Galilei, Galileo
,
The systems of the world
,
1661
Text
Text Image
Image
XML
Thumbnail overview
Document information
None
Concordance
Figures
Thumbnails
page
|<
<
of 948
>
>|
<
archimedes
>
<
text
>
<
body
>
<
chap
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>
<
pb
xlink:href
="
065/01/130.jpg
"
pagenum
="
122
"/>
dicular, unleſs we firſt know that the Earth ſtands ſtill? </
s
>
<
s
>Therefore
<
lb
/>
in your Syllogiſm the certainty of the middle term is aſſumed
<
lb
/>
from the uncertainty of the concluſion. </
s
>
<
s
>You may ſee then, what
<
lb
/>
and how great the Paralogiſm is.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SAGR. </
s
>
<
s
>I would, in favour of
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Simplicius,
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
defend
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Ariſtotle
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
if it
<
lb
/>
were poſſible, or at leaſt better ſatisfie my ſelf concerning the
<
lb
/>
ſtrength of your illation. </
s
>
<
s
>You ſay, that the ſeeing the ſtone rake
<
lb
/>
along the Tower, is not ſufficient to aſſure us, that its motion is
<
lb
/>
perpendicular (which is the middle term of the Syllogiſm) unleſs
<
lb
/>
it be preſuppoſed, that the Earth ſtandeth ſtill, which is the
<
lb
/>
cluſion to be proved: For that if the Tower did move together
<
lb
/>
with the Earth, and the ſtone did ſlide along the ſame, the motion
<
lb
/>
of the ſtone would be tranſverſe, and not perpendicular. </
s
>
<
s
>But I
<
lb
/>
ſhall anſwer, that ſhould the Tower move, it would be impoſſible
<
lb
/>
that the ſtone ſhould fall gliding along the ſide of it; and
<
lb
/>
fore from its falling in that manner the ſtability of the Earth is
<
lb
/>
ferred.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SIMPL. </
s
>
<
s
>It is ſo; for if you would have the ſtone in
<
lb
/>
ing to grate upon the Tower, though it were carried round by
<
lb
/>
the Earth, you muſt allow the ſtone two natural motions, to wit,
<
lb
/>
the ſtraight motion towards the Centre, and the circular about
<
lb
/>
the Centre, the which is impoſſible.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SALV.
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Ariſtotles
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
defenſe then conſiſteth in the impoſſibilitie,
<
lb
/>
or at leaſt in his eſteeming it an impoſſibility, that the ſtone ſhould
<
lb
/>
move with a motion mixt of right and circular: for if he did
<
lb
/>
not hold it impoſſible that the ſtone could move to the Centre,
<
lb
/>
and about the Centre at once, he muſt have underſtood, that it
<
lb
/>
might come to paſs that the cadent ſtone might in its deſcent, race
<
lb
/>
the Tower as well when it moved as when it ſtood ſtill; and
<
lb
/>
ſequently he muſt have perceived, that from this grating nothing
<
lb
/>
could be inferred touching the mobility or immobility of the
<
lb
/>
Earth. </
s
>
<
s
>But this doth not any way excuſe
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Aristotle
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
; aſwell
<
lb
/>
cauſe he ought to have expreſt it, if he had had ſuch a conceit, it
<
lb
/>
being ſo material a part of his Argument; as alſo becauſe it can
<
lb
/>
neither be ſaid that ſuch an effect is impoſſible, nor that
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Ariſtotle
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
<
lb
/>
did eſteem it ſo. </
s
>
<
s
>The firſt cannot be affirmed, for that by and
<
lb
/>
by I ſhall ſhew that it is not onely poſſible, but neceſſary: nor
<
lb
/>
<
arrow.to.target
n
="
marg311
"/>
<
lb
/>
much leſs can the ſecond be averred, for that
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Ariſtotle
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
himſelf
<
lb
/>
granteth fire to move naturally upwards in a right line, and to
<
lb
/>
move about with the diurnal motion, imparted by Heaven to the
<
lb
/>
whole Element of Fire, and the greater part of the Air: If
<
lb
/>
fore he held it not impoſſible to mix the right motion upwards,
<
lb
/>
with the circular communicated to the Fire and Air from the
<
lb
/>
cave of the Moon, much leſs ought he to account impoſſible the
<
lb
/>
mixture of the right motion downwards of the ſtone, with the </
s
>
</
p
>
</
chap
>
</
body
>
</
text
>
</
archimedes
>