text:
Lectures on the Proofs of the Existence of God

Contents

 * /Lecture 1/
 * /Lecture 2/
 * /Lecture 3/
 * /Lecture 4/
 * /Lecture 5/
 * /Lecture 6/
 * /Lecture 7/
 * /Lecture 8/
 * /Lecture 9/
 * /Lecture 10/
 * /Lecture 11/
 * /Lecture 12/
 * /Lecture 13/
 * /Lecture 14/
 * /Lecture 15/
 * /Lecture 16/
 * Amplification of the Teleological Proof 1831
 * Amplification of the Teleological and Ontological Proofs 1827
 * Amplification of the Ontological Proof 1831


text: Lectures on the Proofs of the Existence of God/Lecture 1

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text: Lectures on the Proofs of the Existence of God/Lecture 2


text: Lectures on the Proofs of the Existence of God/Lecture 3


text: Lectures on the Proofs of the Existence of God/Lecture 4


text: Lectures on the Proofs of the Existence of God/Lecture 5


text: Lectures on the Proofs of the Existence of God/Lecture 6


text: Lectures on the Proofs of the Existence of God/Lecture 7


text: Lectures on the Proofs of the Existence of God/Lecture 8


text: Lectures on the Proofs of the Existence of God/Lecture 9


text: Lectures on the Proofs of the Existence of God/Lecture 11


text: Lectures on the Proofs of the Existence of God/Lecture 12


text: Lectures on the Proofs of the Existence of God/Lecture 14


text: Lectures on the Proofs of the Existence of God/Lecture 13


text: Lectures on the Proofs of the Existence of God/Lecture 10


text: Lectures on the Proofs of the Existence of God/Lecture 15


text: Lectures on the Proofs of the Existence of God/Lecture 16


text: Lectures on the Proofs of the Existence of God/Amplification of the Teleological Proof 1831


text: Lectures on the Proofs of the Existence of God/Amplification of the Ontological Proof 1831


text: Lectures on the Proofs of the Existence of God/Amplification of the Teleological and Ontological Proofs 1827


text: Index:The Air Force Role In Developing International Outer Space Law (Terrill, 1999).djvu


text:
User:Inductiveload/Scripts/WP backlink finder

This program finds author pages which link to Wikipedia using the "wikipedia" field in the author template, but whcih do not have a return link from Wikipedia to the author page.

It takes no parameters, the input and output files are specified in the script: python find_wp_author_without_backlinks.py


text: Page:The Air Force Role In Developing International Outer Space Law (Terrill, 1999).djvu/1


text:
Page:The Air Force Role In Developing International Outer Space Law (Terrill, 1999).djvu/2

   The Air Force Role In Developing International Outer Space Law Delbert R. Terrill Jr., Colonel, Air Force History and Museums Program   Air University Press Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama   May 1999


text:
Page:The Air Force Role In Developing International Outer Space Law (Terrill, 1999).djvu/3

 Disclaimer Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the author and do not necessary represent the views of Air University, the United States Air Force, the Department of Defense, or any other US government agency. Cleared for public release, distribution. Digitize January 2003 from May 1999 Printing NOTE: Pagination changed.


text:
Page:The Air Force Role In Developing International Outer Space Law (Terrill, 1999).djvu/4

 For USAFA '70


text: Page:The Air Force Role In Developing International Outer Space Law (Terrill, 1999).djvu/5


text: Page:The Air Force Role In Developing International Outer Space Law (Terrill, 1999).djvu/6


text:
Page:The Air Force Role In Developing International Outer Space Law (Terrill, 1999).djvu/7

 Foreword The impact of the US defense and space initiatives on bilateral and multilateral treaties and on international outer space law in general, a topic of much current discussion, is better understood by an analysis of the development of that body of law. Col Delbert “Chip” Terrill Jr. discusses its early evolution and the Air Force contribution to it. He describes the Air Force’s ad hoc approach to international outer space law and its efforts to have this approach adopted by the United States and the international community. Further, the author details the profound impact that the surprise attack at Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941 had on President Dwight D. Eisenhower. He vowed never again to allow the US to be similarly vulnerable to a surprise attack, particularly in a nuclear environment. As part of his efforts to preclude a surprise attack on the United States, Eisenhower sought to establish the concept of free passage of intelligence gathering satellites as part of accepted international outer space law. The author traces how the Eisenhower administration demonstrated a lack of concern about being first in space so long as the concept of free passage in outer space was universally accepted. However, the administration apparently and clearly underestimated the propaganda value that being first would have. Colonel Terrill traces how the Eisenhower administration failed to fully communicate its policy goal of achieving such free passage to the uniformed services. Although civilian leaders in the Defense Department were aware of the administration’s position, the Air  Force and the other military services at times acted at cross purposes to the concept of free passage. Chip Terrill describes the Air Force’s continued efforts to resist the passage of most international outer space law conventions, the restiveness of the Air Force judge advocate general (JAG) corps with a backseat role, and how the JAG generally failed in its early attempt to have the Air Force become proactive in the development of the law. Ironically, Terrill illustrates how the Air Force’s ad hoc approach essentially dovetailed with Eisenhower’s goal of free passage. Colonel Terrill relates how the Air Force’s Project West


text:
Page:The Air Force Role In Developing International Outer Space Law (Terrill, 1999).djvu/8

 Ford caused the passage of certain environmentally sensitive provisions of international outer space law. The author closes by examining the comment and coordination process leading to the passage of the Liability for Damages Convention. Such was typical of the Air Force’s lukewarm, reactive posture regarding the passage of international conventions, except for the Agreement on Rescue and Return of Astronauts, which the Air Force strongly supported. In short, this superb work documents the interesting gestation period regarding the development of international outer space law. It will undoubtedly contribute to the development of Air Force doctrine by providing a better understanding of the Air Force’s involvement in the development of international outer space law. Jacob Neufeld, Senior Historian Air Force History Support Office


text:
Page:The Air Force Role In Developing International Outer Space Law (Terrill, 1999).djvu/9

 About the Author Delbert R. “Chip” Terrill Jr. is an administrative law judge with the United States Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Judge Terrill is a colonel in the USAF Reserves and serves as a historian with the Air Force Historical Research Agency, Maxwell Air Force Base (AFB), Alabama. He received a BS degree (majoring in history) from the United States Air Force Academy in 1970 and a JD degree in 1974 from the Georgetown University Law Center. Judge Terrill has worked at the White House and on Capitol Hill, and with the Office of US Special Counsel. He has served as a special assistant US attorney and as a department counsel and hearing examiner (now administrative judge) with the Department of Defense (DOD) Legal Services Agency’s Directorate for Industrial Security Clearance Review (now Office of Hearings and Appeals). While in the Air Force Reserve, he previously served at the Department of Legal Medicine, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, and the Office of the Surgeon General of the Air Force. He is a graduate of the Air War College (outstanding graduate), the Armed Forces Staff College, and the Air Force Squadron Officer School. In February 1994 and July 1997, Colonel Terrill attended the Sixth and Seventh Biennial Conferences on the Law Relating to National Security Activities in Outer Space. His prior publications include “Complaint Procedures Initiated by and Against Federal Administrative Law Judges Need Reform Now,” Judge’s Journal (Fall 1994); Chapter Two “The Patient, the Hospital and the Law,” Lawyers Medical Cyclopedia (Allan Smith Publishing Company, 1981); and “The New Copyright Law: How It Affects Physicians,” The Journal of Legal Medicine (1977).


text:
Page:The Air Force Role In Developing International Outer Space Law (Terrill, 1999).djvu/10

 Acknowledgement I would like to thank the individuals who assisted me in the research and preparation of this monograph. Will H. Carroll, Prof Harry H. Almond Jr., and Brig Gen Martin Menter, USAF, Retired, all provided invaluable interviews and documents. Robbie Profitt of the Federal Aviation Administration assisted me in locating crucial Air Coordinating Committee papers. Mrs. Albert M. Kuhfeld provided me access to her husband’s files. Eilene Galloway allowed me to pick her brain periodically. R. Cargill Hall provided me early access to his insightful works analyzing the origins of US space policy, which explain in detail the Eisenhower administration’s thinking and efforts to assure acceptance of its “freedom of space” policy. The officials of the Air Force Historical Research Agency, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, graciously allowed me the flexibility of completing this long-term project as a part of my agency duties. The librarians at the National Academy of Sciences and the archivists at the National Records Center and the National Archives and Records Administration were always helpful and pleasant. Most importantly, thanks are due to Jacob Neufeld, who guided the direction of my research and my writing and whose welcomed red pen was always ready and on the money, and to Thomas C. Lobenstein and Peggy Smith, my Air University Press editors, for their willingness to put up with my last-minute additions and changes. Thanks also to Karen Fleming-Michael for reading, copyediting, and logistic support. Finally, thanks to James Howard and Richard Wolf who prevented the succeeding generations of computer software programs from disorganizing the iterations of this monograph and who thereby kept me sane.


text:
Page:The Air Force Role In Developing International Outer Space Law (Terrill, 1999).djvu/11

