Talk:Imponderable fluid: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
→Removed information?: {{reflist}} |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
And, there needs to be a correction back from the 'eather' >> 'aether'. --[[User:Reddi|J. D. Redding]] 02:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC) |
And, there needs to be a correction back from the 'eather' >> 'aether'. --[[User:Reddi|J. D. Redding]] 02:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC) |
||
{{reflist}} |
|||
Revision as of 02:24, 30 June 2014
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Removed information?
This edit by Mr. Jaydiem seems to have removed some important info.
- Gottfried Leibniz mentions with great disapproval a certain Nicolaas Hartsoeker who supposed that atoms moved in an ambient fluid, though the idea is not unlike his own. It is difficult to trace the origin of the hypothesis, but Galileo Galilei and Thomas Hobbes both speak of a subtle aether. The conception of an all-pervading imponderable fluid of this kind has formed part of many theories, and aether came to be very generally adopted as a favourite name for the fluid, but caloric was also much thought of as a medium. We even find half-a-dozen imponderable co-existent fluids regarded with favour,— one called heat, another electricity, another phlogiston, another light, and what not, with little hard atoms swimming about, each endowed with forces of repulsion and attraction of all sorts, as was thought desirable. This idea of the constitution of matter was perhaps the worst of all. These imponderable fluids were mere names, and these forces were suppositions, representing no observed facts.
It seems that this was clearly a "lousy" POV edit. The next part, important though as it is, was removed.
- No attempt was made to show how or why the forces acted, but gravitation being taken as due to a mere "force", speculators thought themselves at liberty to imagine any number of forces, attractive or repulsive, or alternating, varying as the distance,[1] or the square, cube, or higher power of the distance, etc. At last, Ruđer Bošković[2] got rid of atoms altogether, by supposing them to be the mere centre of forces exerted by a position or point only, where nothing existed but the power of exerting a force.[3]
And, there needs to be a correction back from the 'eather' >> 'aether'. --J. D. Redding 02:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- ^ Time of describing a given space from rest under the action of a force varying as the distance from a fixed point. Principia By Sir Isaac Newton. Pg., 86
- ^ As defined by Boscovich and the French School, an atom was no longer a substantial entity, but a mathematical point, a center of force, and "matter" is a crowd of such points, endowed with inertia and powers of attraction and repulsion.(The Monist: Volume 20. By Edward C. Hegeler, Paul Carus, Hegeler Institute, 1910. Page 220.)
- ^ The North British review. (1868). Edinburgh: W.P. Kennedy Pg 126.