GREAT DEMAND FOR THE HEALTH PAMPHLET STILL CONTINUES. We give herewith another drop from the thousands of volunteer testimonials received at this office. Those desiring to see scores of similar indorsements should send at once for our "March Extra," and receive a copy free. It is full of interesting matters bearing on this subject. Dr. James Robertson, of Birmingham, England, repeats his former endorsement as follows, Feb. 14th: "Dear Dr. Hall,-It will be but justice to you and may save me answering many private letters of inquiry, if I now give you my rather extensive twelve months' experience of your new treatment. As I at first recog nised, the general idea is a brilliant one, physiologically sound, and I now add-all criticism notwithstandingso far as I can see it is thoroughly original. In practice. when intelligently carried out, it meets directly the im mediate wants of a large majority of the ailing and suffer ing public; it sharpens the appetite, stimulates the liver, lightens the labor of the kidneys, moves the bowels, or rather moves them to move; by so doing it strengthens the back, clears the brain, gives spring to body and mind, chases away bilious melancholy with its legion of neuralgias, spasms and pains, and comes altogether as 'a boon and a blessing to men'-which, unfortunately for themselves, most of them are not able to appreciate. Personally I have benefited much by it, and when I find a patient with sense to use it thoroughly, I can dispense with medicine and attend to hygiene, the true province of the doctor. I can not withhold my testimony in favor of what I know to be simple, natural and good, a powerful defense to the healthy, and the best remedial process I know of, even in cases of serious organic disease. You may challenge the world, medical or general, to name a process of such widely applicable remedial power. Faithfully yours, James Robertson." The Washington Life Insurance Co., of New York, 21 Cortlandt Street, New York, March 9, 1891: "Dear Dr. Hall,-All my life I have been troubled with catarrh, which finally developed into chronic bronchitis. This caused me a vast amount of pain and annoyance and was complicated with dyspepsia, constipation, severe pains in the bowels and sleeplessness. Frequently I passed the night hawking and bringing up a thick, hard, stringy and tenacious substance which caused constant pain in the region of my heart and chest. This invariably occurred after a cold and medicines gave lit, tle or no relief. All of my connections on the maternal side died of consumption or bronchial affections, and I was convinced that my complaint would eventually develop into consumption. Indeed, I was on the point of submitting myself to the Koch treatment when, by accident, I heard of the Health Process, without medicine, through a friend, a physician. I was very skeptical but finally, after much hesitation and with great reluctance, I began the very simple treatment. To my astonish ment and gratification I experienced instant relief, and I now know that I am on the direct road to recovered health. The distressing symptoms have disappeared and I am rapidly gaining in strength and weight. I now feel sure of a good night's rest and can go anywhere and be free from insomnia; and this without the use of drugs or medicines. I am now forty-seven years of age and I confidently expect, barring accidents, to reach old age. I write this as an expression of gratitude to you and from a desire to assist in your efforts to rescue others who, as in my case, see no end to their sufferings but death in the near future. "Yours to command, J. Henry Small, indeed, have never felt better and I weigh 170 pounds. I recognize the fact that you have made a great and it, and, in view of the fact that the idea is not patentaoriginal discovery. I want the community to know of ble and that your charge is almost nominal, I think that you are justly entitled to every dollar you can make out. Yours very truly, Jos. I. Barnum, Sec'y." Office of Ross & Keany, Wholesale Liquor Dealers, 64 and 66 Water Street, New York, of it. March 14, 1891: "Dear Dr. Hall,-For over a year I was the most. miserable of men. In addition to malaria I was troubled with nervous dyspepsia. Everything disagreed with me. I passed many sleepless nights and became cranky I consulted several of our best physicians and spent. and ugly. I believed that I had but a short time to live. large sums in medicines and in sojourning at mineral springs, but finally returned home utterly discouraged. Our mutual friend, A. J. Wolf, induced me to spend $4 for your Health-Pamphlet, which is the best investment I ever made. Since I began the treatment I have not had a chill or a fever. I eat anything, sleep well, and weigh some twelve pounds more than I'did five months ago. I know yon have many friends who, like myself, have been rescued from an early grave, and who, I am sure, will unite with me in testifying that you have discovered the true secret of health and longevity. Indeed, I regard your treatment as particularly valuable for the maintenance of health, and it should be used in every family in the land. "Yours very respectfully, Wm. F. Hull." W. D. Pollard, of Saratoga, Cal., writes: "Dear Dr. Hall,-I was among the first to purchase your Health-Pamphlet two years ago. Prior to that time I had been an invalid for four years, and had been given up to die many times. My sainted wife carried me from one climate to another for the purpose of find ing relief, but none appeared; and I had arrived at that stage where I was anxious to die. In this condition I purchased your pamphlet, and have used it regularly since with the