Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Space-time interval (2)
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 18:11:41 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <ca24c2f588c95528f26e6aafe368ee31@www.novabbs.com>
References: <YqTjbAPdSf8P-veYFHQCI8eskLU@jntp> <AVa827R_LOez7mc5Ad3CT6GyhiA@jntp> <327c4ebc77dc16239ac38f00b508451b@www.novabbs.com> <17eb7db913381cc9$330199$505029$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> <ZmtVAt4HhKe0jdT-a3px1duKdmw@jntp> <v9i8c5$bvnu$9@dont-email.me> <VOohu46_lYfs6YEQG8qZQKYepNw@jntp> <v9ia7k$bvnu$11@dont-email.me> <FxxcAtB-BaU4TzfE-6Txlbo_gEA@jntp> <a610865812a2359182345fca40704d24@www.novabbs.com> <rKEMuc92iR5UV2SK1N1T-iZebzM@jntp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2576501"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="p+/k+WRPC4XqxRx3JUZcWF5fRnK/u/hzv6aL21GRPZM";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Posting-User: 47dad9ee83da8658a9a980eb24d2d25075d9b155
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$NchmpWQnSp9WuGUcuJRq6u5ny5hgaS/OBKD9mCBG9H9xtg2./IzyS
Bytes: 2751
Lines: 35

On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 17:37:09 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> Le 14/08/2024 à 16:39, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
> >
> > Actually, time passes MORE quickly at the satellite.  "Chronotropy" is
> > a canard.  The rate of the satellite clock is set to run slow so that
> > it is observed to run at the proper rate on the earth.  The reason why
> > the satellite must be updated is because (1) the satellite is not in
> an
> > exactly circular orbit and (2) the earth does not have a uniform
> > density.
> >
> > Someone (I'm not naming any names) needs to do some studying.
>
> This is a very interesting post.
> It asks a question: "How is it that the satellite, which apparently goes
> faster than the earth, has a time that passes faster, contrary to what
> SR predicts?"

Because, of course, it's GR.

> We answer it as we can, today, the answer is that it seems that
> apparently, gravitation slows down time.

It's not just "apparent": it's confirmed by experiment.

> Since Richard Hachel is not too interested in GR, he does not believe in
> it too much. The other two arguments that you have just proposed do not
> seem any more judicious to me.
> I have a fourth explanation, and it remains within the framework of RR.
>
> R.H.

"RR" is not a valid theory.  Nature doesn't care who believes what.  If
we fantasize about it, we'll "Sooner or later... get squish just like
grape!" -- Mr. Miyagi.