"I tried again whether the images are equally removed from their points of refraction, and whether the ratio of the densities measures the least distance. For instance, supposing E to be the image, C the surface of the water, K the bottom, and CE to CK in the proportion of the densities of the mediums. Now, let F, G, B, be three other points of refraction and images at S, T, V, and let CE be equal to FS, GT, and BV. But according to this rule an image E would still be somewhat raised in the perpendicular AK, which is contrary to experiment, not to mention other contradictions. Thirdly, whether the proportion of the mediums holds between FH and FX, supposing H to be the place of the image? Not at all. For so, CE would be in the same proportion to CK, so that the height of the image would always be the same, which we have just refuted. Fourthly, whether the raising of the image at E is to the raising at H, as CE to FH? Not in the least; for so the images either would never begin to be raised, or, having once begun, would at last be infinitely raised, because FH at last becomes infinite. Fifthly, whether the images rise in proportion to the sines of the inclinations? Not at all; for so the proportion of ascent would be the same in all mediums. Sixthly, are then the images raised at first, and in perpendicular radiation, according to the proportion of the mediums, and do they subsequently rise more and more according to the sines of the inclinations? For so the proportion would be compound, and would become different in different mediums. There is nothing in it: for the calculation disagreed with experiment. And generally it is in vain to have regard to the image or the place of the image, for that very reason, that it is imaginary. For there is no connexion between the density of the medium or any real quality or refraction of the light, and an accident of vision, by an error of which the image happens.