1735. ‘Be not afraid that they will trouble you more,Though we have not quitted Connecticut shore.’
1735. ‘Be not afraid that they will trouble you more,Though we have not quitted Connecticut shore.’
1735. ‘Be not afraid that they will trouble you more,Though we have not quitted Connecticut shore.’
1735. ‘Be not afraid that they will trouble you more,
Though we have not quitted Connecticut shore.’
1736. At another time certain characters were given, which were interpreted by the rapping as follows: ‘Evil one has gone, and better one has come.’ No communications were made after the early part of May, but some things occurred indicating their presence and desire for mischief.
1737. At one time, on cutting a loaf of bread, there were found in it nails, pen-holders, small sticks, and tin, under circumstances which showed that they must have been placed there after it was put on the table and before the family were ready for tea. At one time Harry’s hat was hid away, and then his cap, and then another hat. He took his brother’s cap to use, and that was also taken away. On the evening of the 18th of July they set fire to some papers in the doctor’s secretary, and some twenty papers and letters were burned before they were discovered. Fire was set at the same time to the papers in both the closets, under the stairs in the hall. They were discovered by the smoke. Two or three days after this, when some friends who had visited them were about to leave, their bonnets and some other articles could not be found, although search was made in every part of the house, until the train by which they were to go to New York had passed. They were at last found, locked into an enclosed washstand, in a way that made it morally certain that they could not have been placed there by human hands.
1738. On the 29th of July Harry left to spend some time at New Lebanon, N. Y., and during his absence no manifestations were noticed, although they were constantly on the look-out for something of the kind. Anna and her mother left for Philadelphia on the 25th of September, and they had been so long exempt from annoyances that they hoped they had ceased altogether. But Harry had the manifestations at New Lebanon, and there was first operated on, by invisible agency, to produce a magnetic sleep, into which he passed with a sudden shock. He had never been magnetized before, although frequent attempts had been made to do so. In this state he evinced all the phenomena common to good clairvoyance. On his return to Stratford, on the 9th of October, the sounds accompanied him almost constantly; but they seemed less inclined to mischief than formerly, because, as they said, ‘Harry had passed to a higher state, where the low and ignorant spirits could not communicate with him.’
1739. On several occasions characters of a unique description weremade. Some were written early in April, 1851, which Harry interpreted to read: ‘We are to take our leave of you soon.’
1740. Some were traced out with chalk on the piazza of the house, on the 31st of March, 1850.
1741. These Harry interpreted to mean: ‘You may expect good spirits to come by-and-by.’ The same characters had been said, by A. J. Davis, to read: ‘Our society desires through various mediums to impart thoughts.’ The spirit that seemed to be most prominent in all these communications claimed to be Harry’s father, and sometimes a sister of Dr. Phelps, who died about three years previous to this; also a child of Dr. Phelps, who died more than twenty-two years before. The communications seemed generally to come from the boy’s father. On the 12th of October he passed into a mesmeric state, and wrote some characters, which he translated as follows:
1742. ‘My dear children: I love you, and try to do every thing that will do you good. Obey dear Mr. Phelps in every thing, for he knows what is right and what is wrong. This is the advice of your spirit father.’
1743. On the same paper were written others, which, being translated, read: ‘You were troubled once with evil spirits, but now they are no more. They have bid adieu, and good spirits have come and are with you all the time.’
1744. Again occur others, which read: ‘You must not fear, brother, that you will be troubled with evil spirits any more. No, brother, no more.
Your spirit sister,Bliss.’
1745. The person here supposed to communicate is a sister of Dr. Phelps, a widow, who left the earth-sphere in 1848, and by whom several of the previous communications are said to have been made. Other characters, of the same general formation, were made at the same time, but were not then translated.
1746. On the evening of the 12th, Dr. Phelps, Harry, and two younger children, were seated at a table; responses were frequently given by raps under the table. Dr. Phelps inquired if it would accommodate them at all to have some substance to rap with; to which they replied affirmatively. He threw down a table-knife; the raps seemed immediately to be made by striking the knife against the table-leaf, and soon it was tossed up on to the table. A small tea-bell was then placed under the table; it was rung several times, and tossed on to the table as the knife had been. It was again put down, and returned as before; the same being repeated several times in succession. The light was then extinguished, and the candle put under the table with a match-box containing matches, and the spirits requested to light it. They distinctly heard the match drawn upon the bottom of the box, which was prepared with sand-paper for that use. All saw the light, but the first match went out. Again the scratching of the match was heard; it ignited, the candle lighted, and wasplaced upon the table! The experiment was repeated several times, with the same result; every precaution being taken to prevent collusion in the matter.
1747. On a subsequent occasion a chair was placed upon the table by invisible power, and the two children, Harry and Hannah, raised up and placed upon it; they could neither of them tell how it was done. The sensation was that of some person placing a hand under them and raising them up. Many of these things occurred when the room was darkened, as has been the case in numerous other places, and for which explanations have been recorded, as given by the spirits. On the evening of the 20th of October, the light being put out of the room, the bell was placed under the table, with a request that it should be rung, and placed in the doctor’s hand. He was sitting by the table with both his hands lying on his lap open, with the palms upward. The bell rung several times with some violence, and then was placed in his left hand. This was repeated four or five times in succession. Dr. P. sat beyond the reach of any one, and the room was sufficiently light for him to have detected any movement on the part of persons present. He requested them to let him feel the hand that placed the bell in his. Very soon a hand came in contact with his, took hold of his fingers, shaking his hand, passed slowly over the back of his hand, then over the palm again, took hold of his fingers, and he felt what he is sure to have been a human hand. He describes it as being cold and moist, which accords with my own experience repeatedly, and that of my friends. They then took hold of his foot, shook it with much force, loosened the string, took off the shoe, and placed it upon the table before him. At his request the shoe was replaced, the heel adjusted, and the strings drawn up, but not tied.
