D O C U M E N T 3 7 0 C O M M E N T O N S E L E T Y 2 9 1 real distribution of masses that results for one observer of a spherical world yields a different world for the other observer. What kind of a difference?) So, warm greetings and bon voyage! And if these lines only reach you among the cherry-blossom worshippers, may they hail you over there! In all of our names, yours, Michele. How’s that Pole’s six-dimensional cylinder world doing?[3] And the hyperbolic possibilities that I only became acquainted with through Jean Becquerel’s pretty lit- tle essay?[4] I myself am at the point of freezing stiff. With the exceptions of a few specialties completely foreign to me and a couple of theologians, there’s pitifully little going on over here! Vero, with wife & Marco, in Zurich since 6 weeks ago.[5] 370. “Comment on Franz Selety’s Paper: ‘Contributions to the Cosmological System’”[1] [Einstein 1922q] Dated [12–25] September 1922 Received 25 September 1922 Published 19 December 1922 In: Annalen der Physik 69 (1922): 436–438. From the standpoint of Newton’s theory there is, it must be conceded, something to the hypothesis of a “molecular-hierarchical” structure for the universe of stars, even though the hypothesized equivalence of spiral nebulae with the Milky Way should be regarded as refuted by recent observations.[2] This hypothesis unassail- ably explains the non-[luminosity] of the background sky and avoids Seeliger’s conflict with Newton’s law without conceiving matter as islands in empty space.[3] Even from the point of view of the general theory of relativity, the hypothesis of a molecular-hierarchical structure of the universe is possible. Nevertheless, from the standpoint of this theory the hypothesis should be regarded as unsatisfactory. This will be briefly examined once again in the following.[4] If the geometrical and inertial properties of space are influenced or partly determined by matter, then the compelling view would be that this determinedness was fully conditional, as is the [p. 436]