﻿354 Prof. J. Bayma on the Fundamental 



in which the term can properly be used, does not, then, necessa- 

 rily imply continuity, as maintained by Professor Bayma." 



I am sorry that I interpreted the word " indivisible " contrary 

 to the now expressed intention of the learned Professor. Cer- 

 tainly, if " gross matter " is to be considered as an aggregation of 

 a finite number of material points being in either a statical or a 

 dynamical equilibrium, I allow that its indivisibility will not 

 imply continuity. Yet if " gross matter " is an aggregation of 

 a finite number of material points, why is it to be called gross? 

 And if such material points can be in dynamical equilibrium, how 

 can Professor Norton say that the aggregation of them is " es- 

 sentially invariable in form " ? No aggregation of distinct ma- 

 terial points can be invariable in form, unless these points be, 

 by some reason or other, immoveable : and an essential invariability 

 in the form of the aggregation cannot exist unless those points 

 be essentially immoveable. I esteem Professor Norton too much 

 to suppose that he can ever dream of admitting material points 

 essentially immoveable, especially as he holds that these same 

 points may be in a dynamical equilibrium ; for such equilibrium 

 is not essentially inviolable. 



This, to my mind, being the case, I was obliged to assume 

 that Professor Norton's atoms "essentially invariable in form" 

 could by no means be considered as an aggregation of a finite 

 number of distinct material points. But when the idea of such 

 an aggregation has been discarded, no other idea remains which 

 can be adopted, except that of continuous matter : and there- 

 fore I was compelled to consider the asserted indivisibility and 

 essential invariability of the atom as implying its continuity. 



If however Professor Norton now chooses to admit that his 

 atoms of " gross matter " are not continuous matter, I shall be 

 glad to interpret the word " indivisible " according to the mean- 

 ing now intended by him : yet, even so, my objection will not 

 be nullified ; only instead of being based on the indivisibility of 

 the atom, it will be drawn from the essential invariability of 

 its form. Instead of saying : The atom is a whole indivisible; 

 therefore it is a piece of continuous matter, I shall say : The 

 atom is a multitude of distinct material points substantially 

 independent ; therefore it cannot be essentially invariable in 

 form. 



As to the possibility of a change of attractive into repul- 

 sive action at extremely minute distances between primitive 

 elements (I say elements, not molecules, whose action is a re- 

 sultant variable according to special laws) I will say nothing in 

 this place, as I have refuted such a view at some length and, I 

 believe, quite sufficiently in my ' Molecular Mechanics' (pp. 49- 

 52), where I gave also three direct proofs of the contrary. I 



