﻿356 Prof. J. Bayma on the Fundamental 



therefore the new " fundamental principle," to say the least, is 

 incorrect. 



But again, if, according to another view of the learned Pro- 

 fessor already noticed, the intensity of action " becomes indefi- 

 nitely small at indefinitely small distances," we must come to 

 the conclusion that, according to the same view, the intensity of 

 action at the very point of contact will become null. There- 

 fore, if that view is adopted, no resistance will be developed at 

 the point of contact, and the " fundamental principle" will be 

 false, at least hypothetically. Such is the accuracy with which 

 some physicists set down what they call "fundamental princi- 

 ples" and "established truths," 



Yet, after all, if an atom of gross matter is more than a ma- 

 terial point, the assumption that each atom is spherical in form 

 cannot be the mere embodiment of mechanical principles. An 

 atom which is more than a material point, and possesses " a 

 size " however inappreciable in comparison with the atomic dis- 

 tances, must have a surface : and this surface must have a geo- 

 metric form either regular or irregular. If it be spherical in 

 form, then it would seem that Professor Norton has tried in 

 vain to discard my geometrical interpretation of his words : 

 whilst, if the geometrical form is not spherical, Professor Nor- 

 ton's own interpretation collapses ; as the action of the atom 

 cannot be conceived " equal in all directions/' unless the form 

 of the atom itself be uniformly equal all around, viz. un- 

 less the atom be a sphere. The learned author has one means 

 only of avoiding the horns of the dilemma, viz. by allowing that 

 his atoms are systems of discrete material points ; his interpre- 

 tation of the words " spherical in form " will then be substan- 

 tially correct, though rather unusual; and his theory of mole- 

 cular physics, disembarrassed of gross matter and its difficulties, 

 without losing anything worth regretting, will then be able to 

 recommend itself more strongly to a philosophical mind. 



In the passage now under examination Professor Norton en- 

 deavours also to establish " a change of attractive into repulsive 

 action at very minute distances." As I have fully refuted this 

 view, and the arguments by which Boseovich strove to defend it, 

 in my ' Molecular Mechanics/ I will now only say that the 

 inference drawn by Professor Norton is not legitimate. The 

 existence of a resistance between his atom of gross matter and 

 the atom of aether does not necessarily imply that the elementary 

 parts of the attractive atom act repulsively at very minute dis- 

 tances. It implies simply that the so-called gross matter is a 

 dynamical system of elements of which some are attractive and 

 others repulsive, the attractive always attracting, the repulsive 

 always repelling, and the effect of their exertions being a re- 



