"Extra" which will be sent free to any who may desire it.) Since its publication over three hundred thousand people have purchased and are using this system successfully in their families, and the doctor has received over fifteen thousand testimonials of benefits received, all of them voluntary. Many of these testimonials recite marvellous cures. They are, of course, too numerous to mention here. The following indorsement from James Rob-in every direction, the vibrations being repeated by the ertsou, M. D., the distinguished physician and surgeon of Birmingham, England, is of importance and will show how the system is viewed in that country. (This testimonial also appears in our "Extra" among scores of like import.) Our own experience in the use of the system covers eighteen months. We used it a year to be certain of its beneficial effects before recommending it to our friends. Hall at first adopted the old term "corpuscular" for his theory, but afterward rejected it because it implies an emission of particles, which is no part of his philosophy. He regards all the forms of force as manifestations of one pervading force-substance, drawn from one reservoir. The luminiferous ether, with its vibrations, is rejected. Sound was his first stumbling-block, but is now seemingly so much in his favor that he has made converts of acousticians, such as C. W. Pearce, Mus. Doc., Cant., and George Ashdown Audsley, both of England. At first thought, nothing would seem to be clearer than that sound, when propagated by the air, is a succession of waves in the form of rarefactions and condensations drum-membrane of the ear. At first, Dr. Hall granted incidental air-waves; but he now considers them of no account, if existing even for a single foot from the most powerful sounding body; he attributes all to an immaterial sound-force (needing, however, a material conducting medium in order to travel, as shown by a bell in an exhausted receiver), making a string, a diaphragm, or a flame to move at a distance from the sounding instrument, when the "vibrational number or tensional capacity" of the object and the instrument sufficiently agree. Mechanical vibration or tremor in that which occasions sound is simply the means by which the sound-force is liberated Since then we While the quantity or loudness of sound-force thus liberated depends generally upon the amplitude of vibration of the sounding instrument, it depends much more upon the sonorous nature or quality of the sounding body itself. It never in any degree, however, depends upon the amount of atmospheric disturbance which the sounding instrument incidentally generates, nor upon the air-waves which it sends off in the form of supposed condensations and rarefactions. This is the great and fundamental error in present acoustical science. The vibrating fork, for example, can produce no possible effect upon the free air, in the shape of condensed pulses, even an inch from the vibrating prong. Its own swiftest motion is but a few inches a second. The vast disparity between the generally credited cause and the observed result is not explained on the old theory. A tuning fork, whose sound is scarcely audible unless in close proximity to the ear, if heavily struck against a pad, and held at the open mouth of a tube whose air-chamber is of the same vibrational number, will by synchronism of its soundpulses sympathetically throw the air-column into vibration which, in turn, at once liberates more than one hundred thousand times as much sound-force as was produced by the fork alone, as can mathematically be demonstrated, estimating the cubical space which the two sounds will fill (the Microcosm, 1889, Dec.). This year (1890), Dr. Hall has used as a weapon the law of inverse squares of distance. The phenomena of sound (excluding the mental side of the subject, which has no more to do with one physical theory than another) are a crucial test, as well as good illustration, of the theory, for which in all its aspects, scientific and religious, see the Microcosm (monthly), and Dr. Hall's Problem of Human Life, Text-book on Sound; also the Scientific, Arena, 2 vols., suspended. The bearing of the theory on immortality is obvious. If all forces are immaterial substance, spirit and life can not be mere motions of have induced several of our friends to use it and all unite with us in giving it an unqualified endorsement. We would not give up the right to use it for money. It is because it has proved of such inestimable benefit to us that we want all our readers, especially those who are ailing, to have it. Compared with the money expended by each family in doctor bills which the use of this discovery would save, its cost, $4.00, is but a trifle. OUR OFFER TO THE POOR. Still a large demand for our Health-Pamphlets, from persons too poor to pay for them, continues to come to this office. We have so far turned no one away from our door who sends a certificate from a post master that the applicant is too poor to purchase $4 worth of medicine if prescribed