﻿Principles of Molecular Physics. 351 



foundation on which to build an argument proving directly or 

 indirectly the truth of the assertion. Let Professor Norton 

 make the attempt : he will then be convinced of what I say. 

 He adds : 



" It is not more difficult to conceive of an indivisible atom acting 

 as a whole upon another atom with a certain energy, than of a mere 

 point acting upon another point, and causing it to change its place, 

 at the same time transferring to a new point all the properties it 

 possesses/' 



This is his third reply. I doubt whether it has much to do 

 with my objection. Professor Norton is endowed with a very 

 great facility both of conceiving everything he likes and of turn- 

 ing his own conceptions into realities : accordingly he conceives 

 " of an indivisible atom acting as a whole," and silently invites 

 us to conclude from this that the existence of continuous matter 

 is an established truth. But is he certain of the fact of his 

 conception ? The action of matter is calculated to cause local 

 motion : it therefore must have intensity and direction. But 

 direction is taken from a mathematical point to a mathematical 

 point. Therefore the action must proceed from a mathema- 

 tical point, and cannot be conceived to proceed from an ex- 

 tended atom acting as a whole, viz. by a single action which is 

 not a resultant of other distinct actions. (See Molecular Me- 

 chanics, p. 31.) 



Yet I have no need of insisting on this point. My objection 

 was that Professor Norton's " gross matter " being a piece of 

 continuous matter did not exist in nature, and was already 

 proved to be impossible. The right answer would have been 

 to deny either that gross matter is continuous, or that, conti- 

 nuous matter has been proved to be impossible. The first alter- 

 native would hardly have been consistent with his doctrine 

 (though he will try it in his fifth answer), because it would have 

 stripped matter of its essential epithet " gross : " the second 

 would have obliged him to demolish my proofs (Molecular Me- 

 chanics, pp. 27-31): and this he has not done as yet, though 

 it was the best course he could have followed in order to con- 

 vince his readers of the merit of his theory. Thus my objection 

 still remains unanswered. 



His fourth attempt at a solution of the objection is quite ori- 

 ginal. He says : 



" If the occult nature of the force of action of one material point 

 on another be such that the intensity becomes indefinitely small at 

 indefinitely small distances, instead of indefinitely great, as ima- 

 gined by Professor Bayma, then a collection of an infinite number 

 of material points may form one invariable atom,, since the size of 



