NO AGREEMENT AMONG SCIENTISTS.

483 subdivision of our sciences, each of which, in its own little pigeon-hole, constructs an atom which satisfies the requirements of the phenomena it studies, without troubling itself in the least about the requirements proper to the phenomena of the neighbouring pigeon hole. The metaphysician banishes the principles of attraction and repulsion as dreams; the mathematician, who analyses the laws of elasticity and those of the propagation of light, admits them implicitly, without even naming them. . . . The chemist cannot explain the grouping of the atoms, in his often complicated molecules, without attri buting to his atoms specific distinguishing qualities; for the physicist and the metaphysician, partisans of the modern doctrines, the atom is, on the contrary, always and everywhere the same. What am I saying? THERE IS NO AGREEMENT EVEN Each constructs an atom to suit his own fancy, in order to explain some special phenomenon with which he is particularly concerned."

IN ONE AND THE SAME SCIENCE AS TO THE PROPERTIES OF THE ATOM.

The above is the photographically correct image of modern Science and physics. The "pre-requisite of that incessant play of the 'scientific imagination,'" which is so often found in Professor Tyndall's eloquent discourses, is vivid indeed, as shown by Stallo, and for contradictory variety leaves far behind it any "phantasies" of occultism. However it may be, if physical theories are confessedly "mere formal, explanatory, didactic devices," and if "atomism is only a symbolical graphic system," then the occultist can hardly be regarded as assuming too much, when he places alongside of these devices and "symbolical systems" of modern Science, the symbols and devices of Archaic teachings.

III.

"AN LUMEN SIT CORPUS, NEC NON ?"

Most decidedly Light is not a body, we are told. Physical Sciences. say Light is a Force, a vibration, the undulation of ether. It is the property or quality of matter, or even an affection thereof—never a body!

Just so. For this discovery, the knowledge—whatever it may be worth—that light or caloric is not a motion of material particles, Science is chiefly indebted, if not solely, to Sir W. Grove. It was he who was the first in a lecture at the London Institution, in 1842, to show that

"Recherches expérimentales sur la relation qui existe entre la résistance de l'air et sa température," p. 68.

From the criticism of " Concepts of Modern Physics" in Nature. See Stallo's work, p. xvi. of Introduction.

66

'light, heat, etc., etc. are affections of matter itself, and not a distinct ethereal, imponderable,' fluid, (a state of matter now) permeating it." (See "Correlation of the Physical Forces," Preface). Yet, perhaps, for some physicists—as for Oersted, a very eminent Scientist—Force and Forces were tacitly "Spirit (and hence Spirits) in Nature." What several rather mystical Scientists taught was that light, heat, magnetism, electricity and gravity, etc., were not the final causes of the visible phenomena, including planetary motion, but themselves the Secondary effects of other Causes, for which Science in our day cares very little, but in which Occultism believes, for the Occultists have exhibited proofs of the validity of their claims in every age. And in what age were there no Occultists and no ADEPTS?

Sir Isaac Newton held to the Pythagorean corpuscular theory, and was also inclined to admit its consequences; which made the Count de Maistre hope, at one time, that Newton would ultimately lead Science back to the recognition of the fact that Forces and the Celestial bodies were propelled and guided by Intelligences (Soirees, vol. ii.). But de Maistre counted without his host. The innermost thoughts and ideas of Newton were perverted, and of his great mathematical learning only the mere physical husk was turned to account. Had poor Sir Isaac foreseen to what use his successors and followers would apply his "gravity," that pious and religious man would surely have quietly eaten his apple, and never breathed a word about any mechanical ideas connected with its fall.

