Bruce,
According to Special Relativity the satellite clocks would be slower. Since Special Relativity does not account for gravitation, there is no way for me to tell which clocks are slower because I have no idea what the effect of gravitation is on a clock. Scientists are payed trillions of dollars per year to experiment with these things. All I have is a cheap computer.
However, I have noticed that scientists do not like to talk about the distance contraction when you show them the following equation.

c=300,000 km/sec=x/t=x'/[t(c-v)/c]

= x'Lorentz / t'Lorentz

Robert B. Winn

• Excuses, excuses.. - bruce - May 17, 2001 - 04:56 UTC
  • 38,000 nanoseconds - rbwinn - May 17, 2001 - 12:56 UTC
    • Speed not distance - thunder005 - May 17, 2001 - 20:14 UTC
      • re:speed not distance - rbwinn - May 18, 2001 - 00:35 UTC
        • Space time... - thunder005 - May 18, 2001 - 04:55 UTC
          • Fritz - bruce - May 18, 2001 - 05:49 UTC
    • Sure - bruce - May 18, 2001 - 04:48 UTC
      • satellite - rbwinn - May 18, 2001 - 06:56 UTC
        • As you've been told many times... - bruce - May 18, 2001 - 21:07 UTC
          • adieu - rbwinn - May 19, 2001 - 19:41 UTC
            • I would like you.. - bruce - May 19, 2001 - 20:45 UTC
              • velocity - rbwinn - May 20, 2001 - 04:36 UTC
                • The only thing you've proven.. - bruce - May 20, 2001 - 22:54 UTC
                  • adieu again - rbwinn - May 21, 2001 - 23:16 UTC
                    • You are a fool - bruce - May 21, 2001 - 23:35 UTC
                      • You are a name caller - rbwinn - May 22, 2001 - 13:10 UTC