I thought, oh no, I can’t do this. I can’t talk on the telephone about what I have. I told him that I’ve been working with the fractal, and it seems to be doing similar things described as being 'quantum', I wrote a paper on it and would care to look at it. I have a section on entanglement.

'What do you mean by quantum?!

What do you mean by entanglement?! He said, "It is not my entanglement; it is Shrodinger." He started asking me all these things, "What do you mean?" I didn't have the answers to those questions. I'm not an expert, and I didn't pretend to be.

He then asked: "What space are you talking about? He kept asking me this, and really, I’m not a mathematician, and I knew a little about space, but I couldn’t answer, and I knew that my presentation was collapsing. My little moment was collapsing. And it collapsed.

I tried to defend myself, lastly asking, knowing that it was ending, if I could just take a look, and he said, "I don’t have time for this!". Then Silence.

I sat back, put my head in my hands, and swore to myself. Then I laughed, knowing that I had just talked to one of the greatest scientists of our time, maybe all time.

I felt rather humiliated and disappointed, yes, but I never blame others; it's me, and I just have to do better. I just thought, how stupid could I be! I looked at the wall and thought, 'I’m not doing this anymore. This is just crazy. Nobody seems to care.'

Yes, I feel sorry for myself, but, again, it’s not a call for emotion. Getting hung up on doesn’t mean I’m right. It’s just that I’d like to discuss it with somebody, it’s not easy to carry something like this. Like the fractal I describe, I feel I am losing my understanding of it as time goes on, and I am losing interest too, cause it hurts to go back. But every now and then, it comes back, and I love it and am proud I have written an interpretation of the mystery.

I didn’t get to talk to him about Raman and lasers. I was so excited to do that. I think the prospects would’ve been great. To be honest, I have seen his approach to atmospherics and climate science, and I’m glad I’m not associated with them. I think those guys have all taken the wrong approach.

Thanks for reading.

A paper in a day; Time Dilation at the Edge

noreply@blogger.com (Blair Macdonald) — Wed, 10 Jul 2024 07:37:00 +0000

Yesterday, I put my thoughts to paper and produced a preprint in a day. No AI was used. My style of writing will tell you that.

I have learnt a lot in the process, and nothing has swayed me from my initial idea.

I think it is the greatest thing I have thought of indirectly in relation to my fractal and atmospheric work. It does, though, complement my other fractal work. Let's see what response I get.

Blair

The Standard Model Big Bang Age of the Universe Confused for Special Relativity Absolute Time Dilation Barrier

Big Bang Age of Universe Really an Absolute Time Dilation, Time Barrier: An Illusion

noreply@blogger.com (Blair Macdonald) — Tue, 09 Jul 2024 08:43:00 +0000

Here, I introduce my theory, which explains the age of galaxies at the edge of the observable universe. Based on the mechanics of special relativity and time dilation, I think we are witnessing a time barrier.

The Standard Model Big Bang Age of the Universe Confused for Special Relativity Absolute Time Dilation Barrier

You'd think that when you go on holiday, you should stop thinking for a while about 'the big questions' and take a break. Well, not me. In fact, I think even more, lol. I love it.

The Problem

One of the biggest problems I have—(it is not the only one, lol)—and many of you will know about it because I talk about it so much—is the age of the universe and why it is so young compared to the age of the Earth or the solar system. It is 13.8 billion in relation to our 4 to 5-ish billion years. In terms of geological Earth, where we talk about 'deep time', there is no time for deep time in the universe.

Why is the universe so young?!

Add to this the discovery last week by the James Webb Telescope that the oldest healthy galaxy is just 300,000 years from the Big Bang's beginning; something is wrong with our understanding. Deep time is needed to create the elements in that galaxy, and 300,000 years is just not enough for supernova nuclear synthesis.

I want to share with you the solution I came to yesterday as a mark in the sand before I write it up. If you don't mind, just for the record.

Solution: Time Dilation

So, I think I have found the solution, and I’m embarrassed to say what it is because I can’t believe no one else has thought about it. Yesterday I did research to see if anyone had but it seems like science is blinded by its focus on other things, on its own assumptions (about space itself expanding at the speed of light).

I think the solution is related to Albert Einstein's 1905 special relativity and time dilation. We are looking at a wall where time stops, a time barrier.

Einstein said in his theory of special relativity that time slows down if you’re moving — relative to an observer. As you watch something approach the speed of light, time will appear to slow on the moving /travelling body. At the speed of light, time will appear to stop to the observer.

Well, we are the observers, and the galaxies (relative to us) at the outer edge of the universe— right about the place where the Big Bang began — are expanding away from us at the speed of light! And faster!! Space is growing, which comes back to my fractal model because my fractal model does that. Just saying.