1748. On a subsequent occasion a large-sized tea-bell was rung under the table, then rose up, passed round the room, ringing violently all the way, and fell upon the table. The candle was in the closet, but the room was sufficiently light to make it certain that no person left the table to convey it. It was manifest that from the time Harry returned from New Lebanon the manifestations began gradually to subside. They were less frequent and less marked. It was arranged that he should accompany the family to Philadelphia, and go to a boarding-school at a town about twenty miles distant from the city. At different times he had been told that if he went there he would again be annoyed by bad spirits. The question was many times put, ‘Will you annoy him again if he goes to the school?’A.—‘We will not, but others will.’—‘What others?’A.—‘Those who were with him last summer.’—‘Will they disturb him if he stays here and goes to the academy in Stratford?’—‘No. They will not disturb him while he is with you.’—‘What will they do if he goes to Pennsylvania?’A.—‘They will tear his clothes, destroy his books, and break his windows.’—‘Can you not control those bad spirits, and preventtheir doing him any injury?’—‘No.’—‘Will you do all you can?’—‘Yes.’ At another time Dr. Phelps inquired if they would not leave him, as his mother was so much opposed to the whole thing. ‘Will you not, to oblige her, leave him, that he may be a medium no longer?’ said the doctor. The reply was, ‘If we leave him, evil spirits will get possession of him again.’ These communications were made by what purported to be the boy’s father. For two weeks previous to going to Philadelphia the manifestations had almost wholly subsided; perhaps only occurred when requested; and notwithstanding the repeated declarations that when he should leave for the school in Pennsylvania, the bad spirits would come in and make him trouble, it was determined to try the experiment, and on the 11th of November the family set out for Philadelphia, where they were to spend the winter, while Harry was to go to school. He remained with the family in Philadelphia about a week, where a few communications were given to Dr. Phelps in private. The spirits said they would begin to annoy the boy on the cars, on his way to the school, would pinch him and tear his clothes, so that, when he got there, they would be found torn, and that the troubles would follow him in the school as long as he stayed there. Dr. Phelps, under all the circumstances, thought it best not to send him; but on consultation it was decided to have him go, and on the 19th of November he started for the school. Dr. P. went a mile or two with him, put him under the care of the conductor, and told him to report on his return if any thing worthy of notice occurred on the way. In two days the doctor was sent for to come and take him away. He said that soon after his father left him on the cars, he was pinched, pricked with pins, and annoyed in various other ways, until he reached his destination; that, on his arrival there, he found that his pantaloons were torn in front, between the waistband and the knees, in two places, several inches in length. He changed them for another pair which were new and made of very substantial material, and these were torn down in front at least half a yard in length, before the doctor arrived there. The knockings had attended him in school and other places; his books were torn and damaged to the amount of two dollars, which the doctor paid. The family where he was had become alarmed, and would not keep him, and he was taken away. The boy stated that on one of the evenings, while he was there, he was walking in the street, when his cap was mysteriously taken from his head and thrown upon the sidewalk. As he stooped to pick it up he saw the flash of a gun at some distance, and a bullet passed over his back and struck a board fence near him. He was afterward informed by the rapping that, had he not stooped down, he would have been killed, and that his friendly spirit took this means to preserve him.
1749. Dr. P. now concluded to return with Harry to Stratford, and was told that the bad spirits would have no control over him there. The family in which they resided in Philadelphia had become alarmed at thestrange occurrences, and finally they again returned to Stratford. From that time the disturbances began to subside, and by the 15th of December, 1851, they had ceased altogether. The family remained at Stratford till the spring of 1852, when they returned to their former residence in the city. The house at Stratford is occupied by another family, but no disturbances have ever occurred with the family which now occupy the house, and none with Dr. P.‘s family since the above date.
1750. Thus ends one of the most remarkable histories in the whole course of modern spiritual manifestations. The authority on which it comes to the world is indisputable, and the characters of all concerned are beyond suspicion. It will be observed that generally the demonstrations, as in case of Mr. Calvin R. Brown, in the Fox family, were less boisterous after the family consented to hold communication with them. It seemed to be the desire of a spirit to communicate and set right a matter which was making him unhappy. This accomplished, the demonstrations ceased.
1751. From the foregoing narrative it will be seen that these phenomena do not attach to places, as some have supposed. It makes the fact equally clear that they do attach to persons, and that without certain media they cannot, to any extent, take place. If there is such a thing as ‘haunted houses,’ they must belong to another class of phenomena, or a very different phase of the same, than those always depending on the presence of particular persons.
1752. Another fact seems also to be proved by the above narration, namely, that persons may be powerful mediums at one time and afterward lose the power, for neither of the media of Dr. Phelps’s family in Stratford have had any proof of mediumship for years.”
1753. The most wonderful and important of all the facts communicated to me by my spirit father, and subsequently sanctioned by a convocation of spirits, were the following: 1. That there is a special spirit sun, concentric with our sun, which illuminates the spirit world, without perceptibly affecting our visual organs. 2. That there is a peculiar vital gas which spirits breathe, although inscrutable to our senses or chemical tests, which we respire in our spiritual capacity. These facts I have considered as among those, which it was impossible could have been learned from the minds of Mrs. Gourlay or myself, as they were certainly new to both of us, and difficult to realize when communicated. My attention has been recently directed by a friend to an essay in a work entitled “Rambles and Reveries of a Student,” wherein I find (page 11) the ideas in question to have been awakened in the author without the smallest interchange of ideas with Mrs. Gourlay or myself. I have been under the impression that hisleaning would have been unfavourable to Spiritualism. The language employed is as follows:
1754. I hold it as a truth, that a divine atmosphere surrounds our earth—an aroma emitted from the world of spirits, in which dwell the great truths and secrets of the universe—a great world that pours down riches upon us, as the sun pours down heat; and as without the sun this world would be but a formless wilderness, so, without this spirit sun, would it be barren of thought or beauty.
1755. Above us and around us exists a spiritual atmosphere, more subtle than the natural one. As the latter is the supporter of physical life, so the former is of psychal. We absorb the delicate magnetic aromata from all substances, through the medium of the air, as well as the comparatively coarse oxygen; so all of our soul-life comes from this spirit atmosphere—all thought, all feeling, all appreciation of truth and beauty.
1756. Man is the apex of earth-creation, and the basis of all heavenly life—the foundation of all spiritual existence. Standing thus in a middle plane as the highest thing of earth, and the lowest of heaven, he holds magnetic relationship to both; the earth not only supplying the physical requirements of his being, such as food, drink, and air, but he absorbs impalpable nourishment from all his surroundings: the aroma from flowers, and trees, and fruit, as well as the magnetic emanations from people; intuitively appreciating harmonious influences—feeling an instinctive repulsion when under those that are inharmonious. This antagonism, or horror, we call antipathy; and biography abounds with strange stories of its individual action. Whenever antipathy is experienced, it is a proof that something exists in the peculiar magnetic sphere which has no affinity with the other sphere.
1757. An animal is but a highly organized combination of the mechanical and chemical forces of the earth, returning to the earth when death ensues: the only good resulting from its life is, that gross matter has been changed into a little higher condition by the combination.
1758. Man, regarded as the animal, possesses nothing after his death but the spiritual attributes he has received, corresponding to the physical things he sought in his earthly life; if that was low and sensual, his spiritual condition will be the same; for the spirit land is as much a spiritual condition as it is a place.
1759. As man’s external form grows from appropriating substance from the earth, so are thoughts and sentiments, and all things relating to the soul, appropriated from the spirit world. Take the earth from man, and he ceases to exist as a physical being; take the spirit world from him, and he ceases to exist as an immortal soul.
