Accordingly, the atomic hypothesis as conceived by chemists may, perhaps, be of great descriptive value, but it does not explain anything in the field of phenomenal genesis. Because masses combine in proportions of definite weight Dalton and his followers say that the atoms must also be proportionately definite in weight; but there is no reason in explaining definite proportions and equivalence of components by the averment that the weights of the atoms are in definite proportions, for this does not give any additional knowledge; it is only a confusing play of words.

What has been said is enough to prove the lack of unity in, and the falseness of, the atomic hypothesis of authors, considered according to their own explanations. All the facts of nature must be united under one theory alone, comparing them one with another so as to derive a universal generalization; for science must not be satisfied with partial opinions which only lead it into the existing labyrinth of innumerable conceptions of nature, and which result in a physiological theory so imperfect and abortive. A true theory must comprehend the whole cosmos as a real system; it is therefore necessary for the establishment of a valid and complete theory to compare the facts of the present hypotheses in order to demonstrate the fallacy of the atomic conceptions of cosmos, not only because it is impossible for a scientific understanding to entertain the idea that every department of physiological theory conceives atoms as vehicles of forces and with different characters, but also because it is impossible to consider atoms as the material unity or reason for substantial identity, and for the uniformity of nature.

This work is not the proper one in which to discuss

K

all the varying conceptions of atomism, which are almost as numerous as imagination can conceive, from the nascent ideas of the Greek atomists up to intricacies like those developed by modern mathematicians who consider atoms either as mere centres of force, or as annular axes in revolution. A special criticism of all the different hypothesis of atoms, besides being unnecessary, would be interminable, and what has been said is enough for our purpose, which is to prove that the existing hypotheses of atoms cannot be accepted in a true physiological theory.

§ 27. ATOMIC PROPERTIES SO MISCALLED.

Contemporary physicists in general consider atoms as corpuscles endowed with absolute solidity, elasticity, and movement. This concept of atoms is wholly erroneous, because if they possess abstract forces they should be considered as causing agents instead of inert corpuscles, and such an idea is contrary to the principle of conservation of energy. Thus modern works on thermo-dynamics proclaim that the constituent atoms of bodies are in constant agitation on which physicists say the degree of heat depends; but this cannot be true, as it is contradictory to the recognized fundamental principle of mechanism, for such an affirmation denies the fact of inertia of matter. To the asserted absolute solidity (hardness) of atoms we oppose the same arguments that we have used against the idea of impenetrability considered as a primordial and absolute property of matter.

Elasticity, implying movements of parts, cannot be comprehended as an attribute of simple atoms. In case

of a collision between bodies there is, in fact, a loss of visible movement, which is said to be converted into an = invisible agitation of the constituent particles of the bodies in collision; but, when simple atoms collide, such a conversion cannot occur, because they are not formed of parts in which the movement or work could be divided. Nevertheless, most authors in order to account for the reparation of force lost in mechanism, ¿e. for conservation of energy in cosmos, suppose atoms in perfect movement and endowed with perfect elasticity as properties inherent in their own essence; for, otherwise, they say, atoms will lose part or the totality of movement in every collision. According to these erroneous ideas most contemporary authors admit the hypothesis they call kinetic, in which they maintain that the smallest particles of ponderable matter, called atoms, have weight in themselves and are in perpetual agitation, this being, they add, the cause of heat. As an inevitable consequence, they have been obliged to recognize for this purpose a perfect elasticity in atoms, and they themselves affirm that, if elasticity were not admitted, the kinetic hypothesis would be a contradiction to the laws of conservation of energy. Here we must take care not to confound the word kinetic in the sense in which it is here used with its etymological signification, as in this it is applicable to all energy, for latent as well as manifested energy supposes movements both of ponderable and imponderable matter. Ingenious hypotheses have been invented to explain the supposed elasticity of atoms, but all serve only to complicate the question, as they cannot escape falling into contradiction between the enunciation of inertia and conservation of energy on the one hand and the belief

in the perpetual movement of gravitating atoms on the other, the result being that atoms which, like masses, are really inert, are conceived by them as things endowed with proper activity. Thus, some authors have imagined that atoms are whirlpools containing an invariable quantity of imponderable fluid, having also permanently a certain and inherent rotatory movement of their own, and that, in consequence of such movement, when atoms collide they repel each other as perfectly elastic bodies would; but we must remark that perfectly elastic bodies do not exist in reality, and therefore that even this standard of comparison is imaginary. This hypothesis, besides affirming a supposition contrary to the law of inertia, cannot explain any sensible difference in movement, and would therefore oblige us to admit the conclusion that there are no phenomenal changes in nature, so denying precisely the contrary of the facts these same authors try to interpret -changes of propagation of movement in accordance with the principle of conservation.

Some physicists, though admitting the inherent rotation of atoms, consider them not as ethereal fluid in movement, but as real corpuscles, supposing that when atoms collide they keep the same quantity of movement in the sum of their rotation and translation, there being then only a conversion in the form of movement but without any loss, thus strangely affirming that atoms have always the same power. All experience demonstrates the contrary, as even when bodies possessed of the greatest elasticity (which is never perfect) collide in such a manner as to produce the most complete repulsion possible they lose at least a third of their movement; and this is without taking into

consideration the cases in which there is almost a complete loss of rotatory as well as of translatory movement. Hence we see that to attribute rotation to atoms in order to endow them with inherent and perfect elasticity does not explain the purpose for which it was intended, that is, the reparation of the loss of living force in mechanism, without contradicting the principle of conservation of energy.

Ponderable matter must be truly considered of atomic constitution, composed of discrete particles, that is to say, of corpuscles which are separated either in part or totally by imponderable matter or progene, the expansion of a body being the result of the augmentation of the intervals relatively occupied by progene, and its contraction the result of their diminution. Nevertheless, such particles cannot be defined in their minimum limits, any more than in any other property, by chemical laws or by any other means. The molecules which compose the different chemical elements have a determined specific weight or equivalence of combination in harmony with the definite constitution of the bodies combined, that is to say, with the definite and multiple proportions of the components in combination. From these relations and laws chemists especially pretend to determine atomic limits and properties, which is an impossibility.

The indestructibility of ponderable matter is a truth attested by the balance, which shows us that all the changes to which bodies are submitted are simply changes of form, the relation of mass or quantity of matter always remaining invariable. But, at the same time, we must keep in mind that weight, and therefore mass, is not an absolute property, but a relation deter