 Introduction In this monograph the author describes the United States Air Force resistance to the passage of international conventions (treaties) and the general impact that Air Force opposition had on the development of international law regarding outer space. International outer space law, like other international law, is created by court decisions (international and domestic), passage (negotiation and ratification) of international treaties or conventions, and commonly accepted practices of nations, which in turn become customs. In addition, the publications by scholars of international outer space law have had a substantial impact on the evolution of this body of law. Even before space activities had actually begun, academics and jurists pushed for the early passage of certain conventions governing the use of space. The US government, encouraged in large part by the Air Force, chose to delay action until space operations had begun so that these actual activities themselves and the commonly accepted customs derived from them, rather than the theory of jurists, would drive the development of space law. The focus here is on the Air Force’s role in the evolution of outer space law primarily from the mid-1950s to the early 1960s. The author then examines Air Force efforts to preclude an international agreement (treaty) defining sovereignty in outer space similar to the convention (known as the Chicago Convention) defining national airspace that was agreed  to at the 1944 meetings of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in Chicago. Sovereignty and the delimitation of where airspace ends and outer space begins have been inextricably tied. Over the years, these two issues have generated much of the debate on outer space law. The first substantive treatise (published in 1951) urged that the development of outer space law focus on the sovereignty issue. Subsequently, authors of numerous articles and proposals sought to establish a clear line of demarcation between outer space and airspace. While military personnel in operational forces may have a gut feeling as to what is outer space,


text:
Page:The Air Force Role In Developing International Outer Space Law (Terrill, 1999).djvu/12

 neither international conventions nor customarily accepted practices have established a commonly accepted line of demarcation between these two regions. Although the debate continues about where airspace ends and outer space begins, the issue of whether or not sovereignty may be asserted in outer space has been generally settled by customary practice. There is freedom of passage in outer space and, accordingly, no state may claim sovereignty over outer space. In response to the early efforts by theorists and academicians to conclude an international outer space convention, the Air Force proposed-and the United States adopted-an ad hoc approach to the creation of international outer space law, reasoning that this approach would allow practice and technology to drive the evolution of the law. Given that the president’s Air Coordinating Committee (ACC) had authority to establish the US position to be presented to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the Air Force, as an ACC member, encouraged and obtained the ACC’s adoption of the Air Force position. Accordingly, during sessions of the ICAO, the US opposed several efforts to conclude a convention regarding outer space. The ICAO generally adopted the US position. Having set this approach in motion during the 1950s, the Air Force, in the following decade, did not playa major role in the development of international outer space law-much to the chagrin of certain members of the Air Force judge advocate general (JAG) corps. While Air Force lawyers had initially encouraged the ad hoc approach, by 1961 the judge advocate general himself expressed discomfort with the reactive posture undertaken by the Air Force. Consequently, he recommended that the Air Force seize the leadership and take a more active role in the development of outer space law, as the Air Force had done in the field of aerospace medicine. The Air Force never followed this advice. It instead remained in the reactive mode; when tasked to do so, the Air Force coordinated and commented on the various international conventions of outer space law being considered. The only other exception to the Air Force’s passive role in the development of the law was an unintended impact resulting from Project West Ford. Because of this project, certain environmental protection


text:
Page:The Air Force Role In Developing International Outer Space Law (Terrill, 1999).djvu/13

 provisions were included as part of the 1968 Principles Treaty (see chapter 4). The Air Force’s reactive posture to proposed international conventions was typified by its involvement in the internal US government negotiations leading to the passage of the 1972 Convention on International Liability for Damages Caused by Space Objects. Because of this approach, the Air Force is not perceived as having the legal expertise or reputation in outer space law that it has developed, for example, in the area of aerospace medicine. To capture the nature of this reactive posture, the author describes the Air Force’s participation in these generally internal DOD negotiations in minute detail. No direct evidence indicates that the Air Force’s reactive approach impaired its missions, doctrine, or interests. The assessment of the US role in the evolution of international outer space law involves an analysis of the US policy formulation process. Determining what if any institutional reputation the Air Force may have lost by not being more active in influencing this policy process or by not being viewed as the US “legal expert” in international outer space law would only be speculative. To determine what, if any, leverage or influence the Air Force has lost would require a more in-depth study of the Air Force’s role in national policy formulation and is beyond the scope of this monograph. When and where the Air Force outwardly has influenced the development of international outer space law, such involvement has been, predominantly, a result of the efforts of the attorneys assigned to the Air Force Office of General Counsel (OGC) and JAG offices. This monograph does not catalogue the many articles and presentations written or made by these Air Force officials. While such articles and presentations may have influenced the evolution of the law, their impact would be difficult to assess. Instead, this monograph traces the interaction of Air Force officials with the various policy-making levels of government inside and outside DOD during the consideration of proposed international


text:
Page:The Air Force Role In Developing International Outer Space Law (Terrill, 1999).djvu/14

 conventions affecting outer space. With the exception of its JAG corps and OGC attorneys, the Air Force has not been particularly active in attempting to influence the development of outer space law. This passivity may be due, in part, to the fact that the impact of other parts of the Air Force on this body of international law is difficult to determine because, generally outside of JAG and OGC, in the 1950s and 1960s Air Force organizations did not carefully document their roles and positions on space law issues. On the other hand, it must be understood that international outer space law generally evolved from the practice of nations and that the operational forces of the Air Force were and remain the leading US military service impacting outer space matters. When this monograph discusses US military practices regarding outer space, it generally refers to Air Force operational practices. Accordingly, the operational forces of the Air Force established, through their practices rather than by formal statement of their positions, the customs that in turn developed the law.


text:
Page:The Air Force Role In Developing International Outer Space Law (Terrill, 1999).djvu/15

 Chapter 1 Germination of Outer Space as a Legal Concept The Paris and Chicago Conventions of 1919 and 1944, respectively, recognized the exclusive sovereignty of states to the airspace above their territory. Delegates did not discussouter space as such. Thus they established no line of demarcation as to where airspace ended and outer space began. Whether national sovereignty extended indefinitely over a nation’s territory was not resolved. Even with the rapid changes in technology extending flight higher and higher, sovereignty over outer space was seldom discussed until the early 1950s. By then the launching of rockets into space and plans to boost an object into orbit madediscussion of this issue more imperative. As has often occurred,not until technology demands does a development in or of thelaw follow. From the beginning, the sovereignty issue—how high a state’s sovereignty extends, if at all, into outer space—has been the genesis of much discussion regarding outer space law. While many other outer space law issues were eventually resolved, the issue of how high sovereignty extends—the issue that started much of the discussion—remains unresolved. In 1951 —law professor and head of the, in Montreal,and a member of the Princeton University Institute for Advanced Study—published “High Altitude Flight and National Sovereignty,” a seminal and thought-provoking treatise. Professor Cooper had served as part of the US delegation to the 1944 ICAO meetings and was a major force behind the decision to conclude the Chicago Convention. His 1951 treatise generated substantial discussion within the legal and scientific communities regarding the need to define where airspace became outer space.


text:
Page:The Air Force Role In Developing International Outer Space Law (Terrill, 1999).djvu/16

 Cooper’s article led to a clamor by academics and international jurists for a definition of outer space. Their efforts to achieve a clear delimitation between airspace and outer space were driven by the hope that outer space might be “saved from the chaos of national rivalries.” They theorized that once outer space was defined by international agreement, all claims regarding it would be easily resolved. These scholars and jurists likewise theorized that freedom of exploration in outer space would evolve similarly to the exploration of the sea. Otherwise, it was feared that the “outcome of the growing interest in outer space [would] result in a constantly increasing clash of interest between those statesmost interested in outer space, and between [their] citizens.” of the  (the [German] Society for Space Flight) noted that nations did not have the same needs and interests in outer  space as they had in airspace. He


text:
Page:The Air Force Role In Developing International Outer Space Law (Terrill, 1999).djvu/17

 further noted that nations could not control (police) outer space even if they declared outer space as being  part of their sovereignty. Thus, he argued that sovereignty should not extend into outer space. Prince Heinrich argued that a resolution of the boundary between airspace and outer space was, however, needed to assure the freedom of exploration in outer space. If they did not resolve the sovereignty issue, nations would likely make territorial claims based on the landing of scientific devices on bodies in outer space. Eisenhower, a Nuclear Pearl Harbor, and Air Force Balloons Prior to Professor Cooper’s treatise, many elements within the United States, including the US Army Air Forces (AAF), had been interested in outer space and its potential exploitation for military or intelligence purposes. Concurrent with Project RAND’s start up in 1946, Maj Gen Curtis E. LeMay, deputy chief of staff for research and development, directed that RAND assist the AAF in demonstrating its capabilities vis-à-vis space. Within three weeks, RAND produced a study titled Preliminary Design of an Experimental World-Circling Spaceship, an engineering analysis of satellite feasibility. This 1946 study concluded that such satellites were an unlikely base for offensive weapons. By April 1951, Project RAND had completed an Air Force sponsored study contemplating the eventuality of earth observation satellites. As a result of the RAND report and because the Air Force Strategic Air Command needed assistance in developing reconnaissance that could help determine appropriate targets behind the Iron Curtain, the Air Force, in January 1952, convened a Beacon Hill study group (formally titled ) under the auspices of the (MIT). The study group was to assess various issues generated by such satellites. The study group included industry scientists and academicians. In its final report issued in June 1952, the Beacon Hill group concluded that observation satellite systems could infringe on another country’s sovereignty. Its report specifically acknowledged the potential for “intrusion” over Soviet territory.


text:
Page:The Air Force Role In Developing International Outer Space Law (Terrill, 1999).djvu/18

 On 24 February and 27 March 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower met with his National Security Council (NSC) and then with the civilian scientists of the Science Advisory Committee in the Office of Defense Mobilization. With the memory of Pearl Harbor still fresh in his mind, Eisenhower related his concern regarding the potential for a surprise nuclear attack on the United States. Stressing the need for avoiding or containing such aggression, President Eisenhower was resolved to ensurethat the United States would never again be vulnerable to a direct sneak attack. He challenged the US scientific community to address hisconcern. In response, scientists created the Surprise Attack Panel-later known as the Technological Capabilities Panel (TCP)-chaired by MIT president. The panel issued its final report, “Meeting the Threat of Surprise Attack,” on 14 February 1955. Among other things, the report recommended that the United States develop satellites to operate at high altitudes. These satellites would establish as a principle of international law the freedom of passage for any subsequent military satellites. The panel had created a blueprint for Eisenhower as to how the US should proceed regarding resolution of the freedom of passage issue. Given a lack of intelligence regarding the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and given that the United States was not able to implement the reconnaissance satellite system envisioned by the TCP,


text:
Page:The Air Force Role In Developing International Outer Space Law (Terrill, 1999).djvu/19

  President Eisenhower initiated in January 1956. This space “research” project consisted of the Air Force launching 516 from locations in Europe. These balloons carried automatic cameras. Given prevailing winds, the balloons were certain to pass over Eastern Europe and the USSR. If the research succeeded, the balloons-equipped with radio tracking beacons-were eventually to be recovered near Japan and Alaska. The program produced limited intelligence.