So for me, it makes absolute sense that what we’re observing is a wall of time a barrier, that we cannot see through. It is not the Big Bang beginning we are looking at; it is a time barrier. The universe is much older, and we may never know how old because of this barrier. It is like we are looking at a poster, a freeze frame of the past.

But there is more. Special relativity also says that things appear to get smaller from the observer's perspective as the traveller, the galaxies, approaches the speed of light. So, what does this mean for the universe? It must be larger than it appears to us, and that would fit my model perfectly.

Fun.

Now, to write it up

https://zenodo.org/records/12703639?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR2pX3hRt4xsJMwyNrM9KQ_liZxBK6PxxC8QGZBpiRiLkzufNDo3tAu-k_Y_aem_dsXJ1_4PDQfd9ehGsBymcA

See my:

https://www.fractalnomics.com/2024/12/universe-640-times-older-than-we-think.html

https://www.fractalnomics.com/2024/12/the-age-of-universe-much-older.html

https://www.fractalnomics.com/2024/07/a-paper-in-day-time-dilation-at-edge.html

https://www.fractalnomics.com/2024/07/age-of-universe-really-time-dilation.html

News is now a Public Good

noreply@blogger.com (Blair Macdonald) — Tue, 04 Jun 2024 17:31:00 +0000

My recent comment on a Facebook post on the losses New Zealand's national TV channel are making.

TVNZ expects operational losses of $28m-$33m and ‘significant’ impairment

Search 'Public Goods'. News and other entertainment, music, films, etc., have become public goods via the internet, called ePublic Goods. They fail as businesses due to non-excludability and non-rivalry. The free rider problem has become the free copy problem. It is one of the most significant problems of our time and is not going away. Public Goods (like National Defense) are funded by the state, which is a severe problem for 'democracy' to function.

Fractal Proof We Walked on the Moon

noreply@blogger.com (Blair Macdonald) — Thu, 16 May 2024 17:44:00 +0000

I quickly wrote this reply to a Facebook comment: "You guys really think he walked on the moon why and how do you know it’s true"

My comment

Purely by the complexity of the story. If it were fake, the complex story we know would have to have been scripted, top-down, like a movie script. The reality is that the story is infinite in complexity, right down to the people who stitched the suits, the boots, the chutes, and more. Full of stories by all of the hundreds of thousands involved. Every flight, hours and hours of specialist language, and the problems they had and overcame would all have had to be scripted. No one could do that. It was hard enough to script the 2-hour movie Apollo 13, the best of Hollywood in its time, and it wasn't really the real story compared to what is told by those there. It is my test, and it is the best. Reality is complex and fractal; fake is not.

Letter to Fractal Cosmology Opponent Hogg

noreply@blogger.com (Blair Macdonald) — Sun, 12 May 2024 08:53:00 +0000

This is the letter I wrote to Professor David Hogg, the opponent of Fractal Cosmology.

Please see my posts 'Fractal Cosmology' and Letter to Fractal Cosmology Opponent Hogg, share this, and read my papers. Thank you.

Subject: Quaia catalogue corresponding with transitions in a physical inhomogeneous fractal model

Dear Professor Hogg,

Firstly, congratulations on your recent Quaia Quasar catalogue. I believe it, along with DESI, is one of the greatest achievements of all time.

My name is Blair Macdonald. Ordinarily, I would have no business with you as I am not a cosmologist; however, what I have found should interest you all. I have tried to make this as short and as simple as I can. Being it what it is, this is a complex. Bear with me, please.

In short: I have published a model that corresponds to your observations: it is the fractal. This is why this email is directed to Professor Hogg. I have taken fractals beyond the Italian fractal cosmologists. I have found, in terms of geometry, the universe behaves as a fractal, and this includes 'the quantum'.

Over the last 12 months, I have had two papers published in the International Journal of Quantum Foundations: speculations. (titles below if you do not want to open links) The first is on the fractal and the quantum, and the second—linked to the first, is a dynamic model of a growing fractal that pertains to cosmology and expected observations of the large-scale universe. Together I have attempted to describe two aspects of the same geometry.

The first deals with all the quantum and other problems of light and matter, including wave-particle duality behaviour of light, light speed, the measurement problem, entanglement and more. The isolated fractal does it all and is equally a very strange thing.

The second paper is an experiment pointing to cosmology and this one makes predictions, and this is why I am writing this to you (all).

Professor Hogg, you were once engaged in the discussion about whether the universe is fractal or not: the issue was left with you posing a challenge, setting a criterion of a 'physical' and 'inhomogeneous' fractal model. The following is from New Scientist Magazine.

'Hogg's team feel that until there's a theory to explain why the galaxy clustering is fractal, there's no point in taking it seriously.

"My view is that there's no reason to even contemplate a fractal structure for the universe until there is a physical fractal model," says Hogg. "Until there's an inhomogeneous fractal model to test, it's like tilting at windmills." '( NS Don't mention the F word 2007)

I have that physical inhomogeneous fractal model.

