D O C . 4 5 A N T I - R E L A T I V I T Y C O M P A N Y 1 9 9
been judged by all experts as being quite generally unfair; I have, so far, considered
it below my dignity to waste even one word on it.
In his lecture, Herr Gehrcke presented the reliability of the masterfully executed
English measurements of the deflection of light rays passing by the sun in a lopsid-
ed manner when he mentioned only one of three independent observation groups;
namely, the one where distortions in the heliostat mirror had to produce erroneous
results. He did not mention that the English astronomers themselves, in their offi-
cial report, interpreted their results as a brilliant confirmation of the general theory
of relativity.
In matters of the redshift of spectral lines, Herr Gehrcke did not reveal that cur-
rent measurements still contradict each other, and thus a final decision still cannot
be made. He quoted only the witnesses against the existence of the line shift that
the theory of relativity predicts, but he concealed that the previous results are no
longer convincing, per the most recent investigations by Grebe and Bachem and
also by Perot.
Finally, I want to note that, upon my suggestion, there will be a discussion on
the theory of relativity at the Naturforscherversammlung [i.e., convention of natu-
ral scientists] in Nauheim. Anyone who can dare to face a scientific forum can
present his objections there.
Seeing how the theory and its creator are slandered in such a manner in Germany
will make a strange impression in foreign countries, especially with my Dutch and
British colleagues H. A. Lorentz and Eddington, gentlemen who worked intensive-
ly in the field of relativity and repeatedly gave lectures on this subject matter.
Translator’s Notes
{1} Here and in the following “Gehrke” has been corrected to “Gehrcke.”
{2} The original in the newspaper reads “Massen,” which has been mistranscribed as
“Waffen.”
{3} L. Grebe, A. Bachem, Z. Phys. I, 51 (1920). “Buchem” in the German text is a mis-
print.
{4} “Neuheim” in the German newspaper is a misprint of “Nauheim.”
[14]
[15]
{3}
[16]
[17]
{4}
[18]