When the balloons passed over their territory, Eastern European nations and the USSR protested, complaining that the balloons disrupted civilian aircraft and were equipped for automatic aerial photography in an effort to obtain targeting information. Belgium and Czechoslovakian airlines canceled several flights to Czechoslovakia because of the balloons. The United States initially admitted that, an affiliate of a “privately financed anticommunist organization in the US,” was flying propaganda balloons from West Germany. Further, the Air Force admitted that as part of Operation Moby Dick, it had released some two thousand balloons from various sites around the earth but denied that these releases were a threat to civilian flights. On 7 February 1956, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles responded to the Soviet protests by stating that, in the interest of “decent friendly relations,” the US would “try” to stop the release of the “weather” balloons. While admitting that some of the weather balloons carried photographic equipment, the United States asserted that the equipment was only for taking pictures of high-altitude cloud formations. The Soviets responded that they had developed film from the balloons containing pictures of Turkish airfields. In the face of criticism that the balloons clearly violated the USSR’s airspace, Dulles agreed to stop releasing them. He noted, however, that “the ownership of upper air” was “a disputable question under international law.” Some in the media attacked Dulles for making this statement and for having approved the launch of the balloons. These critics argued that the sovereignty issue had long been resolved and that sovereignty extended indefinitely into the sky. Further, they argued that the Chicago Convention forbade the sending of unmanned missiles over another nation’s airspace without consent. The position of these critics was correct with respect to a nation’s sovereign rights over its own airspace. However, no international law, practice, or custom had as yet established the issue of a nation’s sovereignty in outer space.


text:
Page:The Air Force Role In Developing International Outer Space Law (Terrill, 1999).djvu/20

 Further, the position of these critics was diametrically opposed to Eisenhower’s goal of achieving freedom of passage for intelligence gathering satellites in outer space as had been initially envisioned by the Surprise Attack Panel. After Dulles’ response, the Air Force disputed that its balloons were intended for anything other than charting the jet stream. The Air Force cover story stating that the balloons “were being used for weather research also made reference to the  (IGY).” When the Air Force later proposed to release even higher flying balloons in mid-March 1956, Eisenhower informed Gen Nathan F. Twining, Air Force chief of staff, that he (Eisenhower) “was not interested in any more balloons” and terminated any further launches. In the meantime, a more promising avenue of gathering information, the U-2, was becoming operational and would make its maiden flight five months after Eisenhower ordered an end to the balloon flights. By 1956 the practices of the Air Force and others involved in the balloon “experiments” and the contemplation of an earth orbiting observation system had focused substantial attention on and begun a dialogue regarding international outer space law. “Space-for-Peace” and the International Geophysical Year Driven by the advent of IGY-1 July 1957-31 December 1958-and other considerations, the United States and the USSR increased their focus on their respective space programs. On 15 April 1955 the USSR announced the establishment of its Special Commission for Interplanetary Communications, making reference to a globe circling satellite program. In 1955 the US was completing the formulation of its first space policy, but it did so in a somewhat ambivalent manner. The United States assumed that its space program was technologically superior to the USSR’s space program. Indeed, the US was far ahead of the Soviets in miniaturizing its warhead devices (which fact was highly classified at that time); however, as discussed later, this US advantage was to become a double-edged sword.


text:
Page:The Air Force Role In Developing International Outer Space Law (Terrill, 1999).djvu/21

 In drafting its space policy, the Eisenhower administration demonstrated an ambivalent desire to be first in space. Such ambivalence by Eisenhower was not unique to outer space but was generally the hallmark of Eisenhower’s approach to problem solving, particularly and ironically regarding issues relating to foreign affairs. For example, Eisenhower pursued a space-for-peace policy and proposed to rely upon nonexistent “nonmilitary” boosters as the launch vehicle. As drafted by Air Force secretary Donald A. Quarles, this policy declared that the IGY satellite program would not interfere with intercontinental and intermediate range ballistic missile (ICBM and IRBM) programs. The US satellite would be launched for “peaceful purposes” and would assist in establishing the right of unimpeded overflights in outer space. This decision was confirmed by the National Security Council (NSC Directive 5520, Draft Statement of Policy on US Scientific Satellite Program) on 26 May and approved by President Eisenhower on 27 May 1955. However, the administration did not immediately communicate this decision to themilitary services, one of which was to be assigned to manage the development of the boosters. By pursuing a space-for-peace policy, President Eisenhower, at least publicly, began a persistent effort by his administration to marry space


text:
Page:The Air Force Role In Developing International Outer Space Law (Terrill, 1999).djvu/22

 exploration, disarmament, and the creation of international law, providing that space was free from national military rivalries. As noted earlier, underlying Eisenhower’s space-for-peace policy was his resolve to prevent a nuclear Pearl Harbor. Following the blueprint provided by the Surprise Attack Panel, he sought to obtain a free passage for intelligencegathering satellites in outer space as being essential to preventing a surprise attack. Therefore, while publicly articulating a space-for-peace policy, Eisenhower maneuvered to obtain freedom of passage for intelligence-gathering devices in outer space. He saw no inconsistency in his stalking-horse strategy. While the product of such intelligence-gathering satellites could clearly be used to facilitate warfare by identifying targets, Eisenhower perceived that the satellites were passive not “offensive” and argued that it was his intent that they be used to maintain peace. As part of his “open skies” proposal, Eisenhower offered to share such intelligence with the Soviets much the same as President Ronald W. Reagan would propose 30 years later. Eisenhower hoped that the free passage of IGY scientific satellites in outer space would establish the precedent of free passage for subsequent intelligence-gathering satellites. Accordingly, the Eisenhower administration worked to ensure that an earth satellite project was included as part of the US IGY program. While maneuvering to include a scientific satellite system as part of IGY. President Eisenhower waited until the Geneva summit with Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev in July 1955 to propose the US open skies position. Eisenhower suggested that as part of open skies the United States and USSR provide facilities from which aerial photography taken of the other could be shared, thereby precluding any surprise attack. The USSR rejected the open skies proposal as a ploy for gathering target data. The USSR stuck to its claim of absolute sovereignty of all its space (air and outer) over its homeland. Upon returning to the United States from Geneva, President Eisenhower announced officially on 29 July 1955 that the here-to-fore undisclosed US IGY satellite project was to be powered by nonmilitary boosters that had not yet been built. In September 1955 the Navy’s proposal to manage the “civilian” IGY booster program was approved. Neither President Eisenhower nor his advisers appear to have appreciated how much their idealistic insistence on developing nonmilitary boosters would delay the American satellite project and what the impact of that delay would be. No IGY boosters were ever fully developed and


text:
Page:The Air Force Role In Developing International Outer Space Law (Terrill, 1999).djvu/23

 launched under the Navy’s -/ program. However, the military services did not cease working on their boosters and continued to attempt to launch them. When the Navy’s Vanguard program ebbed, the secretary of defense turned too late to the Air Force in hopes of launching a satellite during the IGY program. Who Would Be First in Space? Some have concluded that the USSR was first in space by default because of Eisenhower’s “ambivalence” and his secretary of defense’s penchant for fiscal conservatism regarding space programs. These factors might partially explain why the United States failed to be first in space. Other factors explain why the USSR was first in space with Sputnik. First, Eisenhower had been assured that physics precluded dropping a bomb from a satellite in orbit; therefore, he was not concerned about a surprise attack from outer space. Second, the Eisenhoweradministration did not fully appreciate the “psychological shock value” of a successful Sputnik launch or the reaction of the American people to having Sputnik overhead. Third, Eisenhower’s administration did not appreciate fully the propaganda and prestige value of being “first in space,” despite warnings to this effect by the National Security Council, the scientific community’s TCP, and RAND. Finally, and probably most importantly, the US was not first in space because the USheld a significant lead over the USSR in miniaturizing its hydrogen bomb devices.


text:
Page:The Air Force Role In Developing International Outer Space Law (Terrill, 1999).djvu/24

