Page:Elektrische und Optische Erscheinungen (Lorentz) 002.jpg

 induction of two circuits. The results of the American scientist, however, allow of an interpretation by an auxiliary hypotheses, and the findings of can easily be explained without such one.

Concerning the observations of on the rotation of polarization in glass columns, the matter is as follows. At first glance, the result is decidedly against ' view. Yet when I tried to improve 's theory, the explanation of 's experiments was not quite successful, so I gradually suspected that this result had been obtained by observational error, or at least it had not met the theoretical considerations which formed the basis of the experiments. And was so friendly to tell my colleague  after his request, that at present he himself doesn't see his observations as crucial.

In the further course of this work, I will come back in more detail to some of the issues raised at this place. Here I was concerned only with the preliminary justification of the standpoint I have taken.

In favor of 's theory several well-known reasons can be cited. Especially the impossibility of locking the aether between solid or liquid walls. As far as we know, a space devoid of air behaves (in the mechanical sense) like a real vacuum, when ponderable bodies are in motion. When we see how the mercury of a barometer rises to the top when the tube is inclined, or how easily a closed metal shell can be compressed, one can not avoid the idea, that solid and liquid bodies let the aether pass through without hindrance. One hardly will