Alma record. (Alma, Mich.) 1878-1928, 1894-04-27
QUACKERY ANSWERED.
DISCUSSION NO. III.
In Which Prof Slater Gets After the
Editor with 10 sharp stick.

Mr.. DIToR:-Thanks for copy of "RE-
| PUBLICAN LEALER." 18th inst. / have been
much interested in reading it. The large
number of excellent selections. and the APP
parent absence of ''patent insides," speaks
| we'll for the ability and taste of the manager.
OF course. l was especially interested in
| that part of the paper which, in my number
| At least, was enclosed in huge blue chalk
parenthesis, and appropriately headed in
large type, Scientific Quackery." The edi-
! tor must have had "a spasm at the time, or
soon after preparing that article. This cow
| ardly thrust in the back is evidently designed
to paralyze somebody. but principally to air
his own mastery criticism and calculus pub
| lished in "A late number of the Michigan
! School Moderator" A mutilated extract
| from one of my own communications to that
most excellent journal, is also set up as tar
get to fire at; but of course my reply to his
objections are not published. ought to for
| give this omission, however, since he allows
I me to sail in weak and wounded after receiv-
ing the stunning blow, and after sending the
gall to all the leading educators of the state,
including myself. Dirty as the attack has
been from beginning TO end, IT may have the
merit of awakening some interest i'll sub
| ject that evidently deserves attention.
The writer feels quite gratifed IN being
counted worthy of criticism with such men
as DIR. Hall and III. X. Pattengll. The for
mer, at least, has wrought a wonderful revo-
luton in a certain line of medical practice,
even among those who hate the name of
their tutor; and though he has said many
things that are absolutely foolish, many of
his pungent arguments against the wave the
cries remain unanswered, and are absolutely
unanswerable at the present time.
1t seems hard to be punched in the back by
| any one: but when a man with broad shout
ders like Mr.. Pattengill gets punched at the
same time, it seems a little more endurable
| The sweeping statement that | undervalue
the work of great mathematician, past or pre-
| sent. is utterly false. do not worship any
of them, however, nor do | consider all their
conclusions as necessarily final. They built
and are building upon older foundations
! tearing away rubbish from time to time, and
| putting in their own work wherever and
takes have evidently been made even by these
mortals, and possibly by the editor of the
LEADER" Pardon me for having an opin-
ion or two upon this subject: but some of the
masters were nearer right than their follow
ers and expositors. Newton propounded the
law of force, that action and reaction are
| equal. If this is law, it is universal. Then
why do men talk about unbalanced forces
when no such thing can exist. / stand by
this law as first declared by Newton. Who
is it dishonors Newton more than those who
trail his honored law in the dust? But per-
haps he did not sufficiently explain it. In
many cases, it is impossible to find an OPP
posing force without counting Inertia as Its
origin, as in the case of falling bodies. Now
right here Is the rub Motion has been re-
ceiving glory that belongs to inertia.
For centuries, inertia has been defined as
inability. Indeed this meaning Is classical,
for we get ii from Derivation No doubt, MIR.
Chase will deem it saerilege to call the an
cient idea in question, it is so old and well
establishes but we have either to sacrifice
Newton's grand law that action and reaction
the primitive philosophy of inertia, and the
doctrine that matter is hopelessly inert in the
sense of having no power or energy. gross
hypothesis of the ancents, disproved by New
tons discovery of gravitative energy In mat
ter. and more abundantly by atomic chemi-
cal affinities and reactions. 1t naturally fol-
lows that inertia itself as the term is used n
he
lative energy of the universe, not only sus-
tanning the spheres in their orbits, but mod
ulating every form of motion, from the bal
ance- wheel in machinery, TO the tides and
turbulent pillows of the deep sea.
II is amusing to watch the throws of think
ing men in framing definitions for inertia.
have traced them in hundred textbooks.
Some authors get one leg over the fence,
partly acknowledging that inertia is some
thing, and then drawing back timidly i'll
view of the original meaning of the term,
making "straddle," a. it might be called
in Wall Street, or more plainly, a double de-
finition, in one breath calling it a tendency
to resist force or to maintain a state of mo-
ton, and in the next, making it negative
term OF dD-olule pasSlNlty. avery Hrst rs
serts it incapable" and then tendency"
Many use the -contradicting expression
negative property" Just think of prop
erty by which body cannot move itself; yet
this is favorite form of expression. 1t is
like the boys definition of salt-"the stuff
that makes potatoes taste SO bad when you
do not put it on" Professor Rankine, our
favorite mathematical authority at the Mas
sachusetts Institute of Technology, in his
great work OH Applied Mechanics, aims to
avoid breakers 10y saying-"Inertia Is a guam
tity proportional to the unbalanced force
etc" He avoids saying what kind of guam
tity. think the present writer has the hon
or, or sin, of first getting over the fence on
this subject, and he is perhaps the only one
who has planted himself firmly on the other
side, declaring unequivically in a pamphlet
more than twenty years ago. that inertia is
an energy bona fide, or property of matter
capable OF exerting force. Thus, in falling