David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy 11 (41):48 - 59 (1936)
On page 95 appears a review of a book by Professor E. A. Milne in which is described a new theory of the metrical character of the world and the interpretation, in the light thereof, of many important astronomical phenomena. Although the author states that his object is not to criticize the general form of the principle of relativity, there appears to be a fundamental distinction between the viewpoints of Einstein and Milne which is frequently emphasized and which it is profoundly important to examine as minutely as possible, for if Professor Milne's claim is established the foundations of physics are essentially modified. The purpose of this article is to compare the outlooks implicit in Milne's theory and the theory of relativity, respectively, in order to see how far, if at all, current ideas require alteration. It should, be mentioned that, although Professor Milne speaks of his theory as “the principle of relativity in a much weaker form” and frequently uses the word “relativity” to describe it, we shall here, to prevent misunderstanding, restrict the meaning of the word to Einstein's theory
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
E. A. Milne (1942). Professor Milne's Reply. Philosophy 17 (65):78-.
Claus Beisbart & Tobias Jung (2006). Privileged, Typical, or Not Even That? – Our Place in the World According to the Copernican and the Cosmological Principles. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 37 (2):225 - 256.
Graham Oppy (2010). Epistemological Foundations for Koons' Cosmological Argument? European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 2 (1):107 - 125.
Mogens Laerke (2011). Spinoza's Cosmological Argument in the 'Ethics'. Journal of the History of Philosophy 49 (4):439 - 462.
H. Kragh & S. Rebsdorf (2002). Before Cosmophysics: E.A. Milne on Mathematics and Physics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 33 (1):35-50.
Thomas Donaldson (1990). Social Contracts and Corporations: A Reply to Hodapp. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 9 (2):133 - 137.
S. Roush (2003). Copernicus, Kant, and the Anthropic Cosmological Principles. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 34 (1):5-35.
Luke Robinson (2008). Moral Principles Are Not Moral Laws. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 2 (3):1-22.
William Lane Craig (1984). Professor Mackie and the Kalām Cosmological Argument. Religious Studies 20 (3):367 - 375.
Jasper William Reid (2007). The Evolution of Henry More's Theory of Divine Absolute Space. Journal of the History of Philosophy 45 (1):79-102.
Lee Smolin (2000). The Present Moment in Quantum Cosmology: Challenges to the Arguments for the Elimination of Time. In R. Durie (ed.), Time and the Instant. Clinamen Press 112--43.
Nick Bostrom, Are Cosmological Theories Compatible with All Possible Evidence: A Missing Methodological Link.
E. A. Milne (1949). A Philosophy of Mathematics. By Louis O. Kattsoff, Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of North Carolina. (Iowa State College Press, 1948. Pp. Vii + 266. Price $5.00.). [REVIEW] Philosophy 24 (88):90-.
E. S. & H. Zinkernagel (2002). The Quantum Vacuum and the Cosmological Constant Problem. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 33 (4):663-705.
Added to index2011-05-29
Total downloads2 ( #533,082 of 1,724,748 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #349,121 of 1,724,748 )
How can I increase my downloads?