THE LAW or EQUILIBRIUM 117 



If this is what Newtonians really mean to imply and it 

 is difficult to construe their attitude otherwise they 

 throw themselves open to a gross inconsistency, namely ; 

 in denying to the earth, in their tidal theory, the power 

 of equilibrium, for the earth is blessed with a stupendous 

 atmosphere. Moreover, supposing it true that the medi- 

 um does possess such virtue, then unsymmetrical objects 

 resting on the floor of the vacuum should be as exempt 

 from the law as at any height within that chamber; 

 whereas the undeniable fact is that such bodies upright 

 themselves just as certainly as they do in air or water. 

 It is as clear as day that in this case the medium func- 

 tions only by moderating the velocity of the fall, thereby 

 affording the investigator time and facility for studious 

 observation. 



Obviously, then, the principle of equilibrium exists 

 altogether independently of the atmosphere. Its real es- 

 sence how can any one doubt it? lies in gravitation, 

 nothing else ; and, like the latter, or rather because both 

 are of the same essence, it can no more abandon any 

 particle of matter, or be niched from it, than can gravita- 

 tion itself. In olden days it used to be argued that when 

 a balloon rose in air, it was because gravity had ceased to 

 act upon it. One of the best answers to that fallacy was 

 that the balloon, even when in the act of rising, continu- 

 ously observes the law of equilibrium, keeping its heavier 

 part underneath. To-day we have the same old dispute 

 resurrected, but at the other end of the chain. Now it is 

 the principle of equilibrium that is at issue. By means 

 of an opposite sort of device, man has invented a way of 

 causing objects to fall with even greater velocity than 

 they do in air, and to fall so rapidly, indeed, that their 

 subtle efforts at self-balancing successfully elude the 

 keenest eye. Thus is the presence of the principle of 

 equilibrium obscured now, as was the presence of gravity 

 formerly in the phenomenon of the balloon. It is a poor 

 rule, they say, that doesn't work both ways; Why not 

 then apply the converse of the old reasoning ? Why not 

 say, inasmuch as the action of gravity on the balloon, in 

 spite of its act of rising "against gravity," was legit- 



