Content deleted Content added
Line 10: : 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, [[magnetism|attractive or repulsive]], or [[alternating current|alternating]], [[Waveform|varying as the distance]],<ref>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</ref> or the [[Square root|square]], [[Cube root|cube]], or [[nth root|higher power of the distance]], etc. At last, [[Ruđer Bošković]]<ref>As defined by Boscovich and the [[French Academy of Sciences|French School]], an atom was no longer a substantial entity, but a [[point (geometry)|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.)</ref> got rid of atoms altogether, by supposing them to be the mere [[Point (geometry)|centre of forces]] exerted by a position or point only, where nothing existed but the power of exerting a force.<ref>The North British review. (1868). Edinburgh: W.P. Kennedy [http://books.google.com/books?id=lI3DJ1q_rLcC&pg=PA126 Pg 126].</ref> And, there needs to be a correction back from the ' {{reflist}} | |||