22, KANSAS ACADEMY OF SCIENCE. 
exists no elastic cord whereby the latter pulls the former to itself. How, then, 
is it that the stone falls to the earth? Why does the moon fall toward the earth ? 
Why do the moon and earth together and all the other planets fall toward the 
sun? Why does the sun, with his retinue of planets and their satellites, move 
through space toward some other center? In short, we would ask: Why any 
of this motion of stars and comets, of suns and satellites? To say that they so 
move under the law of gravity does not tell us why they so move. Newton rec- 
ognized the force of this; but even his great mind could leave us no plausible 
explanation. But the two centuries since his time have revealed many things 
unknown to the great master; and, though the explanation of the common ex- 
perience of falling is apparently as much wanting now as then, yet perhaps we 
may collect a few hints in the various fields of science, and on them hinge a 
theory which may be of interest to contemplate, if not productive of better re- 
sults. 
The two great natura! sciences are chemistry and physics; for on them hinge 
all others. The more subtle of the two, chemistry, has for its realm that of the 
atom; the other, the grosser, physics, deals with the molecule and molecular ag- 
gregates, masses. Now, who shall deny that possibly some day we may havea 
third grand science, more subtle still than either of the others. This third 
science is as yet unnamed, but its province is broadly hinted at already in the 
speculations of the other two. Its field shall be the ether; therefore, call it 
‘‘etherics.’’ True, physics is claiming the ether as a part of its domain in seek- 
ing to investigate and explain the phenomena of light and electricity. But is 
not this clearly a usurpation, inasmuch as light and electricity are admittedly 
extraneous to the molecule? 
And again, chemistry is claiming a part of this field when it attempts to trace 
the genesis of the elements, as is implied in their grouping into families by the 
periodic system, as if they had a common progenitor. As yet we can go no 
farther in our explanations for the formation of the various chemical compounds 
than to say that they result because of the chemism that exists between the 
several elements constituting the compound; that is, the affinity that one ele- 
ment has for another. This third science will have for its province the capacity 
to step back of that affinity and explain why it is; why, for instance, oxygen has 
a stronger affinity for hydrogen than for any other element, and a weaker affinity 
for fluorin than for any other element; just as also it will tell us why astone 
tossed in air falls to earth again. 
The term ‘‘molecule”’ is a theoretical conception to account for the facts of 
physics; and it does so very successfully. The atom is a theoretical conception 
of the chemist, introduced to account for the facts of chemistry. He will tell 
you that the molecules of a few elements are made up of but a single atom each; 
while most elemental molecules contain two atoms, and others may contain three, 
four or six atoms; anda molecule of an organic compound may contain as many 
as a hundred or more atoms: yet he can never hope to perceive an individual 
atom by any of his senses, though he may weigh atoms relatively and speak of 
atomic masses confidently. 
Thus we have the molecule for physics, and the atom for chemistry. Our 
third science, etherics, must also have its unit, and we shall call it the ‘‘ protatom.”’ 
Though our name for this particle smaller than the atom is new, the con- 
ception of the existence of such small particles is as old as Prout’s theory of the 
composite nature of atoms, and probably older. More recently, Lockyer’s spec- 
troscopic investigations of certain chemical elements point to similar conclusions; 
and Prof. J. J. Thompson, in a Roya! Institute address on the cathode rays, de- 