 While Eisenhower was concerned about a nuclear surprise attack, the main emphasis of the US missile program (including budgetary spending) was not the launching of a satellite into space but the precise delivery of a hydrogen warhead anywhere on earth. Because of its miniaturization advantage, the United States did not need rockets with heavy throw weights (thrust). In fact, in the years before Sputnik, the Air Force had actually reduced the number of stages in its Atlas program. Because the USSR warhead devices were larger and heavier, they required the concomitant development of rockets with greater thrust than did the US devices. While the United States was ahead in being able to deliver a hydrogen warhead more precisely anywhere on earth, the USSR had rockets with greater thrust and throw weights that were advantageous for launching objects into outer space. The US focus on attaining a technological/miniaturization advantage was disadvantageous to its being first in space. Given the underestimation of the “shock effect” of Sputnik, given the perception that we were technologically far ahead of the USSR in space, and given Eisenhower’s interest in establishing the principle of freedom of passage for spy satellites, the failure to push such a crash program isunderstandable. Nonetheless, it was probable that the US could have been first in space had the president established that achievement as a national goal. As an example of his administration’s commitment to ensuringthe principle of free passage in outer space, the Eisenhower administration (Quarles) in 1956 “restrained” government officials from


text:
Page:The Air Force Role In Developing International Outer Space Law (Terrill, 1999).djvu/25

 any public discussion of spaceflight. Eisenhower administration officials feared that any discussion of military space operations would engender a “worldwide debate” on outer space law issues. They further feared that the debate might result in efforts to preclude the passage in outer space of military related devices. Despite Eisenhower’s “civilian” emphasis in the booster program, the military had not ceased development of its boosters. In fact, prior to Sputnik I, the military continued to attempt to launch military boosters that would have been necessary to launch such a satellite into orbit. These efforts failed. The Air Force, like the other services, had continued in its efforts to develop multistage rockets. Not until November 1956, when Secretary of the Air Force Quarles issued his order and indicated that no US military satellite would precede a civilian scientific satellite into orbit, did the Air Force cease all vehicle construction and intentionally put its space efforts on hold. Determining whether Quarles and the Eisenhower administration purposely delayed orbiting a satellite is problematic. Some complained that Eisenhower delayed because he wanted to wait for the development of nonmilitary boosters instead of using existing military boosters. Had the Eisenhower administration clearly indicated to the military services that it desired to be first in space with a satellite, the military might have designed a booster strictly for that purpose. But for the space-for-peace policy, the Eisenhower administration might well have implemented a “crash” program to develop a nonmilitary booster. To conclude that President Eisenhower’s space-for-peace proposal, by itself, allowed the USSR to be “first” is speculative at best. Nevertheless, it appears that Quarles was perhaps willing to accept the USSR being first in space so long as the freedom of passage in space principle was established as a result. The Eisenhower administration’s initial response to the two Sputniks was to advance with same due deliberation as it had been proceeding and to treat the Soviet achievement as being “no big deal,” in the current vernacular. Eisenhower did perceive a need to demonstrate some success in the missile programs and appointed a panel to study the US missile program. The “fevered tone” and substance of the resulting report of the Security Resources Panel (known as the Gaither Report) helped generate public pressure that caused President Eisenhower to agree to increased spending on missile programs. While a long-term salient impact of the report was increased emphasis on better scientific education and


text:
Page:The Air Force Role In Developing International Outer Space Law (Terrill, 1999).djvu/26

 basic research, the Gaither Report also helped give rise to the misperception of a “missile gap” between the United States and the USSR. The USSR may have been ahead in developing satellites and some aspects of missile development, that is, thrust. However, as discussed above, the US was ahead in many important aspects regarding the delivery of weapons of mass destruction by missiles.


text: Page:The Air Force Role In Developing International Outer Space Law (Terrill, 1999).djvu/27


text: Page:The Air Force Role In Developing International Outer Space Law (Terrill, 1999).djvu/28


text: Template:User Translation

title: Template:User Translation


text:
Page:Best Russian Short Stories.djvu/195

Rh Tatyana Grigoryevna Zarubkin was one of the most looked-up to ladies of the S Regiment and even of the whole town of Chmyrsk, where the regiment was quartered. To be sure, you hardly could say that, outside the regiment, the town could boast any ladies at all. There were very respectable women, decent wives, mothers, daughters and widows of honourable citizens; but they all dressed in cotton and flannel, and on high holidays made a show of cheap Cashmere gowns over which they wore gay shawls with borders of wonderful arabesques. Their hats and other headgear gave not the faintest evidence of good taste. So they could scarcely be dubbed "ladies." They were satisfied to be called "women." Each one of them, almost, had the name of her husband's trade or position tacked to her name—Mrs. Grocer so-and-so, Mrs. Mayor so-and-so, Mrs. Milliner so-and-so, etc. Genuine ladies in the Russian society sense had never come to the town before the S Regiment had taken up its quarters there; and it goes without saying that the ladies of the regiment had nothing in common, and therefore no intercourse with, the women of the town. They were so dissimilar that they were like creatures of a different species.

There is no disputing that Tatyana Grigoryevna Zarubkin was one of the most looked-up-to of the ladies. She invariably played the most important part at all the regimental affairs—the amateur theatricals, the social evenings, the afternoon teas. If the captain's wife was not to be present, it was a foregone conclusion that the affair would not be a success.

The most important point was that Mrs. Zarubkin had the untarnished reputation of being the best-dressed of all the ladies. She was always the most distinguished looking at the annual ball. Her gown for the occasion, ordered from Moscow, was always chosen with the greatest regard for her charms and defects, and it was always exquisitely beautiful. A new fashion could not gain admittance to the other ladies of the regiment except by way of the captain's wife. Thanks to her good taste in dressing, the stately blonde was queen at all the balls and in all the salons of Chmyrsk. Another advantage of hers was that although she was nearly forty she


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 1, 1890.djvu/53

 LEGENDS FROM TORRES STRAITS.

.

N collecting these myths and legends I could not take down the actual native words, being ignorant of the language, but I have given a faithful rendering of the stones as told to me in broken English. I have nowhere embellished the accounts, and I have given most of the conversations and remarks of people in the very words my informants used; thus preserving, as far as possible, the freshness and quaintness of the original narrative. I believe that in most cases the native idiom was bodily translated into the “Pigeon English”.

As to the age of the legends I can form no idea. One point is noteworthy, that not in a single instance did I ever hear of any reference to a white man nor of anything belonging to white men; for example, a knife was always ‘upi’, the old bamboo knife, never ‘gi’ or ‘gi turik’ (‘knife’; turik also meant ‘iron’). I think I am safe in asserting that thirty years ago there was no intelligent intercourse with white men; this period may practically be reduced to twenty years, and in some islands to even less. I usually checked the genuineness of the legends by inquiry of other men than the original informants; not unfrequently old men were present, who were often referred to. My narrators were, almost without exception, middle-aged men, and I am always careful to impress on them the importance of giving me the story as they had heard it from the old men. Experience showed me that they were as conservative as children of traditional phrases and modes of expression. Therefore I can confidently claim that this collection of legends really represents the


text:
USAMGIK Ordinance 62

 * HEADQUARTERS
 * UNITED STATES ARMY MILITARY
 * GOVERNMENT IN KOREA
 * Seoul, Korea

ORDINANCE NUMBER 62 29 March 1946

  In accordance with paragraph 3 of General Notice Number 2, dated 20 October 1945, drugs, medicines, pharmaceutics and other items of commerce used in the practice of medicine or public health activities, and derivatives, compounds, or substances containing any of such materials, are declared to be in critical demand and needed for the benefit of the people of Korea. This scarcity requires some measure of control by the Military Government. This ordinance amends the provisions of paragraph 2 of General Notice Number 2, dated 20 October 1945.

  The Director of the Bureau of Public Health and Welfare of the Government of Korea is hereby designated as the sole controlling agency of the Military Government of Korea for drugs, medicines, pharmaceuticals and other items of commerce used in the practice of medicine or public health activities, and for derivatives, compounds or substances containing any of such materials. He will establish all necessary controls, including but not limited to price, rationing, allocation, licensing, purchasing, selling, production, distribution, transportations, storage, and export and import controls for the aforementioned articles.

  Any person violating the provisions of this ordinance or any regulation or order issued by the Director of the Bureau of Public Health and Welfare pursuant thereto shall, upon conviction by a Military Occupation Court, suffer such punishment as the court shall determine.

  This Ordinance shall be effective on the tenth day after the date appearing hereon.

 * ARCHER L. LERCH

 * Major General, United States Army

 * Military Governor of Korea.

군정법령 제62호

title: USAMGIK Ordinance 62


text:
USAMGIK Ordinance 63

 * HEADQUARTERS
 * UNITED STATES ARMY MILITARY
 * GOVERNMENT IN KOREA
 * Seoul, Korea

ORDINANCE NUMBER 63 29 March 1946

  The Bureau of Police of the Government of Korea is hereby removed from the supervision and direction of the Office of the director of National defense.

  This ordinance shall be effective on the tenth day after the date appearing hereon.

 * ARCHER L. LERCH

 * Major General, United States Army

 * Military Governor of Korea.

*See Ordinance No 28, 13 November 1945, Sec Ⅱ.

군정법령 제63호

title: USAMGIK Ordinance 63


text:
User talk:125.19.212.87

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

 * Help pages
 * Style Guide
 * Inclusion policy

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to  [ create an account] . Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. For one thing, if you continue to edit without a username, your IP address is used to publicly identify you.

In any case, I hope you enjoy donating your time to grow the Wikisource library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please sign your comments using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click  [ edit] ) and place  before your question. Again, welcome! -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC) A contribution from this account or ip address, which appeared to be a test edit, was removed or reverted. Please use the sandbox for this purpose. The community portal has information on contributing to this library.

title: User talk:125.19.212.87


text:
USAMGIK Ordinance 64

 * HEADQUARTERS
 * UNITED STATES ARMY MILITARY
 * GOVERNMENT IN KOREA
 * Seoul, Korea

ORDINANCE NUMBER 64 29 March 1946

  The principal elements of the Government of Korea at the national level, will hereafter be known as Departments or Offices. This ordinance does not change existing powers, functions or duties. The classification and nomenclature fixed by this ordinance shall not be changed or supplemented except by ordinance.

