ANSWER TO REMARK5 ON MR. VINCfc's PAMPHLET. J4T 



density of the fluid as Newton did, that is, by the quantity 

 of matter in a given cubical space. True ; but the nature 

 of my proposition necessarily obliged me to measure the 

 density by the quantity of matter on a given plane; my 

 2 w, 2 q, are therefore perfectly correct, and this is no 

 new use of the term density ; it is so used when we say the 

 density of light, heat, &e. varies inversely as the square of 

 the distance. With so little attention did Mr. D. examine 

 my investigation, as not to see, that I was under the ne- 

 cessity of so estimating it on the ground I took ; for he im- 

 putes it to a mistake, that I did not estimate it as Nexton 

 did. Is not this a M palpable blunder r". 



From -an attentive consideration of what is advanced by The objector 

 Mr. D., I am clearly of opinion, that he did not read the f^ ^oleoTt!^ 

 whole of the essay, so as to comprehend the true grounds investigation. 

 upon which the truth of my proposition rests. He seems 

 only to have looked amongst the expressions, to see, if by 

 assuming particular values of the quantities, he could not 

 prove against the proposition; imagining that such values 

 were unlimited, and altogether misunderstanding the sub- 

 ject. If I am wrong in this conjecture, his mistakes must 

 have arisen from his not having mathematical knowledge 

 sufficient to comprehend the investigation. 



The truth of my proposition rests upon two independent 

 circumstances — that the density e of the planet enters into 

 the law of force; and that by taking in all the terms of the 

 scries expressing the force, it is impossible to make the force 



vary as — , even omitting e. What then becomes of H#b> 



D's vaunting assertion, u on this point the Professor's 

 whole demonstration rests." From the scientific knowledge 

 displayed by Mr. D. in his animadversions on my essay, we 

 are justified in applying to himself his own words, muta- 

 tis mutandis ; " the errours in the works of Dytiscus afford 

 no very flattering specimen of the mathematical abilities of 

 this country." 



He further objects thus: " what he says respecting the What was «aid 



interference of the ethereal atmosphere of the different °^ thee , the ' ea? ' 



r atmospheres of 



planets is totally foreign to the question." Not totally the planets an 



foreign ; for it makes directly against the existence of such ^^their 

 , an existence. 



