Science: The Chariot of Reality

Here we stand, in this illusive yet beautiful reality. The reality where a rather insipid star fuels the fantasies of residents of yet another chunk of rock we all call home. The reality with answers craving the most profound of our questions. The reality which crafts the wonders of billions of its possible inhabitants. Welcome to your reality.

But the one thing we're taught for good: this reality is, however, brimmed with mysteries far beyond anything we've grasped; secrets far bizarre than the wildest flights of our imagination. Where are we again? In this tiny little chunk we affectionately call earth. But then, what makes this chunk so distinguished? We all know the answer: it's its tenants, and their quest to understand everything real with the might of reason, logic, and mathematics – the quest they call science. From primitive cavemen to diligent scientists, we've certainly come a long way. This way would one day, possibly millions to billions of years later, find a dead end. It will then be our responsibility, to make this end a whole new beginning.

But there's a twist: every being turns out to be a mere traveler – with hardly a grain of time. But the saga isn't left incomplete: stanch mavericks renounce to submit this elegant reality to ignominious ignorance. What turns out to be the reward? History has it: everything that transformed our purpose of existence, and that sense of satisfaction which overwhelms a scientist.

"But the world isn't much of a fairy tale", I presume you'd be saying. Indeed, it isn't. But how legitimate is it, after all, to have Albert Einstein to blame for nuclear warfare and related episodes? The point I'm trying to place in firm frames is that science is merely the quest for knowledge: it isn't really plausible to blame its abuse back on its own self. It's just like spanking Bob (for reasons utterly incomprehensible), and blaming it back on him: if Bob didn't exist at the first place, he wouldn't have ever got spanked. Science is all about knowledge, which could do no harm on its own. And if applied righteously, we all know what to expect: the modern way of life. Who would expect you to read this if we didn't have a grasp on electricity and hence, circuits, transistors, IC chips, microprocessors, computers, and internet? And as I shall now lay with emphasis, it would be the only way around the big, dead end; and the prologue of these promising telltales is far from estrangement. Increased life expectancy, developed medical processes and undertakings, enhanced standards of living with cutting edge comforts of the 21^st century, and more: they all speak the one language. It's ironic that there are folks who don't really get more than a few flights of 'fantasy': and it's excruciating to realize that these fantasies don't appear very distinguished from what the prosperous may call nightmares. But then again, science just can't be blamed: an idea is an idea no matter where it comes from, and these ideas are the key ingredients to our understanding of the cosmos around.

One may perhaps wonder, what's so 'beautiful' in science when compared to artistic masterpieces? Isn't it supposed to be a puddle of numbers and variables and technical terms and all things similar? Are the ones motivated just, 'nerd zombies' with no life to spare? These questions are well answered technically, but let's just embrace a more aesthetic philosophy: every little thing we can think of doing with electricity comes from a set of four grand equations, which can be put down in a small, scrap paper and carried almost anywhere. Isn't it beautiful? Tiny charged balls we call electrons pass right through multiple, distinct (but appropriately placed) slits simultaneously. Isn't it beautiful? Particles borrowing energy from their own future to penetrate physical barriers. Isn't it beautiful? Colossal stars being born somewhere in a dull dust cloud. Isn't it beautiful? Curious little beings in the middle of nowhere, looking for answers to these questions. Isn't that beautiful? A physicist would sure call it 'elegant'*. Anyone, smart or dumb, may very well be fixated: a little thought, devotion, and ambition is all it takes, but the reward is beyond description: the sweet, much deserved sense of satisfaction.

So here we are, in this illusive turf of everything real.

*as physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson considers

This is Nasim, thank you for reading.

Blue Eye: Officially The Lamest Rip off Ever

It was a couple of weeks back when I found myself laughing at some TV shopping show. And yes, it was the “Blue Eye”. See above.

It shields its owner from ‘omens'. Oh guddie, do I order it?! No, don’t forget to hear the scientific explanation.

The negative energy from the ill desired person claims control over the victims body.

Seems like the ‘energy’ made it sound scientific. Or did it?

