Only the equations of this new mechanics would be _less simple_. Let us understand clearly: it would only be the first terms which would be less simple, that is those experience has already made us acquainted with; perhaps one could alter the masses by small quantities without the _complete_ equations gaining or losing in simplicity. Hertz has raised the question whether the principles of mechanics are rigorously true. "In the opinion of many physicists," he says, "it is inconceivable that the remotest experience should ever change anything in the immovable principles of mechanics; and yet, what comes from experience may always be rectified by experience." After what we have just said, these fears will appear groundless. The principles of dynamics at first appeared to us as experimental truths; but we have been obliged to use them as definitions. It is _by definition_ that force is equal to the product of mass by acceleration; here, then, is a principle which is henceforth beyond the reach of any further experiment. It is in the same way by definition that action is equal to reaction. But then, it will be said, these unverifiable principles are absolutely devoid of any significance; experiment can not contradict them; but they can teach us nothing useful; then what is the use of studying dynamics? This over-hasty condemnation would be unjust. There is not in nature any system _perfectly_ isolated, perfectly removed from all external action; but there are systems _almost_ isolated. If such a system be observed, one may study not only the relative motion of its various parts one in reference to another, but also the motion of its center of gravity in reference to the other parts of the universe. We ascertain then that the motion of this center of gravity is _almost_ rectilinear and uniform, in conformity with Newton's third law. That is an experimental truth, but it can not be invalidated by experience; in fact, what would a more precise experiment teach us? It would teach us that the law was only almost true; but that we knew already. _We can now understand how experience has been able to serve as basis for the principles of mechanics and yet will never be able to contradict them._ ANTHROPOMORPHIC MECHANICS.--"Kirchhoff," it will be said, "has only acted in obedience to the general tendency of mathematicians toward nominalism; from this his ability as a physicist has not saved him. He wanted a definition of force, and he took for it the first proposition that presented itself; but we need no definition of force: the idea of force is primitive, irreducible, indefinable; we all know what it is, we have a direct intuition of it. This direct intuition comes from the notion of effort, which is familiar to us from infancy."