Arizona republican. [volume] (Phoenix, Ariz.) 1890-1930, 1893-12-28
PSYCHIC MYSTERIES.
A Peculiar Theory Advanced by
DR.. Elliott Coues.
The so-Called "science" of Te1ekinesis-
IBexpicable as Theosophy and Other
Fads-The Law OF Gravita-
ton Defied.

The enthusiastic Prof Elliott Coues,
distinguished and responsible man of
scieuce, asserted at the Psychical con-
gress that he had time and again seen
his own ponderous diningtable rise in
the air when no one was touching it.,
directly or indirectly. The fact he
AYERS to be beyond cavil. The possible
explanations are these: The table may
be moved by spirits; it may be moved
by the action of the human mind or
will without contact, or the observers
may be deceived. If the last of these
explanations were to be admitted Prof
Coues would have to deny all validity
to the testimony of his senses. Of the
two former alternatives, he inclines to
the view that the table was moved by
human force rather than by spirits.
The subject of the paper was the
:'alleged movement of objects without
mechanical contact" more briefly ex-
pressed by the Greek word ''teleki-
nesis," or action at a distance. We
have read good deal about ''levita-
ton in Mime. Blavatsky's writings
and in other outpourings of modern
theosophical ideas, but it remains for
Prof. Coues to assert that, inasmuch
as action and reaction are equal and
opposite, all gravitation is compensat-
ed by an equal degree of levitation.
This statement has a pseudo-scientifc
sound, for while it is true that gravity
is compensated by an equal reaction
when one body rests on another, there
is no such principle applicable to bodies
at distance from each other. When
ever an object is lifted the effect may
be called levitation, but there is no evil
dence of such repulsive effect except in
cases of substantial contact.
Prof. Coues went on to explain that
action at distance is of constant oc-
currence, as in ordinary cases of gravi-
tation and magnetism. He therefore
derided the scientific dogma that bod
les can act upon each other only by
contact. 1t is right here that an old
inveterate controversy among men of
science. comes to view. Is contact
necessary whenever one body effects
another, or is there such thing as
,elekinesis?
1t was asserted by Prof. Coues that
gravitation is manifestly an example of
action without mechanical contact.
Just here the physicists take issue
with him. Prof. Oliver J. Lodge has
recently expressed his views before
certain learned British societies to the
effect that the denial of action at
distance must be taken as the funda-
mental axiom of science. 1t is on this
very account that the hypothetical
ether is posted. Bodies cannot act
except through physical contact, l. e.,
except through some medium. The
celestial spheres do act upon one an
other, and as there is no ordinary ma
terial medium prevailing the inter
mediate space, there must be some
other medium, which is not material
in the ordinary sense. This they call
ether.
The explanation, says the Chicago
Journal, involves new difficulties. The
ether is of little use even as a hypothe-
sis if conceived to be made up of dis
crete particles-molecules, or atoms
like ordinary matter. 1t will not serve
it's purpose unless it is absolutely con-
tinous and homogeneous, without any
PARTICLES or intervening spaces. Yet
in it motions take place. Now it is
hard to conceive of motion in liquid
except as a change in the relative posi-
ton of its particles. How motion can
take place in an absolute continuous
plenum is a problem that the physicists
labor to unravel by various means, none
of which can be deemed altogether sat
isfactory. Such are the pitfalls of
those who deny action at distance,
but the trouble with Prof. Coues is,
that his table moves without any ap-
parent expenditure of physical energy.
1t is doubtful whether his telekinesis
is more satisfactory explanation
than spirits. However, he does not
profess to explain facts, but merely to
rehearse them.