by a physician. This offer has cost us tens of thousands of our Health-Pamphlets; but we feel satisfied, as we know that thereby we are alleviating the sufferings of humanity. THE NEW MANIFOLD CYCLOPEDIA. Mr. John B. Alden, Publisher, 393 Pearl Street, this city, as the public are aware, is now nearing the close of his great "Manifold Cyclopedia" of forty volumes,-possibly the most complete and elaborate encyclopedia in the world. A friend calls our attention to the regular alphabetical article Substantialism,—written as we are informed at the suggestion of the late Rev. Dr. Howard Crosby by a professor of physics in some Iowa college whom we do not know. Whoever he may be the article states the principles of the Substantial Philosophy as correctly as we could ourself have stated them and in much better form. It is certainly gratifying to the friends of this philosophy that so soon-while the founder is still living and within a dozen or so years from its birth-a succinct recognition of this revolutionary scientific and philosophical doctrine should be placed permanently on record in one of the first encyclopedias in the English language. We here copy the article complete as follows: SUBSTANTIALISM, sub-stan' shal-izm in modern metaphysics, the antithesis of speculative idealism: in recent physico-philosophy, the doctrine (originated and developed by A. Wilford Hall, Ph.D., LL.D., of New York) that every force of nature-physical, vital, mental, and spiritual-is a real, substantial, though immaterial entity. The discussion has been mostly physical, as it starts with and rests on the phenomena of light, heat, and sound, particularly. Here, the doctrine antagonizes the vibratory or undulatory theory, which gives only matter with a propagated mechanical action. Dr. matter to cease at death. What a Prominent Minister of Texas Thinks. Dear Dr. Hall,-I write to suggest that you visit London and deliver a course of lectures on the Substantial Philosophy, and especially its demonstration of the immortality of the soul and the impossibility of maintaining the latter doctrine on the ground of the mode-ofmotion theories. This course would likewise furnish you an opportunity of introducing your Health-Pamphlet to the millions of England and Europe and thus confer an untold boon upon suffering humanity. For immediate benefit and permanent good, I regard it as one of the greatest discoveries ever made. You are entitled to all the credit of its discovery and general adoption, and I am glad to see you vindicating your claim. Suffer no man to despoil you of this honor. I rejoice at your success. God bless you till we meet in our Father's house on high, Your friend, JAMES H. SCATES. CONTRIBUTIONS LEFT OVER. Contributors must not feel neglected if their articles do not appear promptly. We will do our best to print all acceptable contributions as soon as our space will permit. A CANDID ATHEIST. estly commend to all such candid skeptics a careful study of the Substantial Philosophy, as affording the only real analogical proofs of a possible future for humanity to be found in the book of nature. The fundamental principles of that philosophy, which teach and demonstrate that all the forces or phenomena-producing causes which appeal to human observation, must in the very nature of cause and effect be Substantial entities, will throw more light on the possible conscious existence of man after death than all the creeds and theological sermons in Christendom put together. ent sections of the country. A book purporting to be a revelation from God, which can Editor MICROCOSM,-I have received an occa- fairly admit of so many conflicting and disional copy of your journal during the past rectly opposite interpretations, can have no year. To assure you that I am pleased with it other tendency than to foster atheistical would be supererogatory. It has no duplicate doubts. Is such conflict fairly attributable to in the universe of letters-it is shadowless. the Bible, or does it come from the superNecessarily, it draws its admirers and sup- cilious attempts of ecclesiastical conventions. porters from the "saving remnant." This to formulate religious creeds, and then impose fact, and its cause-the highest possible order them upon the people as an absolute substitute of literary ability-saves your publication from for the Bible itself? We leave it to the creedthe suspicion of trade-journalism that might bound denominations to answer. result from your enthusiastic championship of No wonder that thoughtful men like Dr. Hall's Health-Pamphlet. I know that your Cooper are reaching out anxiously for some remedy is worthy of all praise, for I have seen super-scriptural proofs-some new and conit tested. I should have known it anyhow, for firmatory developments from the books of your profundity as a philosopher is incompat-nature, science, and philosophy-that will ible with trade trickery. throw light upon the present dark future Whether true or not, your therapeutical which seems to envelop humanity. We earnphilosophy