|
|
|
|
|
by deciplex
4282 days ago
|
|
FWIW, it's always been easier for me to think of it as 'moving' more quickly along the time axis - which would appear slowed down to someone farther away from the source of the gravity. Perhaps that's what the parent was getting at? |
|
In reality, it's the other way around. At the bottom of a gravity well, time passes more slowly. An astronaut on the moon observing a laser beam from earth's surface would see it as red-shifted compared to a local reference, reflecting the fact that time passes more slowly at earth's surface than it does on the moon. The other equivalent interpretation under GR is that the light loses energy climbing out of the gravitational field and is therefore red-shifted. One of the beauties of Einstein's theory is that, if you do the math using either assumption (slower time or lost energy), the result comes out the same.
The classic confirmation of GR conducted in 1919 during a solar eclipse showed that the paths taken by starlight near the temporarily blocked sun were curved toward the sun. This is consistent with the idea that time passes more slowly near the sun. Consider that a light beam a bit closer to the sun would have a longer transit time (because of slower time passage) than one farther away, which would have the effect of curving the stellar light wavefront toward the sun.
This article has some graphics and deeper explanations to assist in understanding these ideas:
http://arachnoid.com/relativity