Recent content by Andy Lee

In all cases the light is traveling through the medium in the same (inbound) direction.

50% is for example only. Use any medium, guaranteed to slow light. We're slowing the light only in one direction in each case (inbound).

Note, it possible to determine if the speed of light varies depending on direction, with the use of a single clock. Simply send a beam and reflect it back, but on the return trip introduce a medium to slow the beam. Three cases, T1, T2, T3 are total travel times. T1: assume light is the...

"There was, for example, a time before you asked your question and now there is a time when you have an answer." But the only measurable difference between these two "times" is the configuration of particles in our three dimensional universe. The only change between the two times was change in...

Thanks PeroK. That will certainly help me. If you could humor me for one more minute, I would like to raise a question about the nature of time. It is clear that if person A is in an environment with no motion exhibited by any object in A's frame of reference, then it is impossible for A to...

"You can set up the experiment so that here are no delays due to observing what happens. Suppose each person (moving and stationary) has observers all along the length of the experiment with clocks that are exactly synchronized with his. They are in position to instantly observe what happens...

I am hopeful someone can give me a quick lesson here. I have an idea that time does not slow as one's velocity increases (bear with me, please). I'll state this in familiar terms with a person on a train vs platform and the light beam traveling vertically from the ceiling (P1) to the floor of...

Thanks, that helps.

1. Energy is proportional to mass. 2. Mass (of nucleus) is proportional to volume. 3. Volume can be determined from cross-sectional area. If this is the case, then is E=mc^2 equivalent to kE=(pi)r^2 where r is the radius of the nucleus and k is some constant?

Hey, I was reading Neil Turok's book (The Universe Within) and it got me thinking about E=mc^2. Here's what I came up with (keep an open mind):

I'm not sure what your k is, but I believe I have proven that every even number greater than 4 can be expressed as the sum or the difference of at least one pair of primes. Recall, E gives the minimum.

I see now that the cardinality of the set S is really x+2, so we have E = Limx->infinity(1/x)(x+2) where x+2 is the number of elements in S E = Limx->infinity(1+2/x) E = 1

Recall, the multiplication is to determine the least fraction of numbers remaining. Remove multiples of 3 from S, then at least 1/3 of the numbers remain. Remove multiples of 3 and 5 from S, then at least 1/3*3/5 of the numbers remain. Remove multiples of 3, 5, and 7 from S, then at least...

No. Just that the upper limit in your earlier statement should be sqrt(2N+k).

Why do you suggest the upper limit is sqrt(2N)? This is not in the proof.