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
="
040/01/255.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
>