If you have need for high-resolution, high quality images for books, magazines, posters, framed artwork, inspirational image for offices/buildings – then take a look at the following fine-art photo-libraries for your next project:

- For scenes of the New Forest: https://www.flickr.com/photos/12801949@N02/albums/72157661372909775
- For Mathematical structures: https://www.flickr.com/photos/12801949@N02/albums/72157625498790798
- For coastal scenes: https://www.flickr.com/photos/12801949@N02/albums/72157625231061479
- For astrophotography: https://www.flickr.com/photos/12801949@N02/albums/72157622020758946
- For Dartmoor panoramas: https://www.flickr.com/photos/12801949@N02/albums/72157621877819395
- For Photomicroscopy: https://www.flickr.com/photos/12801949@N02/albums/72157621951960100
- For Macrophotography: https://www.flickr.com/photos/12801949@N02/albums/72157621951344990
- For High-Speed Flash Photography: https://www.flickr.com/photos/12801949@N02/albums/72157621810713655

No Comments »

Could I please re-iterate: None of my images are available “free of charge”. Please take a moment to look at the “Image Agency and Copyright Notice” section.

Thank you.

No Comments »

I have got a LOT of negative comments to make about book Publishers, but here’s the one I want to share with you today.

I was asked to review a book that was being considered for publication – all o.k. so far. But two questions the publisher wanted answers to were:

- Are there any competing books?
- Potential readership/market for the book?

Now this is a doubly annoying question for the following reasons. Firstly the Author(s) have already given full answers to these questions on submitting the manuscript. Secondly – if this information is so important, why don’t the publishing staff do a little bit of work AND LOOK UP THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS THEMSELVES???

Rant over.

No Comments »

http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

No Comments »

If you have played with the square root function on an electronic calculator you may have noticed something odd. It looks like if you take the square root of **ANY** number that is not actually a perfect square, then you get an irrational number, with the decimal places spilling over the edge of your calculator’s display. Is this in fact true? Is the square root of any number that is not itself a perfect square an irrational? Let’s find out.

We start off in the conventional way by assuming that the square root of 2 **IS** rational and may be given as m/n where m & n are both integer.

1) √2 = m/n

2) m^{2} = 2 n^{2}

That much we have seen before, but now comes the really clever bit. Factor m & n into their unique prime factors:

3) m_{1} m_{1} m_{2} m_{2 }m_{3} m_{3} … m_{r} m_{r} = 2 n_{1} n_{1} n_{2} n_{2} n_{3} n_{3} … n_{r} n_{r}

Now here’s the problem. The prime number 2 will appear an even number of times on the left hand side of the equation (if it appears at all) and an odd number of times on the right. Since the decomposition into primes is unique the prime number 2 cannot appear an even number of times on one side of the equality and an odd number of times on the other. So the square root of 2 cannot be written in the form m/n with m & n integer. The square root of 2 is an **irrational number.**

A) Although the above was shown to be true for root 2, the same argument of course would hold true for *any prime number. The square root of any prime number is an irrational.*

B) Replace 2 with *any* integer that is not a perfect square. Now that integer may be decomposed into its prime factors, and, if the number is not a perfect square, then once again we will have an odd number of primes on one side of the equality and an even number of primes on the other. *The square root of any integer that is not a perfect square is also an irrational.*

C) Finally, replace 2 with any perfect square. With even numbers of primes on both sides the solution is trivial.

No Comments »

Admittedly Cantor was in his writings not very explicit about what he did take the set theoretic universe as a whole to be. One problem is that it is not in every instance clear whether he has a theological or a mathematical conception of absolute infinity in mind. Indeed, he argues that it is the task not of mathematics but of ‘speculative theology’ to investigate what can be humanly known about the absolutely infinite. The following passage, for example, leans heavily to the theological side: I have never assumed a “Genus Supremum” of the actual infinite. Quite on the contrary I have proved, that there can be no such “Genus Supremum” of the actual infinite. What lies beyond all that is finite and transfinite is not a “Genus”; it is the unique, completely individual unity, in which everything is, which comprises everything, the ‘Absolute’, for human intelligence unfathomable, also that not subject to mathematics, unmeasurable, the “ens simplicissimum”, the “Actus purissimus”. In this quotation, Cantor speaks of the necessity of ‘knowing’ the domain of variation through a ‘definition’. Surely Cantor is merely sloppy here, and we should discount the epistemological overtones. Another slip can be detected in Cantor’s use of the word ‘set’ in this quotation. Cantor means the argument to be applicable not just just to sets but also to absolute infinities. which is by many called “God”. All this is related to the fact that in an Augustinian vein, Cantor takes all the sets to exist as ideas in the mind of God.