My fractal cosmological model is simple and unique: I inverted the fractal and measured its behaviour as it grew. It is a dynamic model that traces the growth of a fractal from its beginnings from the observational perspective of being within one. It shows what one would expect to see and it pertains directly to your quasar distribution and the quasar groups (LQGs) of your Quaia Quasar catalogue.

To help describe what we would expect to observe from my model I use the language taken from a real-life and familiar fractal, a tree. Of course, we are not living in a tree, but I will say it is as if the trunk ('of the tree') surrounds us, strangely. I have no other analogy for this oddity in our reality, so I use trees. Figure 1 is from my paper and is used here as an aid to my words.

In terms of cosmology, it is as if we are in 'the branches' (Figure 1 b, and c) of the tree (these are the small-scale clusters and superclusters) looking out and back to 'the truck' (the CMB). The massive 'boughs' of the tree (the LQGs) are further out before the smooth 'trunk', the > redshift z 2. This is the inhomogeneous smooth. It should be there. Take a look at — before the green leaves come — the biggest oak trees or similar you can find. Put yourself in the branches of one, and look down and out to the trunk, knowing the tree is growing and has a history. It is not a smooth path. We appear to be surrounded by this.

Figure 1

The fractal model demonstrates Hubble-Lematitre expansion (figure 2 is my Hubble fractal diagram), accelerated expansion and the changing distribution of galaxies from small to large scale. The branches in the fractal, the tree, accelerate apart from each other. Accelerated fractal growth, I have concluded, is the 'Dark Energy'.

Figure 2

In support of my model, it has been found that real tree volumes indeed grow at accelerating rates with age (see below for title). And just like a tree, the universe may also have tropisms that alter the rates of growth; but the core principle, simplicity, holds.

Another key insight from this dynamic model is that the trunk (maybe the CMB) was once a seedling. On every tree, that seedling-sized branch (Figure 3 A-A), the twig (Figure 3 A-B), can be found. It is here where the tree grows, it is the one constant size (Figure 3 B) and if that is so, with respect to the growth of the universe: cosmic growth may have to do with light itself at the smallest 'quantum scales'. This links directly to my first paper.

Figure 3

A shows a seedling (A) and a twig from a grown tree (B). B shows a seedling with end twigs of the grown tree with its trunk.

Why am I writing to you?

As a consequence of my model, I have been watching out for large-scale surveys, DESI etc., as they have been coming in over recent years (even in the last few days! a new one from DESI). I am interested in the outer smoothness knowing that the LQGs are already there. Two weeks ago I saw in my feeds an article on your survey and so I when found your paper, I quickly looked through it hoping for a galaxy distribution diagram. If there was one, is there a 'long tail' smooth out to 'the edge'?

And there it was, in your Figure 11. (I must say that I did a little dance when I saw that.) The skewed bell shape with a tail is what should be expected, if fractal.

It was at this time, Professor Hogg, that I also saw your name as a co-author of the paper. Strange, but true. I knew then, given your history with fractal cosmology, I had to write this letter.

As a last note, I wrote in my papers that I do not think this fractal model takes away anything from what we have already established. GR, of course, holds; and the quantum (as I describe in the first) may be an inextricable part of this growth.

However, I will say, the cosmological principle may have to go. I am not alone in saying that these days. A tree is not homogenous, nor isotropic. The trunk holds a large proportion of the volume of the tree. Standing at a tree's base looking up (Figure 1 c), shows it is not the same distribution throughout; nor is it if observing from within the branches looking down (Figure 1 b). I think this is the same for the universe, and that is what the surveys are showing us.

These two papers and your observations, among others, should open what is a closed discussion on the topic of fractality. Take me out of it if you will, it is not about individuals, it is about geometry. I think, if we had this simple model one hundred years ago, we would have predicted and have been looking for the discoveries we have made since Hubble, including yours. The small-scale inhomogeneity and the outer large-scale smoothness are what you should see in a growing fractal. It is a geometry; just as eclipses are to planetary orbits.

I am careful not to speculate beyond what I have, but what I have should open the door to answering the greater questions. It is the best-fit tool; it has not failed me.

I hope this interests you all, and I hope to hear from you.

I would be open to suggestions and advice on what I should do, given my position.

Enjoy the solar eclipse today.

Yours Sincerely,

Blair Macdonald.

Paper titles:

International Journal of Quantum Foundations, Speculations. The Fractal Corresponds with Light and Foundational Quantum Problems https://ijqf.org/archives/6806). Experiment on Inverted Fractal Corresponds with Cosmological Observations and Conjectures
https://ijqf.org/archives/7011

Trees accelerate growth as they get older and bigger, study finds: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/15/trees-grow-more-older-carbon