162 THE UNIVERSE 



of matter." This I call the law of electric repul- 

 sion. 



"This," he says, "is the universal law of evolu- 

 tion and dissolution in its simplest form." And 

 I say that the law of evolution and dissolution in 

 its simplest form is the law of electric attraction and 

 repulsion. 



Mr. Spencer's definition is complicated, but his 

 process is substantially correct. Yet he offers no 

 explanation of this natural and universal process, 

 while my electric theory of creation does, and makes 

 his universal evolution and dissolution simply uni- 

 versal electric attraction and repulsion under the 

 well-known laws of electro-magnetism. This is a 

 great advance, a gigantic step toward the explana- 

 tion of the universe. The simplest illustration in 

 physics explains both theories. For instance, dry 

 steam, he says, wil> condense to its liquid form, 

 water by permitting the dissipation of its internal 

 motion in the process of cooling, and a further 

 dissipation of internal motion of the water will re- 

 duce it to a solid form, called ice. This he calls 

 evolution, but he does not state what produces it. 

 I say it is produced by electric attraction. 



Then he says the mass of ice thus evolved from 

 impalpable vapor may be set out in ' the sun and 

 gradually melt, by the absorption of motion from 

 the sun, into water, and a further absorption of like 

 motion will convert it into invisible vapor. This 

 he calls dissolution, but does not explain it. I say 

 it is the result of the law of electric repulsion. 



He speaks of the absorption of motion. I contend 

 there can be no absorption of motion, but only an 

 absorption of that which produces motion, which 



