Salusbury, Thomas
,
Mathematical collections and translations (Tome I)
,
1667
Text
Text Image
Image
XML
Thumbnail overview
Document information
None
Concordance
Figures
Thumbnails
Page concordance
<
1 - 30
31 - 60
61 - 90
91 - 120
121 - 150
151 - 180
181 - 210
211 - 240
241 - 270
271 - 300
301 - 330
331 - 360
361 - 390
391 - 420
421 - 450
451 - 480
481 - 510
511 - 540
541 - 570
571 - 600
601 - 630
631 - 660
661 - 690
691 - 701
>
Scan
Original
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
<
1 - 30
31 - 60
61 - 90
91 - 120
121 - 150
151 - 180
181 - 210
211 - 240
241 - 270
271 - 300
301 - 330
331 - 360
361 - 390
391 - 420
421 - 450
451 - 480
481 - 510
511 - 540
541 - 570
571 - 600
601 - 630
631 - 660
661 - 690
691 - 701
>
page
|<
<
of 701
>
>|
<
archimedes
>
<
text
>
<
body
>
<
chap
>
<
pb
xlink:href
="
040/01/139.jpg
"
pagenum
="
121
"/>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SALV. </
s
>
<
s
>But if it ſhould happen that the Terreſtrial Globe did
<
lb
/>
move round, and conſequently carry the Tower alſo along with
<
lb
/>
it, and that the ſtone did then alſo grate and ſlide along the ſide of
<
lb
/>
the Tower, what muſt its motion be then?</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SIMPL. </
s
>
<
s
>In this caſe we may rather ſay its motions: for it
<
lb
/>
would have one wherewith to deſcend from the top of the Tower
<
lb
/>
to the bottom, and ſhould neceſſarily have another to follow the
<
lb
/>
courſe of the ſaid Tower.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SALV. </
s
>
<
s
>So that its motion ſhould be compounded of two, to
<
lb
/>
wit, of that wherewith it meaſureth the Tower, and of that
<
lb
/>
ther wherewith it followeth the ſame: From which compoſition
<
lb
/>
would follow, that the ſtone would no longer deſcribe that ſimple
<
lb
/>
right and perpendicular line, but one tranſverſe, and perhaps not
<
lb
/>
ſtreight.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SIMPL. </
s
>
<
s
>I can ſay nothing of its non-rectitude, but this I know
<
lb
/>
very well, that it would of neceſſity be tranſverſe, and different
<
lb
/>
from the other directly perpendicular, which it doth deſcribe, the
<
lb
/>
Earth ſtanding ſtill.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SALV. </
s
>
<
s
>You ſee then, that upon the meer obſerving the falling
<
lb
/>
ſtone to glide along the Tower, you cannot certainly affirm that
<
lb
/>
it deſcribeth a line which is ſtreight and perpendicular, unleſs you
<
lb
/>
firſt ſuppoſe that the Earth ſtandeth ſtill.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SIMPL. True; for if the Earth ſhould move, the ſtones
<
lb
/>
tion would be tranſverſe, and not perpendicular.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SALV. </
s
>
<
s
>Behold then the Paralogiſm of
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Ariſtotle
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
and
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Ptolomey
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
<
lb
/>
<
arrow.to.target
n
="
marg310
"/>
<
lb
/>
to be evident and manifeſt, and diſcovered by you your ſelf,
<
lb
/>
wherein that is ſuppoſed for known, which is intended to be
<
lb
/>
monſtrated.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
margin
">
<
s
>
<
margin.target
id
="
marg310
"/>
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
The Paralogiſm
<
lb
/>
of
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
Ariſtotle
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
and
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
<
lb
/>
Ptolomey
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
in
<
lb
/>
poſing that for
<
lb
/>
known, which is in
<
lb
/>
queſtion.
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SIMPL. </
s
>
<
s
>How can that be? </
s
>
<
s
>To me it appeareth that the
<
lb
/>
Syllogiſm is rightly demonſtrated without
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
petitionem principii.
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SALV. </
s
>
<
s
>You ſhall ſee how it is; anſwer me a little. </
s
>
<
s
>Doth he
<
lb
/>
not lay down the concluſion as unknown?</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SIMPL. Unknown; why otherwiſe the demonſtrating it would
<
lb
/>
be ſuperfluous.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SALV. </
s
>
<
s
>But the middle term, ought not that to be known?</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SIMPL. </
s
>
<
s
>Its neceſſary that it ſhould; for otherwiſe it would be
<
lb
/>
a proving
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
ignotum per æquè ignotum.
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SALV. </
s
>
<
s
>Our concluſion which is to be proved, and which is
<
lb
/>
known, is it not the ſtability of the Earth?</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SIMPL. </
s
>
<
s
>It is the ſame.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SALV. </
s
>
<
s
>The middle term, which ought to be known, is it not the
<
lb
/>
ſtreight and perpendicular deſcent of the ſtone?</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SIMPL. </
s
>
<
s
>It is ſo.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SALV. </
s
>
<
s
>But was it not juſt now concluded, that we can have
<
lb
/>
no certain knowledg whether that ſame ſhall be direct and </
s
>
</
p
>
</
chap
>
</
body
>
</
text
>
</
archimedes
>