is very fascinating to me. Its highest conclusions include a supraphysical cure, to which your remedy for bodily ills, with all its excellencies, is incomparable. For thirty years I have been a sincere and consistent atheist-consistent, because I have not been happy in my belief. I can not believe that an honest atheist can derive happiness from his convictions, unless happiness depends wholly upon something outside the emotive sphere. It would be brave, and self-abnegating beyond finite apprehension, if a philosopher could face certain annihilation with thrills of joy, but this would involve a natural self-contradiction; and this is not possible, as one such self- In that philosophy was the first attempt contradiction would wreck the universe. made to overturn the motion-theories of sciThe most devout Christian can not Christian-ence, and thereby prove that every form of natize away his dread of death, even when certain ural force, even including sound, must be an that he will live forever in glory. If a philoso- objective though immaterial entity, thereby to pher can not philosophize away his dread of demonstrate that the higher forms of natural death-and he can't-how shall he serenely force which actuate and control our bodies welcome annihilation? Notwithstanding his must also be Substantial and consequently infear of simple dissolution, the Christian can be destructible, as a reasonable and logical basis happy from a contemplation of his assured for personal immortality. future bliss. With the philosopher-Spencer- If, as all our colleges teach, the forces of ean philosopher-death and eternal oblivion sound, heat, light, etc., are but the mere are synonymous and, being merely human, and motions of material molecules, and which unable to climb out of himself, he can not an- forces necessarily cease to exist as soon as such ticipate this hopeless_plunge with one little matter comes to rest, then manifestly Haeckel flicker of happiness. Unhappiness as a conse- and other materialistic scientists are not only quence of true philosophy, it seems to me, can excusable, but entirely justifiable in applying not compatibly be, for it is not in consonance the same law to the human organism and inwith the beneficent trend of things-that eter-sisting that life-force, mind-force, spirit-force, nal trend upon which the integrity of harmo- etc., are likewise but the motions of our nious succession depends. This appears to me material brain and nerve molecules, and as to be an argument in favor of the Substantial motion must cease to exist at death. Philosophy. If it is, it will be helpful to the skeptic, for only extra-scriptural arguments go with him. I am publishing a small medical journal, The Medical Gleaner, and would be glad to exchange with you. I will put your name on my list and risk your approval. With profound respect, Cleves, O. W. C. COOPER. REMARKS BY THE EDITOR. We believe if Dr. Cooper will carefully study the principles of Substantialism, much of his doubts as to the existence of God and the possibilities of a future conscious existence for man will be dissipated. PAGE. 84 CONTENTS OF MAY NUMBER. Explanation of Musical "Beats."-A Number of Important Scientific Predictions. (Editor). Substance. (J. I. Swander, Ph. D.).. The Wave Theory of Acoustics. (George Ashdown Audsley, F. R. I. B. A.)........ 85 Reply to Mr. Thomas Chater. (Editor).. Prof. Wood's Reply.-A Mirror Held Up to A. I. Root, Dr. Kellogg, and E. D. Scott. (Associate Editor).. 88 89 The Annular Theory, No. 15. (I. N. Vail).. 91 We can readily understand how a critical thinker must become involved in doubts on all questions of religion, with no ground for his faith save the conflicting theological creeds about the teachings of which a dozen or more trials for heresy are now in progress in differ- A Candid Atheist. Remarks by the Editor.. 96 Don't fail to send for our "Extra" MICROCOSM. Copies sent FREE. Press of H. B. ELKINS, 13 and 15 Vandewater Street, New York. 95 A MONTHLY JOURNAL OF SUBSTANTIALISM AND COLLATERAL DISCUSSIONS. A. WILFORD HALL, Ph. D., LL. D., Editor and Proprietor. (Author of the "Problem of Human Life," "Universalism Against Itself," Editor of the Scientific Arena, &c., &e.) ROBERT ROGERS, S. L. A., Associate Editor. Address all communications to A. WILFORD HALL, 23 Park Row, New York. Vol. VIII.-No. 7. JUNE, 1891. 