Great contempt is shown for metaphysics generally and for onto

* Mr. Robert Ward, discussing the questions of Heat and Light in the November J mrnal of Science, iSSi, shows us how utterly ignorant is Science about one of the commonest facts of nature—the heat of the sun. He says:" The question of the temperature of the sun has been the subject of investigation with many scientists: Newton, one of the first investigators of this problem, tried to determine it, and after him all the scientists who have been occupied with calorimetry have followed his example. All have believed themselves successful, and have formulated their results with great confidence. The following, in the chronological order of the publication of the results, are the temperatures (in centigrade degrees) found by each of them: Newton, 1,699,joodeg.; Pouillet, i,46ideg.; Tollner, ioa,2oodeg,; Secchi, 5,344,84odeg. ; Ericsson, 2,726,7Oodeg.; Fizeau, y.joodeg.; Waterston, g.ooo.ooodeg.; Spoeren, 27,ooodeg.; Deville, g.soodeg.; Soret, 5,8oi,846deg.; Vicaire, i.soodeg.; Rosetti, 20,ooodeg. The difference is as i,4Oodeg. against g.ooo.ooodeg., or no less than 8,ggS,6oodeg.!! There probably does not exist in science a more astonishing contradiction than that revealed in these figures. And yet without doubt if an Occultist were to give out an estimate, each of these gentlemen would vehemently protest in the name of EXACT' Science at the rejection of his special result." (From the Theosophist.} f According to one atheistic idealist--Dr. Lewins—"When Sir Isaac, in 1687 . . . showed mass and atom acted upon. . . . by innate activity . . he effectually disposed of Spirit, Anima, or Divinity, as supererogatory."

THE METAPHYSICS OF PHYSICAL SCIENCE.

485 logical metaphysics especially. But we see, whenever the Occultists are bold enough to raise their diminished heads, that materialistic, physical science is honey-combed with metaphysics; that its most fundamental principles, while inseparably wedded to transcendentalism, are nevertheless, in order to show modern science divorced from such "dreams," tortured and often ignored in the maze of contradictory theories and hypotheses. A very good corroboration of this charge lies in the fact that Science finds itself absolutely compelled to accept the "hypothetical" Ether and to try to explain it on the materialistic grounds of atomo-mechanical laws. This attempt has led directly to the most fatal discrepancies and radical inconsistencies between the assumed nature of Ether and its physical actions. A second proof is found in the many contradictory statements about the atom-the most metaphysical object in creation.

Now, what does the modern science of physics know of Ether, the first concept of which belongs undeniably to ancient philosophers, the Greeks having borrowed it from the Aryans, and the origin of modern Ether being found in, and disfigured from, AKASA? This disfigurement

* Stallo's above-cited work, "Concepts of Modern Physics," a volume which has called forth the liveliest protests and criticisms, is recommended to anyone inclined to doubt this statement. The professed antagonism of Science to metaphysics," he writes, "has led the majority of scientific specialists to assume that the methods and results of empirical research are wholly independent of the control of the laws of thought. They either silently ignore, or openly repudiate, the simplest canons of logic, including the laws of non-contradiction and resent with the utmost vehemence, every application of the rule of consistency to their hypotheses and theories and they regard an examination (of these). .

in the light of these laws as an impertinent intrusion of 'a priori principles and methods into the domains of empirical science. Persons of this cast of mind find no difficulty in holding that atoms are absolutely inert, and at the same time asserting that these atoms are perfectly elastic; or in maintaining that the physical universe, in its last analysis, resolves itself into 'dead' matter and motion, and yet denying that all physical energy is in reality kinetic; or in proclaiming that all phenomenal differences in the objective world are ultimately due to the various motions of absolutely simple material units, and, nevertheless, repudiating the proposition that these units are equal". (p. xix.) "The blindness of eminent physicists to some of the most obvious consequences of their own theories is marvellous . . . . When Prof. Tail, in conjunction with Prof. Stewart, announces that matter is simply passive' (The Unseen Universe, sec. 104), and then, in connection with Sir W. Thomson, declares that matter has an innate power of resisting external influences' (Treat, on Nat. Phil., Vol. I., sec. 216), it is hardly impertinent to inquire how these statements are to be reconciled. When Prof. Du Bois Reymond. . . . insists upon the necessity of reducing all the processes of nature to motions of a substantial, indifferent substratum, wholly destitute of quality (Uebcr die Grcnzen des Naturerkeanens,' p. 5), having declared shortly before in the same lecture that resolution of all changes in the material world into motions of atoms caused by their constant central forces would be the completion of natural science,' we are in a perplexity from which we have to be relieved." (Pref. xliii.)

is claimed to be a modification and refinement of the idea of Lucretius. Let us then examine the modern concept from several scientific volumes containing the admissions of the physicists themselves.