Well, I’m not saying energy can’t be negative: gravitational and electrostatic potential energy, and even frictional energy are mathematically considered negative. But there is an explanation which does not resort to anything like “negative mass”. Consider 2 objects placed a distance apart, with absolutely no external forces/torques. Now according to Uncle Newton, we must do some ‘work’ (in the physical sense which is: work done = force applied * distance covered by the subject). Well, the work done here will indeed be positive: force is applied in the direction the subject moves (and if the subject moves in a direction opposite to the direction of the applied force, work done, and hence energy expended is negative). Gravitational forces are always attractive: if the objects move away, or are separated, work done by the gravitational force of attraction is negative; if the 2 bodies are intimately distinct and mutual attractive forces operate, it’s analytically legitimate to assume there was some initial work done to separate them. What happens to this work? Yes, that’s right, potential energy. If the initial work done is positive, to conserve the net energy, the gravitational potential energy ought to be negative.

So, there is some kinda ‘negative energy’ which only an ‘ill desired’, or rather 'evil eyed' person is supposed to posses. And that negative energy may very well override the brain and control the body. Sounds reasonable.

What Does Distant Starlight Prove?

Here’s an article from one of the most popular creationist web resource, Answers in Genesis: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove. In this post, we shall be critically exploring the article, only to find that it’s essentially flawed.

Consider the following excerpt: “The argument goes something like this: (1) there are galaxies that are so far away, it would take light from their stars billions of years to get from there to here; (2) we can see these galaxies, so their starlight has already arrived here; and (3) the universe must be at least billions of years old—much older than the 6,000 or so years indicated in the Bible.”

That’s hardly the way we conclude that the universe is billions of years old. A prominent American astronomer, Edwin Hubble, proposed what we call the Hubble’s Law. It essentially states that the distance of a star is directly proportional to its relative velocity of recession, the constant of proportionality being the time dependent Hubble Constant. It’s a principle experimentally verified. This makes it very convenient to measure the distances/velocities to/of stars far off in the depths of the Cosmos. The process is infact backed by a couple of reliable techniques (interpretation of redshifts in the spectra of stars and the distance modulus, to be specific). That’s about the distance. The expansion of the cosmos is a direct consequence of FLRW Solutions to Einstein’s Field Equations, under the frames of the cosmological principle. It’s interesting to note that the Hubble’s constant lays correspondence to Friedmann’s equations, where it’s found to be time dependant; that is a parameter which varies with time. This simply implies that the current rate of expansion is NOT being extrapolated to past, as the site claims further down the article and the page: (http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/billions-of-years). Moreover, experimental verifications explicitly testify the fact that the universe has been governed by the same laws since the very beginning.

So that’s the deal. We know the way at which our universe expands and had been expanding (from the Friedmann Equations) and how much the universe has already expanded. All we now do is wind time back and watch the show, which turns out about 13.7 billion years long. It’s somewhat like calculating the time taken by a car to travel a hundred kilometers if it hits an average of fifty kilometers a second. This might seem enough to counter the essence of the article.

Let’s now consider the assumptions, which the author believes, are flawed. First, the constant speed of light.
“It is usually assumed that the speed of light is constant with time.² At today’s rate, it takes light (in a vacuum) about one year to cover a distance of 6 trillion miles. But has this always been so? If we incorrectly……”

Wait a minute. That’s a clearly against the most popular and verified principle in physics till date: the special relativity, which explicitly states the speed of light in vacuum, is, and always had been a universal constant. A positive response to this statement cannot be considered scientific in any sense.

Further down the article, the author says time has never been anything “rigid”. True, it never did. Every object in this universe has it’s personal measure of time. Every object, but light. Light travels at a constant speed (in vacuum), and it’s the space and time which, in a sense, “reconfigures” itself (which, I emphasize, is relative) to bout the velocity of the observer considered. It’s only the rate of flow of time which is determined by gravitational influence. Light will approach earth with same speed, no matter its (the earth’s) position in a gravitational well. That’s infact the essence of special and general relativity, and the reason why time actually runs slower in a gravitational field. The situation described by the author depicts one where light is apparently “slowed down” due to time dilation on planet earth. And as I’ve mentioned afore, light slowing down is a concept purely a non-scientific. Moreover, given that time is not rigid, how do we know if the universe is so claimed 6000 years old for an observer at deep space (under minimum gravitational influence), or for one inside what we call a “gravitational well”? Well, the best we can say is that he didn’t remember to mention.