  The following elements of the Government of Korea will hereafter be known as Departments:  a. Department of Agriculture (formerly Bureau of Agriculture)  b. Department of Commerce (formerly Bureau of Commerce)  c. Department of Communications (formerly Bureau of Commu-nications)  d. Department of Education (formerly Bureau of Education)  e. Department of Finance (formerly Bureau of Finance)  f. Department of Justice (formerly Bureau of Justice)
 g. Department of National Defense (formerly Office of the Director of National Defense.)

 h. Department of Police (formerly Bureau of Police)

 i. Department of Public Health and Welfare (formerly Bureau of Public Health and Welfare)

 j. Department of Public Information (formerly Bureau of Public Information)

 k. Department of Transportation (formerly Bureau of Transportation)

  The following elements or the Government of Korea will hereafter be known as Office:

 a. Office of Accounts (formerly Accounts Section)

 b. Office of Foreign Affairs (formerly Foreign Affairs Section)

 c. Office of General Affairs (formerly General Affairs Section)

 d. Office of Korean Civil Service (formerly Korean Civil Service Section)

 e. Office of Planning (formerly Planning Section)

 f. Office Of Property Custody (formerly Property Custody Section)

 g. Office of Provincial Affairs (formerly Provincial Affairs Section)

  Departments will be divided as follows:

 a. Departments into Bureaus.

 b. Bureaus into Sections.

 c. Sections into Subsection.

 d. Subsection into Branches.

  Offices will be divided as follows:

 a. Offices into Divisions

 b. Divisions into Section.

 c. Section into Subsection.

  Titles of individuals in charge will be as follows:

 a. Director-for Departments and Offices.

 b. Chief-for Bureaus, Divisions, Sections, Subsection, Branches.

  When the position of a chief assistant to an individual in change an individual in change has been authorized, the title therefor will be as follows:

 a. Deputy Director.

 b. Assistant Chief.

  Only authorized titles will be applied to both military and civilian individuals appointed to and occupying positions within the Government of Korea.

  This ordinance shall be effective on the date appearing hereon.

 * ARCHER L. LERCH

 * Major General, United States Army

 * Military Governor of Korea.

군정법령 제64호

title: USAMGIK Ordinance 64


text:
USAMGIK Ordinance 65

 * HEADQUARTERS
 * UNITED STATES ARMY MILITARY
 * GOVERNMENT IN KOREA
 * Seoul, Korea

ORDINANCE NUMBER 65 29 March 1946

  All vehicular traffic and animals proceeding along or upon any street, road, highway or bridge shall keep to the right side of the center thereof. Section Ⅰa of Governor General Order No 231, November 1938, is hereby amended in accordance herewith.

  When vehicles proceeding in opposite directions meet on a single-lane road or other place where simultaneous passage is hazardous each shall bear as far as possible to the right side of the road, and pass with caution to the left of each other. Section 6 of Governor General Order No 231, November 1938, is hereby amended in accordance herewith.

  When any vehicle intends to pass another vehicle proceeding in the same direction, the rear vehicle shall sound a warning device, and proceed with caution to pass the leading vehicle to the left thereof. Tramcars proceeding along tracks in the center of any street may be passed to the right thereof. Section 7 of Governor General Order No 231, November 1938, is hereby amended in accordance herewith.

  All vehicles, unless otherwise restricted, shall be parked on the right side of any street. Section 13 of Governor General Order No 231, November 1938, and Section 92 of Governor General Order No 231, November 1938, are hereby amended in accordance herewith.

  A vehicle passing along any primary or heavily-travelled street, road, or highway, shall have the right of way over any vehicle entering upon or crossing same from a secondary or lesser travelled street, road, or highway. When vehicles meet at any intersection or junction of streets, roads, or highways equally travelled, the vehicle on the right shall have the right of way. Section 78 of Governor General Order No 231, November 1938, is hereby amended in accordance herewith.

  When a fire engine or other fire department vehicle is proceeding along a street, road, highway, or bridge to a fire, a warning device, bell or siren shall be continuously sounded, and all vehicles traveling along the same street, road, highway, or bridge shall move as far to the right as possible and come to a stop. Vehicles on any cross-street, road, or highway shall not enter the street, road, or highway on which the fire department vehicle is proceeding, until same shall have passed. Section 79 of Governor General Order No 231, November 1938, is hereby amended in accordance herewith.

  When vehicles approach each other on a hill where there is single-tane traffic or where simultaneous passage is hazardous, the ascending vehicle shall move as far to the right of the road as possible and give the right of way to the descending vehicle. Section 60 of Governor General Order No 231, November 1938, is hereby amended in accordance herewith.

   Any person violating the provisions of this Ordinance shall, upon conviction by a Military Occupation Court or Special Judicial Officer, suffer such penalty as the count or Special Judicial Officer shall determine.

  This Ordinance shall be effective at 2400, 31 March 1946.

 * ARCHER L. LERCH

 * Major General, United States Army

 * Military Governor of Korea.

군정법령 제65호

title: USAMGIK Ordinance 65


text:
Author:Erminnie Adele Smith

Works

 * Myths of the Iroquois (1883)

title: Author:Erminnie Adele Smith


text: Page:Freeman v6.djvu/1

title: Page:Freeman v6.djvu/1


text: Index:CarmichealPostulates.djvu

title: Index:CarmichealPostulates.djvu


text:
User talk:77.7.6.44

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

 * Help pages
 * Style Guide
 * Inclusion policy

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to  [ create an account] . Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. For one thing, if you continue to edit without a username, your IP address is used to publicly identify you.

In any case, I hope you enjoy donating your time to grow the Wikisource library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please sign your comments using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click  [ edit] ) and place  before your question. Again, welcome! JackPotte (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:77.7.6.44


text:
Page:CarmichealPostulates.djvu/1

Introduction.
analysis of the postulates of relativity was undertaken in order to ascertain on just which of the postulates certain fundamental conclusions of the theory depend. A moment's reflection will convince one of the importance of such an analysis. Some of the conclusions of relativity have been attacked by those who admit just the parts of the postulates from which the conclusions objected to can be derived by purely logical processes. In this paper I have sought to establish some of the most fundamental and most readily accessible conclusions of the theory on the smallest possible foundation from the postulates. This plan of treatment, instead of giving rise to more complicated arguments than those hitherto usually employed, has had the opposite effect of leading to increased simplicity both in the notions which enter and in the arguments by which proofs are reached.

When the work was taken in hand it soon became evident that there was something to be done both on the postulates themselves and on the very first theorems which are to be deduced from them, as the reader will see by reference to the treatment below. It thus appears that some of the most striking conclusions of the theory depend on only a part of the postulates. To bring this fact prominently into view in one's mind is to put the whole subject in a clearer light where one may see better the interactions of its parts and its general relations to the whole body of scientific and philosophical knowledge.

title: Page:CarmichealPostulates.djvu/1


text:
Page:CarmichealPostulates.djvu/2

 A certain method has been consistently employed throughout the paper to indicate the postulates on which each theorem depends. Each postulate is designated by a letter. At the end of a theorem and enclosed in parentheses are references (by means of these letters) to the postulates on which the theorem as demonstrated depends. Thus theorem I. depends on postulates M and $$R'$$.

In carrying out the initial purpose of the paper an important part of the general fundamentals of the theory of relativity come in for a fresh development along lines more or less new. It was observed that the addition to this essential matter of a relatively small amount of material would make the paper as a whole serve as an elementary introduction to the entire theory; and consequently such matter as was necessary to this end has been incorporated. I felt the more disposed to do this in view of the fact that even this additional material is presented in a somewhat novel manner. It is believed that the paper in its present form may be read profitably by one who is making his first acquaintance with the theory and that it will afford an easier introduction than any which has yet been offered.

In every body of doctrine which consists of a finite number of postulates and their logical consequences there are necessarily certain theorems which have the following fundamental relation to the whole body of doctrine: By means of one of these theorems and all the postulates but one that remaining postulate may be demonstrated. That is, one may assume such a theorem in place of one of the postulates and then demonstrate that postulate. When the postulate has thus been proved it may be used in argument as well as the theorem itself; hence it is clear that all the consequences which were obtained from the first set of postulates may now be deduced again, though perhaps in a somewhat different manner. That is, if we consider the whole body of doctrine, composed of postulates and theorems, this totality is the same in the two cases. Two sets of postulates which thus give rise to the same body of doctrine (consisting of postulates and theorems together) are said to be logically equivalent.

The problem of the logical equivalents of a given set of postulates is readily seen to be an important one. Not all sets of postulates logically equivalent to a given one are equally interesting. In fact, some sets may be cumbersome in form and unsatisfactory from an aesthetic point of view. In the present analysis of the postulates of relativity attention has been given to determining some of their important logical equivalents — especial attention being given to those postulates which may replace the so-called

title: Page:CarmichealPostulates.djvu/2


text:
Page:CarmichealPostulates.djvu/3

 second postulate of relativity (our postulate R). A remark in this direction has already been made by Tolman. An indication of the results of this character obtained in the present paper is given below in the description of the contents of part II. The principal value of such a matter, from the point of view of physical science, consists in the fact that it affords alternative methods for the experimental proof or disproof of the theory of relativity and that it emphasizes in an effective way the essential difficulties and limitations of such experimental verification in general.

It is the writer's purpose to treat further in a future paper the matter of the logical equivalents of the postulates. In this forthcoming work it is the intention to introduce the general laws of conservation of energy, mass, momentum and electricity, to deduce certain joint consequences of these laws and the principle of relativity, and to determine which of the theorems so obtained may replace the relativity postulates (or one of them) without destroying the equivalence of the resulting totality of doctrine.

Part I. of the present paper is devoted to a general statement and preliminary analysis of the postulates of relativity. In § 1 I give the fundamental homogeneity postulates of space and time which underlie all physical theory. In § 2 the first characteristic postulate of relativity is given, while § 3 contains a statement of the second postulate. It is shown that a part of this postulate (in the form in which the postulate is usually stated) is a consequence of the other part and of the first postulate, together with the fundamental homogeneity postulates.

