Viewing page 231 of 504

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

40)
from which, and the case of a Ship sailing around the earth upon this fluid Globe, it is plain that the earth cannot go without the moon, at full, to the Sun, no more than the moon, at new, without the earth. "And as the moon's projectile force keeps her from falling to the earth, so the earth's projectile force keeps her from falling to the Sun. Ferguson's Astronomy p. 142 Article 275.
Since the Sun only attracts the earth and moon, do they not, in this account contradict their own principles of [[underline]] mutual [[/underline]] attraction? Nay there is a contradiction in the account itself; for attraction is as the quantity of matter directly and ^ [[insertion]] Square of the [[/insertion]] distance reciprocally, why then do not the earth and moon attract the Sun in that ratio? and likewise, the moon attract the earth as well as the earth attract the moon? But alas! they had better eyes than to see this, which would spoil all; for the [[insertion]] (*) [[/insertion]] [[underline]] mutual attraction of the sun and moon, at New, is as 866865, at full as 861756, the mutual attraction of the ^ [[insertion]] earth [[/insertion]] [[strikethrough]] sun [[/strikethrough]] and moon is as 434028, and that of the earth & sun is as 34674600 [[/underline]], which superiority will spoil all if taken into the account, though it be upon their own Principles. - & again, since E attracts M (at their conjunction ^ [[insertion]] with the Sun [[/insertion]]) with more force than S does, it might easily be demonstrated that E and M must describe the arches Ea and Mb round the common center of gravity C with a retrograde motion or contrary to the order of the signs(*) while the point C describes the dotted Orbit with a direct motion or in the order of the signs, and act at E and M, b and a as if EM, ab were two Leavers sustained by a fulcrum at C. This must be the case both in their own account with a simple attraction and according to their Principles with a mutual attraction; but astronomers never yet observed either the earth or moon to be Retrograde; therefore this Newtonian account, so much boasted of, will not stand the test of observation. And their other account from the Projectile force only, is as little to the purpose and was invented merely for a refuge in case of being attacted in the other: so the whole is only a mere quibble. Pere de Gamaches
Astronomie Physique. V. Rownings Philosophy Part IV. Chap.XVIII.p.248.
[[insertion]] & Sir Isaac Newton's Principia. p.398 & 4[[smudge]]0 Edit. 3. [[/insertion]]

It is well known that the Planets describe equal areas in equal times, and the area described by a Projectile in a given curve is as the velocity, or generating force; but according to S[i]r I. Newton's laws of motion the projectile motion is much the swiftest in a planet's Aphelion, and therefore ought to describe the greatest area in an equal time than in any other part of its orbit for the same time; because the arcs are as the velocities: [[strikethrough]] and [[/strikethrough]] on the contrary, when a Planet is in it's Perihelion the attraction prevails and the projectile force is weakest, therefore ought to move thro' a less arc in a given time than any other part of its orbit, and consequently describe less Areas than before: all which are contrary to reality among themselves and