214 Prof. W. A. Norton on Molecular Physics. 



views that the repulsive envelope of each molecule must " beat 

 back " the tether of space which it encounters before it comes 

 within the range of the attraction of the central " nuclei." But 

 does he not, in thus escaping one difficulty, encounter another 

 equally great? This " beating back" of the aether implies that 

 the molecules of the earth's mass in the advance are, by reason 

 of the earth's motion, at such a diminished distance from the 

 sethereal atoms immediately contiguous to them that a repulsive 

 action of the molecular envelopes upon these atoms comes into 

 play superior to that due to the condition of equilibrium that 

 would obtain if the earth were at rest. If this be admitted, 

 it must then at the same time be admitted that the molecules on 

 the following side of the earth are at a corresponding increased 

 distance from the sethereal atoms immediately behind them. If, 

 then, the atoms of the aether are attractive, as our author main- 

 tains, since they are in closer proximity to the envelopes of the 

 molecules of the earth on its preceding than on its following side, 

 the attraction exerted by the aether upon the molecules must be 

 more energetic on the former than on the latter side of the earth, 

 and hence the earth should be accelerated in its motion through 

 space by the operation of the attractive cether supposed. I must 

 therefore conclude that the logical necessity still exists of " abo- 

 lishing the aether of space altogether.-''' 



"A Molecule." — The position called in question under this 

 head had a phenomenal bearing only, as is sufficiently evident 

 from the expression " in all outward relations/-' and the subse- 

 quent allusion to the production of phenomena. I was well 

 aware that his "molecule " was, in the details of its constitution, 

 quite different from my own — and in another connexion alluded 

 to the multiplicity of assumptions made by the learned author of 

 the ( Molecular Mechanics' in fashioning so complex and artifi- 

 cial a structure, and urged the objection that if we admit his 

 conception of matter and of the several material activities, we 

 still require the miraculous interposition of the Creator in the 

 construction of every individual molecule in the universe. The 

 ground taken was that in the evolution of phenomena, the nu- 

 cleus or "nuclei" and envelope must each play, to all intents 

 and purposes, the parts I had assigned to the central atom and 

 electric atmosphere of my own molecule. If Professor Bayma is 

 not disposed to admit this, I shall await with curiosity the fur- 

 ther development of his theory, when I shall be in a position to 

 decide with certainty how far I may have been in error in taking 

 the ground just mentioned. 



[To be continued.] 



