Sundial and Clock comparisons in General Relativity

On Jan 5, 6:30*am, abzorba wrote:
On Jan 5, 5:10*pm, "Androcles" wrote:









"Peter Moylan" wrote in message

.au...|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?
|
| The finite speed of light means that the shadow on the ground indicates
| the geometry a short time earlier.

Oh look, an ozzie ****headed troll that didn't read the moron's paper....

"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
infinitely great velocity".
4. Physical Meaning of the Equations Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid
Bodies and Moving Clocks
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS
OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein
June 30, 1905

Hang on a sec, which of the two ozzies here is a ****headed troll, and
which one is the moron? I'd like to be the moron, coz I like the idea
that what I wrote was a "paper".

(I am OP, and I WILL get back to this thread, which has been
surprisingly productive, but not right now. Am involved on other
threads, and work on this one needs a lot more concentration. The
number of answers provided means, to me anyway, that the issue is
rather more complex than I had originally thought it would be. In
tandem with this thread, I posted the same query on the Science
Research Desk at Wikipedia, and it has not had a lot of answers and
that's from a base of essayists with rather a lot more heavyweight
credentials than found here). Keep up the good work my fellow
froupers, I am in thrall to all.

Myles (Shadow on sundial can move FASTER than light - I can prove it!)
Paulsen

What makes relativity compelling fiction which engages both sides is
the lengths readers are prepared to go to consent to deliberate
ignorance.It is possible to see what is important to relativists and
their opponents alike,not by reading the details of any individual
post or 'expert' but by the count of posts for each thread and all
invariably are centered around two specific topics in the original
1905 proposal no matter what the guys who follow the later ideas would
like people to believe.

Somewhere between the graceful sweep of a shadow across the face of a
sundial and the magnificent sweep of the hand of a clock across a dial
representing a human achievement,all the issues are resolved,not
relativity and its related agendas but the awful errors that led up to
a belief in time travel,warped space and what have you.

For those who say sundials are not clocks or dither around that
stupidity can unwind,so to speak,with a simple time lapse footage that
demonstrates something wonderful,something denied relativists and
their opponents who care nothing for time,either natural or the great
timekeeping systems devised by humans-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2YnOfC5mz8

Androcles wrote:
"Peter Moylan" wrote in message
. au...

| The finite speed of light means that the shadow on the ground indicates
| the geometry a short time earlier.

Oh look, an ozzie ****headed troll that didn't read the moron's paper...

"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
infinitely great velocity".
§ 4. Physical Meaning of the Equations Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid
Bodies and Moving Clocks
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS
OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein
June 30, 1905

I have a copy of the paper, I've read it several times, and I've checked
the mathematics. Don't worry, I know the conclusions.

It sounds as if you've just scanned it to find phrases to quote out of
context.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

"Peter Moylan" wrote in message
. au...
| Androcles wrote:
| "Peter Moylan" wrote in message
| . au...
|
| | The finite speed of light means that the shadow on the ground
indicates
| | the geometry a short time earlier.
|
| Oh look, an ozzie ****headed troll that didn't read the moron's paper...
|
| "the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
| infinitely great velocity".
| § 4. Physical Meaning of the Equations Obtained in Respect to Moving
Rigid
| Bodies and Moving Clocks
| ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS
| OF MOVING BODIES
| By A. Einstein
| June 30, 1905
|
| I have a copy of the paper, I've read it several times, and I've checked
| the mathematics. Don't worry, I know the conclusions.

Why should I worry? The imbecile Einstein wrote what he did, you can't
change it.

|
| It sounds as if you've just scanned it to find phrases to quote out of
| context.

Oh yes, "finite speed" is definitely out of context with "infinitely great
velocity".
It sounds as if you're an invalid ****ing idiot,
lid.
**** off, clueless arsehole, you know the conclusions that intelligent will
reach about you.