surprising result that I have just been. examined for life insurance in the Mutual Life of N. Y., and have passed as a 'gilt-edged' risk; not one objec-tion was filed against me. This is to me marvellous. "Sincerely yours, W. D. Pollard." The Rochester Lamp Company, 37 Barclay Street, New York, March 6, 1891: "Dear Dr. Hall,-Ever since heard of your hygienic weight while training for the many glove contests in treatment I have relied upon it entirely for reducing which I have been victorious. Formerly I pursued the old-fashioned method of sweating and purgative med. icines, but I found that they always left a feeling of weakness behind them. Since I have used the Health Process I find that when I face an opponent I retain all of my natural vigor and am in the best possible condition of wind and endurance. Moreover, after the ter mination of a severe bout I rarely have any feeling of exhaustion, and my recuperative powers have undoubtedly improved. When I resumed my ordinary diet after my latest contest in February, 1891, I gained seven pounds' weight in two days. I confidently recommend those who engage in athletic exercises for health, your treatment to all well persons, and especially to sport or money, as absolutely the safest and best method in the world to prepare for the most arduous. performances or contests. "Yours very truly, John J. Skelly, "Ex-Champion Amateur Featherweight of America." In writing to any of the foregoing don't forget to inclose a stamped and addressed envelope, in order to insure an answer. PAGE. 65 67 CONTENTS OF APRIL NUMBER. Salvation in Hell. No. 2. (J. I. Swander, D.D.) 70 71 72 E. D. Scott of Minn. (Editor). "Dear Dr. Hall,-I desire to bear testimony to the curative powers of your hygienic treatment and to aid you in spreading the tidings of your discovery to the uttermost ends of the earth. I am fifty-two years of age and always enjoyed good health until six years ago when I had serious trouble with my bowels. Diarrhoea set in and I suffered the greatest torment, having four to seven movements daily with watery and bilious dis charges. No kind of food agreed with me and I really did not know what to eat. I consulted many physicians and tried about every known remedy without avail. My weight declined from 190 to 150 pounds. I could not sleep and was in such a state of discomfort and weariness that I began to give way to despair. In September, 1890, I had almost concluded to abandon my business and go to Bermuda in the hope that rest and a genial climate might recuperate me, when Mr. John W. Har man, president of this company, advised me to try your treatment. After the first application I had a good night's rest and within a week I felt like a new man. two weeks my diarrhoea had entirely ceased and my bowels were comfortable. I am now perfectly well and, Don't fail to send for our "Extra" MICROCOSM. Copies sent FREE. In The Live Frog Problem Once More. (Rev. Thomas Chater's Criticisms. (Editor). 77 78 79 79 79 80 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., &c.) ROBERT ROGERS, S. L. A., Associate Editor. Address all communications to A. WILFORD HALL, 23 Park Row, New York. 50 Cents a Year. The current theory of sound teaches that this partial silence which occurs in "beats" results from the momentary interference of the air-waves sent off from the two forks, and that at the instant of the phase of opposition between them the atmospheric "condensations' from one fork fall into the "rarefactions" from the other fork, and thus the two systems of air-waves like unto similar systems of water-waves must neutralize each other, thereby producing quiescence of the air which, of course, according to the wave-theory, constitutes silence. Now we undertake to say that there is not a word of truth or scientific reason in the ex but on the contrary, as we will immediately demonstrate, air-waves have nothing whatever to do with this problem. This phenomenon is quite familiar to the piano tuner, and is his principal guide to ac-planation as here given by the wave-theory, curacy in his art, though it by no means follows that he knows the real or approximate nature of the phenomenon he so constantly observes. Let us first explain what a musical "beat" consists of before entering into a detailed explanation of the real cause underlying it. Take two tuning-forks each, say, of 100 vibrations in a second and consequently in perfect unison, mounted on their resonant cases. If both forks are bowed and set into vibration a deep, smooth and rich tone will fill the room. But if the prong of one of the forks shall be weighted with a small bit of wax so as to reduce its vibrations to 99 in a second, it will be observed that a sensible alternate swelling and weakening of the tone like a throb will occur once in each second. This change from the unison effect takes place at the instant the two forks break past or cross their opposite phases of swing. It is plain, since one fork makes one complete swing in a second more than the other, that a point must be reached once each second when these vibrations will change phases or cross each other's directions, and at that instant, for some reason soon to be explained, the sounds of the two forks obscure each other producing a momentary weakness of tone bordering on silence. Is this sound-interference as taught by the wave-theory? Let us see. We undertake further to show that this phenomenon of "beats" is alone explicable on the principle that sound is a substantial form of force somewhat analogous to that of electricity, and that by the theory of substantial sound-pulses alone can any sort of rational explanation of the problem be made. We