Sundial and Clock comparisons in General Relativity

Just thought of this. Go on, shoot it down in flames. Clocks are shown
to run slower at the base of skyscrapers compared to those on the top
floor. (This prediction of Einstein's General Relativity has been
empirically confirmed.) Now imagine two sundials on the ground and top
floors. Will the one at the base indicate a time slower than the one
higher up? If so, how would that work? And if not, would not this form
of time measurement be impervious to the constraints of GE, and thus
lead to impossible results? And in any case, if you had two sundials
positioned alongside two atomic clocks on these floors, would you be
able to measure the differences between the ways they are counting
time?

Myles (and what about my moondial, then?) paulsen

On Jan 3, 9:41*am, abzorba wrote:
Just thought of this. Go on, shoot it down in flames. Clocks are shown
to run slower at the base of skyscrapers compared to those on the top
floor. (This prediction of Einstein's General Relativity has been
empirically confirmed.) Now imagine two sundials on the ground and top
floors. Will the one at the base indicate a time slower than the one
higher up? If so, how would that work? And if not, would not this form
of time measurement be impervious to the constraints of GE, and thus
lead to impossible results? And in any case, if you had two sundials
positioned alongside two atomic clocks on these floors, would you be
able to measure the differences between the ways they are counting
time?

Once you've developed the femtosecond sundial we can do the experiment.

On Jan 3, 7:41*am, abzorba wrote:
Just thought of this. Go on, shoot it down in flames. Clocks are shown
to run slower at the base of skyscrapers compared to those on the top
floor. (This prediction of Einstein's General Relativity has been
empirically confirmed.) Now imagine two sundials on the ground and top
floors. Will the one at the base indicate a time slower than the one
higher up? If so, how would that work? And if not, would not this form
of time measurement be impervious to the constraints of GE, and thus
lead to impossible results? And in any case, if you had two sundials
positioned alongside two atomic clocks on these floors, would you be
able to measure the differences between the ways they are counting
time?

Myles (and what about my moondial, then?) paulsen

Sundials are founded on the basis of the length of time it takes a
shadow to return to the same position as the Earth rotates to the
central Sun and simultaneously makes a circuit of the Sun,the latter
producing a variation in the length of time it takes for each noon to
noon cycle.Taken as a single cycle,the length of time it takes
represents a discrete value which changes for each natural cycle,
clocks,on the other hand,represent a consistent cycle as an average of
all the discrete cycles marked by a sundial or,as Huygens describes
it,the alignment of two threads and the shadow cast by them -

" Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12. Signes,
or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptick in 365 days,5 hours 49
min.or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon,
are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers'd in
Astronomy...Draw a Meridian line upon a floor and then hang two
plummets, each by a small thred or wire, directly over the said
Meridian, at the distance of some 2. feet or more one from the other,
as the smalness of the thred will admit. When the middle of the Sun
(the Eye being placed so, as to bring both the threds into one line)
appears to be in the same line exactly you are then immediately to set
the Watch, not precisely to the hour of 12. but by so much less, as is
the Aequation of the day by the Table" Huygens

http://adcs.home.xs4all.nl/Huygens/06/kort-E.html

Huygen's description is slightly flawed yet does not detract from the
brilliance of that treatise,the Equation of Time correction is derived
from natural noon and works within the calendar format and only when
John Harrison provided a complete set of tables which are set within
the calendar system and its leap day correction,does the
correspondence between the variations in the natural noon cycle and
the constant clock cycle make sense,at least in terms of planetary
dynamics behind the cycles.

As Ole Roemer made the determination for light based on the anomalous
motion of Io using an incomplete set of Equation of Time tables it
would skew his results,after all,John Harrison's set did not appear
for another century.For empiricists following Newton,the issue cannot
be more important and the distinction between variations in natural
noon and the constancy of clock noon was framed in terms of the
Equation of Time and Roemer's use of it -

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are
truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used
for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their
more accurate deducing of the celestial motions. ..... The necessity
of which equation, for determining the times of a phænomenon, is
evinced as well from the experiments of the pendulum clock, as by
eclipses of the satellites of Jupiter." Newton, Principia

Nobody is going to shoot you down,the issues are sometimes so tangled
that you need a degree in covert operations to make sense of what
Newton was doing any many simply walk away than cut through the
technical details and arrive at a clearer understanding of what is
going on.All I can say is that is it is worth it.

