﻿278 Prof. J. Bay ma on the Fundamental 



here seem to discredit ; for, as we have already seen, his repulsive 

 envelope is essentially my electric atmosphere." 



My preceding remarks about the three forms of matter make 

 any further answer unnecessary. I may, however, add (1) that 

 my repulsive envelope is a most essential part of the molecule, 

 no less indeed than the nuclei : it therefore essentially belongs, 

 according to my views, to what Professor Norton calls " gross 

 matter" or ponderable matter. Then, how could the learned 

 Professor find it to be essentially " his electric sether," which, as 

 he maintains, must be another form of matter essentially dif- 

 ferent ? (2) That my argument was not directed against the ex- 

 istence of some agency on which electric phenomena must depend : 

 such an agency every one is compelled to admit. The point in 

 question was whether the explanation of phenomena required 

 the existence of a special form of matter essentially different from 

 that of gross matter and of luminiferous aether. It is the asser- 

 tion alone of the existence of such a special form that I implied 

 to be not only not an established truth, but a very questionable 

 assertion. It may be that the assertion was made by Professor 

 Norton after " serious examination :" yet from what I have stated 

 it would appear that his examination might have been more 

 serious. 



I conclude this point by repeating the question which had to 

 be answered : On what evidence are we to grant that matter ex- 

 ists in three forms essentially different from each other? Has 

 Professor Norton given such evidence ? The reader will decide. 



Two aethers.- — My next question was : Why should we admit 

 two sethereal fluids which are both repulsive, and only differ in 

 subtlety ? He answers thus : 



" Professor Bayma and myself agree in admitting the existence of 

 two hinds of matter, attractive and repulsive ; and, as we have seen, 

 three forms of matter. Is it inherently any less probable that two of 

 these should be repulsive and one attractive, than, as he assumes, 

 that two should be attractive and one repulsive ?" 



I think I have already made it sufficiently clear that I do not 

 agree with him about the existence of his three forms of matter. 

 I therefore cannot be bound to admit either that two forms are 

 attractive and one repulsive, or that two forms are repulsive 

 and one attractive. He on the contrary who teaches the exist- 

 ence of three forms of matter and pronounces it to be " an esta- 

 blished truth," must be competent to enlighten us as to the 

 grounds on which that truth has been established. In like 

 manner, when the learned Professor tells us that there are two 

 sethereal fluids both repulsive, and we ask : Why two, since one 

 might suffice ? we should be thankful to obtain a clear and posi- 