Writers on relativity have usually stated only these two postulates. But as a matter of fact every one has made further assumptions; in some cases it appears to have been done unconsciously. To the present writer it seems desirable that these assumptions should be brought into the light as postulates. Accordingly, in § 4, 1 give those additional postulates which I shall use. One familiar with the theory will see that these assumptions are different from those usually employed (without explicit statement as postulates), as by Einstein for instance. The choice has been made in the interest of simplicity in postulates and in proofs. The writer believes that this innovation in the statement of the postulates is important. It leads to new and simpler proofs than those ordinarily employed; and this, it is hoped, will in large measure remove the feeling of vagueness which many persons experience in approaching the theory of relativity for the first time.

title: Page:CarmichealPostulates.djvu/3


text:
Page:CarmichealPostulates.djvu/4

 Further remarks (of a general nature) on the postulates are added in §§ 5 and 6.

In part II. I give a discussion of the relative measurements of space and time in two systems of reference which move with respect to each other and obtain Einstein's formulae of transformation. In §§ 7 and 8 it is shown that the most remarkable part of the conclusions of relativity concerning the time and space units is due to a part of the second postulate along with the other postulates; compare theorems III. and IV. In § 9 I treat the question of simultaneity of events happening at different places. In §§ 10 and 11 I obtain Einstein's formulae of transformation from one system of reference to another and also the addition theorem of velocities. These results are applied in § 12 to the problem of finding logical equivalents for the postulate R.

I. The Postulates of Relativity.
§ I. Postulates of Homogeneity. — There are two fundamental postulates concerning the nature of space and time which underlie all physical theory. They assert in part that every point of space is like every other point and that every instant of time is like every other instant. For our present purpose these postulates can best be given the following more exact and complete statement.

$$H_1$$. Space is homogeneous and three-dimensional.

$$H_2$$. Time is homogeneous and one-dimensional.

One important meaning of these postulates, mathematically, is that the transformations of the space and time coordinates are to be linear.

All our theorems will depend directly or indirectly on these two postulates, those concerning space depending on $$H_1$$ and those concerning time depending on $$H_2$$, Moreover, it is certain that no one will be disposed seriously to call these postulates in question. On account of these facts we shall consider it unnecessary to give any explicit reference to these postulates as part of the basis on which any particular theorem depends, it being understood once for all that they underlie all our work.

§ 2. The First Characteristic Postulate. — Those who postulate the existence of an ether as a means of explaining the facts about light, electricity and magnetism have usually been in general agreement as to the conclusion that this ether is stationary. Experimental facts, which have to be accounted for, cannot be explained satisfactorily on the hypothesis of a mobile ether. The theory of a stationary ether leads naturally to the conclusion that it would be possible for an observer to detect and measure

title: Page:CarmichealPostulates.djvu/4


text:
Page:CarmichealPostulates.djvu/5

 his absolute motion with respect to the ether. In this way it was predicted that the time which would be required for a beam of light to pass a given distance and return would be different in the two cases when the path of light was parallel to the direction of motion and when it was perpendicular to the direction of motion.

But a classical experiment of Michelson and Morley, in which the ray-path was wholly in air, put this prediction to a crucial test; and not the slightest difference of time was found in the passage of light along the two paths. The extreme precision of their methods leaves no doubt as to the accuracy of the results.

In a similar manner the theory of a stationary ether gave rise to the prediction that a charged condenser suspended by a wire would exhibit a torsional effect due to the earth's motion. This prediction was tested in the crucial experiment of Trouton and Noble with the result of showing that no such torsional effect is present.

These results are in perfect agreement with the hypothesis that it is impossible to detect absolute translatory motion through space; and as a matter of fact they have been generalized into this hypothesis. A sharp formulation of this conclusion constitutes the first characteristic postulate of relativity.

Before stating the postulate, however, it will be necessary to introduce a definition. In order to be able to deal with such quantities as are involved in the measurement of motion, time, velocity, etc., it is necessary to have some system of reference with respect to which measurements can be made. Let us consider any set of things consisting of objects and any kind of physical quantities whatever each of which is at rest with reference to each of the others. Let us suppose that among these objects are clocks, to be used for measuring time, and rods or rules, to be used for measuring length. Such a set of objects and quantities, at rest relatively to each other, together with their units for measuring time and length, we shall call a system of reference. Throughout the paper we shall denote such a system by S. In case we have to deal at once with two or more systems of reference we shall denote them by $$S_{1},S_{2},\dots$$ Furthermore, it will be assumed that the units of any two systems $$S_1$$ and $$S_2$$ are such that the same numerical result will be obtained in measuring with the units of $$S_1$$ a quantity $$L_1$$ and with the units of $$S_2$$ a quantity $$L_1$$ when the relation of $$L_1$$ to $$S_1$$ is precisely the same as that of $$L_2$$ to $$S_2$$.

title: Page:CarmichealPostulates.djvu/5


text:
Page:CarmichealPostulates.djvu/6

 With this definition before us we are now able to state the first characteristic postulate of relativity:

M, The unaccelerated motion of a system of reference S cannot be detected by observations made on S alone, the units of measurement being those belonging to S.

The postulate, as stated, is a direct generalization from experiment. None of the actually existing experimental evidence is opposed to it. The conviction that future evidence will continue to corroborate it is so strong that objection has seldom or never been offered to this postulate by either the friends or the foes of relativity. No means at present known will enable the observer to detect absolute motion or motion through any sort of medium which may be assumed to pervade space. Furthermore, in every case where the heretofore accepted theory has predicted the possibility of detecting such motion and where sufficiently exact observations have been made, it has turned out that no such motion was detected. Moreover, one at least of these contradictions of theory has been outstanding for a period of twenty-five years and no satisfactory explanation has been offered unless one is willing to accept the law stated in postulate M above. It would appear, therefore, that in the present state of knowledge, the experimental evidence for the postulate should be considered of strong character.

One additional remark should be made here. The direct experimental evidence which led to the formulation of postulate M was undertaken on account of predictions made on the basis of a theory of the ether as the vehicle of light and electricity. But the result which has been obtained is of a purely experimental character and does not in any way depend on a theory of the ether. In other words, the law stated in postulate M is in no way dependent either on the existence or the non-existence of the ether. It is important to keep this in mind on account of the confusion of thought which has arisen in some quarters as to the relation between the theory of relativity and the theory of the ether. The postulate is simply a generalization of experimental fact; and, unless an experiment can be devised to show that this generalization is not legitimate, it is natural and in accordance with the usual procedure in physics to accept it as a "law of nature." Theory, then, must be made to agree with it and not it with theory.

§ 3. The Second Characteristic Postulate. — The so-called second postulate of relativity, in the form in which it has frequently been stated, involves two entirely distinct parts. To the present writer it appears

title: Page:CarmichealPostulates.djvu/6


text:
Page:CarmichealPostulates.djvu/7

 that no inconsiderable part of the difficulty which has been felt concerning this second postulate has been due to a failure to perceive the interdependence of these two parts and of postulate M above. Precisely that part of the second postulate to which most objection has been raised is a logical consequence of M and of the other part, the part last mentioned being a statement of a law which for a long time has been accepted by physicists. Consequently, we shall state separately the two parts of the second postulate and bring out with care the interdependence of these and postulate M above.

The part which we shall give first states a principle which has long been familiar in the theory of light, namely, that the velocity of light is unaffected by the velocity of the source. In other words the velocity with which light passes an observer is not increased if the light-source moves toward the observer or decreased if it recedes from him. Stated in exact language this postulate is as follows:

''R'. The velocity of light in free space, measured on an unaccelerated system of reference S by means of units belonging to S, is independent of the unaccelerated velocity of the source of light.''

The law stated in this postulate is a conclusion which follows readily from the usual undulatory theory of light and will therefore be accepted by any one who holds to that theory. But it should be emphasized that $$R'$$ does not depend for its truth on any theory of light. It is a matter for direct experimental verification or disproof, and this should be made in such way as to be independent, as far as possible, of all general theories of light, at least insofar as they are not supported by direct experimental evidence. So far as the writer is aware, there is no experimental evidence which is undoubtedly opposed to postulate M, while on the other hand there is direct experimental evidence which by some is believed to be definitely in its favor. Tolman, in particular, has considered this matter in relation to the Doppler effect and to the velocity of light from the two limbs of the sun; and has concluded that experiment bears out the postulate. Stewart, on the other hand, has examined the same experiments and has found an explanation for them in Thomson's electromagnetic emission theory of light. According to Stewart these experiments are in agreement with our postulate M but are opposed to our postulate $$R'$$. All other attempted proof or disproof of the postulate appears to be in the same state; it is capable of two interpretations which are directly opposed to each other with respect to their conclusions as to the validity of $$R'$$. Thus at present there is no undoubted experimental

title: Page:CarmichealPostulates.djvu/7


text:
Page:CarmichealPostulates.djvu/8

 evidence for or against postulate $$R'$$. If the assumption is to be proved at all, either new experiments must be devised or it must be proved by indirect means by showing that it is a consequence of experiment and accepted laws.

Now any one who accepts postulates M and $$R'$$ will perforce accept also all the logical consequences which necessarily flow from them. Of these logical consequences we shall now prove one which is of great importance in the theory of relativity:

I. The velocity of light in free space, measured on an unaccelerated system of reference S by means of units belonging to S, is independent of the direction of motion of S (MR').

