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
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
<
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
="
040/01/255.jpg
"
pagenum
="
237
"/>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SAGR. </
s
>
<
s
>But this would be to draw a further inconvenience
<
lb
/>
on himſelf, in that he holdeth, that the bare eye cannot be
<
lb
/>
ved in judging of the right motion of deſcending graves, and yet
<
lb
/>
holds that it is deceived in beholding theſe other motions at ſuch
<
lb
/>
time as its viſive vertue is perfected, and augmented to thirty times
<
lb
/>
as much as it was before. </
s
>
<
s
>We tell him therefore, that the Earth in
<
lb
/>
like manner partaketh of the plurality of motions: and it is
<
lb
/>
haps the ſame, whereby the Loadſtone hath its motion
<
lb
/>
wards, as grave, and two circular motions, one Horizontal, and the
<
lb
/>
other Vertical under the Meridian. </
s
>
<
s
>But what more; tell me,
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
<
lb
/>
plicius,
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
between which do you think this Author would put a
<
lb
/>
greater difference, 'twixt right and circular motion, or 'twixt
<
lb
/>
on and reſt?</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SIMP. 'Twixt motion and reſt, certainly. </
s
>
<
s
>And this is
<
lb
/>
<
arrow.to.target
n
="
marg470
"/>
<
lb
/>
feſt, for that circular motion is not contrary to the right, according
<
lb
/>
to
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Aristotle
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
; nay, he granteth that they may mix with each
<
lb
/>
ther; which it is impoſſible for motion and reſt to do.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
margin
">
<
s
>
<
margin.target
id
="
marg470
"/>
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Motion and reſt
<
lb
/>
are more different
<
lb
/>
than right motion
<
lb
/>
and circular.
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SAGR. </
s
>
<
s
>Therefore its a propoſition leſſe improbable to place
<
lb
/>
in one natural body two internal principles, one to right motion,
<
lb
/>
and the other to circular, than two ſuch interne principles one to
<
lb
/>
motion, and the other to reſt. </
s
>
<
s
>Now both theſe poſitions agree to
<
lb
/>
<
arrow.to.target
n
="
marg471
"/>
<
lb
/>
the natural inclination that reſideth in the parts of the Earth to
<
lb
/>
turn to their whole, when by violence they are divided from it;
<
lb
/>
and they onely diſſent in the operation of the whole: for the
<
lb
/>
ter of them will have it by an interne principle to ſtand ſtill, and
<
lb
/>
the former aſcribeth to it the circular motion. </
s
>
<
s
>But by your
<
lb
/>
ceſſion, and the confeſſion of this Philoſopher, two principles, one
<
lb
/>
to motion, and the other to reſt, are incompatible together, like as
<
lb
/>
their effects are incompatible: but now this evenes not in the two
<
lb
/>
motions, right, and circular, which have no repugnance to each
<
lb
/>
other.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
margin
">
<
s
>
<
margin.target
id
="
marg471
"/>
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
One may more
<
lb
/>
rationally aſcribe
<
lb
/>
to the Earth two
<
lb
/>
internal principles
<
lb
/>
to the right, and
<
lb
/>
circular motion,
<
lb
/>
than two to motion
<
lb
/>
and reſt.
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SALV. </
s
>
<
s
>Adde this more, that in all probability it may be that
<
lb
/>
<
arrow.to.target
n
="
marg472
"/>
<
lb
/>
the motion, that the part of the Earth ſeparated doth make whilſt
<
lb
/>
it returneth towards its whole, is alſo circular, as hath been
<
lb
/>
dy declared; ſo that in all reſpects, as far as concernes the preſent
<
lb
/>
caſe, Mobility ſeemeth more likely than Reſt. </
s
>
<
s
>Now proceed,
<
lb
/>
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Simplicius,
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
to what remains.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
margin
">
<
s
>
<
margin.target
id
="
marg472
"/>
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
The motion of
<
lb
/>
the parts of the
<
lb
/>
Earth returning to
<
lb
/>
their whole may be
<
lb
/>
circular.
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SIMP. </
s
>
<
s
>The Authour backs his Argument with producing
<
lb
/>
ther abſurdity, that is, that the ſame motions agree to Natures
<
lb
/>
treamly different; but experience ſheweth, that the operations
<
lb
/>
<
arrow.to.target
n
="
marg473
"/>
<
lb
/>
and motions of different natures, are different; and Reaſon
<
lb
/>
firmeth the ſame: for otherwiſe we ſhould have no way left to
<
lb
/>
know and diſtinguiſh of natures, if they ſhould not have their
<
lb
/>
particular motions and operations, that might guide us to the
<
lb
/>
knowledge of their ſubſtances.</
s
>
</
p
>
</
chap
>
</
body
>
</
text
>
</
archimedes
>