1 4 D O C S . 1 5 , 1 6 M A R C H 1 9 1 9
between them: 1 2 has the same value as when applying the nebula’s radial ve-
locity; now, that is:
The agreement is remarkably
good, although one should not
draw conclusions from 2
stars.[4]
Even if this method with the cal-
cium lines probably still cannot
be carried out immediately with
the accuracy of the Orion nebula analysis, there is nevertheless some chance here
of obtaining in the coming years ample information about the material distributed
throughout the whole sky, especially since we are dealing here with a question that
is also of purely general interest astronomically, since the puzzling behavior of the
calcium lines is quite a brain twister.
With best regards, yours,
E. Freundlich.
15. To Erwin Freundlich
[Berlin, 29 March 1919]
Dear Freundlich,
Your new result is highly
gratifying.[1]
I for my part am now convinced of the
existence of the redshift. Special treatment of the individual lines would still be
very desirable. You have done a great service to the cause with these two papers. I
shall point this out emphatically to Mr. Nernst, in case it should be
necessary.[2]
If
you now clear up the matter with the Sun as well,[3] confirmation of the theory’s
most important result is then secured.–
I told Mr. Scheel that you and Mr. Kohlschütter want to give talks at the G[er-
man] Ph[ysical] Soc[iety]. Your talks are supposed to take place very soon al-
ready.[4] I ask you both kindly to contact him by telephone.
With best regards, yours,
A. Einstein.
16. To Aurel Stodola
Berlin, 31 March
[1919][1]
Esteemed Colleague,[2]
At the sight of your friendly letter, my bad conscience, which had been plaguing
me earlier already because I did not visit you again in Zurich, was hugely
*
nebula
*
calcium line
δ Orionis +2.3 +2.0
ε Orionis 7.6 +8.9
Previous Page Next Page