- 10,419
- 1,591
I suspect the usual confusion here, though I can't follow the original poster's argument well enough to be positive I'm right. (There are other issues that cause confusion than the one I'll present, but the one I'll present is very common).
The "usual issue" is that people assume, both explicitly and/or implicitly, that the notion of synchronizing clocks is independent of the observer.
The notion of "synchronizing clocks" is needed, for instance, to determine the idea of "now". When we have a model of space-time, "now" is the set of points that occur "at the same time".
The notion of synchronizing clocks, the notion of "now" in special relativity, is observer dependent. Trying to understand special relativity without realizing this issue inevitably leads to confusion. The bad assumption that causes much confusion is to assume that the notion of "now" independent of the observer, that everyone agrees on what "now" is.
An implicit assumption of the existence of "now" is needed to talk about the rate at which clocks tick when they are at different locations. We compare the time on one clock "now" to the time on a clock at a different location "now".
This usually first shows up in the twin paradox, in flat space-time - a much easier topic to talk about than gravity.
Basically, the only way that in A's frame of reference that B's clock can run slow, and that in B's frame of reference, A's clock runs slow, is when A and B have different notions of "now".
There's a name for this issue, it's called the "relativity of simultaneity". However, just giving the name of the issue doesn't explain it enough so that people who are not already aware of the issue understand it. In general, it seems very hard to talk about this issue in a way that will be understood, but I keep trying.
Things get very complicated if someone tries to understand general relativity without understanding this feature of special relativity. Special relativity is much easier to talk about.
The "usual issue" is that people assume, both explicitly and/or implicitly, that the notion of synchronizing clocks is independent of the observer.
The notion of "synchronizing clocks" is needed, for instance, to determine the idea of "now". When we have a model of space-time, "now" is the set of points that occur "at the same time".
The notion of synchronizing clocks, the notion of "now" in special relativity, is observer dependent. Trying to understand special relativity without realizing this issue inevitably leads to confusion. The bad assumption that causes much confusion is to assume that the notion of "now" independent of the observer, that everyone agrees on what "now" is.
An implicit assumption of the existence of "now" is needed to talk about the rate at which clocks tick when they are at different locations. We compare the time on one clock "now" to the time on a clock at a different location "now".
This usually first shows up in the twin paradox, in flat space-time - a much easier topic to talk about than gravity.
Basically, the only way that in A's frame of reference that B's clock can run slow, and that in B's frame of reference, A's clock runs slow, is when A and B have different notions of "now".
There's a name for this issue, it's called the "relativity of simultaneity". However, just giving the name of the issue doesn't explain it enough so that people who are not already aware of the issue understand it. In general, it seems very hard to talk about this issue in a way that will be understood, but I keep trying.
Things get very complicated if someone tries to understand general relativity without understanding this feature of special relativity. Special relativity is much easier to talk about.