618
DOC.
594
AUGUST
1918
extension of this
system.
I
definitely
contest
your
underlined assertion
on
p. 50.[14]
Likewise
I
contest
the
weight
of
the
argument
presented
on
this
page
that the
method
of
identical clocks fails
owing
to
the
influence
of
motion
on
their
rate;
since
for
the determination
of time
(of
a system)
only
clocks
that
are
at
rest
relative to
the
relevant
system are
used.
That
is
why you yourself surely
cannot
attach
any
weight
to
the remark
at
the
bottom of
p.
50.[15] P. 51.[16]
The
dial
is
a
bit
odd, why
not
the
handle and
the
polish
as
well?[17]
P.
52.[18]
We
imagine
my
standard
clocks
as
having
been
produced identically
somewhere and sometime
by
a
clockmaker
who
enjoys a
world
monopoly
and
then
having
been
brought
to
the
different
locations
and into the
states of motion of
the
various locations.
I
would like to
see
avoided
as
uneconomical and
superfluous
the
establishment
“by
convention”
of
a
unit
of
time
independent
of
the standard
clocks. I
do not
understand the
sentence:
“We
thus do
not
need
to
acknowledge piously
...”[19]
Clocks
are
identical
by
definition
if,
after
being brought side-by-side
at relative
rest
to each
other,
upon
observation
they
are
found to be identical. This
is
clearly
a
harmless
overdefinition,
physically speaking;
considering
it
physically
inadmissible
seems
excessive
skepticism
to
me! P.
53.[20]
The
poor
dial
again.
P.
54.[21]
I
consider
it
to
be
the
only
constructive solution to select
an
identical “scale for
the
dials”
of all
the
systems’
clocks
as
well,
since otherwise
quite
superfluous complications
arise.[22] We
make
use
of
the
same measuring
instruments
throughout.
P.
55.[23]
No,
there
is
no
gap
here in
my
train of
thought;[24]
for
I
require
that
in
every
system
the
setting
of
the
clocks be
possible
such
that,
measured
by
the
system
time,
the
velocity
of
light
is
c,
if
in all
systems
identical
clocks,
in the
above
sense,
are
used.
(There
follows
a
repetition of
the unfounded
objection regarding
the
unit
of
time.)
The
sources
of inequality of
the
clocks
indicated
on
page
55
are
assumed
by
me
to be avoidable and
to
have been
avoided.[25]
(This
you
actually
do in
your
considerations
as well.)
I
do
not
deny
the
feasibility
of
using
different
units of
time, just
the
practicability
of it for
a
consideration of the
principles
of
space
and time
in
physics.
The
galvanometric
method
(pp.
59-60)[26]
is
no more
than
a
new
instantaneous
signal
of
infinitely large
propagation
velocity.[27]
It
is
plain
that
electrical current
can
achieve
that
no
better than
light.
P.
61.[28]
The
concept
of
velocity
relative
to
a
system
is
clear if
lengths
and times
are
defined relative to
this
system.
In
my paper
no
special
definition
was needed;[29]
only
V1
of
your
definitions could
logically
come
into consideration.[30]
Pp.
71-73
I
agree
with.[31]
Third
Chapter.[32]
P.
79.[33]
"Moment
of
the onset
of
motion.” Re absolute
simultaneity.
The
statement of the simultaneous coincidence of the partial dis[tances]
of M and
M'
is
meaningless
without
an
indication of
the
frame of
reference.[34]
Again
the
illusion