Page 37 (part 3)

A body may be considered divorced from its relations with other bodies -- which, according to physical and mechanical sciences, give rise to its attributes -- only conceptually , only on this plane of illusion. In fact, it can never be so detached: death itself being unable to detach it from its relation with the Universal forces, of which the one F ORCE or L IFE is the synthesis: but simply continues such inter-relation on another plane. But what, if Stallo is right, can Dr. James Croll mean when, in speaking "On the Transformation of Gravity" ( Philosophical Magazine , Vol . II., p. 252), he brings forward the views advocated by Faraday, Waterston, and others? For he says very plainly that gravity -- ". . . . . is a force pervading Space external to bodies , and that, on the mutual approach of the bodies, the force is not increased, as is generally supposed, but the bodies merely pass into a place where the force exists with greater intensity . . . . ." No one will deny that a force (whether gravity, electricity, or any other force) which exists outside of the bodies and in open space -- be it ether or vacuum -- must be something , and not a pure nothing , when conceived apart from a mass? Otherwise it could hardly exist in one place with a greater and in another with reduced "intensity." G. A. Hirn declares the same in his Theorie Mecanique de l ' Univers. He tries to demonstrate that the atom of the chemists is not an entity of pure convention, or simply an explicative device, but that it exists really, that its volume is unalterable, and that consequently it is not elastic (!!). "Force, therefore, is not in the atom; it is in the space which separates the atoms from each other. " The above-cited views, expressed by two men of Science of great eminence in their respective countries, show that it is not in the least unscientific to speak of the substantiality of the so-called Forces. Subject to some future specific name, this force is substance of some kind, and can be nothing else; and perhaps one day Science will be the first to re-adopt the derided name of phlogiston. Whatever may be the future name given to it, to maintain that force does not reside in the atoms, but only in "space between them," may be scientific enough; nevertheless it is not true. To the mind of an Occultist it is like saying [[Vol. 1, Page]] 512 THE SECRET DOCTRINE. that water does not reside in the drops of which the ocean is composed, but only in the space between those drops! The objection made that there are two distinct schools of physicists, by one of which "the force is assumed to be an independent substantial entity , which is NOT a property of matter nor is it essentially related to matter,"* is hardly likely to help the profane to any clearer understanding. It is, on the contrary, still more calculated to throw the question into greater confusion than ever. For Force is, then, neither this nor the other. By viewing it as "an independent substantial entity," the theory extends the right hand of fellowship to Occultism, while the strange contradictory idea that it is not related to matter "otherwise than by its power to act upon it,"** leads physical science to the most absurd contradictory hypotheses. Whether "force" or "motion," (Occultism, seeing no difference between the two, never attempts to separate them) it cannot act for the adherents of the atomo-mechanical theory one way, and for those of the rival school in another way. Nor can the atoms be, in one case, absolutely uniform in size and weight , and in another, vary in their weight (Avogadro's law). For, in the words of the same able critic, . . . "While the absolute equality of the primordial units of mass is thus an essential part of the very foundations of the mechanical theory, the whole modern Science of chemistry is based upon a principle directly subversive of it -- a principle of which it has recently been said that 'it holds the same place in chemistry that the law of gravitation does in astronomy.'*** This principle is known as the law of Avogadro or Ampere."**** This shows that either modern chemistry or modern physics is entirely wrong in its respective fundamental principles. For if the assumption of atoms of different specific gravities on the basis of the atomic theory in physics is deemed absurd, and chemistry meets, nevertheless, on its opposite basis (in the question of the formation and transformation of chemical compounds) with " unfailing experimental verification," [[Footnote(s)]] ------------------------------------------------- * "Concepts of Modern Physics," xxxi., Introductory to the 2nd edition. * * Loc. cit. *** J. P. Cooke, The New Chemistry , p. 13. **** "It imports that equal volumes of all substances, when in the gaseous state, and under like conditions of pressure and temperature, contain the same number of molecules -- whence it follows that the weights of the molecules are proportional to the specific gravities of the gases; that therefore, these being different, the weights of the molecules are different also; and inasmuch as the molecules of certain elementary substances are monatomic (consist of but one atom each) while the molecules of various other substances contain the same number of atoms, that the ultimate atoms of such substances are of different weights" ( Concepts of Modern Physics , p. 34). As shown further on in the same volume, this cardinal principle of modern theoretical chemistry is in utter and irreconcilable conflict with the first proposition of the atomo-mechanical theory -- namely, the absolute equality of the primordial units of mass. [[Vol. 1, Page]] 513 THEY AGREE TO DISAGREE. then it becomes apparent that it is the atomo-mechanical theory which is untenable. The explanations of the latter, that "the differences of weight are only differences of density, and differences of density are differences of distance between the particles contained in a given space," are not really valid, because, before a physicist can argue in his defence that, "as in the atom there is no multiplicity of particles and no void space: hence differences of density or weight are impossible in the case of atoms," he must first know what an atom is, in reality, and that he cannot know. He must bring it under the observation of at least one of his physical senses -- and that he cannot do: for the simple reason that no one has ever seen , smelt , heard , touched or tasted an "atom." The atom belongs wholly to the domain of metaphysics. It is an entified abstraction -- at any rate for physical Science -- and has nought to do with physics, strictly speaking, as it can never be brought to the test of retort or balance. The mechanical conception, therefore, becomes a jumble of the most conflicting theories and dilemmas, in the minds of the many Scientists who disagree on this, as on other subjects; the evolution of which the Eastern Occultist, who follows this scientific strife, beholds in the greatest bewilderment. To conclude on the question of gravity.