In the next section, the author talks of something he calls “universal time”. This won’t take me many lines to counter, because Relativity strictly lays that there isn’t anything “universal”. Universal time exists in a reality where relativity does not hold well, which is certainly not the one we dwell in. Let’s just ignore this for a while:

“Imagine that a plane leaves a certain city at 4:00 p.m. for a two-hour flight. However, when the plane lands, the time is still 4:00. Since the plane arrived at the same time it left, we might call this an instantaneous trip. How is this possible? The answer has to do with time zones. If the plane left Kentucky at 4:00 p.m. local time, it would arrive in Colorado at 4:00 p.m. local time. Of course, an observer on the plane would experience two hours of travel. So, the trip takes two hours as measured by universal time. However, as long as the plane is traveling west (and providing it travels fast enough), it will always naturally arrive at the same time it left as measured in local time.

There is a cosmic equivalent to local and universal time. Light traveling toward earth is like the plane traveling west; it always remains at the same cosmic local time. Although most astronomers today primarily use cosmic universal time (in which it takes light 100 years to travel 100 light-years), historically cosmic local time has been the standard. And so it may be that the Bible also uses cosmic local time when reporting events.”

First things first: for such a balance to exist, the aircraft must as travel just as fast. Let it travel a little faster, it’ll arrive Colorado before 4:00 pm local time. A little slower, it’ll arrive after 4:00. If it is to arrive at Colorado at 4:10 pm, there’s a fixed velocity it has to travel with. Same applies to a case where it is to arrive at Colorado by 3:50 pm. Its velocity must exactly be synchronized with that of earth’s rotation. If it is to anyhow happen that way with the universe, how do we bet that light travels with exactly the right speed, so it arrives at earth just as predicted by the Bible? What if I wrote something like the Bible, claimed that the universe is, let’s say 10,000 years old, and explain it by saying I meant it in the “cosmological local time”? Easy as it seems. Moreover, the author attacks his own thesis: the universe is 6000 years old in what’s supposed to be the “universal” time (well, I could at least suggest a more plausible term: proper time); the cosmological local time is purely relative, and evolves under the frames set by relativity.

The next section finds Naturalism under attack. “Naturalism is the belief that nature is all that there is.” The statement is self defending. Opponents of naturalism claim that it’s “blind faith”. In other words, they try to say that there’s something outside of nature. But that’s the deal: if there’s something outside of nature, we’re perhaps mistaken about the outside we mention: everything which is “outside” nature as we initially thought must be inside it. In other words, there’s no “outside” to nature: it’s all that exists. It’s where most authors end up saying “It’s God, and that’s about it”. It’s just one of the many things which make them sound ignorant.

The last section poses the so called “horizon problem”, which is explained by the cosmic inflation. The horizon problem is hence a live evidence for the cosmic inflation. How? Consider the analogy presented below. A deflated balloon may have a considerable amount of bass and relief. So we call it heterogeneous; a fair deal at this point. Now, inflate the balloon and watch the bass and relief vanish! It becomes smooth, which in this analogy, corresponds to a homogeneous distribution of matter. The Cosmic Inflation brought about a homogeneity in the cosmos at a rather large scale, which very well agrees with experiment. So much for the big “horizon problem”.

To conclude, I’d count on a universe explained by concrete mathematics and logic, instead of the one put forth by ancient manuscripts, laid upon someone who in my opinion, is a weak, fallen myth.

That's it from me now. Chimo!

Ever Thought of the Things You Can Possibly Do With Google Earth?

Google Earth (5.1.3506.3999 beta) is not just all about earth anymore. Yep, you know what I'm talking. Google Mars, Google Sky and Google Moon. These modules pump hi-resolution imagery sourced by NASA ESR / DLR / FU Berlin (Germany) except for the polar ice-caps. No, wait. What if I tell you it's all in 3D?

