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
="
040/01/204.jpg
"
pagenum
="
186
"/>
<
p
type
="
margin
">
<
s
>
<
margin.target
id
="
marg376
"/>
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Contact in a
<
lb
/>
gle point is not
<
lb
/>
culiar to the
<
lb
/>
fect Spheres onely?
<
lb
/>
</
s
>
<
s
>but belongeth to all
<
lb
/>
curved figures.
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
margin
">
<
s
>
<
margin.target
id
="
marg377
"/>
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
It is more
<
lb
/>
cult to find Figures
<
lb
/>
that touch with a
<
lb
/>
part of their
<
lb
/>
face, than in one
<
lb
/>
ſole point.
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SIMP. </
s
>
<
s
>You believe then, that two ſtones, or two pieces of
<
lb
/>
ron taken at chance, and put together, do for the moſt part touch
<
lb
/>
in one ſole point?</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SALV. </
s
>
<
s
>In caſual encounters, I do not think they do; as well
<
lb
/>
becauſe for the moſt part there will be ſome ſmall yielding filth
<
lb
/>
upon them, as becauſe that no diligence is uſed in applying them
<
lb
/>
without ſtriking one another; and every ſmall matter ſufficeth to
<
lb
/>
make the one ſuperficies yield ſomewhat to the other; ſo that
<
lb
/>
they interchangeably, at leaſt in ſome ſmall particle, receive ſigure
<
lb
/>
from the impreſſion of each other. </
s
>
<
s
>But in caſe their ſuperficies
<
lb
/>
were very terſe and polite, and that they were both laid upon a
<
lb
/>
table, that ſo one might not preſſe upon the other, and gently put
<
lb
/>
towards one another, I queſtion not, but that they might be
<
lb
/>
brought to the ſimple contact in one onely point.</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SAGR. </
s
>
<
s
>It is requiſite, with your permiſſion, that I propound a
<
lb
/>
certain ſcruple of mine, which came into my minde, whil'ſt I heard
<
lb
/>
propoſed by
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Simplicius,
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
the impoſſibility of finding a materiall
<
lb
/>
and ſolid body, that is, perfectly of a Spherical figure, and whil'ſt
<
lb
/>
J law
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Salviatus
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
in a certain manner, not gainſaying, to give his
<
lb
/>
conſent thereto; therefore I would know, whether there would
<
lb
/>
be the ſame difficulty in forming a ſolid of ſome other figure, that
<
lb
/>
is, to expreſſe my ſelf better, whether there is more difficulty in
<
lb
/>
reducing a piece of Marble into the figure of a perfect Sphere, than
<
lb
/>
into a perfect Pyramid, or into a perfect Horſe, or into a perfect
<
lb
/>
Graſſe-hopper?</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>SALV. </
s
>
<
s
>To this I will make you the firſt anſwer: and in the
<
lb
/>
firſt place, I will acquit my ſelf of the aſſent which you think I
<
lb
/>
gave to
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Simplicius,
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
which was only for a time; for I had it alſo in
<
lb
/>
my thoughts, betore I intended to enter upon any other matter, to
<
lb
/>
ſpeak that, which, it may be, is the ſame, or very like to that which
<
lb
/>
you are about to ſay, And anſwering to your firſt queſtion, I ſay,
<
lb
/>
<
arrow.to.target
n
="
marg378
"/>
<
lb
/>
that if any figure can be given to a Solid, the Spherical is the
<
lb
/>
eſt of all others, as it is likewiſe the moſt ſimple, and holdeth the
<
lb
/>
ſame place amongſt ſolid figures, as the Circle holdeth amongſt
<
lb
/>
<
arrow.to.target
n
="
marg379
"/>
<
lb
/>
the ſuperficial. </
s
>
<
s
>The deſcription of which Circle, as being more
<
lb
/>
ſie than all the reſt, hath alone been judged by
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Mathematicians
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
<
lb
/>
worthy to be put amongſt the ^{*}
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
poſtulata
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
belonging to the
<
lb
/>
<
arrow.to.target
n
="
marg380
"/>
<
lb
/>
ption of all other figures. </
s
>
<
s
>And the formation of the Sphere is
<
lb
/>
ſo very eaſie, that if in a plain plate of hard metal you take an
<
lb
/>
empty or hollow circle, within which any Solid goeth caſually
<
lb
/>
volving that was before but groſly rounded, it ſhall, without any
<
lb
/>
other artifice be reduced to a Spherical figure, as perfect as is
<
lb
/>
ſible for it to be; provided, that that ſame Solid be not leſſe than
<
lb
/>
the Sphere that would paſſe thorow that Circle. </
s
>
<
s
>And that which is
<
lb
/>
yet more worthy of our conſideration is, that within the ſelf-ſame </
s
>
</
p
>
</
chap
>
</
body
>
</
text
>
</
archimedes
>