Rotating disk time dilation relativity Consider two persons A and B. Assume A's reference is an inertial reference. Consider B is standing on a horizontal rotating disc relative to A's frame. By SR, we can conclude that B clock should be slower relative to A when he compares B's clock rate with his clock rate. But concurrently B should, according to the equivalence principle, suffer from local gravitational field.

*

*Does this field make another added dilation of B's clock relative to A? Or the dilation of SR is the only dilation from A's point of view?

*Is A's clock slow relative to B's frame? Or B's clock is "absolutely" slower than A's clock irrespective to the observing reference?

 A: The way relativity is commonly explained makes it seem more complicated in some ways than it really is. The only fundamental apparatus required is a set of events (the spacetime manifold) and a definition of measurement (the metric). If you pick a timelike world-line, the metric can tell you how much time went by on that world-line. In other words, the metric doesn't do anything for you that a clock doesn't do for you, if you just make the clock move along that world-line and see how many times it ticks.
All this business about coordinate systems and frames of reference is optional, and, in the case of this question, unnecessarily confusing.
So if we have observers A and B, SR doesn't tell us whether A's clock is moving faster or B's is moving faster, or whether one's clock is slower "as seen by" the other. If we want to compare A and B, SR only predicts the results of experiments in which the clocks start together, go somewhere, and then are reunited, as in the twin paradox. In this type of experiment, an inertially moving clock will always show a longer time than any other clock.
So if your A and B start side by side, and then after one rotation of the wheel they compare clocks again, A's clock will show more time as having passed.
Kinematic time dilation and gravitational time dilation are not separate effects that have to be put into relativity by hand. They are simply descriptions of the results given by the metric in certain situations.
In the typical presentation of SR in terms of frames of reference, each of these frames of reference can be thought of as an infinite network of clocks, connected by rigid rods, all of them synchronized by the exchange of light signals. There is a standard illustration of this: Is the defintion of *inertial reference frame* given by Blandford and Thorne acceptable?
If you try to do this with clocks fixed to the rotating wheel, it won't work. Suppose you have clocks 1, 2, 3, ... 100 spaced equally around the circumference of the wheel. You can synchronize 1 with 2 by exchanging light signals, then 2 with 3 and so on. You will find that once you've synchronized 99 with 100, 100 is not synchronized with 1.
A: 1: There are no space-time bending masses anywhere in the scenario - so general relativity is not needed, just SR where a moving clock is a slow clock.
According to everyone, if long enough time is considered, a clock on the rim of a rotating disk moves more then a clock at the center of said disk.
2: A moving clock is a slow clock. Except that for a non-inertial observer like B it's a bit more complicated. B could use the GR time-dilation and the SR time-dilation to explain why A's clock does what it does according to B. (Moving clock slow, low clock slow, high clock fast)