Don't believe me? Beat this.

You're looking at the inner reef of Olympus Mons, the largest volcano not only of mars, but the entire solar system. (Well, I call that cheating because mercury, venus and earth are the only ones given a chance, but this is business. :P)

It's a refreshing 3D perspective. And I mean 3D. You have complete control of where you see. Here's another screen;

This time I'm reporting from Cyane Sulci. And I've rarely seen anything as 3D as this.

Pack up, we're going to mars!

Protons - "Fundamental Particles"?

It wasn't before a couple of days back, that I've discovered protons as "Fundamental Particles" by my chemistry school notes. Well, are they fundamental at all?

Well, as of the 21st century, they're not. First proposed by Murray Glenn Mann in the 1960s, quarks have transformed our picture of the very small. Protons and neutrons were no longer elementary, and we had a theoretical picture of quarks within protons and neutrons, alias hadrons. Like any other fermion, quarks are believed to have half integer spins, and hence by Spin-Statistics theorem, they obey the Exclusion Principle.

Fermions are divided to 3 "generations", serialized as I, II, and III. However, quarks of generation II and III are heavy enough to instantaneously decay to their much stable counter-parts, quarks of generation I - up (u) & down (d). The stability of this generation of quarks (& leptons) account for matter being composed of electrons, protons and neutron, which are inturn composed of these quarks (i.e protons and neutrons), or they themselves belong to the generation (i.e electron). A proton is composed of 2 up quarks, and a down quark, while a neutron is all about 2 down quarks and a up quark.

Furthermore, quarks also have "colors", or "color charge". "Color" here is nothing like what we classically interpret it, because quarks are way too smaller than the possible wavelenght of corresponding visible light. As Hawking describes, it's just when physicists these days no longer turn to the greeks for names! All hadrons ought to have "white" color charge, which can be obtained as: red + blue + green or anti-red + anti-blue + anti-green, or red/blue/green + anti-red/blue/green, where anti-red, anti-red, and anti-blue are corresponding anti-properties of red, blue and green. Okay, enough of RGB; all protons and neutrons are composed of a red, green, and blue quarks, and that's about it.

Can quarks exist unconfined in space? They can, under impossibly crunchy extremes (during the quark epoch: see below). Otherwise they're taken care of by asymotic freedom; the further they are to drift apart, stronger the strength of their bind, (which is apparently caused by bosons called "gluons"). There are other approaches to the problem, to include those of quantum gravity. Quarks are believed to be bound by either something like a "string" (which is apparently not related to the string theory), or quantized force field lines. Then came the principle of duality, to claim that "strings" and "field lines" are just 2 different ways of looking at the same thing. Voila! They were unified and further interpreted to form Loop Quantum Gravity, a brand new perception of space at the fundamental level, or the Planck scale.

Infact, the theory of Big Bang lays a deal on quarks. It defines a "quark epoch", when the electroweak symmetry (i.e the symmetry between the weak and electromagnetic forces) was eliminated. The temperature was high enough to not let hadrons form. Quarks existed unconfined in space, until the hadron epoch, when particles like protons and neutrons formed.

Whatever may it be, protons ARE NOT elementary.

The Spurt of Time

I had once humorously postulated, "Time runs slower in the presence of a boring teacher", and I'm pretty sure that all of you would agree. As for my intention then, it's was all about amusing a couple of classmates, and nothing pretty much else. Perhaps, today is when I discover it's more than an amusing joke; it comes with its own story to tell.



We know that nothing transcends light when it comes to velocity, as proposed by Einstein's relativity. A wide number of verified mathematical formulae and theories is an open testimony to its success. But it was not where we stopped. We took it a step forward, to logically propose that time "travels" at the speed of light. It's the reason we don't see a dead star 13 billion light years away, even though they are, in a sense, history. The time of it's death has just not "reached" us. Simple as it seems, or is it?



Then came the "arrow", or rather, the "arrows of time", to count for time's unidirectional propagation; very much unlike light. If time is considered a vector, it can have one, and only one direction no matter the polarity of C & P symmetry, though the relative magnitude is governed by relativistic phenomena.

