Additional Objections to Redjield’s Theory of Storms. 123 
axis, but on the contrary exists only in consequence of a momen- 
tum previously acquired, the consequent velocity in any part of 
the mass affected, will be less in proportion to its proximity to the 
axis: also that the only case in which it can increase with its 
proximity, is where the mass is fluid and it sa oeiang: from some 
competent cause acting at the axis. 
39. In representing that the upward force of tothedede:i is ne 
fect of a vortical or gyratory action,* when it must be quite 
plain that a “vortical” action or whiting motion instead of caus- 
ing the air upon the terrestrial surface, necessarily subjected: by 
it toa centrifugal force, to seek the centre, would induce that 
portion of the atmosphere which should be above the sphere of 
the gyration, to descend. into the central space rarefied by the 
centrifugal force. 
40. In admitting the gyration, otha he considers as the cause 
of storms, to quicken as it approaches the axis of motion, without 
perceiving that this characteristic is irreconcilable with his infer- 
ence that gyration caused by forces acting remotely from the axis 
isthe proximate cause of all the phenomena in question. ~~ 
“Al. In the last number of the American Journal of Science; 
os April, 1842,) Mr. Redfield has hinted that the pains which 
Thave taken to confute his doctrines, are disproportioned to the 
low estimation in which I have professed to hold them. . I should 
be glad if this. view of the ‘subject should tender my strictures 
3 anda With 
agreeable teh bineeie enriew that. 
. “ 7 ry a 
eae a 
their success. Had it been otherwise, I should not have thought 
it-worth while to enter the lists. . It'strikes me; however, that a 
fault now prevails which is the opposite of that which Bacon has 
been applauded for correcting: Instead of the extreme of enter- 
taining plausible theories having no adequate » foundation in ob- 
servation or experiment, some men of science of the present 
time are prone to lend a favorable ear to any hypothesis, however 
in itself absurd, provided it be associated with observations. But 
to proceed with the “reply,” so called, the author alleges that in 
the ab : of “reliable facts and obser — ‘in —— - _ 
pS ae "7 ax 
ene Ton ae ot ee if a 2 PPOs; ae is 
ua s ss " oe 
hae Ae i : fi Eee ge wont: 4 Bae ep he hag 
a il i ae er ee ee orsn | a ea Pia Pete a 
“tn eee See paragrap this com diene Te ee 
‘ 