Since by $$R'$$ the velocity of light is independent of that of the light-source we may suppose that the light-source belongs to the system S. Now let the velocity of light, as it is emitted from this source in various directions, be observed and tabulated. On account of the homogeneity of space mere direction through space will have no effect on these observed velocities; and therefore it they differ at all, the difference will be due to the velocity of S. Now if there were a difference due to the direction of motion of S this difference would put in evidence the motion of S. But by M it is impossible to detect such motion in this way. Hence the observed velocity must be the same in all directions. In other words, it is independent of the direction of motion of S; and thus the theorem is proved.

It is clear, however, that we cannot take the next step and prove that this observed velocity of light is independent of the absolute value of the velocity of S, as Tolman appears to conclude. To see this clearly, let us suppose that the absolute value of the velocity of S does affect the observed velocity of light. On account of $$R'$$ it will have the same effect on the observed velocity of light whatever may be the unaccelerated motion of the light-source. Hence, from all possible observations, the experimenter will have only a single datum from which to determine the effect of one phenomenon on another; namely, a datum in which the two phenomena are connected in a certain definite way. It is obvious then that he cannot determine the effect of one of the phenomena on the other; for he can never observe the one without the other being present also and the connection which exists between them is always the same however he may vary his experiment. And if the observer cannot determine an existing effect it is clear that he cannot prove the absence of any effect whatever.

title: Page:CarmichealPostulates.djvu/8


text:
Page:CarmichealPostulates.djvu/9

 But, although the absence of this effect cannot be proved, it is probably impossible to conceive any satisfactory may in which it could be present. Physical intuition is emphatic (and it may be that this is what Tolman intended to say in the passage cited) in asserting that if the direction of the velocity of S has no effect on the observed velocity of light then the absolute value of the velocity of S has no effect on such observed velocity. But this does not constitute a proof. There is in this, however, nothing to invalidate the naturalness of the assumption of such independence of the two velocities; in fact, it would be unscientific to make a different assumption (which would necessarily introduce greater complications) unless we were forced to it by unquestioned experimental fact. Accordingly, we shall make the assumption and shall state it as postulate $$R''$$:

$$R''$$. The velocity of light in free space, measured on an unaccelerated system of reference S by means of units belonging to S, is independent of the absolute value of the velocity of S.

R. The postulate obtained by combining $$R'$$ and $$R$$ will, for convenience, often be referred to as postulate R.''

Now, since unaccelerated velocity is completely determined when the absolute value of the velocity and the direction of the motion are given the truth of the following theorem is an immediate consequence of theorem I. and postulate $$R''$$.

II. The velocity of light in free space, measured on an unaccelerated system of reference S by means of units belonging to S, is independent of the velocity of S(MR).

The second postulate of relativity has usually been stated in a form different from that given above in $$R'$$ and $$R$$ or R''. In fact, the truth of theorem I. has often been taken as part of the assumption in this postulate, notwithstanding that I. can be derived from M and $$R'$$. Now, it is precisely the assumption of I. that has given most difficulty to some persons. It is believed that a part of this difficulty will disappear in view of the fact that I. is here demonstrated by means of M and $$R'$$.

For the sake of convenience in future discussion one of the customary formulations of the second postulate is appended here. It must be remembered, however, that it is not a separate constituent part of our present body of doctrine but is already contained in M and R, in part directly and in part as a necessary consequence of these postulates.

$$\overline{R}$$. The velocity of light in free space, measured on an unaccelerated system of reference S by means of units belonging to S, is independent of the velocity of S and of the unaccelerated velocity of the light-source.

From the very nature of the postulate $$R''$$ it is difficult to obtain direct experimental evidence for or against it. It seems, however, as we have

title: Page:CarmichealPostulates.djvu/9


text:
Page:CarmichealPostulates.djvu/10

 already pointed out, that one who accepts theorem I. can hardly refuse to assume $$R''$$. But theorem I. is a logical consequence of postulates M and $$R'$$, as we have shown. Moreover, from what follows it will be seen that we have occasion to make no further assumptions which can in any way run counter to currently accepted notions. Consequently, it would seem that the experimental evidence for or against the whole theory of relativity must center around postulates M and $$R'$$. We have already given some account of the experimental evidence for these postulates. In connection with theorems to be derived later (in this paper and in another which the writer has in preparation) further reference will be given to the existing experimental evidence and some other possible lines of research in this direction will be pointed out.

It is generally conceded that the strange conclusions which flow from the theory of relativity are due to postulate R (or to postulate $$\overline{R}$$, in the customary formulation). In view of the theorem I. above and our discussion of its consequences, it is now clear that the strangeness in the conclusions of relativity is due to that part of R which is contained in $$R'$$. It is important therefore to have a careful analysis of this postulate and especially to know alternative forms, which, in view of the other postulates, are logically equivalent to it. One such form has already been given by Tolman (l. c., p. 36), who has also urged the importance of the general problem. In the second paper of this series the alternative form due to Tolman will be subjected to a fresh analysis. As already pointed out in the Introduction, other alternative forms will also be given.

§ 4. The Postulates V and L. — It has been customary for writers on relativity to state explicitly only the postulates M and R. But every one, as a matter of fact, has made further assumptions concerning the relations of the two systems. These assumptions in some form are essential to the initial arguments and to the conclusions which are drawn by means of them. To the present writer it seems preferable to have these assumptions explicitly stated. Among the several forms, any one of which might be chosen, there is one which seems to us to be decidedly simpler than any of the others; and it is this one which we shall employ here. We state the postulates V and L as follows:

V. If the velocity of a system of reference $$S_2$$ relative to a system of reference $$S_1$$ is measured by means of the units belonging to $$S_1$$ and if the velocity of $$S_1$$ relative to $$S_2$$ is measured by means of the units belonging to $$S_2$$ the two results will agree in absolute value.

This velocity we shall call the relative velocity of the two systems. The direction line of this velocity will be called the line of relative motion of the two systems.

title: Page:CarmichealPostulates.djvu/10


text:
Page:CarmichealPostulates.djvu/11

 L. If two systems of reference $$S_1$$ and $$S_2$$ move with unaccelerated relative velocity and if a line segment l is perpendicular to the line of relative motion of $$S_1$$ and $$S_2$$ and is fixed to one of these systems, then the length of l measured by means of the units belonging to $$S_1$$ will be the same as its length measured by means of the units belonging to $$S_2$$.

The essential content of these two postulates may be stated in simpler terms (but less accurately) if one allows the explicit introduction of the observer. Thus V is roughly equivalent to the following statement: Two observers whose relative motion is uniform will agree in their measurement of that uniform relative motion. As an approximate equivalent of L we have: Two observers whose relative motion is uniform will agree in their measurement of length in a line perpendicular to their line of relative motion.

It will be observed that these two postulates are nothing more than explicit statements of notions which underlie the classic theories of mechanics. The first is assumed in supposing that there exists such a thing as the relative motion of two bodies which are not at rest relatively to each other. The second is nothing more than the statement of a portion of the idea which lies at the bottom of our conception of such a thing as the length of a rod or other object.

Since these two postulates are universally accepted, the question might naturally arise, Why state them at all? Is it not enough simply to take them for granted? The answer is that there are other notions which have heretofore met with the same universal acceptance and which do not agree with the postulates of relativity. Therefore it seems to be desirable — in fact, to be essential to proper logical procedure — to state explicitly just those assumptions concerning the relation of the two systems of reference which we shall have occasion to employ in argument. Only in this way is one able to see exactly on what basis our strange conclusions rest.

We shall make a digression here to say one further word about postulate L. In part II. we shall draw the conclusion that length in the line of motion is not independent of the velocity with which the system is moving. In view of this the question arises as to why we must assume that length in a line perpendicular to the motion is independent of the motion. The answer is that we are under no such necessity, that we are at liberty to assume that length in a line perpendicular to the motion is dependent on the velocity of such motion. In fact, the general formulation of such an hypothesis has already been made by E. Riecke. This hypothesis, however, is undoubtedly more complicated and less elegant than the one which we have made; and the latter, as we shall see, is in

title: Page:CarmichealPostulates.djvu/11


text:
Page:CarmichealPostulates.djvu/12

 conflict with no known experimental facts. Therefore, following that instinct which has always wisely guided the physicist, we make the simplest hypothesis which is in agreement with and explanatory of the totality of experimental facts at present known. If at any time experiments are set forth which do not agree with the theory developed on the basis of the above postulates, then will be the time to consider the question of introducing a more complicated postulate in place of our postulate L above.

§ 5. Consistency and Independence of the Postulates. — Throughout the paper it will be assumed that the postulates as stated are consistent; that is to say, no attempt will be made to prove their consistency. The fact that no contradictory conclusions have been drawn from the postulates will be accepted as (partial) evidence that they are mutually consistent. Moreover, from their very nature and from the differing range of applicability of the several postulates it is difficult to conceive how any one of them can possibly contradict conclusions which may be drawn from the others.

There is another question also which it is our purpose to pass over without discussion, namely, the question of the logical independence of the postulates. Is any postulate or a part of any postulate a logical consequence of the remaining postulates? This question is important from the point of view of formal logic, but in the present case its value to physical science is probably small.

§ 6. Other Postulates Needed. — From the postulates stated above it is possible to draw only those conclusions of the theory of relativity which are of a general nature. If, for instance, it is desired to study the nature of mass or the relation of mass and energy in this theory, it is necessary to have some assumption concerning mass in the first case and concerning both mass and energy in the second case. Thus we might assume the conservation laws of mass, energy, electricity, and momentum and deduce the joint consequences of these assumptions and those given above. It is our purpose to return to this matter in a future paper. For the present we are concerned only with the postulates above stated and their consequences.