Consider the arrows of time mentioned afore. Stephan Hawking defines 3 arrows of time in his bestseller, A Brief History of Time, namely the thermodynamic arrow, physcological arrow, and finally the cosmological arrow.



Thermodynamic arrow is considered to exist in direction where enthropy, or randomness increases with time. It's somewhat to resemble Murphy's law: "Everything tends to go wrong!". A crude, but lively illustration would be a glass falling off a slab. It shatters to pieces, to represent enthropy. Back in time, the glass in it's pristine form can represent order. No matter where we exist, we'll always see a glass breaking, rather than it rebuilding on its own. That is, the backflow of enthropy in time is void, which seems very comparable to the arrow of time. I would hold relativity to govern the magnitude of this arrow.

The next in line is the physcological arrow of time. It's the direction we feel the time progressing. I would not pretend to be capable of elaborately explaining this, but one thing we could say with certainity is that it's directed the same way the thermodynamic arrow is. This is the reason why we always see a glass in it's pristine form before we see it broken. Now a question, as it may arise, does this arrow of time harbor a magnitude? If it does, is it independently assorted, or does it bear connections with the thermodynamic arrow of time?



My answer to the first question would be a big yes, as the first lines of this post goes. However, I don't really like the idea that this magnitude of this arrow is related to its thermodynamic counterpart. Again, the example of time "running" slow in the presence of a boring teacher illustrates this. There's nothing wrong with the relative magnitude of the thermodynamic arrow, but it's the physcological arrow of time under change. Analogously, when propagating at relativistic velocities, it's the thermodynamic arrow to slow down, but NOT the physcological one, as everything goes just "normal" with himself and his local surroundings. However, thing's not moving at his speed may seem wierd and simply, crazy! [Time dilation & Lorentz Contraction is what I'm talking about]. This simply implies that the physcological arrow of time is static. Even though the direction of the physcological arrow depends upon the thermodynamic arrow's, magnitude is mutually dynamic. That is, if that booooring teacher is to hop right into your spacecraft which takes you for excursions at relativistic speeds, and just if the teacher is boring enough, the physcological arrow of time in terms of magnitude may just coincide with the thermodynamic arrow!

The last arrow we have is the cosmological arrow of time. I don't really think there can be perceivable change in magnitude for this arrow, since it involves the entire cosmos at its scale. Law of conservation of collective energy & mass would imply that all the fluctuations in this arrow in terms of magnitude would simply "cancel" each other out. As for now, I can't really decide if the cosmological arrow is unidirectional. However, Hawking consider's the "expansion" of the universe as the determinant of the direction of the arrow of cosmological time.

It's all around us. It's all within us. Yet, all we know is that it's something that exists. Is it just a mind game? Not really...

The Official Anti-AT Post

Some say he's a rodent, while others think he's a #!@#!#@! with no screws on. As for me, it's just "I'm not normal". Well, his grammar sounds better than, ummm.... Let's say Catherine Soanes or Angus Stevenson, editors of Concise Oxford English Dictionary.

Perhaps, such a "hi-end" lingual approach, with exquisite pronunciation is way too crunchy for me to digest. This is probably the reason I couldn't really make out the difference between "example" and "exercise" explicitly. No, wait a minute! "I NO THINK HE NO IN MY LEVEL, I NO NORMAL!" (can anyone help me with my English??) Well, my brain was drenched in unintended humour, but alas! I couldn't let her rift. And yea, how could I forget, "HE NO FOOL I FOOL!". Ouchies, his spot on English is too hard for me to gulp, and not to mention, especially when it comes to "5", "Pi" and "Phi".

You know, when I grow up I wanna keep moustache like none other than him. And just by the stroke of luck, if I happen to be a teacher, I'd be his disciple. Well, as they say: some people live because it's illegal to kill 'em, and I think I know someone who should be knowing this...

Considering a brief analysis, my computer speaks better (woops! I meant worse...) than him. It atleast bothers to learn grammar and pronunciation by reviewing documents and and speech trainings (Oh, did I mentioned he is the Mr. Know-It-All?).

