When two ponderable bodies exist in space, and currents of ether pass through them, the two bodies will be impelled towards each other, because the currents of ether that are between them and tend to keep them apart are weakened by having passed through the bodies, and are, therefore, weaker than the currents which impel them towards each other. This explains what has been called the “attractive force of gravity.”
It will be observed that since currents of ether pass through the bodies in all directions, the weakened currents between the bodies will be included within a sort of conical space. The law of attraction according to the inverse square of the distance is thus accounted for.
Since the weight of a body is the same, no matter how it is turned about, it follows that the ultimate atoms of all ponderable matter must be spherical. It follows also from the hypothesis that all the spherical atoms of ponderable matter are equal, and that there is, chemically speaking, but one simple substance—the apparent variety depending upon the mode of aggregation of the atoms into molecules.
Crystals are formed by arranging these spheres in the same way as you may arrange marbles or pile up cannon balls.
There is nothing in the hypothesis to interfere with the undulating theory of light, or with any theory that reposes strictly upon observed facts; but this we may discuss on a future occasion.
I need hardly say that it is in consequence of their great velocity that the atoms of ether acquire sufficient momentum to communicate sensible motion to ponderable matter.
Ponderable matter may possibly be composed of the aggregation of ethereal atoms; but M. Leray thinks not. He can see no good reason why it should be so.
Cohesion and chemical affinity may be explained on this hypothesis. Its leading feature is that it explains how such natural phenomena as do not involve vital or mental action may be explained on the simplest mechanical principles, and without involving that “bugaboo,” _action at a distance_. Of course, Dr. Frankland’s ideas of “bonds,” “active and latent atomicities,” &c., are inadmissible on this hypothesis.
The demonstrations are rigorously given, and the work involves a good deal of high mathematics. It is utterly impossible to do justice to the theory in the above brief sketch of it. The theorems of Euclid, if thus stated, would many of them appear improbable and absurd. The work itself can be procured from M. Gauthier Villars, 55, Quai des Grands Augustins, Paris, price three francs. It is copiously illustrated with woodcuts. A new edition has just appeared.