Salusbury, Thomas
,
Mathematical collections and translations (Tome I)
,
1667
Text
Text Image
Image
XML
Thumbnail overview
Document information
None
Concordance
Figures
Thumbnails
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
>