out to 7.2 microseconds out of 86400 seconds (one day).

GPS satellites are in circular orbits at 20200 km altitude,
or about 26580 km from the center of earth. The orbital
speed is given by > -=-

<> >><> >><> >><> >><> ^

Let's try again, then. the original writer of my first comment that
started this is more linguistically oriented than mathematically. The
argument proposed then dealt with information rather than physics, and
went like this: All information originates from an observer at some
point with some tool of observation. That information is then
transferred to somewhere else by some means of information transfer
which can be considered as a wave motion. As long as there is no
relative motion between the transmitter and the receiver, this wave
motion will not necessarily distort the information. If relative
transsmitter/receiver motion approaches the velocity of the wave motion
of the carrier wave there will be great distortion, and at the
velicity of the carrier wave and beyond there will be no information
transfer..
Now the Lorenz Transfer equations of the Einsteinian
Special Relativity describe how information is
changed with relative motion with a carrier wave at
the speed of light. If other carrier waves were
used, or postulated, the same equations could be used
by inserting the appropriate speed. If one calls
what can be observed and transmitted using a particular
carrier wave velocity as wnat can be perceived in
that fashion, i.e. a "Perceptual Universe." then it
can be seen that Einstein's Special Relativity,
defines one particular "Perceptual Universe. " in this
viewpoint.

If the 'observer' happens to be a cloud of particles hurtling
down an evacuated tube, SR predicts and it is confirmed, that
the cloud of particles will 'perceive' that they would be
happier with a different identity.... and they may aquire the
new identity.

Does you notion of 'perception' have enough scope to
include these particles as 'perceivers' ???

Sue...

To Sue:
Would like to know exactly to what you are referring . It is very
possible that the notion could be extended...Quien sabe? It may also
be that it is the external observes of the cloud of particles that
reach the conclusion that they have new identities.

You are waxing a bit too philosopical. It is partly Einstein's writing.
His theory is 'observer centric' but he does not make it clear that
an 'observer' of light is an electric charge which interacts with
the electromagnetism. I don't think electrons are imbued with the
quality of perception that you refer to. Nevertheless, they behave
the way a Maxwell/Einstein paradigm predicts.
They do all the maths similar to this:
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
...without even using pencil and paper.

I'm sorry that my
sub-particle physics does ont extend to knowing to what you refer. I
suspect that this is referring to some mass/energy enterchange
situation. For instance, one may argue that a proton could be an
antielectron which somehow was slowed down in such a way that its
kinetic energy was converted to mass rather than being transmitted to
another entity.....

Well... one might make arguments 'similar' to that
but not exactly that one.

'Tho relativty is often described in terms of 'what an
observer sees' it is important you are clearing up the issue
that human perception or even our visual mechanisms have
little to do with it. We can 'see' the effects with grocery
scales or gasoline cans and a properly designed experiment.

Sue...