II. Relative Measurements of Time and Space in Two Systems of Reference. Transformations.
§ 7. Relations Between the Time Units. — Let us consider three systems of reference $$S, S_1$$ and $$S_2$$ related to each other in the following manner: The lines of relative motion of S and $$S_1$$, of S and $$S_2$$, of $$S_1$$ and $$S_2$$ are all

title: Page:CarmichealPostulates.djvu/12


text:
Page:CarmichealPostulates.djvu/13

 parallel; $$S_1$$ and $$S_2$$ have a relative velocity v ; S and $$S_1$$ have a relative velocity ½v in one sense and S and $$S_2$$ have a relative velocity ½v in the opposite sense. The system S consists of a single light-source, and this source is symmetrically placed with respect to two points of which one is fixed to $$S_1$$ and the other is fixed to $$S_2$$. This is possible as a permanent relation on account of the relative motions of the three systems. For convenience, let us assume S to be at rest.

We shall now suppose that observers on the systems $$S_1$$ and $$S_2$$ measure the velocity of light as it emanates from the source S. Let a point A in $$S_1$$ and a point B in $$S_2$$ which are symmetrically placed with respect to the light-source S, move along the lines $$l_1$$ and $$l_2$$; these lines are parallel. From postulate L it follows that observers on $$S_1$$ and $$S_2$$ will obtain the same measurement of the distance between $$l_1$$ and $$l_2$$. Denote this distance by d. On account of postulate M neither observer is able to detect his motion. Therefore he will make his observations on the assumption that his system is at rest; that is to say, his measurements will be made by means of the units belonging to his system and no corrections will be made on account of the motion of the system. Let the observer on $$S_1$$ reflect a beam of light SA from the point A to a point C on $$l_w$$ and back to A; and let the observed time of passage of the light from A to C and back to A be t. Since the observer assumes his system to be at rest he will suppose that the ray of light passes (in both directions) along the line AC which is perpendicular to $$l_1$$ and $$l_2$$. His measurement of the distance traversed by the ray of light in time t will therefore be 2d. Hence he will obtain as a result

where c is his observed velocity of light.

Similarly, an observer on $$S_2$$, supposing his system to be at rest, finds the time $$t_1$$ which it requires for a ray of light to pass from B to D and return, the ray employed being gotten by reflecting a ray SB at B. Thus the second observer obtains the result

where $$c_1$$ is his observed velocity of light.

title: Page:CarmichealPostulates.djvu/13


text:
Page:CarmichealPostulates.djvu/14

 Now, from the assumed relations among the systems S, $$S_1$$ and $$S_2$$ and from the homogeneity of space it follows that the two observations which we have supposed to be made must lead to the same estimate for the velocity of light. This is readily seen from the fact that the observations were made in such a way that the effect due to either the absolute value or the direction of the motion of the systems $$S_1$$ and $$S_2$$ is the same in the two cases. In other words, if we denote by $$L_1$$ and $$L_2$$ the quantities measured on $$S_1$$ and $$S_2$$ respectively, then the relation of $$L_1$$ to $$S_1$$ is precisely the same as that of $$L_2$$ to $$S_2$$; and hence the numerical results are identical, as one sees from the definition of systems of reference. Therefore we have $$c_{1}=c$$.

Let us now suppose that the observer at A is watching the experiment at B, To him it appears that B is moving with a velocity v; we shall assume that the apparent motion is in the direction indicated by the arrow. To the observer at B it appears that the ray of light traverses BD from B to D and returns along the same line to B. To the observer at A it appears that the ray traverses the line BEF, F being the point which B has reached by the time that the ray has returned to the observer at this point. If EG is perpendicular to $$l_2$$ and $$d_1$$ is the length of EF as measured by means of units belonging to $$S_1$$, then, evidently, GF (when measured in the same units) is $$\beta d_1$$ where $$\beta=v/\overline{c}$$ and $$\overline{c}$$ is the (apparent) velocity of light as estimated in this case by the observer at A. From the right triangle EFG it follows at once that we have

$$d_{1}=\frac{d}{\sqrt{1-\beta^{2}}}$$

Now, if $$\overline{t}$$ is the time which is required, according to the observer at A, for the light to traverse the path BEF, then we have

$$\frac{2d_{1}}{\overline{t}}=\frac{2d}{\overline{t}\sqrt{1-\beta^{2}}}=\overline{c}$$

So far in our argument in this section we have employed only those of our postulates which are generally accepted by both the friends and the foes of relativity. Now we come to the place where the men of the two camps must part company.

Let us introduce for the moment the following additional hypothesis.

A. The two estimates c and $$\overline{c}$$ of the velocity of light obtained as above by the observer at A are equal.

Now we have shown that c is equal to $$c_1$$, Hence we may equate the values of $$c_1$$ and $$\overline{c}$$ given above; thus we have

$$\frac{2d_{1}}{t_{1}}=\frac{2d}{\overline{t}\sqrt{1-\beta^{2}}}$$

title: Page:CarmichealPostulates.djvu/14


text:
Page:CarmichealPostulates.djvu/15

 or

But $$t_1$$ and $$\overline{t}$$ are measures of the same interval of time, $$t_1$$ being in units belonging to $$S_2$$ and $$\overline{t}$$ being in units belonging to $$S_1$$. Hence to the observer on $$S_1$$ the ratio of his time unit to that of the system $$S_2$$ appears to be $$\sqrt{1-\beta^{2}}:1$$. On the other hand, it may be shown in exactly the same way that to the observer on $$S_2$$ the ratio of his time unit to that of the system $$S_1$$ appears to be $$\sqrt{1-\beta^{2}}:1$$. That is, the time units of the two systems are different and each observer comes to the same conclusion as to the relation which the unit of the other system bears to his own.

This important and striking result may be stated in the following theorem:

III. If two systems of reference $$S_1$$ and $$S_2$$ move with a relative velocity v and β is defined as the ratio of v to the velocity of light estimated in the manner indicated above, then to an observer on $$S_1$$ the time unit of $$S_3$$ appears to be in the ratio $$\sqrt{1-\beta^{2}}:1$$ to that of $$S_2$$ while to an observer on $$S_2$$ the time unit of $$S_2$$ appears to be in the ratio $$\sqrt{1-\beta^{2}}:1$$ to that of $$S_1$$ (MVLA).

Let us now bring into play our postulate $$R'$$. In theorem I. we have already seen that a logical consequence of M and $$R'$$ is that the velocity of light, as observed on a system of reference, is independent of the direction of motion of that system. Now, if c and $$\overline{c}$$ as estimated above differ at all, that difference can be due only to the direction of motion of $$S_1$$, as one sees readily from postulate $$R'$$ and the method of determining these quantities. Hence the statement which we made above as assumption A is a, logical consequence of postulates M and $$R'$$. Therefore we are led to the following corollary of the above theorem:

. ''Theorem III. may be stated as depending on (MVLR') instead of on (MVLA).''

Let us now go a step further and employ postulate $$R''$$. From theorem I. and postulates $$R'$$ and $$R''$$ it follows that the observed velocity of light is a pure constant for all admissible methods of observation. If we make use of this fact the preceding result may be stated in the following simpler form:

IV. ''If two systems of reference $$S_1$$ and $$S_2$$ move with a relative velocity v and β is the ratio of v to the velocity of light, then to an observer on $$S_1$$ the time unit of $$S_1$$ appears to be in the ratio $$\sqrt{1-\beta^{2}}:1$$ to that of $$S_2$$ while to an observer on $$S_2$$ the time unit of $$S_2$$ appears to be in the ratio $$\sqrt{1-\beta^{2}}:1$$ to that of $$S_1$$ (MVLR). ''

Let us subject these remarkable results to a further analysis. Theorem III., its corollary and theorem IV. all agree in the extraordinary conclusions

title: Page:CarmichealPostulates.djvu/15


text:
Page:CarmichealPostulates.djvu/16

 that the time units of the two systems of reference $$S_1$$ and $$S_2$$ are of different lengths. Just how much they differ is a secondary matter; that they differ at all is the surprising and important thing. As postulates M, V, L are generally accepted and have not elsewhere led to such strange conclusions it is natural to suppose that the strangeness here is not due to them.

Referring to the argument carried out above, we see that no unusual conclusions were reached until we had introduced and made use of assumption A. Moreover we have seen that this assumption itself is a logical consequence of M and $$R'$$. Further, $$R''$$ is not involved either in theorem III. or in its corollary. But these already involve the strange features of our results. Hence the conclusion is irresistible that the extraordinary element in these results is due to postulate $$R'$$ — or to speak more accurately, to just that part of it which it is necessary to use in connection with M in order to prove A as a theorem.

This result is important, as the following considerations show. Postulates V and L state laws which have been universally accepted in the classical mechanics. Postulate M is a direct generalization from experiment, and the generalization is legitimate according to the usual procedure of physicists in like situations. Postulate $$R'$$ is the statement of a principle which has long been familiar in the theory of light and has met with wide acceptance. Thus we see that no one of these postulates, in itself, runs counter to currently accepted physical notions. And yet just these postulates alone are sufficient to enable us to conclude that corresponding time units in two systems of reference are of different magnitude. In the next section we shall show on the basis of the same postulates that the corresponding units of length in the two systems are also different. Thus the most remarkable elements in the conclusions of the theory of relativity are deducible from postulates M, V, L, $$R'$$ alone; and yet these are either generalizations from experiment or statement of laws which have usually been accepted. Hence we conclude: The theory of relativity, in its most characteristic elements, is a logical consequence of certain experiments together with certain laws which have for a long time been accepted.

One other remark, of a totally different nature, should be made with reference to the characteristic result of theorem IV. It has to do with the relation between the time units of the two systems. This relation is intimately associated with the fact that each observer makes his measurements on the hypothesis that his own system is at rest, while the other system is moving past him with a velocity v. If both observers should agree to call S fixed and if further in this modified "universe" our

title: Page:CarmichealPostulates.djvu/16