﻿434 Prof. J. Bayma on the Fundamental 



matter " has nothing to do with my conceptions, and is the ex- 

 clusive property of my learned critic, as I have made clear on a 

 previous occasion. If however by gross molecules he means 

 molecules of ponderable bodies having the constitution which I 

 pointed out in my treatise, then I allow (though protesting 

 against the epithet " gross ;; ) that the heat of such bodies con- 

 sists in vibrations of such molecules. I do not know just now 

 what "insuperable objection" the learned Professor will urge 

 against this view on another occasion : when those objections 

 arrive, we may think of them. Mean while an objection which 

 my opponent, I fear, will not solve is the following. The 

 learned critic, while defending his three forms of matter, de- 

 clared emphatically that my repulsive envelope is essentially his 

 u electric aether/' and consequently that my repulsive envelope is 

 not his "gross matter." If therefore in my theory the mole- 

 cular envelope is the sole agent directly concerned in the com- 

 munication of heat from molecule to molecule, it is evident that 

 heat in my theory does not originate in the vibrations of gross 

 matter. Now such is exactly the case. He may read in my 

 treatise that " calorific motion is communicated from molecule 

 to molecule mainly through their respective envelopes, which 

 are in the best condition for strongly influencing one another. 

 The rest of the molecular masses, i. e. the nuclei, move in con- 

 sequence of the motion to which the respective envelopes have 

 been subjected, according to the nature of the molecular con- 

 stitution ; and therefore the difficulty of communicating calorific 

 motion to a body does not depend, except in a very secondary 

 degree, on the inner part of the molecules (Molecular Mechanics, 

 p. 205). This inner part is what my critic assumes to be 

 " gross" matter. So long as this objection remains unanswered 

 I have reason to question the exactness of Professor Norton's 

 statement and the conclusions drawn therefrom. 



And now with regard to light. Is it true that I conceive 

 light " to originate in vibrations of gross molecules ? " I need 

 not repeat that gross matter has nothing whatever to do with my 

 conceptions. What I had said was this : "Luminous bodies 

 cannot excite luminous undulations of a certain period in the 

 surrounding aether, unless they themselves move at the same 

 period and make as many undulations. With regard to non-lu- 

 minous bodies, they either transmit or reflect light ; and there- 

 fore although they are incapable of setting themselves into spon- 

 taneous vibrations suitable to make a sensible impression on our 

 organ of vision, yet they are prepared, when acted upon by impin- 

 ging rays, to take up the same kind of vibratory motion, at their 

 surface at least, if they are opaque " (Molecular Mechanics, 

 p. 209). This view we are now going to examine. 



