AXSWER TO REMARKS ON MR. YXNCE'S PAMPHLET., 



IV. 



Object of Mr. 

 Vince's pam- 

 phlet. 



The principal 

 objection 

 founded on 3 

 mistake. 



Anszcer to Remarks on a Pamphlet, lately published by 

 the Rev. T. Vinck, respecting the Cause of Gravitation* 

 In a Letter from the Author. 



To Mr. NICHOLSON. 



SIR, 



X Observations on the Cause of Gravitation having 

 been attacked in the last number of your Journal, by a 

 person calling himself Dytiscus, you will, I trust, do me 

 the justice to admit my answer in the next. 



What I proposed to establish was, that the fluid as- 

 sumed by Sir J. Newton as the cause of gravitation can- 

 not produce a force to impel a body towards the sun, which 



shall vary as — . The principal objection is to the 18th 



article, in which it is said, "hence, according to the fore- 

 going reasoning, taking only the two first terms of the 

 series, &c. &c." In the foregoing reasoning we took «>« 

 for the density of the medium, and then the force was re- 

 presented by the sum of the alternate terms of the Binomial 

 theorem ; in this particular case, therefore, we take the 

 two first terms only, as is here proposed. But in the pre- 

 sent article we represented the density by P ff>«-|-Qa7-f- 

 It « 7 +? kc. each of which terms gives a series for the force, 

 similar to that stated above ; here, therefore, according 

 to the same proceeding, we take the two first terms of each 

 of these series. This must be the meaning of the words, 

 " taking only the two first terms of the series ;" for they 

 must mean, either the two first terms of each of the series 

 composing the whole force, or the two first terms of the 

 whole considered as one series. But the latter meaning 

 would have entirely ex. luded all the other series for the 

 force, arising from the general law of density Prt'«-j-Q«? 

 ~f-Ra r +, &c. continued to an indefinite number of terms, 

 ind which it was the declared intention of the proposition 

 to take inland here confined the force to two terms only, 

 Pa^4-Qa7. It would, therefore, have been totally in- 

 consistent with the terms of the proposition^ to have taken 



the 