therefore beg of the reader to suppress his prejudices on this question if he have any, and for a calm half-hour listen judicially to the scientific evidence bearing on the subject. In previous volumes of this journal, we have attempted to give a solution of "beats," but for want of time for due reflection we have not been as clear or explicit as desirable. We shall now try to elaborate the matter more fully, and thereby give abundant proofs of our position. In the first place, as we have repeatedly shown, mere air-waves, supposed to be sent off from a bowed tuning-fork, can produce no effect whatever upon the prongs of another fork, even in the most perfect unison, in order to throw them into sympathetic vibration and thus to cause a responsive tone. This is proven most clearly by the fact that a fork so large and vibrating so infrequently as not to produce sensible tone, will produce no motion whatever in 1 the prongs of a unison fork however near to directed towards its end and thus acting them, and however vigorously the bowed fork may be caused to vibrate. Dr. Audsley, of London, has challenged all the acousticians of Great Britain to make this simple test as a final settlement of the truth or falsity of the wavetheory of sound, agreeing forever to abide by the result obtained. equally and simultaneously on all sides of it. To suppose that the sympathetic response of that string is caused by the action of mechanical air-waves, thus impinging upon all sides of it equally and simultaneously, is to fly into the face of every principle known to mechanical law. Plainly, if it is air-waves and not pulses of This being in accordance with reason and sound-force which cause a unison fork to re-true mechanical science, it must follow as the spond, then the air-waves from a fork of eight only explanation of musical beats that the subor ten vibrations a second, and yielding no sen- stantial sound-pulses from one fork so act on the sible tone should also start its unison mate into potential or latent sound-force in a unison fork sympathetic vibration, since its theoretic air-as to start it into vibration; then as the phase waves must be much more powerful. This has of opposition which occurs once a second beto be conceded by candid and competent phys-tween two bowed forks, is the very reverse of icists. As no such effect, however, is produced sympathy, such forks must tend at that instant by a body vibrating too infrequently to produce to check or neutralize each other's sound until tone, it follows beyond all controversy that the such phase of opposition is past or until full motion caused in a silent fork by bowing its sympathetic unison is again established. unison neighbor, is produced by the sympathy naturally existing between the substantial sound-pulses from the bowed fork, as they impinge upon the potential sound-pulses in the silent fork of the same sonorous and vibrational number. To satisfy the most exacting advocate of the wave-theory that his view of sympathetic vibration is erroneous, let us here give a new and conclusive mechanical reason why airwaves sent off from the bowed fork can not possibly be the cause of starting its silent unison mate into action. And this mechanical reason, as we maintain, no amount of mathematical formula can gainsay or weaken. Place the broad face of the prongs of the bowed and sounding fork directly toward the edges of the prongs of the unbowed fork. It is plain that any air-waves which may be sent off from the actuating fork will strike both sides of such unbowed prongs simultaneously and with equal force, and thus will tend to move them equally in both directions at the same time. Of course under such action the prongs of the unbowed fork must stand still, since no body can move under the application of equal external force's acting upon it in exactly opposite directions, according to the established laws of motion. Plainly, if sympathetic sound-pulses from one fork, without any assistance from airwaves as we have seen, will arouse tone in another fork and start it into motion because of their unison relation, then the absolute opposition to sympathy between two sounding forks, which occurs once a second or at the before-mentioned phase of opposition, must not only tend to neutralize both sounds, but must tend to bring both forks to quiescence, though this result is but partially accomplished in consequence of the mechanical momentum of the prongs. And here we venture a prediction in strict conformity with this reasoning, though we have never tried the experiment, namely, that two forks, one vibration out of unison per second, and producing an audible beat as described, will not continue to vibrate or sound as long as the same forks when vibrating in perfect unison and equally bowed. This must follow as a matter of course, according to Substantialism, from the unsympathetic tendency of the phase of opposition to stop the prongs of both forks while neutralizing both ́of their sounds. Hence we make another prediction as a corollary of this, and without waiting to try the experiment, namely, that no two unison forks Yet it is a fact that such unbowed unison placed on their resonant cases near together, fork will instantly be awakened into sympa. can be so bowed by any number of trials as to thetic vibration, and will sound out the same cause them to vibrate out of synchronism even precisely when the edges of its prongs are thus to the slightest degree, because their sonorous directly toward the actuating fork as when | sympathy will instantly pull them into a phase the broad side of one of its prongs is exposed! of perfect synchronism or the completion of