1760. All physical things have corresponding truths in the spiritual world, and a man is truly harmonious when he receives the corresponding essence or quality with the material thing—not as a mere symbolization,but as an actuality, as real to the soul as its corresponding earthly truth is to the body. As a petty illustration, we will say that where an apple is eaten, a harmonious man receives not only the nutriment contained in the fruit, but he also receives its spiritual correspondence, so as to be doubly nourished by it.
1761. “Men having a stronger magnetic relationship to the spirit world, are easily exhausted, for they do not receive strength enough from the earth sphere to keep soul and body in harmony.
1762. Personsen rapportwith the earth are the labourers and tillers of the ground, living only in the lowest plane of mental life.
1763. The truly harmonious men receive equally the spiritual and physical elements: they are electrical conductors, whose attracting points bend downward as well as upward, dispensing, equally, thought and strength to their less harmonious fellows, with but little exhaustion.
1764. Men originate nothing: they have merely different degrees of receptivity; are merely more or less in magnetic relationship with the higher world. A principle, or truth, is not your truth, or my truth, but God’s truth; as much as a drop of water in the ocean, or a sand-grain in the great desert; as little a personal possession as the cloud above your head. If we look at it abstractly, we perceive the absurdity of all quarrels in relation to originality of ideas—water refreshes the thirsty traveller, whether drunk from his own cup or the cup of another; and if we can incorporate a new truth into our lives, it is unimportant whether we receive it directly or indirectly from the great fountain.
1765. The intellectual struggle of the student is but an education of the soul, training it to become susceptible to higher influences—an attempt to enter into unalloyed magnetic relationship with the spirit world.
1766. Prayer is a simple and natural method of becomingen rapportwith higher beings and a higher world: yet no thinker ever believed that prayer would move the Divine Being to alter His eternal plans. As He is the fountain of all Love and all Wisdom, His designs must be without flaw—must be for eternal good: yet prayer is one of the most holy, beautiful, and useful of things; it is the earnest asking of the soul for comfort—whatever the words may be—and by the exaltation of feeling, we rise up from the earth-life into the higher spiritual planes, and become harmonized by the indwelling harmonies of those spheres. Prayer is aspiration. Prayer is the desire to embrace the Infinite. The form of prayer is unimportant; its power lies in the indwelling desire of good. Men should not have forms and times of prayer, but their whole lives should be long, unending acts of prayer.”
1767. It seems that the light of Spiritualism had begun to dawn in the mind of the author of the preceding passage. His language respecting prayer is in strict conformity with the doctrine of Spiritualism.
1768. As the author, to whom reference is thus made, was on terms ofgreat mutual friendship with my late sister, as well as with myself, I have consulted her spirit as to the origin of the impressions which had been thus indited by our common friend. It appears from her reply to my inquiry, that these ideas were communicated to him by my spirit father, and that his conversion to Spiritualism had commenced prior to his decease, which took place about two years ago.
1769. It is a fact, that as we study more deeply the nature of matter, we find that we know the less about it. The crude impressions by which it makes us sensible of its presence are, of course, intuitively received, and are reiterated incessantly. Hence, the mass of mankind do not imagine that there can be any mystery respecting that ponderable matter which influences the scale-beam. The existence of any other matter, people generally are slow to admit. The electric fluid and caloric, the supposed causes of electricity and heat, were rarely believed in, out of the scientific world, butponderablematter is the last thing of which any person would imagine himself ignorant. Yet we find that some of the most experienced investigators of nature, have not made up their minds as to what ponderable matter is.
1770. According to Newton, matter consists of hard, impenetrable particles, endowed withvis inertiæ, gravitation, and chemical attraction for other particles;vis inertiæbeing that force by which a body, if in motion, requires a certain degree of force to arrest or retard it, or to put it into motion if at rest. Gravitation causes all masses to attract each other reciprocally, with a force exactly proportioned to theirvis inertiæ; so that these forces are reciprocally measures of each other. It is usual to make gravitation its own measure, by estimating it to be as the weight of the mass; while weight is only the reciprocal attraction of gravitation between the body tried, and the earth. (64.)
1771. These properties being conceded as belonging to matter, and the measure of its quantity, the next question is, of what does massive matter consist? As to the ratio of weight to bulk, which is designated as “specific gravity,” we see an immense disparity between solids. Potassium, for instance, weighs three-fourths of its bulk of water, while platinum weighs twenty-one times its bulk in that fluid. The density of gaseous hydrogen is to that of platina not more than 1 to 25,000, and yet it may be rarified to the one-hundredth part of its normal spissitude, while apparently filling the same space. Thus the same space may be filled successively by different portions of matter, yet the quantity of matter in thespace, in the first case, may be to the quantity contained in the second, as 2,500,000 to 1. Newton’s definition of material particles was as follows:
1772. “It seems probable to me that God, in the beginning, formed matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, movable particles, of such sizes and figures, and with such other properties, and in such proportion to space, as most conduced to the end for which he formed them; and that those primitive particles, being solids, are incomparably harder than any porous bodies compounded of them; even so very hard as never to wear or break in pieces; no mundane power being able to divide what God himself intended to be indivisible.”
1773. Boscovitch, observing that all that was essential to material atoms was attraction and repulsion, the latter being the substitute of Newton’s impenetrability, suggested an hypothesis which dispensed with the atom, and assumed only the forces of attraction and repulsion; alternating, as it appears to me, in a way more original than warrantable. This idea of atoms has been modified by an accomplished mathematician, Exley, of Bristol, England. I quote here Exley’s view:
1774. “The reader has only to allow that each atom of matter consists of an indefinitely extensive sphere of attraction, resting on a very small concentric sphere of repulsion, the force being everywhere, from the centre, inversely as the square of the distance, repulsive near the centre, and then attractive. Now that part which regards the attraction has already obtained the consent of all the followers ofNewton; and much more than the other part, which respects repulsion, has been already received in the principles of our present philosophy.
1775. It may be here asked—Are we absolutely to exclude solid atoms? I confess I can find no use for them. It is true, Sir Isaac Newton thought that the atoms of matter consisted of minute solids.
1776. But this hypothesis, however convenient and consonant with our prejudices, is not absolutely necessary to the explanation of natural phenomena; for, it may be conceived, according to the theory of Boscovitch, that matter consists not of solid particles, but of mere mathematical centres, of forces attractive and repulsive, whose relations to space were ordained, and whose actions are regulated and maintained by the Creator of the universe. Both hypotheses, however, agree in one great principle, viz.: that the properties of bodies depend upon forces emanating from immovable points (whether substantial or not is of little importance) of their masses.
