studiot

Jesus also refers to himself as the Son of Man and in other ways, in the Bible. http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/son-of-man.html As to the "son of the holy ghost", there is substantial argument that the whole trinity doctrine was a later invention. https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en-GB&source=hp&q=when+was+the+holy+ghost+invented&gbv=2&oq=when+was+the+holy+ghost&gs_l=heirloom-hp.1.0.0i22i30l10.1625.6047.0.8890.23.18.0.5.5.1.219.2185.2j14j2.18.0....0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..1.22.2155.8g-JZELoY8A

You seem to have moved on from your original question as to correctness in English to deciding that the use of the auxiliary verb to go is incorrect? English is characterised by the wide use of auxiliary verbs because the prefixes and suffixes are not much used as in other languages. The verb to go is a valid (and as you note common) auxiliary verb. But then 'will' is also auxiliary verb. I do not know of any prohibition on any verb actually being used as an auxiliary, though that would not be common practice.

I do not normally participate in religous discussions, but I guess that in Khartoum you may find background material more difficult to find than someone in the West, so I would like to offer a few comments. These are meant as pointers to help: I do not want to enter a protracted argument about them. To understand the Bible you need to know some things about it. It was not written all at once but is a collection of documents that were 'written' over a period of at least a thousand years. Individual parts were generally written up to several hundred years after a particular event and not generally by the persons themselves to whom the particular story is attributed. It was written in more than one language and on several occasions contains two quite different accounts of the same event. For instance many accounts in the Book of Kings (Ancient Greek) and the Book of Jeremiah (Hebrew). This is because when these were written there were two jewish communities separated by considerable distance. One was at Alexandria and spoke Greek, the other was in Jerusalem and spoke Hebrew. Jesus would have spoken Aramaeic. You are probably reading an English translation of one of these, which may have come from other languages before. So the bottom line is to try to determine for yourself (it is a very personal thing) what you think is 'true' and what has been changed in translation. London University offers Msc courses in something called Bible Study, by which they mean the study of the Bible as a collection of pieces of writing and how they came about, changed over the years, were inaccurate to start with or whatever. It was not the study of the religous content of that writing.

Well if you want to use comic book references I don't see how it pertains to special relativity. And it doesn't alter the fact that although we colloquially talk of the train 'being in one frame' and the platform being in another, the truth is that both are 'in' both frames. And I'm sure you know this perfectly well.

Funny I could have sworn it was a dimensionless number last time I looked. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_number

Um, how do you make that out? Does "mach 1" not have any units?

Hello Dekan, can you tell me what are the units (dimensions if you like) of "Mach 1" please? I'm sorry I missed your comment before, because of the page change.

There you go again. Introducing things I did specifically didn't to try to prove me wrong. I agree none of these things quoted have anything to do with what I said.

I consider it a great shame that as the only responder offering a way forward, both you and Christopher chose to reject what I had to say before I said it. I think the problem lies in a misunderstanding of terminology. So I asked a simple question to work through the problem from the beginning. The point is that the lightning (along with everything else in the universe) is not in any frame at all. This is a common turn of phrase that is actually wrong in strict terms. The lightning is in the universe, and every frame will identify the same point, but call it by different names. That is the whole point of Relativity. Consideration of this would lead to a resolution of your difficulties.

+1 Blimey, there must be something wrong here JC and I are in agreement!

I had a bad latex day recently so I have sketched the derivation out longhand. You should have enough to fill in the arithmetic, ask if there are any steps you don't follow.

It should be noted that this is not the method used for doppler satellite positioning.

All those lines? Do you first understand that in Fortran you must 'declare the variables' and it is usual to collect all these together at the start for convenience? So lines up to the starred lines are just declarations. or Are you asking about the subsequent do loops ? If so what do you not understand about them?

I have avoided commenting in this thread till now but removing Scotland from the UK is akin to a man with body dysmorphic disorder having a sound foot amputated, and just as silly. We would be better getting rid of Cameron than Scotland.

Finally an answer of sorts but I'm sorry to invoke the old adage There's none so blind as those that won't see. I have enhanced the relevant sentence. I do not like holding discussion with those who declare "whatever you are going to say is irrelevant", without knowing what I actually want to say.

That's a lot of numbers, Joe. Would you like to say what they mean?

All light has the same identical velocity, c, in every inertial frame to every observer. You need to be careful identifying the photon as a particle that travels at c though.

Yes and no. A single observer cannot do this, from the doppler effect. For example there is no doppler effect for motion at right angles to the line of intersection or for two bodies that are not moving apart. The size of the doppler shift gives you a value of the relative velocity along a vector which is the common line of intersection. So if you have another observer (In 2D) or two more observers (in3D) you can use the three such lines to find the resultant velocity of the object. However the observers must be suitably placed to achieve any accuracy.

Some thoughts. Firstly I don't believe anyone has clarified what sort of mass we are talking about. Inertial mass?, Gravitational mass? , Effective mass? or any two from three or all three? Secondly Depending upon your choice this would affect many areas of Physics, for example taking inertial mass to zero would mean zero kinetic energy, zero momentum and zero pressure, even if the particles remained in motion. Taking gravitational mass to zero would mean zero (gravitational) potential energy. Thirdly those quantities that have negative exponents of mass in their dimensions would involve division by zero. For example specific volume, molecular collision rate, average and rms speeds, diffusion coeficients and the like.

So here is my method for my problem for comparison.

Read post#2 by fuzzwood again +1

Spyman did you have a method or did you just guess? Since this is a science forum it would be nice to also discuss strategies for solving these things (both Einstein's and mine).

For your information you mean a CRT or Cathode Ray Tube monitor, which consumes 80 - 120 watts in your size. Modern replacements are LCD at 40 watts and LED at around 20 watts. These two comparison sites may interest you http://www.sustainableit.com/should-i-replace-my-crts-with-lcds/ http://energyusecalculator.com/electricity_lcdleddisplay.htm

I did but I used the word universe to avoid the word frame. You are still dodging the question What is the location of the source of the lightning? The answer to this is all important.

Yes I realise it is not perfect, but different places in the Forum give different answers as to whether a member is online or offline. The main board seems to update before the threads. Anyway thanks for looking at my post.