Abstract
IN a recent article, entitled “The Relativity of Time”, Prof. Herbert Dingle1 discussed what constitutes a clock, and he used the discussion to support a thesis which he stated at the outset, namely, that the restricted theory of relativity does not imply a Fitzgerald contraction of time intervals.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
NATURE, 144, 888 (1939).
Campbell, Phil. Mag., (vii), 16, 529 (1933).
Campbell, Phil. Mag., (vii), 15, 48 (1933).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
CAMPBELL, J. The Nature of Time. Nature 145, 426–427 (1940). https://doi.org/10.1038/145426a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/145426a0
This article is cited by
-
Relativistic observations and the clock problem
Il Nuovo Cimento (1960)
-
Relativity of Time
Nature (1940)
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.