regard the whole measurement-process from the system K and remember that the rod placed on the periphery suffers a Lorenz-contraction, not however when the rod is placed along the radius. Euclidean Geometry therefore does not hold for the system K´; the above fixed conceptions of co-ordinates which assume the validity of Euclidean Geometry fail with regard to the system K´. We cannot similarly introduce in K´ a time corresponding to physical requirements, which will be shown by all similarly prepared clocks at rest relative to the system K´. In order to see this we suppose that two similarly made clocks are arranged one at the centre and one at the periphery of the circle, and considered from the stationary system K. According to the well-known results of the special relativity theory it follows—(as viewed from K)—that the clock placed at the periphery will go slower than the second one which is at rest. The observer at the common origin of co-ordinates who is able to see the clock at the periphery by means of light will see the clock at the periphery going slower than the clock beside him. Since he cannot allow the velocity of light to depend explicitly upon the time in the way under consideration he will interpret his observation by saying that the clock on the periphery actully goes slower than the clock at the origin. He cannot therefore do otherwise than define time in such a way that the rate of going of a clock depends on its position.
We therefore arrive at this result. In the general relativity theory time and space magnitudes cannot be so defined that the difference in spatial co-ordinates can be immediately measured by the unit-measuring rod, and time-*like co-ordinate difference with the aid of a normal clock.
The means hitherto at our disposal, for placing our co-ordinate system in the time-space continuum, in a
