( 670 ) 
vestigation. According to him we may infer from theory that a trans- 
lation has no influence on the rotation. Mr. Larmor believes the con- 
tradiction between our results to be due to an error on my side }), con- 
sisting in an oversight which he points out p p. 214 and 215 of his work. 
A new examination of the problem has convinced me that LARMOR 
must be wrong in this assertion, the formula (2) following undoubted- 
ly from my fundamental equations. I also found that the equations 
of LARMOR are the same as mine, if in these one puts #= 0, and 
that it is only in consequence of a mistake that his analysis does 
not lead him to an expression agreeing with the first term in (2). 
I shall now show that, whereas my equations leave room for a 
compensation, just because they contain the second coefficient &, 
LARMOR, treating only the particular case k=0, ought to have 
arrived at a rotation, different for a moving and for a quiescent body. 
S 3. In my calculations I used the equations 
DvDd=0, 
Dv H=0, 
Rot h' = 429, 
Rot E = — §, 5: ap hia, ier 
E=47e b+ [p. H], 
H' = H—A4An[p.d], 
D=do.4+M, / 
to which is to be added the relation (1). 
The meaning of € and M has already been mentioned; 5 is the 
magnetie force and the remaining vectors are defined by the equations 
themselves. ‘The components of the vectors are regarded as functions 
of the time and of the coordinates z,y,z, referred to axes, fixed to 
the moving medium; the time-rates of variation for constant values 
of these coordinates are denoted by D and #. 
We may omit the first and second formulae, these being implied, 
in the cases to be considered, in the third and fourth equations. 
Moreover, just like Larmor, we shall restrict the investigation to 
bodies, moving parallel to the axis of +, and traversed by rays of 
light of this same direction. Then, the only independent variables 
are « and t, and the equations (4) become 
end 
My Ate; pe Oe. 
