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
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>
<
pb
xlink:href
="
040/01/280.jpg
"
pagenum
="
260
"/>
caſe is not to be ſuppoſed. </
s
>
<
s
>But becauſe (obſerve well) the diſtance
<
lb
/>
of the Firmament, in relation to the ſmallneſſe of the Earth, as
<
lb
/>
hath been ſaid, is to be accounted, as if it were infinite; therefore
<
lb
/>
the angle conteined betwixt the two rayes, that being drawn from
<
lb
/>
the points A and E, go to determine in a fixed Star, is eſteemed
<
lb
/>
nothing, and thoſe rayes held to be two parallel lines; and
<
lb
/>
fore it is concluded, that then only may the New Star be affirmed
<
lb
/>
to have been in the Firmament, when from the collating of the
<
lb
/>
Obſervations made in divers places, the ſaid angle is, by
<
lb
/>
tion, gathered to be inſenſible, and the lines, as it were, parallels.
<
lb
/>
</
s
>
<
s
>But if the angle be of a conſiderable quantity, the New Star muſt
<
lb
/>
of neceſſity be lower than thoſe fixed; and alſo than the Moon, in
<
lb
/>
caſe the angle A B E ſhould be greater than that which would be
<
lb
/>
made in the Moons centre.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SIMP. </
s
>
<
s
>Then the remoteneſſe of the Moon is not ſo great, that
<
lb
/>
a like angle ſhould be ^{*}inſenſible in
<
lb
/>
<
arrow.to.target
n
="
marg511
"/>
</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
margin
">
<
s
>
<
margin.target
id
="
marg511
"/>
* Imperceptible.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SALV. </
s
>
<
s
>No Sir; nay it is ſenſible, not onely in the Moon, but
<
lb
/>
in the Sun alſo.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SIMP. </
s
>
<
s
>But if this be ſo, it's poſſible that the ſaid angle may
<
lb
/>
be obſerved in the New Star, without neceſſitating it to be
<
lb
/>
our to the Sun, aſwell as to the Moon.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SALV. </
s
>
<
s
>This may very well be, yea, and is in the preſent caſe,
<
lb
/>
as you ſhall ſee in due place; that is, when I ſhall have made plain
<
lb
/>
the way, in ſuch manner that you alſo, though not very perfect in
<
lb
/>
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Aſtronomical
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
calculations, may clearly ſee, and, as it were, with
<
lb
/>
your hands feel how that this Authour had it more in his eye to
<
lb
/>
write in complacency of the
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Peripateticks,
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
by palliating and
<
lb
/>
ſembling ſundry things, than to eſtabliſh the truth, by producing
<
lb
/>
them with naked ſincerity: therefore let us proceed forwards. </
s
>
<
s
>By
<
lb
/>
the things hitherto ſpoken, I ſuppoſe that you comprehend very
<
lb
/>
well how that the diſtance of the new Star can never be
<
lb
/>
made ſo immenſe, that the angle ſo often named ſhall wholly
<
lb
/>
appear, and that the two rayes of the Obſervators at the places
<
lb
/>
A and E, ſhall become altogether parallels: and you may
<
lb
/>
quently comprehend to the full, that if the calculations ſhould
<
lb
/>
collect from the obſervations, that that angle was totally null, or
<
lb
/>
that the lines were truly parallels, we ſhould be certain that the
<
lb
/>
obſervations were at leaſt in ſome ſmall particular erroneous:
<
lb
/>
But, if the calculations ſhould give us the ſaid lines to be
<
lb
/>
ted not only to equidiſtance, that is, ſo as to be parallel, but to
<
lb
/>
have paſt beyond that terme, and to be dilated more above than
<
lb
/>
below, then muſt it be reſolutely concluded, that the obſervations
<
lb
/>
were made with leſſe accurateneſſe, and in a word, to be
<
lb
/>
ous; as leading us to a manifeſt impoſſibility. </
s
>
<
s
>In the next place,
<
lb
/>
you muſt believe me, and ſuppoſe it for true, that two right lines </
s
>
</
p
>
</
chap
>
</
body
>
</
text
>
</
archimedes
>