50 Cents a Year. Entered as second class matter at the New York Post Office. Then it starts on reaching and impinging against the next particle and so on to the end PROF. A. B. WOOD'S LETTER; WITH RE- of the wave's course. If that be the fact, you MARKS BY THE EDITOR. DR. A. WILFORD HALL : Dear Sir,-Let some points in my letter published in the March MICROCOSM rest for the present, and let us first thoroughly discuss the vital question in this controversy. That question is this: Is the velocity of the tuning-fork prong equal to the velocity of the wave raised by it or is it much slower? The object sought now is not victory over an opponent, but the clear exhibition of the naked truth. Every thing therefore in your position that is true I admit willingly. In my letter in the March number of the MICROCOSM I admitted that the motion of the fork-prong in space is a slow motion, as slow, let us say, as you represent it. I wish now to make a second admission, viz., that the air-particles in the wave raised by the prong do not move faster than the prong itself. The motion of the air-particle is probably quite a good deal slower than that of the prong at its swiftest speed. The prong's motion raises both a wave and a wind. The wavemotion is a minute "excursion to and fro.' In the excursion the particle comes back to the point from which it started and there rests. The excursion is one not long enough to be visible or sensible even if air could be clearly seen. This minute insensible excursion, slow in actual rate of motion, produces the wave. The other motion of the air produced by the prong is wind-air moving off farther and more rapidly than the particle in the wave-motion, and not returning again to its place. This wind is raised because the prong moves faster than the particles in the wave, and so some of them are torn from the wave and shoved on. The particles in the wave then do not move as fast as the prong moves at its swiftest speed. Again, a third admission I will make, viz., that the wave itself can not be swifter than the prong, provided, and this is the vital point, provided the second particle ahead in the wave does not start on till the first one reaches and impinges against it. This, it seems to me now, must be your idea of the process of wave-motion. A particle is started on by the moving prong at its rate of motion. Now you suppose, do you not, that the second particle ahead does not start on till the first one reaches and impinges against it? are right in holding that the wave can not have greater velocity than the prong, and waves would vary in velocity as the prong varied in velocity, just as you hold. Is it not your view then that the second particle in a wave does not start on till the first particle impinges against it? But is that the scientific motion of a wave? Certainly not. Were this so, it would be easy to show there could be no wave at all. A particle, starting on as supposed, would travel quite a distance before finding a particle in its exact line. Air-particles are comparatively far apart. A cubic yard of air might be compressed into the space of a solid inch. Then a particle of air moving into this cubic yard would impinge against one in about 15,000 particles. No wave could originate in this wayand scientists never thought so. What then is the idea held? Not that the second particle waits before starting on till the first one impinges against it, but that the second particle starts on long before it is reached by the first one. This is the decisive fact in this discussion, If the second particle does not wait for the first one to strike it, but starts on before the first one reaches it, then you see, the wave will be more rapid than the particle, and the less the second allows the first to approach it, the more rapid the wave will be. Each particle is surrounded with a sphere, of repulsive force of more than a thousand times its diameter, which, under the pressure of fifteen pounds to the square inch, still holds all particles off at a great comparative distance. When a sound pulse passes through the mass of air these mutually resisting spheres of repulsive influence press into each other but slightly. If the oncoming pulse could press one sphere half-way to the center of the other, this pulse would be comparatively long in getting through, and yet it would go through very much faster than if particle impinged against particle. If the second particle in the wave starts on when the first one is just pressed in a little the wave would pass very rapidly. And if the second particle does not allow the first one to enter its sphere at all then the wave would pass instantaneously. The velocity of the wave then depends upon the amount of approach between the particles, and not at all upon the rate of the prong. This rate may be very slow, as slow as your own figures represent it, and yet the wave be very rapid. The rapidity depends upon the smaller or greater approach of particles. With no approach the wave is instantaneous. With much approach the wave is slow. approach to the particle and collision, the wave is of the same velocity as the fork-prong. If a long row of rubber balls in contact with each other is struck at one end, the pulse goes through to the other end with a velocity depending not upon the blow, but upon the tension of the balls. If one ball penetrates a quarter of the radius into the sphere of the next one, the pulse will not go through the row as quickly as if one could not penetrate the other more than one-thousandth of its radius. Now with such admissions as these, which no unbiased investigator could avoid making, we see not the least trouble in disposing of every With thing in the foregoing