2 1 4 D O C U M E N T 2 7 0 J U L Y 1 9 2 2 (1) Through the substitution: (2) (1) becomes: (3) If I now prescribe that for the ’s should have their pseudo-Euclidean normal values, then the constants define themselves for (4) Equation (3) with the values (4) thus represents a metric, in which at infinity the inertia of the masses (small test bodies) converges on 0 and the velocity of light approaches a finite value.[1] As the simplest “picture of the world” one could address the solution that agrees with (3) and (4) for r a and with the normal values for r a. Because of the dis- continuity, in the differential quotient of such a solution would be interpreted as an idealized mass shell. But one could just as well extend solution (3) for a constant into a material sphere with the given energy tensor. (I performed the calculation for an incompressible fluid.) The essential difference from your considerations in your cosmological paper seems to me to lie less in that I leave the space for r a void of mass than that I give up the constraint .[2] Of your reservations, as far as I can see, only the “obliteration objection” [Verödungseinwand] remains standing, thus merely one objection supported by statistical considerations.[3] Nor do I place any partic- ds2 C2 1 2m r ------- – dx0 2 dx1 2 dx2 2 dx3 2 h2 1– ( )dr2) + + + ( – = h2 1 1 2m r ------- – ---------------- ,= C still arbitrary. xi xi Br–ε, ⋅ = i 1 2 3, , , = ε, B constant, ds2 = C2 1 2m Br–ε ---------- – dx0 2 B2r–2ε dx1 2 dx2 2 dx3 2 1 1 2m Br1–ε ------------ -– ----------------------( 1 ε)2 – 1– dr2 + + + , – = r a = gμν C2 1 1 2m a ------- – ----------------, = B aε ,= ε 2m a .––=-------11 g00 dr dg00 g – 1 =