No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 February 2012
In his recent article McVittie has criticised in most disparaging terms the analytical theory of time-keeping developed by Milne and myself in the last ten years. Milne has replied at length (see preceding paper), and it is my purpose in this note merely to touch on one or two points which he has not covered.
However, before doing so, I should like to take this opportunity of remarking that the “Kinematical Relativity,” about which McVittie has written, both in his recent article and in his monograph, “Cosmological Theory,” is not the Kinematical Relativity of Milne and myself, but is something much slighter, based, perhaps, on an incomplete understanding of the nature of the kinematical theory.
page 298 note * Proc. Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. lxi, 1942, p. 210.Google Scholar
page 298 note † Methuen Physical Monograph, 1937.Google Scholar
page 298 note ‡ Zeit. für A strophys., vol. xv, 1938, p. 342.Google Scholar
page 299 note * Whitrow, G. J., Zeit. für Astrophys., vol. xiii, 1937, p. 113.Google Scholar
page 299 note † Proc. L.M.S., ser. 2, vol. xli, 1936, p. 418.Google Scholar