And that last sentence rings a bell too 🙂 For Ramanujan said “An equation for me has no meaning, unless it represents a thought of God”.

We seem to be homing in on something here!

No Comments »

If God is the Absolute Infinite, the Ein Sof, then I think we are entering very interesting territory. Why? Because I don’t believe there is ANYTHING in the physical Universe that is infinite. I don’t believe there are an infinite number of photons, particles, quarks or neutrinos. Our Universe it appears is finite in size and contains a finite amount of stuff. So everything we can know (or ever know) in the real physical world appears to be made out of finite quantities – we won’t find God in the physical Universe.

Where do we find Infinities? The only place I know of where we find Infinity is in mathematics. Now that’s strange. We use mathematics to explain the real world to high accuracy, and we even carry out integrations over infinity to give answers that correspond to realities in the real world – and yet infinity does not seem to be part of the real world.

So am I saying God is Mathematics? No I am not. But can you see that Mathematics might give us a clue as to what God actually is? The Absolute Infinite was contemplated by Georg Cantor as an infinity that transcended the transfinite numbers. It should be noted that Cantor equated the Absolute Infinite with God! Cantor believed that the Absolute Infinite possessed mathematical properties including the reflection principle which states that every property of the Absolute Infinite is also held by some smaller object. It is sad to relate that Georg Cantor, along with several other famous mathematicians/physicists who dared to venture into the realm of the infinite encountered severe mental problems leading to death.

We are now coming to the end of this piece. How can a finite Mind contemplate and work with infinite quantities? I suppose the trite answer is that it cannot and it leads to madness, which in itself is extremely interesting, because as we all know “Whom the Gods would destroy, they first make mad”. But now consider the reason our finite minds can work with the Infinite is due to the reflection principle, so that every property of the Absolute Infinite is also held by some smaller object – ourselves!

No Comments »

Got today’s Earth Science Picture of the Day (EPOD) with a very deep image of the M42 region. Added narrowband H-alpha and wideband near infrared add a lot to the data in this image. In particular the infrared data brings out many stars that are not so visible in standard RGB images.

Many thanks to Jim at EPOD who continues to publish my work.

No Comments »

__Hungarian Genius Cluster__

__ __

** **

**Georg von Bekesy **June 3rd 1899 Budapest Hungary Nobel Prize

** **

**Lorand Eotvos **July 27th 1848 Budapest Hungary

**Paul Erdos** March 26th 1913 Budapest Hungary

**Dennis Gabor **June 5th 1900 Budapest Hungary Nobel Prize

**Albert Szent-Gyorgi **September 16th 1893 Budapest Hungary Nobel Prize

**John Harsanyi **May 29th 1920 Budapest Hungary Nobel Prize

**George de Hevesy **August 1st 1885 Budapest Hungary Nobel Prize

**Imre Kertesz **November 9th 1929 Budapest Hungary Nobel Prize

**John von Neumann **December 28th 1903 Budapest Hungary

**George Andrew Olah **May 22nd 1927 Budapest Hungary Nobel Prize** **

**Leo Szilard **February 11th 1898 Budapest Hungary

**Edward Teller** January 15th 1908 Budapest Hungary

**Eugene Wigner **November 17th 1902 Budapest Hungary Nobel Prize

No Comments »

All images available for purchase can be found on the **Scientific Artist** Flick site here.

Images can be printed out up to size A1 or can be sent to you as a JPG file – your choice.

If you see an image that you would like to purchase, simply mail greg@scientificartist.com with the details and you will be given a purchase price within 48 hours.

Easy payment through PayPal

Simples!!

There are many subjects for you to choose from:

- Deep-Sky Images
- High-Speed flash photography
- Macrophotography
- New Forest Scenes
- Photomicroscopy
- Mathematical objects

No Comments »