Perhaps, he's the kinda teacher, maybe Jed Kennings or George Bush deserves. Is that about him? Well, no.

The Cosmic Misconception

This was something I didn't expect, atleast from a teacher in charge of 38 Science students. However, misconceptions do happen, and this post is for the due corrections.

According to our teacher, the electromagnetic spectrum comprises "Cosmic rays", Gamma rays, X-rays, UV rays, Visible light, Infrared rays, Microwave rays, and Radio waves/rays. I didn't really like the "Cosmic rays" in the whole equation, all because it's not a EM (ElectroMagnetic) radiation, since:

• It consists of mostly protons, and a little alpha particles, with traces of beta-particles and heavier elements.
• They do not propagate at the speed of light, a charecteristic property of EM radiation.
• They aren't made of photons; the signature content of an EM ray.
• Unlike EM rays, they are modulated by the earth's magnetic field and solar factors.
• Many interactions with earth's atmosphere wouldn't be observed if cosmic rays were to be EM rays

Cosmic rays are blasts of ionizing radiation of extrasolar (at times solar) origins. These rays aren't composed of photons, as mentioned afore, but of protons (at around 90%), alpha particles (9%), beta particles (1%) and traces of elements which mass to range all the way to iron nuclei. Since it's consitiuents haarbor mass, relativity forbid's there propagation at the speed of light. However, it may propagate at relativistic velocities, with unignorable effects like time dilation, lorentz contraction, and so on.

Cosmic radiation comprises particles with extremely high energies (extremes peaking at 50J/particle!!), and are highly ionizing (i.e capable of stripping electrons off the atom's vicinity). Ionizing rays are charecterized by high energies per particle, instead of an intense flood of particles. Gamma rays and X-rays are relatively less ionizing, but have considerable penetrating power, which makes X-rays ideal for certain medical imaging mechanisms.

Cosmic rays may interact with earth's upper atmosphere to generate unstable mesons, and suvh particles, which are to instantaneously decay into X-rays and other forms of particle radiation. Whatever may it be, they're NOT EM rays, and are not included in the EM spectrum.

The Number Game

We all are well familiar with the number line. We define it as the linear arrangement of numbers, bearing every number, from - ∞ to ∞. But the big question, "Is that it?" is something which deserves an answer. For a simple instance, how do we value √-1? When it can be expressed, it ought to exist. But is there somewhere to look for it in our number line?

I'm afraid no. Our number line is linear, and thus has corresponding limitations. It may define the set of real numbers, but when it comes to imaginary numbers, like √-1, it fails. The next question in our list, "Is there a way to define it?"

Inspired by one of my buddies, Akhil, I began thinking about something called a "number plane".
I perceive it different from complex number plane, because it's intended also to include real numbers.

Akhil's number plane was a plot of the super-real infinity versus the sub-real infinity. It was braned by 1; the quadrants above this brane represent numbers till ∞ and -∞, while those below the brane represent numbers till 1/∞ and -1/∞. It was vertically partitioned, to project 0.

My concept of the number plane isn't much different, since it was induced by Akhil's. However in my number plane, imaginary values are also assigned a value, due to the quadratic nature of the plot. Consider the number plane below:

The vertical axis, like in Akhil's number plane, represents 0. However, the brane was eliminated in the system, and replaced by 0. I've termed this point as the "super-point", since it simply can represent the nature of the number line. The quadrants above the super-point is assigned to real numbers; left hand side for the negative ones, right hand side for the positives. On the other end, the imaginary, or the complex numbers are assigned the bottom 2 quadrants. Each of the quadrants are infinitely continual. I shall hereby refer to my number plane as the "number cone".

I've tried developing a way to make it all easier: This system can be compared to 2 distinct number lines, flexed and 2 dimensionally joined. In the below diagram, the system marked red can be compared to a flexed real number line, while the blue system is for the imaginary number system.

One may think, how is a number cone different from 2 distinct number lines? The answer to this question turns out the one beautiful number, 0. 0 is a part of every sub number-systems (except natural and irrational numbers). It's real, as well as imaginary; positive, as well as negative. This makes it a strong glue to adhere real, imaginary, positive and negative, positive imaginary, as well as negative imaginary numbers to a single system. This is the reason why 0 comprises the center of this number plane.