1777. The atoms of matter constituted as in the theory now proposed possess all the individuality, indivisibility, and indestructibility, which the learned and illustriousNewtonascribes to his small solids, and they answer all the ends he has mentioned; the central points, indeed, will be utterly impenetrable by each other, since the repulsion there is infinite; and if at those centres we suppose small solids to be placed, they can answer no farther end than is accomplished by this immensely great repulsive force; for from what we know of matter, we must suppose them to be indefinitely small, if we introduce such solids; and hence they will occupy the place where the repulsion is infinitely great; such solids would be found only an obstacle, and an incumbrance to the free actions of matter; since, however small we imagine them to be, their magnitude will be infinite if compared with a mathematical point, the centre of an atom, which is devoidaltogether of magnitude. It may be added, that if any reader wish to retain these solids at the centres of the atoms, it will not materially affect the conclusions, provided he allow us to have them as small as we please; and so much, if he intend to philosophize, he must grant, whatever course he may determine to pursue.”
1778. These efforts to define matter derive interest from the following attempt of Farraday to sustain a view inconsistent with that of Newton, by practical illustration:
1779. This sagacious investigator adverts to the fact, that after each atom in a mass of metallic potassium has combined with an atom of oxygen and an atom of water, forming thus a hydrated oxide—caustic potash—the resulting aggregate occupies much less space than its metallic ingredient previously occupied; so that, taking equal bulks of the hydrate and of potassium, there will be in the metal only 430 metallic atoms, while in the hydrate there will be 700 such atoms. Yet in the latter, besides the 700 metallic atoms, there will be an equal number of aqueous and oxygenous atoms, in all 2800 ponderable atoms. It follows, that if the atoms of potassium are to be considered as minute impenetrable particles, kept at certain distances by an equilibrium of forces, there must be, in a mass of potassium, vastly more space than matter. Moreover, it is the space alone that can be continuous. The non-contiguous material atoms cannot form a continuous mass. Consequently, the well-known power of potassium to conduct electricity must be a quality of the continuous empty space which it comprises, not of the discontinuous particles of matter with which that space is regularly interspersed. It is in the next place urged, that while, agreeably to these considerations, space is shown to be a conductor, there are considerations equally tending to prove it to be a non-conductor, since in certain non-conducting bodies, such as resins, there must be nearly as much vacant space as in potassium. Hence the supposition that atoms are minute impenetrable particles, involves the necessity of considering empty space as a conductor in metals, and as a non-conductor in resins, and of course in sulphur and other electrics. This is considered as areductio ad absurdum. To avoid this contradiction, Farraday supposes that atoms are not minute impenetrable bodies, but, existing throughout the whole space in which their properties are observed, may penetrate each other. Consistently, although the atoms of potassium pervade the whole space which they apparently occupy, the entrance into that space of an equivalent number of atoms of oxygen and water, in consequence of some reciprocal reaction, causes a contraction in the boundaries by which the combination thus formed is enclosed. This is an original and interesting view of this subject, well worthy of the contemplation of chemical philosophers.
1780. But, upon these premises, Farraday has ventured on some inferences which, upon various accounts, appear to me unwarrantable. I agree that “a” representing a particle of matter, and “m” representing its properties, it is only with “m” that we have any acquaintance, the existence of “a” resting merely on an inference. Heretofore I have often appealed to this fact, in order to show that the evidence of imponderable, no less than of ponderable matter, is precisely the existence of properties which can only be accounted for by inferring the existence of an appropriate matter to which those properties appertain. Yet I cannot concur in the idea that, because it is only with “m” that we are acquainted, the existence of “a” must not be inevitably inferred, so that bodies are to be considered as constituted of their materialized powers. I use the word “materialized,” because it is fully admitted by Farraday, that by dispensing with an impenetrable atom “a” we do not get rid of the idea of matter, but have to imagine each atom as existing throughout the whole sphere of its force, instead of being condensed about the centre. This seems to follow from the following language:
1781. “The view now stated of the constitution of matter would seem to involve necessarily the conclusion that matter fills all space, or at least the space to which gravitation extends, including the sun and its system; for gravitation is a property of matter dependent on a certain force, and it is this force which constitutes matter.”
1782. Literally, this paragraph seems to convey the impression, that, agreeably to this new idea of matter, the sun and his planets are not distinct bodies, but consist of certain material powers reciprocally penetrating each other, and pervading a space larger than that comprised within the orbit of Neptune. We do not live upon, but within, the matter of which the earth is constituted, or rather within a mixture of all the solar and planetary matter belonging to our solar system. I cannot conceive that the sagacious author seriously intended to sanction any notion involving these consequences. I shall assume, therefore, that, excepting the case of gravitation, his new idea of matter was intended to be restricted to those powers which display themselves within masses at insensible distances, and shall proceed to state the objections which seem to exist against the new idea as associated with those powers.
1783. Evidently the arguments of Farraday against the existence, in potassium and other masses of matter, of impenetrable atoms endowed with cohesion, chemical affinity, momentum, and gravitation, rest upon the inference that in metals there is nothing to perform the part of an electrical conductor besides continuous empty space. This illustrious philosopher has heretofore appeared to be disinclined to admit the existence ofanymatter devoid of ponderability! The main object of certain letters which I addressed to him was to prove that the phenomena of induction could not, as he had represented, be an “action” of ponderable atoms, but, on the contrary, must be considered as anaffectionof them consequent tothe intervention of an imponderable matter, without which the phenomena of electricity would be inexplicable. This repugnance to the admission of an imponderable electrical cause, has been the more remarkable, as his researches have not only proved the existence of prodigious electrical power in metals, but likewise that it is evolved during chemico-electric reaction, in equivalent proportion to the quantity of ponderable matter decomposed or combined.
1784. According to his researches, a grain of water, by electrolytic reaction with four grains of zinc, evolves as much electricity as would charge fifteen millions of square feet of coated glass when supplied by a plate machine of fifty inches in diameter. But in addition to the proofs of the existence of electrical powers in metals thus furnished, it is demonstrated that this power must be inseparably associated with metals, by the well-known fact that in the electro-magnetic machine—an apparatus which we owe to his genius, and the mechanical ingenuity of Pixii and Saxton—a coil of wire, being subjected to the inductive influence of a magnet, is capable of furnishing, within the circuit which it forms, all the phenomena of an electrical current, whether of ignition, shock, or electrolysis.
1785. The existence in metals of an enormous calorific power must be evident from the heat evolved by mere hammering. It is well known that by a skilful application of the hammer, a piece of iron, between it and a cold anvil, may be ignited. To what other cause than their inherent calorific power can the ignition of metals by the discharge of a Leyden battery be ascribed?
1786. It follows, that the existence of an immense calorific and electrical power is undeniable. The materiality of these powers, or of their cause, is all that has been questionable. But, according to the speculations of Farraday, all the powers of matter are material; not only the calorific and electrical powers are thus to be considered, but likewise the powers of cohesion, chemical affinity, inertia, and gravitation, whileof all these material powers only the latter can be ponderable!
1787. Thus, a disinclination on the part of this distinguished investigator to admit the existence of one or two imponderable principles, has led him into speculations involving the existence of a much greater number. But if, while the rest of the properties of the metal are represented by Newtonian atoms, the calorific and electrical powers be both material and imponderable, and of these such enormous quantities exist in potassium, as well as in zinc and all other metals, so much of the reasoning in question as is founded on the vacuity of the space between the metallic atoms is groundless.
1788. Although the space occupied by the hydrated oxide of potassium comprises 2800 ponderable atoms, while that occupied by an equal mass of the metal comprises only 430, there may be in the latter proportionally as much more of the material, though imponderable, powers of heat and electricity, as there is less of matter endowed with ponderability.
1789. Thus, while assuming the existence of fewer imponderable causes than the celebrated author of the speculation has himself proposed, we explain the conducting power of metals, without being under the necessity of attributing to void space the property of electrical conduction. Moreover, I consider it quite consistent to suppose that the presence of the ethereal basis of electricity is indispensable to electrical conduction, and that diversities in this faculty are due to the proportion of that material power present, and the mode of its association with other matter. The immense superiority of metals will be explained, by referring it to their being peculiarly replete with the ethereal basis of heat and electricity.
1790. Hence Farraday’s suggestions respecting thematerialityof what has heretofore been designated as thepropertiesof bodies, furnish the means of refuting his arguments against the existence of ponderable impenetrable atoms as the basis of cohesion, chemical affinity, momentum, and gravitation.
1791. But I will, in the next place, prove that his suggestions not only furnish an answer to his objections to the views in this respect heretofore entertained, but are likewise pregnant with consequences directly inconsistent with the view of the subject which he has recently presented.
1792. I have said that of all the powers which are, according to Farraday’s speculations, to be deemed material, gravitation can alone be ponderable; since, according to his speculations, gravitation, in common with every power heretofore attributed to impenetrable particles, must be a matter independently pervading the space throughout which it is perceived. This being the consequence, by what tie is gravitation, or, in other words, weight—indissolubly attached to the rest? It cannot be pretended that either of the powers is the property of any other. Each of them is anm, and cannot play the part of ana, not only because anm, an effect, cannot be ana, its cause, but because, according to the premises, noacan exist. Nor can it be advanced that they are the same power, since chemical affinity and cohesion act only at insensible distances, while gravitation acts at any and every distance, with forces inversely as their squares; and, moreover, the power of chemical affinity is not commensurate with that of gravitation. One part, by weight, of hydrogen has a greater affinity, universally, for any other element than two hundred parts of gold. By what means then are cohesion, chemical affinity, and gravitation inseparably associated in all the ponderable elements of matter? Is it not fatal to the validity of the highly ingenious and interesting deductions of Farraday, that they are thus shown to be utterly incompetent to explain the inseparable association of cohesion, chemical affinity, and inertia with gravitation, while the existence of a vacuity between Newtonian atoms, mainly relied upon as the basis of an argument against their existence, is shown to be inconsistent both with the ingenious speculation which has called forth these remarks, and those Herculean “researches”which must perpetuate his fame? (See Appendix for Farraday’s Speculations on Electric Conduction and the Nature of Matter.)
1793. While the speculations of Farraday, isolate gravitation, as the only matter endowed with weight, and treat all other matters as weightless, those of another eminent philosopher, Whewell, would tend to prove thatallmatter is heavy.
1794. This subject may be interesting now, when we are anxious to understand well the nature of matter, which Comte would represent as thebasis of mind, and when it becomes a point of departure in forming ideas of spirit and mind, as they must be contemplated by Spiritualism. I therefore subjoin a critique upon the allegation that all matter can be heavy, and on the relation betweenvis inertiæandgravitation.
1795. One consideration seems to be usually overlooked in contemplating these forces. It is forgotten thatinertiais the property of one body, while gravitation requires two for its existence. If there were only one body in nature, it might move on, in obedience to itsvis inertiæ, for any length of time; but, during an isolated existence, could neither attract nor be attracted. Whewell’s theorem, in his own language, is as follows:
1796. “We see,” alleges Whewell, “that the propositions that all bodies are heavy, and that inertia is proportional to weight, necessarily follow from those fundamental ideas which we unavoidably employ in all attempts to reason concerning the mechanical relations of bodies.” (See Demonstration that all Matter is heavy, by the Rev. William Whewell, B.D. Silliman’s Journal, vol. 42, page 265.)
1796. “We see,” alleges Whewell, “that the propositions that all bodies are heavy, and that inertia is proportional to weight, necessarily follow from those fundamental ideas which we unavoidably employ in all attempts to reason concerning the mechanical relations of bodies.” (See Demonstration that all Matter is heavy, by the Rev. William Whewell, B.D. Silliman’s Journal, vol. 42, page 265.)
ToProfessor Whewell:
1797.Dear Sir: I thank you for your kind attention in sending me a copy of your pamphlet, entitled a “Demonstration that all Matter is heavy,” comprising a communication made to the Cambridge Philosophical Society.
1798. I conceive that to demonstrate that all matter is heavy, is, in other words, to prove that all matter is endowed with attraction of gravitation, or that general property which, when it causes bodies to tend toward the centre of the earth, is called weight. Hence to assert that all matter is heavy, is no more than to say, that attraction of gravitation exists between all or any masses of matter.
1799. You say, “it may be urged that we have no difficulty in conceiving of matter which is not heavy.” I have no hesitation in asserting that there should be no difficulty in entertaining such a conception; since I cannot understand why any two masses may not be as readily conceived torepel, as toattracteach other, orneither to attract nor to repel. Is it not easier to imagine two remote masses indifferent to each other, than thatthey act upon each other? Is any thing more difficult to understand than that a body can act where it is not?
1800. It is also mentioned by you, that it may be urged “that inertia and weight are two separate properties of matter.” Now I will not only urge, but also, with all due deference, will undertake to show, that the existence of inertia may as well be proven, and its quantity estimated, by means of repulsion as by means of attraction.
1801. Suppose two bodies, A and B, to be endowed with reciprocal attraction, or, in other words, to gravitate toward each other. Being placed at a distance, and then allowed to approach, if, after any given time, it were found that they had moved severally any ascertained distances, evidently their relative inertias would be considered as inversely as those distances.
1802. In the next place, let us suppose two bodies, X and Y, endowed with the opposite force of reciprocal repulsion, to be placed in proximity, and then allowed to fly apart. The distances run through by them severally, being, at any given time, determined, might not their respective inertias be taken to be inversely as those distances; so that the question would be as well ascertained in this case as in that above stated, in which gravitation should be resorted to as the test?
1803. It seems to me that this question is sufficiently answered in the affirmative, in your second paragraph, page 7, (p. 269,) in which you allege, that “one body has twice as much inertia as another, if, when the same force acts upon it for the same time, it acquires but half the velocity. This is the fundamental conception of inertia.”
1804. In the third paragraph, fourth page, (p. 261,) you say, “that the quantity of matter is measured by those sensible properties of matter which undergo quantitative addition, subtraction, and division, as the matter is added, subtracted, or divided, the quantity of matter cannot be known in any other way; but this mode of measuring the quantity of matter, in order to be true at all, must be true universally.”
1805. Also your fourth paragraph, fifth page, (p. 268,) concludes with this allegation: “And thus we have proved, that if there be any kind of matter which is not heavy, the weight can no longer avail us, in any case, to any extent, as the measure of the quantity of matter.”
1806. In reply to these allegations, let me inquire, Cannot a matter exist of which the sensible properties do not admit of being measured by human means? Because some kinds of matter can be measured by “those sensible qualities which undergo quantitative addition, subtraction, and division,” does it follow that there may not be matter which is incapable of being thus measured? And wherefore would the method of obtaining philosophical truth be “futile” in the one case, because inapplicable in the other? Because the inertias of A and B have been discovered, by means of their gravitation, does it follow that the inertias of X and Y cannotbe discovered by their self-repellent power? Why should the inapplicability of gravitation in the one case render its employment futile in the other?
1807. It is self-evident, that matter without weight cannot be estimated by weighing, but I deny that on that account such weightless matter may not be otherwise estimated. The inertias of A and B cannot be better measured by gravitation than those of X and Y by repulsion, as already shown.
1808. You seem to infer, in paragraph second, page sixth, (p. 268,) that we should be equally destitute of the means of measuring matter accurately, “were any kind of matter heavy indeed, but not so heavy, in proportion to its quantity of matter, as other kinds.”
1809. If, in the case of all matter, weight be admitted to be the only measure of quantity, it were inconsistent to suppose any given quantity of matter, of any one kind, to have less weight than an equal quantity of another kind; but upon what other than a conventional basis is it to be assumed that there is more matter in a cubic inch of platinum than in a cubic inch of tin? in a cubic inch of mercury than in a cubic inch of iron? Judging by the chemical efficacy of the masses, although the weight of mercury is to that of iron as 13.6 is to 8, there are more equivalents of the latter than the former in any given bulk, since by weight twenty-eight parts of iron are equivalent to two hundred and two parts of mercury.
1810. Weight is one of the properties of certain kinds of matter, and has been advantageously resorted to, in preference to any other property, in estimating the quantity of the matter to which it appertains. Nevertheless, measurement by bulk is found expedient or necessary in many cases. But may we not appeal to any general property which admits of being measured or estimated? Farraday has inferred that the quantity of electricity is as the quantity of gas which it evolves. Light has been considered as proportional in quantity to the surface which it illuminates with a given intensity at a certain distance. The quantity of caloric has been held to be directly as the weight of water which it will render aeriform; and has also been estimated by the degree of its expansive or thermometric influence. What scale-beam is more delicate than the thermoscope of Melloni?
1811. In the last paragraph but one, seventh page, (p. 270,) you suggest, that “perhaps some persons might conceive that the identity of weight and inertia is obvious at once, for both are merely resistance to motion; inertia, resistance to all motion, or change of motion; weight, resistance to motion upward.”
1812. I am surprised that you should think the opinion of any person worthy of attention, who should entertain so narrow a view of weight, as antagonist of momentum, as that above quoted, “that it is a resistance to motion upward.” Agreeably to the definition given at the commencement of the letter, weight, in its usual practical sense, is only one case of the general force which causes all ponderable masses of matter to gravitate toward each other, and which is of course liable to resist any conflicting motion, whatever may be the direction. When, in the form of solar attraction, it overcomes that inertia of the planets which would otherwise cause them to leave their orbits, does gravitation “resist motion upward?”
1813. In the next paragraph you allege, that “there is a difference in these two kinds of resistance to motion. Inertia is instantaneous, weight is continuous, resistance.”
1814. It is to this allegation I object, that as you have defined inertia to be “resistance to motion, or to change of motion,” it follows that it can be instantaneous only where the impulse which it resists is instantaneous. It cannot be less continuous than the force by which it is overcome.
1815. Gravity has been considered as acting upon falling bodies by an infinity of impulses, each producing an adequate acceleration; but to every such accelerating impulse, producing of course a “change of motion,” will there not be a commensurate resistance from inertia? and the impulses and resistances being both infinite, will not one be as continuous as the other?
1816. I have already adverted to inertia as the continuous antagonist of solar attraction in the case of revolving planets.
1817. Agreeably to Mossotti, the creation consists of two kinds of matter, of which the homogeneous particles are mutually repellent, the heterogeneous mutually attractive. Consistently with this hypothesis,per se, any matter must be imponderable; being endowed with a property the very opposite of attraction of gravitation. This last-mentioned property exists between masses consisting of both kinds of particles, so far as the attraction between the heterogeneous atoms predominates over the repulsion between those which are homogeneous. It would follow from these premises, that all matter is ponderable or otherwise, accordingly as it may be situated.
1818. Can the ether by which, according to the undulatory theory, light is transmitted, consist of ponderable matter? Were it so, would it not be attracted about the planets with forces proportioned to their weight, respectively? and becoming of unequal density, would not the diversity in its density, thus arising, affect its undulations, as the transmission of sound is influenced by any variations in the density of the aeriform fluid by which it is propagated?
With esteem, I am yours truly,Robert Hare
(See appendix for Whewell’s Essay.)
1819. Is it possible for a mere centre to be endowed with a force? or reasonable that language should not make a distinction between something and nothing, between cause and effect, between matter and the properties of matter?mbeing the properties, andathe Newtonian atom, of which they have been considered as the attributes, I cannot concur in the reasoning which infers that where we can only perceive phenomena, we are to dispense with the idea ofcausation, because that causation is not directly perceptible. It seems to me, from the meaning of the words, that no cause can exist without some effect, nor can any effect exist without a cause. Language founded on the existence of ideas cannot be disused. Can there be any reason for considering any thing as endowed with existence which gives no evidence of existence? We distinguish between the thing which causes and the effect which it produces. The cause evidently has a centrality; the effect, though it indicates by the direction in which it arrives, the centre whence it proceeds, is remote from that centre. The existence of this centrality seems to be recognised in the suggestion that atoms are centres of forces. This implies that the source or cause is at the centre in each atom, and, of course, the phenomenon, being more or less remote from the centre, cannot be the source or cause, and hence has been treated as an effect or property.
1820. The suggestion that the office of atoms may be performed by centres of forces, in fact, assigns to amere centrethe part now performed by a Newtonian atom. But it must be evident that the centre is that point within any rotating mass, which does not turn therewith; and which, where neither of the opposite motions resulting from rotation take place, can neither have length nor breadth. This reduces the idea of a centre to a common definition with a mathematical point; which is nihility in the extreme. An absolutely void space may be identified with nihility, and a mathematical point is a portion of that space, without length, breadth, or thickness. To endow centres with forces is to disregard the axiom, “Out of nothing nothing can come.” Moreover, wherefore should there be a force atcertainmathematical points, and yet others be destitute of the same attribute? Manifestly, if somemathematicalpoints are deficient of powers with which others are endowed, there must be something associated with one, which is not associated with the other. This justifies the Newtonian idea, that the force, though proceeding from the centre, is, like the terrestrial attraction of gravitation, the resultant of the complicated attraction of the whole of a body surrounding the centre. But the centrality of the force does not seem to accord with the idea of the inferred diffusion of properties. In the instance of gravitation it does not account for those attributes by which this globe acts as a solid mass within itsmaterial superficies, and yet, according to the Farradian definition, reaches beyond the moon!
1821. But the idea of that polarity, of which Farraday has done so much to establish the existence in all matter, in one form or another, seems to involve that, to constitute atoms, there must be two centres ofanalogous, butopposite, forces in each: whence it ensues that crystals shoot in prisms or spiculæ, as water is seen to shoot in freezing; and through which salts, as deposited by the evaporation of the solvent from a solution of them, are seen to travel over the sides of the vessel; and upon which property the phenomena of electricity and magnetism appear to be dependent. How is this to be reconciled with this notion of each atom existing in a diffusible penetrable state throughout the space in which its properties prevail? Since these opposite polarities are energetic in their reciprocal polar attraction, what keeps them together, yet prevents them from so uniting as to produce neutralization?
1822. Mr. Exley’s ideas, if admitted, leave no alternative but either to place a Newtonian atom within each of his concentric spheres, or to assume that nothing can have properties, or that effects can exist without causes. What is to cause a force at any mathematical point more than at any other? How, in case of a moving body, are the forces to appear successively to proceed from various centres, if there be nothing in which it is inherent, which moves and carries its forces or properties wheresoever it goes? Does not this suggestion that atoms are centres of their forces, by making the cart draw itself, force the effect to be its own cause? It is quite consistent with the Newtonian definition, that the resultant of the action of every part of a mass should comport as if it proceeded from a common centre, as does terrestrial gravitation; and of course, whether we have the Newtonian idea or that of Boscovitch, Farraday, or Exley, we have forces proceeding from centres. The great difference is that agreeably to the one these forces emanate from nothing; agreeably to the other, from something. I used to define matter to my pupils as that which has properties. In the mind, is not force distinguished from some moving power which gives it rise? Is not this distinction inevitable? and were the word force employed to designate the moving power which exercises force, would it not confound ideas, without altering the actual state of the case? Would it not impoverish language, without improving science?
1823. The bodies which occupy the attention of a chemist are found in one of three states—those of solidity, fluidity, and elasticity. Ice, liquid water, and steam exemplify these different states. The fact is thus illustrated, that the same chemical compound, consisting of oxygen and hydrogen, may exist in either state, according to the temperature to which it may be subjected.
1824. Experience justifies the surmise, that scarcely any body in nature is utterly insusceptible of these three states, provided it were heated or refrigerated with an unlimited power.
1825. Beside the property of gravitation, of which the energy is inversely as the square of the distance, however great, (as when it enables the two suns, apparently forming but one—the double star, 61 Cygni (1340)—at the distance of six thousand millions of miles, to attract each other so as to revolve about their common centre of gravity,) atoms are endowed with a force called attraction of aggregation, which operates only at insensible distances, so that when brought into due proximity they unite and form a coherent mass. Again, they are endowed, as already mentioned, with chemical affinity, which varies with the kind of particles in which it exists as a property; being the characteristic by which they are distinguished one from the other.
1826. According to the doctrine which chemists have heretofore suggested for the existence of matter in the elastic or gaseous state, each aerial or gaseous atom was conceived to be enveloped in an atmosphere of fluid called caloric, resembling the ether in the self-repellent power of its constituent particles. This atmosphere has been assumed to impart to atoms which it envelopes its own inherent power of reciprocal repulsion, like that which those of the ether have. But Dalton showed that there was no repulsion between gaseous atoms whenheterogeneous. Two or more such gases, hydrogen and nitrogen, for instance, being comprised in the same cavity, there would be no repulsion between the atoms of hydrogen and those of nitrogen, but only between those of the same gas. This has been held to be equally true, however many gases might be mingled, or whatever vapours might be superadded.
1827. The idea is thus refuted, which ascribes the repulsive power to the same elastic fluid, since in that case the diversity of the gaseous atoms could not so affect the repulsive influence as to nullify it between heterogeneous atoms, while sustaining this repulsion, where the atoms should be alike.
1828. Moreover, as the rays of light have been found to be mere undulations in the ether; the rays of heat, being perfectly analogous in their attributes, must also be due to ethereal undulations. But vaporization may be affected by radiant heat, and gases owe their aeriform state to the same cause as vapor or steam; yet transient undulations evidently cannot form a permanent combination, so as to confer the durable elasticity of a permanent gas.
1829. It appears, then, that neither the doctrine of caloric, nor the undulatory doctrine, as it is received, will explain the creation of permanent gas. Under these circumstances a modification of the existing opinions iscalled for. It has, for some years, occurred to me, that the Newtonian doctrine of radiation might be associated with that of undulation.
1830. The fact that radiant heat could be collected by a mirror so as to raise the temperature of bodies placed in the focus, and that this process could take place in vacuo, as ascertained by Sir Humphrey Davy, had been adduced as unquestionable evidence of the materiality of caloric, the supposed fluid cause of heat. But as the cold proceeding from a snowball or any cold body could be collected by the same process, it was urged by some chemists that the evidence of the materiality of the cause of cold must also be admitted. Prevost met this argument by suggesting that no body in nature is absolutely cold. Every body, however refrigerated, is not so cold as to be incapable of greater refrigeration. Hence all bodies being absolutely above the zero of nature, are throwing off rays to each other, and where there is equality of temperature, they do not cause any change in their relative temperatures. The rays thrown off by A are compensated by those which it receives from B, andvice versa. But if A throws off to B more than B reciprocates, the temperature of A must fall until an equilibrium is attained. Thus, A being the mirror and B the snowball, the mirror is refrigerated, and causes a greater radiation from any body situated about its focus. This explanation was generally received, but to me, the following rationale, which I advanced, appeared preferable:
1831. I assumed caloric to exist throughout the sublunary creation, as the luminiferous ether is assumed to be diffused throughout all space by the undulationists; the diffusion arising from the reciprocal repulsion of its particles being similar to that which had been supposed to cause the diffusion of caloric. There is the greatest analogy between this diffusion and that which is known to exist in the case of gases. The process is the same, whether the gas be dense like chlorine, or thirty-six times as rare, as in the instance of hydrogen, and in the luminiferous ether resembles the process by which hydrogen is rarified, or might be rendered more rare, were the pressure of the atmosphere removed.
