DOCS.
383,
384
APRIL
1912 287
highly
both
as a colleague
and
as a
human
being.
Also,
I have
more
personal
sympathy
for
Laue than for
the
"patriarch" Abraham,[3]
as my
Prague
colleague
Lampa[4]
jokingly
calls him. As
far
as
Abraham
is concerned,
I could
easily
find out from him
whether
he
would
accept
a
nomination.
But what the
Zurich
professors
would
say
about
it,
that,
of
course,
I
cannot
know. I cannot
understand
why you were so angry
when
your proposal
to
nominate
Prof. Schur did
not
get
through.[5]
After
all,
in
the end
everybody
does
what
he thinks
is
right.
At
that
time, I
too
voted
for
Zermelo,[6]
on
Schmid's
authority,
without
it
having
occurred
to
me
that
Schmid could have
intentionally
deceived
us
about
Zermelo's
state
of health.
You
saw
more clearly
than
all
of
the rest
of
us on
that
occasion,
but
everybody
voted
to the
best of
his
knowledge;
therefore,
you
should
not
be
angry
with
anyone except,
at
most,
with Prof.
Schmid,
who
was
less
fair
to the
faculty
than
to
his
former teacher.
But
there
are
obvious
mitigating
circumstances for
this sin
as
well.
With
kindest
regards,
your
A.
Einstein
384. To
Paul Ehrenfest
Prague,
25
April [1912]
Dear
Mr.
Ehrenfest,
The
evening
before
yesterday
I
returned
from
Berlin[1]
and
found
your letter[2]
here
as
well
as
your paper
in the
Phys.
Zeitschr.[3]
I
think that there
are some
quite
simple
experiments
by
which to test
Ritz's
view,[4]
which,
by
the
way, was
also
mine
prior
to
the
theory
of
relativity.
Two
cases are
possible.
1.
A
light
originating
from
a
moving light
source
("moving" light)
remains
"moving"
after
it has
experienced
passage
through
a
"resting"
substance
or
reflection
on a
"resting"
substance.
2.
Moving light
turns
into
"resting"
light
if it has
been
influenced in the
way
indicated.
In
case (2)
the
following
must be
the
case:
S1
-
s2
-B
E