The existence of Ether is accepted by physical astronomy, in ordinary physics, and in chemistry. Astronomers, who first began by regarding it as a fluid of extreme tenuity and mobility, offering no sensible resistance to the motions of celestial bodies, never gave a thought to its continuity or discontinuity. "Its main function in modern astronomy has been to serve as a basis for hydrodynamical theories of gravitation. In physics this fluid appeared for some time in several roles in connection with the imponderables' "—so cruelly put to death by Sir W. Grove. Some physicists have even identified the ether of space with those "imponderables." Then came their Kinetic theories; and from the date of the dynamical theory of heat, it was chosen in optics as a substratum for luminous undulations. Then, in order to explain the dispersion and polarization of light, physicists had to resort once more to their "scientific imagination" and forthwith endowed the Ether with (a) atomic or molecular structure, and (b) with an enormous elasticity, "so that its resistance to deformation far exceeded that of the most rigid elastic bodies" (Stallo). This necessitated the theory of the essential discontinuity of matter, hence of Ether. After having accepted this discontinuity, in order to account for dispersion and polarization, theoretical impossibilities were discovered with regard to such dispersions. Cauchy's scientific imagination saw in atoms "material points without extension," and he proposed, in order to obviate the most formidable obstacles to the undulatory theory (namely, some well-known mechanical theorems which stood in the way), to assume that the ethereal medium of propagation, instead of being continuous, should consist of particles separated by sensible distances. Fresnel rendered the same service to the phenomena of polarization. E. B. Hunt upset the theories of both (Silliman's Journal, vol. viii., p. 364 et seq.) There are now men of Science who proclaim them "materially fallacious," while others- the "atomo-mechanicalists" — cling to to them with desperate tenacity. The supposition of an atomic or molecular constitution of ether is upset, moreover, by thermo-dynamics, for Clerk Maxwell showed that such a medium would be simply gas.* The hypothesis of "finite intervals" is thus proven of no avail as a supplement to the undulatory theory. Besides, eclipses fail to reveal any such variation of colour as supposed by Cauchy (on the assumption that the chromatic rays are propagated with different velocities).

"

* See Clerk Maxwell's Treatise on Electricity of Magnetism" and compare with Cauchy's "Mtmoire sur la Dispersion de la lumitre."

SCIENTIFIC IMAGINATION.

487 Astronomy has pointed out more than one phenomenon absolutely at variance with this doctrine.

Thus, while in one department of physics the atomo-molecular constitution of the ether is accepted in order to account for one set of special phenomena, in another department such a constitution is found quite subversive of a number of well-ascertained facts, Hirn's charges being thus justified (vide supra). Chemistry deemed it impossible to concede enormous elasticity to the ether without depriving it of other properties, upon the assumption of which the construction of its modern theories. depended. This ended in a final transformation of ether. The exigencies of the atomo-mechanical theory have led distinguished mathematicians and physicists to attempt to substitute for the traditional atoms of matter, peculiar forms of vortical motion in a "universal homogeneous, incompressible, and continuous material medium," or Æther. (See Stallo.)

The present writer, claiming no great scientific education, but only a tolerable acquaintance with modern theories, and a better one with Occult Sciences, picks up weapons against the detractors of the esoteric teaching in the very arsenal of modern Science. The glaring contradictions, the mutually-destructive hypotheses of world-renowned Scientists, their mutual accusations, denunciations and disputes, show plainly that, whether accepted or not, the Occult theories have as much right to a hearing as any of the so-called learned and academical hypotheses. Thus whether the followers of the Royal Society choose to accept ether as a continuous or a discontinuous fluid matters little, and is indifferent to the present purpose. It simply points to one certainty: Official Science knows nothing to this day of the constitution of ether. Let Science call it matter, if it likes; only neither as akasa nor as the one sacred Æther of the Greeks, is it to be found in any of the states of matter known to modern physics. It is Matter on quite another plane of perception and being, and it can neither be analyzed by scientific apparatus, appreciated, nor even conceived by "scientific imagination," unless the possessors thereof study the Occult Sciences. That which follows proves this statement.

It is clearly demonstrated by Stallo as regards the crucial problems. of modern physics (as was done by De Quatrefages and several others in those of anthropology, biology, etc., etc.) that, in their efforts to support their individual hypotheses and systems, the majority of the eminent and learned materialists very often utter the greatest fallacies. Let us take the following case. Most of them reject actio in distans (one of the fundamental principles in the question of Æther or Akasa in Occultism), while, as Stallo justly observes, there is no physical action,