W. A. Norton on Molecular Physics. 177 
tons’s theory as presented by him, in spite of the talent and learn- 
ing of its author, cannot be adopted in science. 
Prof. Bayma has here entirely misunderstood me, and rep- 
resented what I threw out as a possible and perhaps probable 
conception, to be a fundamental principle of my theory. The 
real fundamental principle was that the atoms of electric ether 
repelled each other, and it was merely conjectured that this re- 
pulsion might be due to atmospheres of luminiferous ether con- 
densed around the electric atoms, instead of being a direct re- 
pulsive action. It is a little singular that in view of this dis- — 
tinct statement of the manner in which the repulsion might 
result from a possible attraction, that our author should ask the 
question, “‘ Now if the atoms of electric ether are repulsive, how 
can they attract ?”, and thereupon intimate the existence of a 
discrepancy fatal to the theory. It is in fact, altogether imma- 
terial whether the mutual repulsion of electric atoms is indi- 
rect as conjectured, or direct. . 
_ithas now been made sufficiently apparent that the objec- 
tions urged against my theory of molecular physics have no real 
force; and that its fundamental principles have not been dis- 
; Whether it will ultimately be “adopted in science ” 
or not, must depend upon its availability in rendering a satis- 
‘ory account of phenomena, and its ability to withstand the 
test of a detailed comparison with the entire range of physical 
ts. If life and health are granted me, I shall endeavor in 
hen the natural phenomena and experimental results, with their 
other theory, 
aan attempt to deduce the existing constitution of things 
tal j 
tan 
by cree the molecules of a gas to be in sucha condition 
abbey se We know that many gases can be compressed into 
Could bs i, it is altogether gratuitous to suppose that they 
ot tendenes Xperiment has given no indication of such @ result 