letter that seems in any way to favor the current theory of sound. In his first paragraph Prof. Wood states the "vital question" to be this: "Is the velocity of the tuning-fork prong equal to the velocity of the wave raised by it, or is it much slower?" But, we take the liberty of correcting Prof. Wood by denying in toto that this is the vital question in our controversy, or, in fact, any question at all connected with it. So far from there being the slightest discussion between us on the question as to which moves the swiftest, the prong or the air wave it sends off, the whole controversy is upon the assumed possibility of any wave or pulse being started by a prong, moving as slowly as he admits through You see then the velocity of the pulse does not depend upon the velocity of the blow. If one ball could not press into the other at all the pulse would go through instantaneously. Can we not all see that this same process takes place in case of a sound pulse? The sun is not more apparent, it seems to me, than this fact. How much greater is the velocity of the wave than of the particle in it? If the oncoming particle penetrates into the sphere of the particle ahead one hundredth of its diameter before this second one moves on, then, it is plain, the sound wave would move one hundred times as fast as the particle moves. If it penetrates only the one-millionth of its diameter, which is nearer the truth, then the wave would have a velocity of a million times the velocity of the particle, or a million times the velocity of the fork-prong, supposing it to be no greater than that of the particle sent by it. Have I not shown now to a demonstration that the wave must be more rapid than the prong? And how much more rapid the wave is than the prong depends upon the density and elasticity of the air. The velocity of the fork-prong then is of no account in our discussion. It is a curious question merely for boys studying arithmetic. At a great distance above the earth the air particles being under less pressure, are further apart. In producing a wave one particle must move further into the sphere of another particle to start it on, hence the resulting wave will be slower. Now is it not clear that the question asked in the beginning of this letter: Is the velocity of the tuning-fork prong equal to the velocity of the wave raised by it? must be answered in the negative? Respectfully, A. B. WOOD. REPLY BY THE EDITOR. We are still more than ever pleased with the candid frankness of Prof. Wood in his admissions not only that there is no "swiftly advancing" about the prong of a vibrating tuningfork, as he conceded in his March letter, but that the prong travels in space even as slow as we claim for it, that is even slower than the hourhand of a clock after said fork has been sounding nearly four minutes. These are most valuable admissions and saves us a deal of argument in proving the proposition. the unconfined air. Prof. Wood absolutely knew, if he carefully read our March reply to his letter, that we deny that it is possible for the swiftest moving prong that ever vibrated (less than four feet per second at its swiftest) to produce a condensation of the free air or send off any sort of a pulse, and consequently he must have known that we positively deny that such a prong could start an air-wave. Hence it is thrusting a new issue into our controversy and making it the "vital question," as to which travels the fastest, the prong or the wave it sets up! Would it not be much better and more to the point for Prof. Wood to meet the issue in our reply to his March letter, and first show that a tuning-fork's prong can or does start a wave at all, before he talks about the velocity of such wave as compared to that of the prong, being the "vital question." And we here add further, to relieve his mind fully on the force of his argument, that we do not dispute his facts in regard to the velocity of a pulse as compared to that of the blow which produces it in any medium where a pulse can be transmitted, such as confined air, rubber, glass, ivory, etc. In fact we concede right here and now that the pulse in such case may move vastly swifter than the moving cause or blow, so that the entire part of his argument involving this question is admitted. But that, we repeat, is not the "vital question" at all. Let him prove that a pulse can be sent through the free air by a tuning-fork's prong, even at its swiftest motion, and we will accept the wavetheory without further objection. In every work on physics we have examined there is a lamentable want of discrimination displayed in this discussion of pulses and their speed through various substances. The true theory of pulses and the cause of their speed seems to be entirely overlooked by these writers. Let us briefly state for the benefit of rising investigators, what constitutes a pulse in any material body, and thus try to get at the true cause of the difference of speed in pulses through different materials. Our position is that the particles of