Abstract
A MATHEMATICAL friend with whom I have been discussing Prof. Eddington's paper on “Relativity and Gravitation,” recently published in NATURE, has made what appears to me to be an interesting suggestion. Prof. Eddington states that if a current of æther were moving vertically (say) with a velocity of 161,000 m./sec, a rod 8 ft. long, when placed transversely to the stream (i.e. horizontally), would, when turned vertically, be only 4 ft. He also says that this contraction would be unobservable because the retina of the eye would have similarly contracted in a vertical direction. Suppose, however, that the rod in its two positions were observed, not directly, but by means of a mirror inclined at an angle of 45°, by a spectator lying on his back on the floor of the room? His retina, being horizontal, would, ex hypothesi, have undergone no contraction at all. Both images of the rod, in its horizontal and vertical positions, would fall on this horizontal retina. If the experiment could be performed the contraction of the rod ought to be evident, and afford direct proof of the Lorentz-Fitzgerald hypothesis. Is there any flaw in this reasoning?
Similar content being viewed by others
Article PDF
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
O'FARRELL, H. Relativity and Gravitation. Nature 101, 126 (1918). https://doi.org/10.1038/101126a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/101126a0
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.