222
DOC.
226
JUNE
1916
that
in
your
Parisian
lectures
you
gave
the
fluctuation
properties
of
radiation
deservedly
thorough
discussion;[9]
there the
theories’
inaccuracies become most
clearly
evident.
Now
to
your
interference consideration!
It
amused
me
that
you
hit
upon
exactly
the
same
example
that
I also had often
turned
over
in
my
mind in
the
last
few
years.
I grant
you
that the
general
theory
of relativity is
closer to
the
ether
hypothesis
than the
special
theory
of
relativity.
But this
new
ether
theory
would not violate
the
relativity
principle any
more.
For
the
state of
this
guv =
ether
would not be
that
of
a
rigid body
in
an
independent
state of motion.
Rather,
a
state of motion would be
a
function of
position,
determined
by
the material
processes. Example:
Earth's
axis
Earth
I
first wire ring
with
interference nodes
II
second wire ring
with
interference nodes
If
the Earth
were
not
there
or
if
it
were
not to rotate,
the
interference nodes of
rings
I
and II would remain at rest
relative
to
the
“fixed
stars,”
thus
also relative
to
each other.
But
if
the Earth
rotates,
both
nodal
systems
indeed rotate
with
it
by
a
tiny proportion,
specifically,
that
of I
more
than that
of II because of
the
lesser distances. Nodal
systems
I
and II
thus
rotate at
a
minuscule
velocity against
each
other in
proportion
to
the
Earth’s
rotation
and
the
distances. Foucault’s
pendulum plane
also rotates
a
little
with
the
Earth,
by
about
0.01"
per
year.[10]
What
a
pity
that
it
does
not
amount to
more! I
must
admit, though,
that
I
prefer
the
guv
system
to
an
incomplete comparison
with
anything
material.
For
the
preference
of uniform motion
is not
expressed
in
this
modified
ether
hypothesis,
but it
certainly is
in
the abstract
system.
Namely,
if
a region
of
the
world
with
constant
guv’s
is assumed,
a
linear
substitution
for
the
xv’s
thus
changes
nothing
in
the
constancy
of
the
guv’s,
but
a
nonlinear substitution
for
the
xv's
certainly
does. From this it
follows
that
uniform relative motion does
not
“generate” a
gravitational
field,
that
is,
it
is
imperceptible as
opposed
to