﻿Principles of Molecular Physics. 349 



" Professor Bayma assumes that every point of matter acts instan- 

 taneously upon every other point at all distances, however great or 

 small, with a force having the same character at all distances, and 

 inversely proportional to the square of the distance. This may be 

 probable, but it is not self-evident ; and in fact no reason can be as- 

 signed why oae material point having no extent should act upon 

 another with a force decreasing with the distance according to any 

 law whatever. The law of inverse squares is a consequence of wave- 

 propagation, or of radiation along definite lines, received on a mole- 

 cule of definite size, and cannot be predicated of a force that acts in- 

 stantaneously between two mathematical points. To suppose such 

 a law is an arbitrary assicmption." 



I beg leave to make some remarks upon the few expressions 

 which I have italicized. 1st. The word assumes should be 

 changed into proves. (See Molecular Mechanics, pp. 31, 32, and 

 53-65.) 2nd. It is not self-evident', of course; and therefore 

 it was made evident by the help of special proofs. 3rd. No rea- 

 son can be assigned : and yet many were assigned, and others are 

 still assignable. 4th. Wave-propagation is a propagation of 

 motion, and has nothing to do with elementary action, which 

 cannot be propagated (Molecular Mechanics, pp. 63-65). 5th. 

 On a molecule of definite size. Continuous or not ? If conti- 

 nuous, then the reply confirms my objection : if not, then the 

 action is received on single material points, contrary to the as- 

 sertion of my learned critic. 6th. Cannot. Why not? 7th. 

 Mathematical points : mathematical does not here exclude phy- 

 sical. 8th. An arbitrary assumption: here the learned Profes- 

 sor gives himself the innocent pleasure of applying to me, by 

 way of retaliation, what I ventured to say and to prove of some 

 of his fundamental principles. Fortunately however those who 

 have read my ( Molecular Mechanics ' know that I have done 

 enough not to deserve the compliment. I wish my learned op- 

 ponent had done as much. 



But, even setting aside all these imperfections, the reader will 

 undoubtedly see that this first answer of the learned Professor 

 is not calculated to meet my objection. Accordingly I consider 

 all further discussion of it as unnecessary. 



His second answer is the following : 



"If matter consists of material points, as supposed by Professor 

 Bayma, it is no more difficult to conceive of an atom of continuous 

 matter than of the space coextensive with it." 



This second answer I cannot well understand. Surely, the 

 learned Professor does not mean that, if matter (as I have not 

 only supposed, but proved) consists of separate material points, 

 then continuous matter can be more easily conceived. Yet what 

 else is the natural sense of his conditional proposition ? How- 



