of Natural Philosophy. eee 
same sense, But if in the phrase “ divisibility of matter” 
be included the additional idea of discerptibility, or the pos- 
sibility of being separated into parts not in es then the 
property is one which belongs in no degree to 0 pure exten- 
sion. In neither case does the distinction A in the pro- 
Seabee as quoted above appear to have any foundation. 
hat matter cs infinitely divisible in the first sense, is almost 
self-evident: whether it is so in the last, (admitting the ex- 
ercise of any supposable power which does not change 
nature of matter,) is a eee which lies beyond the reach 
of the human frenltias 
attraction between two solid podicg. It is true that these 
phenomena are only indirect consequences of the attraction 
between solids and fluids; and a scholium was very proper- 
ly added by the author, (which has been omitted in all the 
_ subsequent editions,) to aid the student in tracing their con- 
nexion with the proposition. But it is most certain that 
. “have nothing to do with the cohesive force of two 
solid bodies. When there is an elevation or depression of 
the fluid around both of two floating bodies, they will ap- 
proach: when there is an elevation ‘around one asd a de- 
pression around the other, they will recede. These are 
mere results of capillary action; and as such, admit of an 
easy explanation from the general theory of Laplace. %¥—A 
popular idea of the mechanism of these phenomena will be 
ei a the lego! experiment, by which we ae 
een much amused, and which we do not recollect to ‘ 
seen n aR Two small globules of mercury, a | 
“Jaid upon water, will swim. Let these globules be brought 
within one or two inches, and it is surprising to os 
oa atoemel they dart together. If one of the glob- 
ules to the edge of the water, (the vessel being 
sch mater ab he capable af be being fomnened.) 1 
PB decn Méc. 2. Célet. Sup. an is tiene: Biot —Traté de cPosie 12 
yl : 
