🚀 go-pugleaf

G. L. Bradford says...

>"Daryl McCullough" <stevendaryl3016@yahoo.com> wrote

>> Well, there is a big difference in that, for the case of
>> two inertial observers, each can consistently believe that
>> the other clock is "running slower" and no observation will
>> ever contradict that assumption.
>>
>> In contrast, with the two orbiting observers, there is an easy
>> way to show that the other clock isn't "really" running
>> slower: if each observer sends out a light signal once per
>> second (as measured by his local clock), then those signals
>> will be received exactly once per second by the other observer.
>
>  No they won't. Sync only occurs if the observers are geosynchronous to one 
>another.

I thought the premise was that the two observers were orbiting in
the same orbit, in the same direction, on opposite sides of the
Earth. In that case, there will certainly be no Doppler shift
in signals received.

The premise was this:

>>>Two distant observers with each a (transversal) LIGHT CLOCK
>>>orbit at a constant distance around their common center
>>>(assumed at rest).

So the distance between the two is assumed to be constant.

>In other words if the observers and their clocks are apparently 
>stopped relative to one another.

I'm not sure what you mean by "stopped". If the two are
orbiting on opposite sides of the Earth in the same circular
orbit, then their velocities will be in the opposite direction.
So they aren't "stopped" relative to one another. I guess from
the standpoint of a rotating coordinate system, they are stopped.

>If the two are closing distance between them,

The premise was that the distance between them is constant.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY