CORRESP ONDENCE. 



229 



CORRESPONDENCE. 



CONSEKVATION OF FORCE. 

 To the Editor of the Popular Science Monthly : 



WILL you allow me to call the atten- 

 tion of scientists to some facts (sug- 

 gested by me in the Monthly for February) 

 inconsistent with the most important recent 

 theory in physical science the Conserva- 

 tion or Persistence of Force. 



The persistence of force is as certain as 

 the persistence of existence. But persist- 

 ence being, so far, an absolute property or 

 principle, cannot be proved by physical 

 sense, or phenomena conditioned by mass, 

 time, and space. Only finite relations are 

 verified by finite proofs. 



All things perceived through physical 

 sense are, severally, quantitatively, and 

 qualitatively, in unceasing change, and are, 

 directly or indirectly, dependent on each 

 other for their existence. Therefore, not 

 phenomena, but only principles things />e?' 

 se persist. That the force or energy which 

 we perceive, pressure, tension, or motion, 

 does not persist, is not only a logical de- 

 duction from the nature of phenomena, but 

 is a familiar iact in our experiences. 



Force pressure or tension is created 

 and annihilated at pleasure by the use of 

 the lever. 



Energy is evoked from motion, and mo- 

 tion is only changing relations in space, 

 and as each specific or perceived change 

 or movement is absolutely created and an- 

 nihilated, not the perceived energy, but only 

 the ideal, abstract principle, persists. 



Again, the conservation of perceived 

 force requires the existence of potential en- 

 ergy, or energy of position. But this " en- 

 ergy " is a misnomer ; for mere position, or 

 static relation in space, is in itself impor- 

 tant, and therefore answers our conceptions 

 of neither energy nor potentiality. Yet, 

 it is alleged that the energy expended in 

 lifting and planting a mass on the top of a 

 mountain persists in the mass, because, if 

 it could fall ^ that same energy would reap- 

 pear. But it cannot fall. And its gravity 



being less, it has within itself, as a property, 

 less falling force than before its position 

 was changed by the expenditure of energy. 

 To say, " If it had power to fall, it would 

 receive the energy expended in lifting it," is 

 equivalent to saying, " It docs not possess 

 that energy." If it imparted that energy to 

 something else, from which it will be re- 

 turned, to what did it impart it ? If the 

 ball in a loaded cannon has potential energy 

 by being in front of the cartridge, what be- 

 comes of that energy when the powder is 

 saturated with water ? 



Perceived force is conditioned by mass 

 and relations in space, and, as here shown, 

 change in these conditions changes its quan- 

 tity. Physical science is limited to these 

 conditions, changes, and quantities, because 

 its verifications are limited to them. The 

 proposition that a phenomenon persists, is 

 a self-contradiction. Only objects of con- 

 ception, and not of perception, persist. 



The conservation of force is illustrated 

 by that of form. If a circle of plastic ma- 

 terial be changed to a square, abstract 

 form persists through all the innumerable 

 changes of size and form through which it 

 passes, but no observed size or form per- 

 sists ; nor is any specific form, from the 

 circle to the square, metamorphosed into its 

 subsequent form ; each is as absolutely cre- 

 ated and annihilated as though there were 

 no persistence of form. 



And, as matter is only a concrete of 

 properties, and as form is as persistent as 

 other properties, it follows that all per- 

 ceived physical changes are creations and 

 annihilations. What is observed as gas is 

 not the persistent thing per se, but only 

 one evanescent state of that which persists. 

 Hence, this perceived thing, gas, is no more 

 metamorphosed into its subsequent water, 

 than a circle is into a square. All that was 

 observed gas was as totally annihilated, 

 and what appeared water as surely cre- 

 ated, as were the circle and square. No 

 perceived physical property persists, for, 

 even the alleged physical proof of the per- 



