Abstract
PROF. GREENHILL, in his review of Mach's “Science of Mechanics” (NATURE, November 15), writes as if he disapproved of that author's not accepting “Newton's distinction between the relativity of motion of translation and the absoluteness of motion of rotation.” He appears to think that Mach would have obtained more insight into this distinction from a study of Maxwell's “Matter and Motion.” It might more truly be said that Maxwell would have profited by a perusal of Mach's book. The latter finally refutes the paradox contained in Newton's statement, and supported by Maxwell, and by so doing renders a great service to Mechanical Science. He has disposed once and for all of “absolute rotation.” It is high time that writers on Mechanics should revise the preliminaries of their science so as to state their results in terms of relative motion, whether of translation or rotation. This has been partially done by Maxwell, and a further step has now been taken by Mach. It is unfortunate that the reviewer in drawing attention to this part of the book should have preferred to stand by the prejudice he owes to Newton and Maxwell when he might have done something to hasten its abandonment.
Similar content being viewed by others
Article PDF
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
LOVE, A. The Alleged Absoluteness of Motions of Rotation. Nature 51, 105 (1894). https://doi.org/10.1038/051105c0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/051105c0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.