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
="
040/01/204.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
>