"abzorba" wrote in message
...
| Just thought of this. Go on, shoot it down in flames. Clocks are shown
| to run slower at the base of skyscrapers compared to those on the top
| floor. (This prediction of Einstein's General Relativity has been
| empirically confirmed.) Now imagine two sundials on the ground and top
| floors. Will the one at the base indicate a time slower than the one
| higher up? If so, how would that work? And if not, would not this form
| of time measurement be impervious to the constraints of GE, and thus
| lead to impossible results? And in any case, if you had two sundials
| positioned alongside two atomic clocks on these floors, would you be
| able to measure the differences between the ways they are counting
| time?
|
| Myles (and what about my moondial, then?) paulsen
|

In principle you have found a disproof of Einstein's psychopathic idiocy.
In practice you would be unable to maintain a constant experiment,
sundials don't work at night.

I did it slightly differently showing a practical method and have
posted it several times, I keep it as a .sig.

--
Test of GR.

Synchronize two vacuum enclosed identical horizontal light clocks
side-by-side and leave to run for 6 months in two identical chest
freezers (for environmental control). Note any relative drift.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/lightclock.gif

Place one horizontal light clock at the top of the Burj Khalifa
http://www.burjkhalifa.ae/
and leave the other at the base. Leave to run for 6 months.
Bring the clocks together again, note any relative drift.

If the clocks DO read the same count (with drift allowed) then NIST
got it wrong, there was no time dilation due to altitude difference.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/aluminum-atomic-clock_092310.cfm

If the clocks do NOT read the same count (with drift allowed) due to
time dilation then NIST got it wrong, the speed of light cannot be a
universal constant.
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c

Either way, NIST are useless yankee ******s and WRONG.

"Peter Brooks" wrote in message
...
On Jan 3, 9:41 am, abzorba wrote:
Just thought of this. Go on, shoot it down in flames. Clocks are shown
to run slower at the base of skyscrapers compared to those on the top
floor. (This prediction of Einstein's General Relativity has been
empirically confirmed.) Now imagine two sundials on the ground and top
floors. Will the one at the base indicate a time slower than the one
higher up? If so, how would that work? And if not, would not this form
of time measurement be impervious to the constraints of GE, and thus
lead to impossible results? And in any case, if you had two sundials
positioned alongside two atomic clocks on these floors, would you be
able to measure the differences between the ways they are counting
time?

Once you've developed the femtosecond sundial we can do the experiment.
==============================================
No need, dimbulb.

--
Test of GR.

Synchronize two vacuum enclosed identical horizontal light clocks
side-by-side and leave to run for 6 months in two identical chest
freezers (for environmental control). Note any relative drift.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/lightclock.gif

Place one horizontal light clock at the top of the Burj Khalifa
http://www.burjkhalifa.ae/
and leave the other at the base. Leave to run for 6 months.
Bring the clocks together again, note any relative drift.

If the clocks DO read the same count (with drift allowed) then NIST
got it wrong, there was no time dilation due to altitude difference.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/aluminum-atomic-clock_092310.cfm

If the clocks do NOT read the same count (with drift allowed) due to
time dilation then NIST got it wrong, the speed of light cannot be a
universal constant.
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c

Either way, NIST are useless yankee ******s and WRONG.

Just thought of this. Go on, shoot it down in flames. Clocks are shown
to run slower at the base of skyscrapers compared to those on the top
floor. (This prediction of Einstein's General Relativity has been
empirically confirmed.) Now imagine two sundials on the ground and top
floors. Will the one at the base indicate a time slower than the one
higher up?

Not in solar time, but it will if locally calibrated to universal time -
the lengths of the solar day as measured in the two places will differ.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile 07800 739 557 http://www.campin.me.uk Twitter: JackCampin

On Jan 3, 1:41*am, abzorba wrote:
Just thought of this. Go on, shoot it down in flames. Clocks are shown
to run slower at the base of skyscrapers compared to those on the top
floor. (This prediction of Einstein's General Relativity has been
empirically confirmed.) Now imagine two sundials on the ground and top
floors. Will the one at the base indicate a time slower than the one
higher up? If so, how would that work? And if not, would not this form
of time measurement be impervious to the constraints of GE, and thus
lead to impossible results? And in any case, if you had two sundials
positioned alongside two atomic clocks on these floors, would you be
able to measure the differences between the ways they are counting
time?

