In number 5114 of volume 214 of this journal, Mr. Anderson has raised several objections to my reply to Mr. Wulf. I have only now become aware of them, so my response will seem belated. All the same, I do not want to forgo this response because it is important to clarify the basis of this incessant misunderstanding of the theory of relativity.

Anderson admits that the theory of relativity provides a contradiction-free explanation for the “relativistic” perspective of the carousel at rest and the stars rotating with large angular velocity. He believes, however, that the theory becomes flawed when the direction of motion reverses; he contends that it is a coincidence in the relativistic perspective that all stars reverse their direction of motion at the same time. Let me begin by saying that obviously the changes in the directions of motion are contained in the differential equations of the gμν-fields. Further, it is not a matter of chance that the motions of the stars define the celestial axis as a privileged straight line, but rather it is well grounded in the distribution of stellar motions; the same conditions that, from the non-relativistic viewpoint, place the Earth at rest, also determine the distribution of the stars from the relativistic perspective after an appropriate transformation. Hence, this can in no way be called a coincidence.