GALILEO AND THE NEW PHYSICS 



ing against my theory. And first, it is false that 

 the ball sinks and the board not; for the board 

 will sink, too, if you do to both the figures as the 

 words of our question require; that is, if you. put 

 them both in the water; for to be in the water 

 implies to be placed in the water, and by Aristotle's 

 own definition of place, to be placed imports to be 

 environed by the surface of the ambient body; but 

 when my antagonists show the floating board of ebony, 

 they put it not into the water, but upon the water; 

 where, being detained by a certain impediment (of 

 which more anon), it is surrounded, partly with water, 

 partly with air, which is contrary to our agreement, 

 for that was that bodies should be in the water, and 

 not part in the water, part in the air. 



" I will not omit another reason, founded also upon 

 experience, and, if I deceive not myself, conclusive 

 against the notion that figure, and the resistance of 

 the water to penetration, have anything to do with the 

 buoyancy of bodies. Choose a piece of wood or other 

 matter, as, for instance, walnut-wood, of which a ball 

 rises from the bottom of the water to the surface more 

 slowly than a ball of ebony of the same size sinks, so 

 that, clearly, the ball of ebony divides the water more 

 readily in sinking than the ball of wood does in rising. 

 Then take a board of walnut-tree equal to and like the 

 floating one of my antagonists; and if it be true that 

 this latter floats by reason of the figure being unable 

 to penetrate the water, the other of walnut-tree, with- 

 out a question, if thrust to the bottom, ought to stay 

 there, as having the same impeding figure, and being 

 less apt to overcome the said resistance of the water. 



107 