1832. It is known that in any gas or gaseous mixture like that which we breathe, if a deficit of pressure be caused in any spot, the gaseous particles will quickly move toward it, in order to restore the equilibrium of pressure, and that if, on the other hand, any augmentation of pressure be produced at any spot, the gas will move outward to restore the equilibrium.
1833. The particles being symmetrically arranged in lines, a row of particles may be conceived to lie between every two remote points. If we suppose any number of points in the focal body, and a corresponding number in the surface of the mirror, it may be conceived that the intervening ethereal or calorific particles will move in rows one way or the other, as the pressure in the focal space may become greater or less. Thus an effect is brought about, equivalent to that which the Newtonian idea ofradiation involves; lines of particles proceed from the hotter points to the colder ones.
1834. The arrangement of the particles of caloric, which was originally, in my view, confined to the sublunary creation, appears of necessity to belong to the luminiferous ether, required by the theory ascribing light to undulations, though the last-mentioned medium must be endowed with ubiquity as above stated, so as to abound in every part of space through which light reaches the eye.
1835. The undulatory hypothesis supposes that a wave-like motion being imparted to a row of particles, by a luminous point in the surface of the luminous body, is transmitted, like the sound producing waves in the air, to the other end of the row.
1836. This undulatory progression has been roughly illustrated by the transitory serpentine movements which may be made in a cord, stretched like a clothes-line between the tops of posts.
1837. In order to make this illustration elucidate the conception which I advance, we have only to suppose that the cord, instead of being attached to the post, should be drawn rapidly over pulleys, and, while thus actuated, be subjected to a cause of undulatory vibration. It may be conceived that, by this process, the ethereal particles, while performing all which the undulatory theory requires, might at the same time perform all required by that of emission and material calorific radiation. Directed upon a vaporizable liquid, the undulations might perform the part of sensible heat; the ethereal particles, successively combining, might furnish the latent heat requisite to the constitution of vapour.
1838. Agreeably to Newton, the seven colours of the spectrum are due to as many different kinds of radiant particles of various refrangibility, or susceptibility of being bent from the rectilinear path when passed through the same refracting medium.[40]
1839. According to the undulatory theory, the colours are caused by diversities in the undulations producing them. Retaining this feature, the last-mentioned hypothesis, as modified by myself, appears to be competent to explain the phenomena of light as well as those of vaporization, produced by calorific radiation, since not only is any vaporizing liquid subjected to the transient effect of the undulations, but also may combine with the ethereal particles as they come into contact with it.
1840. Thus modified, the rationale of the rainbow, or prismatic spectrum, would not be that the colours indicate as many varieties of original radiant particles, but that they are to be explained agreeably to the undulatory hypothesis, which ascribes them to as many varieties in the undulations, just as the notes in music are ascribed to diversities of vibration.
1841. The ether, under this view, performs the part heretofore assigned to latent heat, by combining with solids so as to render them susceptible of expansion, and of electrical conduction by being liable to the polarization which constitutes electricity.
1842. Sensible heat, according to this aspect, is due to the vibrations of the ethereal fluid, which is sustained by the sun, by ignition in the interior of the earth, and by chemical reaction, including combustion and respiration.
1843. The correctness of the inference, that conductors owe their conductive power to ethereal matter entering into their composition, has been insisted upon in my strictures on Farraday’s speculation in some of the preceding pages. The facts admitted by this distinguished investigator of nature’s laws, gave to me a basis on which to rest an argument in favour of the existence of an imponderable cause of heat and electricity in metals, which seems to me unanswerable.
1844. Agreeably to the hypothesis respecting which the preceding preparatory suggestions have been made, gasification is not due to a repulsive atmosphere of ethereal matter, severally appropriated to each ponderable constituent atom, but to an attraction for every such atom exercised by the ethereal fluid, such as water exercises toward sugar, quick-lime, salt, or any soluble substance. The ether attracts the particles of certain solids, and is of course reacted upon by them. The particles thus attracted naturally distribute themselves throughout it, at symmetrical distances. Hence the law of Pettit and Dulong is verified, which, at least, holds good with all gasifiable atoms, that their capacity is inversely as their atomic weight.
1845. The atomic weights of hydrogen, nitrogen, and chlorine being severally 1, 14, 36, when associated with equal volumes of theimponderableether, they will have still the same weight. Equal volumes will weigh the same as the atoms with which they are associated; and the capacity for heat, being directly as the volumes, will be inversely as the weights, the calculation being the same, whether ether or caloric be the imponderable principle to which they owe their gasification. By concurring with those chemists, who estimate the atoms of oxygen at 16, instead of 8, this gas will come into the same calculation.
1846. When heterogeneous gases are confined within the same cavity, that they should not react with each other is no more wonderful, than that the same mass of water may at the same time hold different substances in solution, which may add to its hydrostatic pressure though they have no reciprocal reaction.
1847. Sensible heat appears to be due to vibrations in the ether, kept up by the solar rays or central ignition within this globe. By the heat thus acquired the self-repellent power of the ether is augmented. When by refrigeration this source of repulsion is diminished beyond a certainlimit, the atoms of certain vaporizable particles, such as those of steam and other condensible vapours, are approximated sufficiently to attract each other, and consequently coalesce and are condensed.
1848. It follows that light is due toundulation, sensible heat tovibration, and electricity to thepolarizationcaused in the ethereal medium, while either in a free, or in a combined state. Thus this luminiferous ether performs the part heretofore attributed to latent heat or caloric in one state; in another state, that of sensible heat.
1849. Massotti has suggested that all bodies consist of two kinds of ultimate particles; that any two or more particles of one kind are repulsive of each other, while any two or more of different kinds are reciprocally attractive. Hence atoms are formed, consisting of one atom of one kind and one of the other kind. Of course, were the opposite forces exercised by the heterogeneous and homogeneous equal, the resulting atoms would be neither attractive nor repulsive; but assuming the attractive power to have the ascendency, the hypothesis would account for the property of gravitation.
1850. Let the suggestions of Massotti be modified, so far as that the extremities of each particle, whether of one or the other kind, are to be considered as endowed with opposite polarities, like those of the magnetic needle, as already suggested in the case of matter in general. Then in one relative position of the extremities they may be reciprocally repulsive, in the other reciprocally attractive; likewise one of the kinds of matter, like the light-producing ether of the undulationists, may pervade the universe, and be condensed in a peculiarly great quantity within perfect conductors: all this being premised, it may be conceived how the waves of opposite polarization, which proceed from oppositely electrified, or in other words, oppositely polarized bodies, cause the matter through which they pass to be decomposed or explosively rent.
1851. As elsewhere stated, in large bodies of water, waves are the effect of transference of motion successively from one part of the mass to the other; the rolling of the wave causing nothing to pass but the motion, and of course, the momentum is invariably consequent to motion. The waves by which sound is transmitted, are analogous; nothing being transferred excepting a vibration of the air, capable of affecting the tympanum of the ear with the impression requisite to create in the sensorium the idea of sound.