244 Wisco7isin Academy of Sciences^ Arts and Letters. 



TABLE II — continued. 



Tables 2 and 3 are made on plan of table 1. * 



2 H=j^^ = . 0068027. 



Table 1 gives: .0068027 -.0049881 = .0018146 for difference in attrac- 

 tion. 



Table 2 gives: . 0068027 - . 0050643 = .0017384 for difference ia attrac- 

 tion. 



Table 3 gives: .0038027 - .0051030 = .0016997 for difference in attrac- 

 tion. 



The difference between first result and second is .0000762, and that of 

 second and third, 0000384. The first difference is about double that of the 

 second. From the-e differences we can closely estimate what would be the 

 I'esult in case the outside layer be kept of thickness one thirty-first part of 

 radius, and the other layers be reduced to infinitesimal thickness. The re- 

 sult in that case for attraction at pole less that at the equator would be 

 about .001665, or ^i^. 



The observed gravity at the pole, less that at the equator, is xfs ; and the 

 •centrifugal force at the equator is ^^1^, and nothing at the pole, The ob- 

 served attraction at the pole, less that at the equator, is : j^^^^ — -^^^ = 



I find by computations that a true result for attraction cannot be at- 

 t'lined in accordance with observed and known data, and divide the earth, 

 €roai surface so center into layers infinitesimally thin, To meet that data 

 an outside layer of about 



