TflOFGHTS ON THE NATURE AND ©KIGIN OF FORCE. 



By William B. Taylor, of "Washixgtox. 



The great generalization of our age — tlie continuity or indestructi- 

 bility of force — confirmed as it is by a constantly accumulating series 

 of inductions, contradicted as it is by no adverse fact, comes gradually 

 to impress itself upon our convictions almost with the positiveness of an 

 axiom. And yet a slight consideration will show us that it is really but 

 a corollary from the particular constitution of matter presented con- 

 stantly to our observation. Had we any example of an incompressible 

 substance wholly devoid of elasticity — that is, possessing no molecular or 

 atomic repulsion, (to adopt the conception entertained by Nev/ton and his 

 followers,) but endowed with only cohesive and gravitative attractions — 

 then for such matter the theory of the conservation of force would not 

 be true. Were two equal balls of such a material to meet in space with 

 equal and opposite velocities, at the moment of impact there would be, 

 with the arrest of motion, the actual destruction of the entire living 

 force they jointly possessed. Not only would there be no rebound, but 

 there would be no internal molecular work effected, and no heat gene- 

 lated to represent a surviving or transformed energy. 



The doctrine of the correlation and conservation of forces depends 

 therefore upon the coexistence in all matter of two opposing tendencies, 

 namely, those of attraction and repulsion ; and from the ceaseless play 

 and struggle of these opposing tendencies are derived ultimately all 

 the varied phenomena of the visible universe. 



The most ordinary and obvious manifestations of force are those exhib- 

 iting motion; as in the whirlwind and the cataract, the volcano and the 

 earthquake, the steamship and the locomotive train. There has accord- 

 ingly been a very general tendency to confound force and motion ; and 

 this fallacious confusion has not unfrequently vitiated the reasonings 

 of even intelligent writers. 



To distinguish, however, motion from force on the one hand, it may 

 be remarked that they never have a common measure; and to distinguish 

 force from motion on the other hand, it is only necessary to consider the 

 fact that we are surrounded by a vast array of statical forces, continu- 

 ally resisting the most energetic solicitations to motion. 



First, as to the absence of a common measure : It is found that the 

 rate of motion follows only the law of the square root of the force orig- 

 inating it. A double consumption of fuel will not double the speed of 

 a locomotive-engine. On the contrary, (as is well known to the engineer,) 

 four times the quantity of fuel is necessary to attain this duplication of 

 16 s 



