Not only is such a conception simple, but it is also in accordance with experience and observation. Professor Hicks in his address to the British Association in 1895 said: "What is called Centrifugal Force is an apparent bodily Force directed outwards from the centre of curvature of the body's path, and having an intensity equal to the distance from the centre multiplied by the square of the absolute angular velocity." In the sphere of magnetism and electricity, the operation of two equal and opposite forces prevails. The attractive force of electricity, which is exerted to the centre, is always accompanied by the generation and development of a repulsive force, it being one of the fundamental rules of electricity that equal and opposite quantities of electricity are always generated at one and the same time. So that if the Centrifugal Force is viewed as being simply the exact opposite of the Centripetal Force, it fully satisfies the test when the first two rules laid down by Newton are applied to it. If, on the other hand, Centrifugal Force implies and embodies the idea of continuance of the Primitive Impulse, as I believe it is supposed to do, then to that extent it is not conformable to the principles of our Philosophy, as embodied in the rules given by Newton. Simply because, while it supposes a source or origin of its activity at the first, it goes on to suppose a continuance of that activity, without recognizing a continuing source or cause. It only recognizes and supposes the one original impulse given at the beginning, to account for the cause of the continually existing, and exerted power of the Centrifugal Force. I do not for a moment suggest, that the Divine Creator of all things, and the Ordainer and Upholder of all powers, forces and laws could not, had He chosen to give such a force, have given it and for ever operating. With that aspect of the question I have nothing to do, and of it nothing to say. I am dealing, and only wish to deal, with scientific facts, and scientific teaching from the purely philosophical standpoint. Such an idea of a continuing effect, without a continuing cause, is altogether opposed to experience and observation, and is a violation of the second Rule of Philosophy. Look where we will, or at what we will, and not only effects and causes are seen on every side, and in every thing, linked together inseparably, but wherever, and in whatever phenomena there is found a continuance of effect or effects, there is always and without exception found also a continuing source or cause. Wherever Nature, therefore, gives us a continuous effect of any kind or sort, she always gives us a continuing cause, that can be both proved and demonstrated to exist. Nowhere in Nature, amid all her powers, principles and laws, is there to be found an effect without a cause, and in all continuing effects, a continuing and perpetuating cause also, and that effect exists just as long as the cause exists.