material bodies which cohere must in the nature of matter touch one another, or there could be no coherence. Hence a blow struck against a particle of an elastic and compressible body, which is not in a fluid or mobile condition, such as air, must by its absolute contact with adjoining particles transmit a pulse through such body. To suppose the particles of a cohering body to be not in contact, and yet to be capable of conveying a pulse through that body, is to our mind a great absurdity, as will be abundantly shown further on in this reply. If the particles of a body must be in contact in order to convey a pulse, then what is it that causes the different speeds of pulses in different material bodies? This is the "vital question," and one which every physicist who has written on the subject seems to have overlooked. We answer, that the cause of a pulse is the compressibility and elasticity of the PARTICLES of a body in contact, and that the cause of the difference in the speed of pulses in different bodies is the difference of degree that exists in these same properties of compressibility and elasticity in the particles of matter. Hence, a pulse through glass or ivory will travel vastly swifter than a pulse through rubber, cork or confined air, simply because the particles of glass and ivory are vastly less compressible than those of air, rubber and cork. Is not this plain? If a solid body in the form of a bar could be found which is absolutely incompressible, then plainly no elasticity could exist in such body, and consequently no pulse whatever could be conveyed through it by a blow against one end. The whole bar might be moved bodily by such blow, but this is not a pulse. A pulse proper could not be conveyed without the aid of the property of elasticity in its particles, and that property can not exist where a body is incompressible. If you ask how a particle or molecule of a body can be compressed, unless its atoms are separated from each other and are thus brought closer together by compression, we answer that these atoms, if any exist, are likewise as compressible as the whole body, and if you please, you can carry the same principle on down to infinity. This, though failing to explain the infinite, is the only possible solution of the compressibility of air or any other substance whatever. Yet what writer on physics, living or dead, has ever hinted at this simple and only overlooks the ussion, We repeat that Prof. only vital question in our entire namely: can a pulse of any kind, swift or S be sent through a perfectly fluid or mobile body like free air or water, by a movement in it as slow as that of the vibrating prong of a tuning-fork? We kindly suggest that a little proof would be in order before assuming and taking for granted such a prodigious impossibility as that a tuning-fork prong, moving no faster than the hour-hand of a clock, can compress the free air or free water in defiance of its absolute mobility. In our March reply to Prof. Wood we quoted from Prof. Stokes, now the President of the Royal Society of Great Britain and one of the highest living authorities on acoustics, to prove that a body moving through the air with the velocity of one's hand,-millions of times swifter than the prong while still sounding audibly,-will not produce a compression or condensation any more than if the air were an "incompressible fluid." Why did not Prof. Wood make a note of this fact and offer some reply to it? If such a movement of the hand can not produce a compression of the air, as this high authority admits, but merely allows it on account of its almost infinite mobility to flow around, and thereby equalize the disturbance the same as does the movement of the tail of a fish near the bottom of a lake, it is plain that no wave of "condensation and rarefaction" can be started by such a slow motion. Of what use then is it to discuss the suppositi-tious question as to which moves the fastest,. the hand or the pulse it may start, when by common consent it starts no pulse whatever?' Now, if the movement of the hand or that of a pendulum, a distance of a foot in a second, is too slow to condense the air, what about that of the hour-hand of a clock that requires ten minutes to move the eighth of an inch, and which Prof. Wood now concedes to be a vastly swifter motion than that of the prong while still sounding audibly? Is it not plain then that Prof. Wood has totally missed the only "vital question" in the premises, and that the whole of his argument, discussing the formation and velocity of the wave that has no existence in fact, and which can not possibly be started, is an absolute waste of ink, time and paper? But we are not disposed to ignore the professor's reasoning on the hypothetic air-particle being driven by the prong into a "sphere of repulsive force more than a thousand times its diameter" before the next particle is reached, and about the next particle starting off on its wave-velocity long before the air-molecule projected by the prong can reach it, etc. |