[ 3-8 1 
In this Argument I apprehend that great Man has 
been extremely unfortunate. For, i ft. Whereas all 
ioo mould be taken from Principles that arc com- 
nion to both Sides, in order to prove a thing we 
deny, he aflumes a Principle which we think far- 
ther from the Truth 5 namely, that the Height to 
which the Body rifes is the whole Effed ot the Im- 
pure, and ought to be the whole Meafure of it. 
2 y. Hi s Rcafoning ferves as well again!! him as 
tor him : For may I not plead with as good Rcafon 
at lead thus? The Velocity given by an impreffed 
Foice is the whole Effed of that impreffed Force $ 
and therefore the Force mud be as the Velocity. 
Zdly Suppofing the Height to which the Body is 
raffed to be the Meafure of the Force, this Princi- 
ple overturns the Conclufion he would eftablifh by 
it, as well as that which he oppofes. For, fuppofins 
the firft Velocity of the Body to be ftill the fame; 
the Height to which it rifes will be increafed, if 
t e ower of Gravity is diminifhed; and dimimfhed, 
“ the Power of Cavity is increafed. Bodies defeend 
llower at the Equator, and fafter towards the Poles, 
as is found by Experiments made on Pendulums! 
It then a Body is driven upwards at the Equator 
with a given Velocity, and the fame Body is after- 
wards driven upwards at Leipfick with the fame 
Velocity the Height to which it rifes in the former 
~ alc will be greater than in the latter 5 and there^ 
fore, according to his Reafoning, its Force was 
greater in the former Cafe; but the Velocity in 
both was the fame; confequently the Force is not 
as the Square of the Velocity any more than as the 
Sect, 
