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
="
040/01/224.jpg
"
pagenum
="
206
"/>
of the accelerated degrees of velocity, anſwering to the triangle
<
lb
/>
A B C, hath paſſed in ſuch a time ſuch a ſpace, it is very reaſonable
<
lb
/>
and probable, that making uſe of the uniform velocities anſwering
<
lb
/>
to the parallelogram, it ſhall paſſe with an even motion in the
<
lb
/>
ſame time a ſpace double to that paſſed by the accelerate
<
lb
/>
tion.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SAGR. </
s
>
<
s
>I am entirely ſatisfied. </
s
>
<
s
>And if you call this a probable
<
lb
/>
Diſcourſe, what ſhall the neceſſary demonſtrations be? </
s
>
<
s
>I wiſh
<
lb
/>
that in the whole body of common Philoſophy, I could find one
<
lb
/>
that was but thus
<
lb
/>
<
arrow.to.target
n
="
marg408
"/>
</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
margin
">
<
s
>
<
margin.target
id
="
marg408
"/>
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
In natural
<
lb
/>
ences it is not
<
lb
/>
ceſſary to ſeek
<
lb
/>
thematicall
<
lb
/>
dence.
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SIMP. </
s
>
<
s
>It is not neceſſary in natural Philoſophy to ſeek
<
lb
/>
ſite Mathematical evidence.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SAGR. </
s
>
<
s
>But this point of motion, is it not a natural queſtion?
<
lb
/>
</
s
>
<
s
>and yet I cannot find that
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Ariſtotle
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
hath demonſtrated any the
<
lb
/>
leaſt accident of it. </
s
>
<
s
>But let us no longer divert our intended
<
lb
/>
Theme, nor do you fail, I pray you
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Salviatus,
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
to tell me that
<
lb
/>
which you hinted to me to be the cauſe of the
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Pendulum's
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
<
lb
/>
eſcence, beſides the reſiſtance of the
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Medium
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
ro penetration.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SALV. </
s
>
<
s
>Tell me; of two
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
penduli
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
hanging at unequal
<
lb
/>
ces, doth not that which is faſtned to the longer threed make its
<
lb
/>
vibrations more ſeldome?</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>
<
arrow.to.target
n
="
marg409
"/>
</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
margin
">
<
s
>
<
margin.target
id
="
marg409
"/>
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
The
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
pendulum
<
lb
/>
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
hanging at a
<
lb
/>
er threed, maketh
<
lb
/>
its vibrations more
<
lb
/>
ſeldome than the
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
<
lb
/>
pendulum
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
hanging
<
lb
/>
at a ſhorter threed.
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SAGR. Yes, if they be moved to equall diſtances from their
<
lb
/>
perpendicularity.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SALV. </
s
>
<
s
>This greater or leſſe elongation importeth nothing at
<
lb
/>
all, for the ſame
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
pendulum
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
alwayes maketh its reciprocations in
<
lb
/>
quall times, be they longer or ſhorter, that is, though the
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
pendulum
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>
<
arrow.to.target
n
="
marg410
"/>
<
lb
/>
be little or much removed from its perpendicularity, and if they
<
lb
/>
are not abſolutely equal, they are inſenſibly different, as
<
lb
/>
rience may ſhew you: and though they were very unequal, yet
<
lb
/>
would they not diſcountenance, but favour our cauſe. </
s
>
<
s
>
<
lb
/>
fore let us draw the perpendicular A B [
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
in Fig.
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
9.] and hang from
<
lb
/>
the point A, upon the threed A C, a plummet C, and another
<
lb
/>
on the ſame threed alſo, which let be E, and the threed A C, being
<
lb
/>
removed from its perpendicularity, and then letting go the
<
lb
/>
mets C and E, they ſhall move by the arches C B D, E G F, and
<
lb
/>
the plummet E, as hanging at a leſſer diſtance, and withall, as
<
lb
/>
(by what you ſaid) leſſe removed, will return back again faſter,
<
lb
/>
and make its vibrations more frequent than the plummet C, and
<
lb
/>
therefore ſhall hinder the ſaid plummet C, from running ſo much
<
lb
/>
farther towards the term D, as it would do, if it were free: and
<
lb
/>
thus the plummet E bringing unto it in every vibration continuall
<
lb
/>
<
arrow.to.target
n
="
marg411
"/>
<
lb
/>
impediment, it ſhall finally reduce it to quieſcence. </
s
>
<
s
>Now the
<
lb
/>
ſame threed, (taking away the middle plummet) is a compoſition
<
lb
/>
of many grave
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
penduli,
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
that is, each of its parts is ſuch a
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
<
lb
/>
lum
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
faſtned neerer and neerer to the point A, and therefore </
s
>
</
p
>
</
chap
>
</
body
>
</
text
>
</
archimedes
>