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
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
<
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
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>
<
pb
xlink:href
="
040/01/284.jpg
"
pagenum
="
264
"/>
And firſt, I ask you, whether the Aſtronomers, in obſerving with
<
lb
/>
their Inſtruments, and ſeeking
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
v. </
s
>
<
s
>gr.
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
how great the elevation of a
<
lb
/>
Star is above the Horizon, may deviate from the truth, aſwell in
<
lb
/>
making it too great, as too little; that is, may erroneouſly
<
lb
/>
pute, that it is ſometime higher than the truth, and ſometimes
<
lb
/>
er; or elſe whether the errour muſt needs be alwayes of one
<
lb
/>
kinde, to wit, that erring they alwayes make it too much, and
<
lb
/>
ver too little, or alwayes too little, and never too much?</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SIMP. </
s
>
<
s
>I doubt not, but that it is as eaſie to commit an errour
<
lb
/>
the one way, as the other.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SALV. </
s
>
<
s
>I believe the Author would anſwer the ſame. </
s
>
<
s
>Now of
<
lb
/>
theſe two kinds of errours, which are contraries, and into which the
<
lb
/>
obſervators of the new ſtar may equally have fallen, applied to
<
lb
/>
calculations, one ſort will make the ſtar higher, and the other lower
<
lb
/>
than really it is. </
s
>
<
s
>And becauſe we have already agreed, that all
<
lb
/>
the obſervations are falſe; upon what ground would this
<
lb
/>
thor have us to accept thoſe for moſt congruous with the truth,
<
lb
/>
that ſhew the ſtar to have been near at hand, than the others that
<
lb
/>
ſhew it exceſſively remote?</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SIMP. </
s
>
<
s
>By what I have, as yet, collected of the Authors mind,
<
lb
/>
I ſee not that he doth refuſe thoſe obſervations, and indagations
<
lb
/>
that might make the ſtar more remote than the Moon, and alſo
<
lb
/>
than the Sun, but only thoſe that make it remote (as you your ſelf
<
lb
/>
have ſaid) more than an infinite diſtance; the which diſtance,
<
lb
/>
cauſe you alſo do refuſe it as impoſſible, he alſo paſſeth over, as
<
lb
/>
being convicted of infinite falſhood; as alſo thoſe obſervations
<
lb
/>
are of impoſſibility. </
s
>
<
s
>Methinks, therefore, that if you would
<
lb
/>
vince the Author, you ought to produce ſupputations, more exact,
<
lb
/>
or more in number, or of more diligent obſervers, which conſtitute
<
lb
/>
the ſtar in ſuch and ſuch a diſtance above the Moon, or above the
<
lb
/>
Sun, and to be brief, in a place poſſible for it to be in, like as he
<
lb
/>
produceth theſe twelve, which all place the ſtar beneath the Moon
<
lb
/>
in places that have a being in the world, and where it is poſſible for
<
lb
/>
it to be.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SALV. </
s
>
<
s
>But
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Simplicius
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
yours and the Authors Equivocation
<
lb
/>
lyeth in this, yours in one reſpect, and the Authors in another; I
<
lb
/>
diſcover by your ſpeech that you have formed a conceit to your
<
lb
/>
ſelf, that the exorbitancies that are commited in the eſtabliſhing
<
lb
/>
the diſtance of the Star do encreaſe ſucceſſively, according to the
<
lb
/>
proportion of the errors that are made by the Inſtrument, in
<
lb
/>
ing the obſervations, and that by converſion, from the greatneſs
<
lb
/>
of the exorbitancies, may be argued the greatneſſe of the error;
<
lb
/>
and that thereforefore hearing it to be infered from ſuch an
<
lb
/>
vation, that the diſtance of the ſtar is infinite, it is neceſſary, that
<
lb
/>
the errour in obſerving was infinite, and therefore not to be </
s
>
</
p
>
</
chap
>
</
body
>
</
text
>
</
archimedes
>