846 



The objection 

 proves nothing 

 •gainst the pro- 

 position. 



Farther exami 

 nation of the 

 objection. 



The second 

 objection an» 

 swered. 



ANSWER TCJ REMARK* CfN MR. VINCE'l »AMfHEt<; 



ftety, and of a Curious nature, I was induced to consider 

 it a little further. 



If, however, Mr. D's objection had been well founded, 

 it would hate prored nothing against my proposition, a° 

 his own conclusion shows, that the force does not vary as 



— p the density e entering into the expression for the force. 



Upon his own assumption, taking in all the terms of the 



series, the force will be represented under this 'form; 



a (T y l 



— 4-— ^.A - + &c. and cart this vary as , even 



« 2 a* a 6 J a 2 ' 



omitting e ? 



But there is another ground upon which we may examine 

 the objection. The quantity Pa"»-|- Qa? -j-Ra^-j. . & c . 

 representing the density of the fluid, must always be 

 positive ; hence P, Q, R, &c. m, gr, r, &c. are under certain 

 restrictions, such as to make the above quantity positive 

 for every value of a. Now we must have some standard for 

 our quantities. Let, therefore, the sun's radius=l, the den- 

 sity of the fluid at the sun's surface = 1. Now according to 

 Sir J. Nczrtori's hypothesis, the fluid pervades the sun, 

 causing thereby the gravitation within as well as without 

 the sun. Also, a varies from o to infinity. Now ac- 

 cording to Mr. D's assumption of Q, m, q, the density of 



Q 



the fluid is represented by P ; when, therefore, by di- 



Q 



minishing c, — 5- becomes greater than P, the density of the 



fluid becomes negative, that is, there is no fluid, and con- 



Q n 



sequently no gravitation. Make P — — - = o, and «=v/-i* 



a p 



From the centra of the sun, therefore, to this distance, 

 there is no fluid: hence, according to Mr. D's assumption, 

 part of the sun is not endued with gravitation ! he has 

 therefore made an illegal assumption of the quantities Q 7 

 m y q; what then becomes of his objection? 



But he has brought forward another objection. He 

 says, I ought to have used 3 m, 3q, for 2 m. 2 q ; this, he 

 asserts would have bein the ckse 5 if I had estimated the 



density 