Let wave-theorists now meet and explain this their swings simultaneously, however, the two state of facts by the action of mechanical air- forks may chance to start in a phase of oppowaves, or forever close their mouths and sition. silence their pens. So potent, as we further predict, will be this The same result precisely will occur in the sympathetic attraction between the two vicase of a stretched string with the unison tone|brating unison forks to complete their full、 We here predict that so far from any such result taking place, the two beams of light from the soundless forks will dance either syn swings exactly together, and not one of them whatever relation these two large forks shall to lag a little behind the other (which is exactly happen to start. Will this be the case? what constitutes the before-mentioned "phase of opposition") that even if the two forks should be slightly out of unison-say one vibration in ten seconds-this sympathetic chronously or in any phase of opposition just attraction would counteract this difference and force them into synchronism, since the more rapidly vibrating fork would be pulled back and slowed up by the other, and vice versa. as they may happen to start off after bowing, and will so continue without sympathetic change till the forks come to rest, the airwaves having no effect upon their motions. If this shall really take place with the large But remember, that in such case, though the soundless forks and with their necessarily attraction of the two forks would compel them more powerful air-waves according to the to vibrate synchronously, yet both forks would wave-theory, thus showing no sympathetic accome to rest much sooner than if in perfect | tion between them; and if our other prediction unison and equally bowed, owing solely to their loss of energy by these efforts in modifying each other's motion. This paragraph should be carefully studied. Now all these predictions can easily be verified or overturned by using two forks of a very low pitch and attaching a small mirror to one prong of each, then directing a separate beam of light against each mirror, to be cast at such an angle upon a screen side by side in a darkened room as to represent the prongs' motions on a large scale. If no effort at bowing the two forks after repeated trials, however they may start, can induce the two beams of light to dance in a phase of opposition, or in the slightest variation from completing their swings synchronously, then sympathetic attraction alone between the two sounding forks will have been demonstrated as the cause of beats by the partial neutralization of each other's energy while in such forced phase of opposition. Take notice, we do not predict that the two beams of light will travel synchronously in the same direction, which is not necessary, but that whichever direction the vibrating beams shall take, they must avoid a phase of opposition and complete their swings simultaneously, the two sounding-forks thus coercing each other into synchronism by the law of sympathy Lowever they may start into vibration. If any wave-theorist wishes to convict us of error, instead of employing two sounding forks, let him take two perfectly unison forks so large as to yield no tone, say ten or twelve vibrations to the second, armed with mirrors as just suggested, and placed on separate supports with nothing connecting them but the air. Now, if the air-pulses sent off from the sounding forks are really what keep up the sympathy and cause the two beams of light to dance in synchronism, as the wave- theory must teach, surely the air-pulses from the large soundless forks in equally close proximity should exercise the same sympathy, and coerce the same synchronous dancing of the beams of light in shall prove true that two unison sounding forks can vibrate only in synchronism because of this sympathy, will it not of necessity break down the wave-theory which teaches that sympathetic vibration produced in an unbowed fork is caused by air-waves alone? Then suppose, as another test in the same direction, that we prepare two large and soundless forks, one of nine and the other of ten vibrations per second, with mirrors as before, and allow a single beam of light to reflect from one fork.to the other and thence to the screen, as described by Prof. Tyndall in his illustration of beats, there will of course be represented upon this screen one silent beat per second by an alternate elongation and contraction of the light, and this will continue till the forks come to rest. But will the two beating and soundless forks come to rest through this influence of the claimed air-waves any quicker than if they should vibrate in perfect unison? Our prediction of course is, that no difference whatever will occur in the length of time these silent forks with all their supposed air-waves will vibrate whether in unison or not, while two sounding forks similarly tested, as just predicted, will come to rest much quicker, if they are one vibration apart, than if in perfect unison. This, if it shall turn out as we predict, will demonstrate that the sympathy which impedes action in sounding forks out of unison, but produces no effect on soundless forks in a similar phase of opposition, has nothing whatever to do with air-waves, but depends entirely upon the influence of sound-force as a substantial cause. One other prediction before we close this paper, based on the philosophical considerations here presented, namely: Take two unison forks of loud tone in close sympathetic proximity, each so connected with an electric battery as to force their prongs to vibrate, not in synchronism but in a phase of