The English works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury, Volume 07 (of 11)Hobbes, Thomas
Philosophy
The English works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury, Volume 07 (of 11)
Hobbes, Thomas
Philosophy, English -- 17th century
_B._ And what you thought had been true, if a spherical angle were a
very angle. For all men that have written of spherical triangles take
for the ground of their calculation, as Regiomontanus, Copernicus, and
Clavius, that the arch of a spherical angle is the side opposite to the
angle. You should have considered also that he makes the angle V P M 12
deg., but sets down no arc to answer it. But that you may find I am in
the right, look into the definitions which Clavius hath put down before
his treatise of spherical triangles, and amongst them is this; “the arc
of a spherical triangle is a part of a great circle intercepted between
the two sides drawn from the pole of the said great circle.”
_A._ The book is nothing worth; for it is impossible to subtract an arc
of a circle out of a spherical angle. And I see besides that he takes
the superficies that lieth between the sides L P and L M for an arch,
which is the quantity of an angle; and is a line, and cannot be taken
out of a superficies. I wonder how any man that pretends to mathematics
could be so much mistaken.
_B._ It is no great wonder. For Clavius himself striving to maintain
that a right angle is greater than the angle made by the diameter and
the circumference, fell into the same error. A corner, in vulgar speech,
and an angle, in the language of geometry, are not the same thing. But
it is easy even for a learned man sometimes to take them for the same,
as this author now has done; and proceeding he saith, subtract 8 deg. 38
min. from the angle P V L, and there remains the angle L V M.
_A._ That again is false, because impossible. What was it that deceived
him now?
_B._ The same misunderstanding of the nature of a spherical angle. Which
appears farther in this, that when he knew the arc V P was part of a
great circle, he thought V M, which he maketh 8 deg. 30 min., were also
parts of a great circle; which is manifestly false. For two great
circles, because they pass through the centre, do cut each other into
halves. But V P is not half a circle. He sure thought himself at
Vaygates, and that P M V was equal to P V, although in the same
hemisphere.
_A._ But how proves he that the arc P M is 8 degrees 30 minutes?
_B._ Thus. We have in two triangles, P L M and P V M, two sides and one
angle included, to find P M the distance of the magnetical pole from the
pole of the earth 8 deg. 30 min.
_A._ Is that all? It is very short for a demonstration of two so
difficult problems, as the quantity of 8 deg. 30 min.; and of the place
of the magnetical pole. But he has proved nothing till he has showed how
he found it. And though P M be 8 deg. 30 min., it follows not that M is
the magnetical pole.
_B._ Nor is it true. For if P M be 8 deg. 30 min., and V M 8 deg. 38
min., the whole arc P M V will be 17 deg. 8 min., which should be 20
deg. Besides, whereas the variations were east and west, the subtracting
of them should be also east and west, but they are north and south.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account