﻿280 Prof. J. Bayma on the Fundamental 



as he believes, around each molecule, is "the medium in which 

 pulses are originated that constitute the force of heat repulsion ." 

 These views, which in the present controversy have only a se- 

 condary importance, I will not now discuss, as much remains to 

 be said upon points of greater moment. 



A molecule. — One of my remarks about Professor Norton's 

 theory was that " Had Professor Norton known the impossibility 

 of continuous matter, he would have found out that what he 

 calls an atom of gross matter comprises already not only the 

 central element of a molecule, but its nuclei and its envelope ; 

 and consequently is already endued with the -properties and in- 

 vested with the arrangements which enable it to exert forces of 

 attraction and repulsion upon other molecules, without requiring 

 any new and special atmosphere of electric or luminiferous 

 eether." To this he answers : 



" That is, in other words, as already shown, Professor Bayma' s 

 nucleus and envelope are in all outward relations precisely corre- 

 spondent to my central atom and electric atmosphere. The only 

 essential point of difference between us lies in the fact that I con- 

 ceive that the interstitial luminiferous aether is condensed around the 

 central atom, and is concerned in the production of some of the phe- 

 nomena. It is not easy to see how Professor Bayma escapes the 

 conclusion that his interstitial aether, which is attracted by the cen- 

 tral nucleus, is condensed around it." 



Here the learned Professor intends to show that his theory is 

 in a manner implied in mine, and mine in his, the only difference 

 between us being a difference of words. I heartily wish that 

 such may be the case, as I should deem myself highly honoured 

 by concurring in the views of a man whom I regard as a good 

 authority in science. Unfortunately our present question is not 

 so much one of physics as of philosophy ; our different manner 

 of speaking proceeds in fact from a wide difference of principles. 

 Professor Norton endeavours to attenuate such differences as far 

 as he can : yet they cannot disappear ; they remain a sufficient 

 obstacle to our mutual agreement. He speaks of my molecular 

 "nucleus" in the singular, whilst I always speak of molecular 

 " nuclei " in the plural ; the " nucleus " is for him " gross mat- 

 ter " or a special form of matter essentially different from that of 

 his electric sether, whilst my " nuclei " are not a special form of 

 matter essentially different from that of the molecular envelope : 

 his "nucleus" is one piece of continuous matter, my "nuclei" 

 are systems of discrete material points : his " nucleus " is all 

 attractive, my " nuclei " are some attractive and others repulsive, 

 as it appears from the molecular formulas which I give passim 

 in my ' Molecular Mechanics. 5 Now these differences are too 

 substantia] and too radical to be passed over in silence. On the 