opposition—that is the vibrations of the prongs of one fork slightly to follow those of the other,—and we predict that in such op posed relation no sound will be heard, it being | from month to month for perpetual safe keepthe same as the silent part of the "beat." ing while our mental powers are still active, But let the electric current be so changed as to force the prongs into synchronism, and instantly a loud sound will be heard, or in other words, the loud part of the ordinary "beat" will be produced. If this should prove to be the case, and if our other predictions should prove true that two sounding forks while beating will come to rest much sooner than if sounding in unison in consequence of a sympathetic drag upon each other, while soundless forks with all their airwaves will show no such sympathy, would it not totally destroy the wave-theory claim that musical beats are caused by air-waves in interference; and would it not thereby demonstrate the truth of the substantial theory of sound? We thus again give what we conceive to be the only possible explanation of the cause of musical "beats," namely, the sympathy exerted by one sounding fork over another slightly out of unison through the action of substantial pulses of sound-force as observed and illustrated in what is called sympathetic vibration. will be a most important part of the small legacy we hope to bequeath to coming generations. If these discussions shall form the texts for future lectures upon scientific and educational subjects by coming young investigators, possibly long years after the writer of this shall have not even a stone to mark the resting place of his ashes, the only memorial he shall ever covet will be complete. Next month we shall attempt an explanation of the phenomenon of the rotating tuning-fork in front of the ear with no sound issuing from the corners of the fork. This problem, more than any other, is resorted to by wave-theorists as a proof of the interference of airwaves. In that explanation we shall elaborate the most conclusive argument against this supposed law of sound-wave interference and consequently against the wave-theory itself yet produced. SUBSTANCE. BY J. I. SWANDER, PH. D. What is substance? A proper definition of That sound-force can exert such sympathetic the term is called for. Etymologically, subeffect upon a unison body or check such sym-stance is from “substantice or substare, to be pathy as soon as such body reaches a phase of opposition or ceases to be in a unison condition, is no more incredible or unthinkable than that magnetic force can go out from a steel magnet and exert a sympathetic influence over a metalic body that is potentially in magnetic sympathy with it, but will refuse all sympathy for bodies not in this magnetic relation. Let wave-theorists explain magnetic sympathy on the theory that magnetism "is but the rotation of the particles of the steel magnet," as taught by Sir William Thomson, ignoring force as a substantial entity, and then tell us how such motion of the steel molecules can lift a distant piece of iron before they pooh-pooh the substantial view of sound-force as here set forth. If motion in the steel particles of the magnet can not explain the lifting of a distant piece of iron in opposition to gravity and exerted through impervious sheets of glass, neither can mere mechanical motion explain the wonders of sympathetic vibration as herein set forth. under or present, from the prefix sub, under, and stare, to stand, to stand firm. That which underlies all outward manifestations; the permanent subject or cause of phenomena; that which is real indistinction from that which is merely apparent; that which constitutes anything what it is; real or existing essence. nition, taken largely from Webster, let us now Assuming the correctness of the above defiproceed to classify and make proper distinctions between the different classes of substances of which the Universe according to will see that a proper classification of all subsound philosophy consists. In doing so we stances includes all and only those things which are real and of existing essence. Such natural classification must also so arrange all ate class is constitutionally divisible into its existing essence as to show that each co-ordinnatural subordinates. One of the peculiar elements of strength in the system of thought now beginning to be exis its classification of all real existences into amined by all unprejudiced and earnest minds substances immaterial and material. To classify all things into self-existent and created may do in a treatise on ontology or the science of being in general, but such a distinction has no necessary place at the foundation of a system and method of thought, which has already shown its superiority over all others by stim Our aim in writing on these subjects as much as we are doing, is to place on record, before we shall depart hence, certain argu-ulating the public mind to seek after a more ments, criticism and predictions, for the benefit of rising substantialists, that might be overlooked should we neglect so to record them while the questions involved are in the ness of their original discussion. satisfactory explanation of its phenomena, than rational analysis of being, and to find a more any order of inquiry yet awakened in the bosom of man or pushed forward by the fresh-energy of mere human intellect. We feel as if these arguments, placed conspicuously in the columns of the MICROCOSM It is quite common to classify all existing essences as infinite or absolute, and finite-that order of entities limited by time and space. This very correct distinction grounds itself in |