494 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



and therefore a continual creation of force. 

 This conclusion I am not willing to accept, 

 as I fully believe in the indestructibility of 

 both matter and force. 



The least objectionable view that I have 

 been able to arrive at is, that all ideas are 

 sensations excited primarily by material 

 impressions, and hence that we can have 

 absolutely no idea of space independent of 

 matter. 



And, as a stellar system in the universe 

 of matter consists of millions of aggre- 

 gated masses which are individually very 

 small in proportion to the inter-spaces, so I 

 believe that the chemical molecule is very 

 small in proportion to the space between 

 the molecules. And as each sun has (prob- 

 ably) various attendants (the planets), so 

 each chemical molecule consists in general 

 of several different bodies that may be 

 easily separated (in consequence of the 

 space between them being of the same 

 order as the spaces between the mole- 

 cules). But, like the different bodies of 

 the solar system, or of a stellar system, 

 each of these bodies is a compound mass 

 consisting of millions of units of a different 

 order, holding probably the same relation 

 to the chemical molecule that the chemical 

 molecule does to the matter of the solar 

 system ; and so on, both upward and down- 

 ward, to infinity. 



There is, therefore, as I conceive, abso- 

 lutely no limit to the division of matter, 

 physically as well as mathematically ; but 

 our organization is such that, of the infinite 

 series of terms in which it manifests itself, 

 we can know, experimentally, only two : 

 viz., the stellar universe, constituting the 

 first order, of which the stars and the plan- 

 ets are the units ; and, secondly, the chemi- 

 cal molecule, which constitutes the second 

 order. 



According to this view, the material 

 universe might be represented, in orders, 

 by the following series: d~~ m x, . . . c?— 3 x, 

 d— 2 x, d-\ d\ dx, d% d% . . . d a — l x, 

 d a x, in which x is the unknown quantity, 

 which we call matter, and m and n are both 

 infinitely great. 



In this series, d°x, or simply x, would 

 represent all tangible matter ; and dx, 

 which is the next term descending, would 

 represent chemical molecules and their con- 



stituents, the atoms of all known and un- 

 known elementary bodies. 



As in the analogous expression used in 

 mathematical investigations, <£ 2 x is infi. 

 nitely small in respect to dx, which in its 

 turn is infinitely small in respect to d°x, 

 and so on; yet each represents the ele- 

 ments of which the next preceding order is 

 constituted. So in the physical world, as 

 represented by the above series : the units 

 in x, which are represented by the visible 

 worlds in space, are infinitely large when 

 compared with the units in dx, which are 

 represented by the chemical molecules ; the 

 units in each preceding order, in both seines, 

 being aggregations of the units in the next 

 succeeding order. 



This view of the constitution of matter, 

 though it necessitates the assumption of its 

 actual infinite division, yet, to my mind, in- 

 volves much less absurdity than to suppose 

 it imparticled, and yet " elastic to the core," 

 or to suppose that the chemical molecule, 

 or even the chemical atom, is an absolute 

 solid. J. E. Hendricks. 



Des Moines, Iowa, November 21, 1873. 



MATTES, FOECE, AND INEETIA. 



To the, Editor of the Popular Science Monthly : 



Judge Stallo's valuable contributions 

 to the Popular Science Monthly, on the 

 " Primary Concepts of Modern Science," can 

 scarcely fail to give the reader a clearer 

 conception of elementary being. But it 

 seems to me that his criticism of Mr. Fara- 

 day's " complex forces," and Baine's asser- 

 tion that " matter, force, and inertia, are 

 substantially three names for the same 

 fact," is clearly illogical. 



On the ground that the existence of all 

 reality lies in relation and contrast, the 

 author assumes that inertia and force are 

 ever coexisting contrasts. He says : " We 

 know nothing of force except by its con- 

 trast with mass, or (what is the same thing) 

 inertia ; and, conversely, as I have already 

 pointed out in my first article, we know 

 nothing of mass, except by its relation to 

 force. Mass, inertia (or, as it is sometimes 

 though inaccurately called, matter per se) 

 is indistinguishable from absolute nothing- 

 ness ; for matter reveals its presence, or 

 evinces its reality, only in its action, its 