Myles (and what about my moondial, then?) paulsen

The two sundials do not represent two independent clocks, but
rather two readouts of a single oscillator. In other words, they
are forced to oscillate in lock-step.

Jerry

"Jerry" wrote in message
...
On Jan 3, 1:41 am, abzorba wrote:
Just thought of this. Go on, shoot it down in flames. Clocks are shown
to run slower at the base of skyscrapers compared to those on the top
floor. (This prediction of Einstein's General Relativity has been
empirically confirmed.) Now imagine two sundials on the ground and top
floors. Will the one at the base indicate a time slower than the one
higher up? If so, how would that work? And if not, would not this form
of time measurement be impervious to the constraints of GE, and thus
lead to impossible results? And in any case, if you had two sundials
positioned alongside two atomic clocks on these floors, would you be
able to measure the differences between the ways they are counting
time?

Myles (and what about my moondial, then?) paulsen

The two sundials do not represent two independent clocks, but
rather two readouts of a single oscillator. In other words, they
are forced to oscillate in lock-step.

Jerry
===============================================
"Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly,
by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of
the poles under otherwise identical conditions."


The two balance clocks do not represent two independent clocks,
but rather two readouts of a single gravitational field. In other words,
you are forced to bull**** in lock-step with the rest of the sheep.

Dear abzorba:

On Jan 3, 12:41*am, abzorba wrote:
Just thought of this. Go on, shoot it down in flames.
Clocks are shown to run slower at the base of
skyscrapers compared to those on the top floor.
(This prediction of Einstein's General Relativity has
been empirically confirmed.) Now imagine two
sundials on the ground and top floors. Will the one
at the base indicate a time slower than the one
higher up?

Yes.

If so, how would that work?

Time of flight from rooftop to ground.

And if not, would not this form of time measurement
be impervious to the constraints of GE,

General Electric?

and thus lead to impossible results?

No, it violates the postulates of GR, so is no challenge.

And in any case, if you had two sundials positioned
alongside two atomic clocks on these floors, would
you be able to measure the differences between the
ways they are counting time?

I sure hope so.

Since we gave up on the meter being so many equal units dividing up
Earth's equator, so did we give up (long ago) on the second being a
fraction of a day. You may or may not recall adding a second every
few years, because Earth's length-of-day is changing (and will
continue to do so. We even have leap years, where an entire day is
added (and 2012 is one of those years).

David A. Smith

On 1/3/12 1/3/12 1:41 AM, abzorba wrote:
Just thought of this. Go on, shoot it down in flames. Clocks are shown
to run slower at the base of skyscrapers compared to those on the top
floor. (This prediction of Einstein's General Relativity has been
empirically confirmed.) Now imagine two sundials on the ground and top
floors. Will the one at the base indicate a time slower than the one
higher up?

Excellent question!

Consider how a sundial indicates the time -- it displays the position of the sun
relative to itself. The sun is located at neither the base nor the top of the
skyscraper, but is an essential part of the timing element of a sundial. So the
two sundials indicate the same time, and are not affected by the gravitational
potential where they are located [#].

[#] several caveats accompany this, such as that gravitation
must be weak, the sundials must be near to each other, we neglect
the propagation time of light from the sun, etc.

At base, the issue is: what is a clock? In physics, a clock is a "small" object
[@]; the sundial PLUS EARTH AND SUN is not "small" at all.

[@] "small" in the sense that the curvature of the manifold can be
neglected across its size; thus it has a definite gravitational
potential.


If so, how would that work? And if not, would not this form
of time measurement be impervious to the constraints of GE, and thus
lead to impossible results?

They are not "impervious" to the constraints of GR, but one must understand what
those constraints actually are, and what the words used actually mean.


And in any case, if you had two sundials
positioned alongside two atomic clocks on these floors, would you be
able to measure the differences between the ways they are counting
time?

A sundial cannot possibly be read out with sufficient accuracy.


Tom Roberts