DOC.
465
FEBRUARY
1918 479
experiment, provided
that
adequate
precision
can
be
attained. But
above
all,
as
far
as
I
can
see,
even
the
principle
of
the
relativity
of
the
gravitational potential
becomes
invalid,
because
a
particle is
capable
of
existing
but
at
one
place,
where p
and thus
also
the
gravitational
potential has
a
specifically
prescribed value.
In
places
where
the
mass
in
the
world does not have
the
exactly
prescribed
density,
it must be in
a
constant
state of
internal
change,
which has
the
purpose
of
correcting
the
mass
distribution,
quite irrespective
of
the
effects of
the
forces,
as
I would
see
it,
solely
as a
consequence
of
the mismatched
gravitational potential.
This
is quite
different from diffusion
as a
result
of
irregular
motions,
through
which
the
uniform
distribution
of
the
molecules of
a
gas
is brought
about
in
space.
I must
admit that
now
after
these
considerations
I
have
completely
lost all confidence in
the
new
theory’s possibility
and
strongly
doubt
whether
any
satisfactory theory
can
be found
in
which
the
parallel
axiom
is
not
valid.”
Draft
postscript:
“In
order
to
give
you
the
opportunity
to test
whether
my
last
mentioned
assumption
might
just
rest
on
fallacies,
I would
like
to describe to
you
briefly
how
I arrived
at it:
Let:
k
•
p
=
2
•
a
•
A,
where
a =
1
is naturally
positive,
real.
I
now
set
a
=
1a/1+a,
then results
as an
integral
of
the
field
equations:
Guv
=
K
•
(Tuv
 1/2guv
•
T)
in the
vicinity
of
the
point
x1
=
x2
=
x3
=
x4
=
0
the
following:
fa
=

(4¡IV
+ Vix'Xi/
ZTZÎ.
)
p,v
=
1,2,3.
R2
(x\+x2+xl crx'j)
0/14
:
R2
(x2+xl+x2
OC‘XuX4
¿¿
ax)
^
=
1,2,3.
7
7
044
(1
R2(x'f+x%+x$ax'l),
)
,
where R2
=
°^
g44
thus
changes
at
point
x1
=
x2
=
x3
=
0
with the
time; specifically,
it
always gets
smaller,
whether
a 1 or
a 1
is true.”
[18]Deleted
passage
in draft: “In
any
case
your explanation,
that
p
is
the
mean
density
of the
distribution
of
the
celestial
bodies, appears
to
me
to be
very
disputable
and
in need of
a more
definite
proof.
What
does
the
integral
look
like
at
places
where
p
really
is supposed to
be zero?
It
seems
to
me
impossible
to
be
able
to claim there
the
existence of
a
field at
equilibrium
that
obeys
the
equations
Guv

Aguv=
=
0
and that
at
the
same
time exhibits the
properties
of
the
field at
a
point
located
very
far
away
from all
matter,
as
your
integral
does. You
yourself prove
that
a
gravitational potential
satisfying
the
conditions
that must be set for
very
remote distances
from all
matter
is
consistent
only
with the
condition
k
.
p
=
2A,
don’t
you? Besides,
I must
admit that
I
also find curved
space unappealing.”