Another concept as I would introduce, the linear number-line projection. Consider the below diagram.

What can be viewed above is a projection of linear number line from the number plane. I've simply implied a simple number plane by horizontally joining any point in the "positive number slope" to its counterpart at the "negative number slope". However, as mentioned afore, there arises a need of scale, when we are to compare a projected linear number line and the flexed number line. Cos (θ/2) will express the required scale, where θ is the angle of flex, in this case being 90 degrees.

This is just one of my ideas, in need of your thoughts and opinions!

The Beauty of a Subject

20th April '09. Just another start at school... The same old hassels, the same old tensions, the same old messups. Though being interesting, I never had that "lust" for Math as I did for Physics. It all had to happen this day, as I fell in love with it. I realised every random "scrible" had its own game of numbers. I realised that beneath every chaos, there's an order; a unique order of numbers. Mathematics is all we need to define anything our eyes can fetch...

Something that even adds to the beauty of this subject is the number: 0. It simply is "nothing", but at the same time, is the sum of every number that could exist, every shape we could define, alias "everything"... It's just another instance of human imagination submitting to Mathematics; it's legitimate to equate everything to nothing! It's a number which reminds us that every positive has it's negative, and every negative harbors a positive. It's a number to break all infinities down to nothing, and lift nothing up to infinity.

0 is not the only beauty Mathematics harbors. The infinite bedlams of infinite infinities is yet another thing to lift me off my feet... For a simple instance, there lies infinite number of infinities between any 2 entities in this infinite continuum of the number line; there are infinite number of infinities between any 2 given number, say 0 and 1. There lies infinite number of numbers between 0 and 1, and each of these numbers have their very own infinities to lay. With anything we do, we're transcending an infinite number of infinities, while our imagination is drenched in an infinity!

Mathematics certainly is not limited by our cosmos, and it can span a continuum larger than we can even think of. Somewhere, it tells us that the cosmos isn't everything that exists, and it's just an infinitely tiny entity of the infinity, or as I would call, the super-infinity, Mathematics defines. What makes this game of infinity even more treacherous is that a super-infinity just couldn't exist! Does this make our existance a paradox? I'll let you think hard...

On one end, mathematics defines everything that can exist, and on the other hand, it contradicts everything that exists! Such is the beauty of Mathematics, the beauty I fell in love with...

iAstro Rolls Online!

Here we are, with a brand new website for the scientist within you! If you were through the link in my previous entry, you probably know what I'm talkin about.. If you didn't, no worries! This is how it works:

• You ask a question by hitting the "Submit" button on the link bar, and your question is mailed straight to our address.
• We break our heads on your question (literally! :P) for that perfect li'l answer. All our answers are informative & segmented. Each question is addressed by 2 answers: One by me, and another by my budd, Alex.
• We mail you the answer first, and if we think our question is worth a display, you'll find it in our Questions & Answer section, when accessed from the main site.
• Further, if you wanna discuss anything about our answer, we have a forum running. All you need to do is register, and post! We've preset a few channels for you to start with.

All this, for $0.00! What are you waiting for, ask now!

Hey There!

Hey there, people of earth! This is Nasim from Dubai, United Arab Emirates. I'm 15, turning 16 this 8th of November. You can find me in facebook (through google, if you wish) as Mohammed Nasim Rahaman.
Science is my life, music is my passion. I'm totally into science; physics, astronomy and mathematics as said with precision. I also have a website running, in collaboration with one of my buddies. I'm into knowledge based communities like Yahoo! Answers, WikiAnswers, and so on. I enjoy learning new things, thinking about the vast cosmos all around us, (worrying about humanity :P) and just too many more for me to list here! *ouch, my head hurts*
As for music, I enjoy rock, a little away from metal and acid punk. My favourite band in the genre is none other than 30 Seconds to Mars. I do also like electronic and trance, all when it comes to DJ Tiesto and Positively Dark.
That's a li'l something about me! I'll be writing more as I stumble upon more topics t munch on.. Adios!