Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	body_n	motion_n	nature_n	2,722	5	5.9141	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A93028	The anatomy of Urania practica or, a short mathematicall discourse; laying open the errors and impertinencies delivered in a treatise lately published by Mr. Vincent Wing, and Mr. William Leybourne, under the title of Urania practica. By Jeremy Shakerley philomath.	Shakerley, Jeremy, fl. 1651.	1649 (1649)	Wing S2911; Thomason E1366_1; ESTC R209254	23,878	48

Authors prescriptions for the use of them we will here briefly deliver Our Authors have in the Table of the Suns equations followed the Theorie of Longomontanus or some equivolent thereto for there are divers onely a little though almost insensibly increasing the Eccentricity of the Sun making the proportion of the radius of the Suns orbe to the radius of his epicycle as is 100000. to 3577. to which Eccentricity in that hypothesis their equations of the Sun agree But for what reason they have made this change themselves doe not show nor can I conjecture In the Tables of the Moons equations they have followed Argol a man very laborious in calculations but one who hath not to my knowledge given any reason for what he hath done He hath omitted the variation of the Moone induced thereto as he saith by Observations I will not question his doings because I know not what Observations he used but certainly if there had not been a necessity for it Tycho had never retained it into the Theory of the Moone nor had it been confirmed by the after doings of I ongemontanus Kepler and the industrious and expert Bullialdus especially it causing so great a difference in the Moones place extending it selfe to 40 min. 30 sec according to Tycho but according to Kepler a fourth part more And although Keplers variation may be justly thought too bigge notwithstanding he seems to deduce it from Physicall and Archetypicall demonstrations which he so much affected yet in a Mathematicall eye which attends precisenesse the variation is not altogether contemptible In the latitude of the Moon our Authors have meerly followed Lansberge and together with him rejected the inequality of motion in the Moones Nodes of which I will nor dispute the demonstration thereof depending upon such dubious Principles as Authors are not satisfied thereof Tycho making the period of this inequality menstruall with whom herein Argol and Bullialdus also agre Kepler annuall yet all since Tycho admitting thereof excepting onely Lansherg of whose corruption and depravation of ancient Observations so wresting them to his purpose he that is not satisfied may finde him sufficiently characterized by Phocylides in his forementioned booke Thus from the fragments of broken Authors have our Authors patcht up their Tables of the Luminaries motions which however they will be sufficient to represent Coelestiall Observations I much doubt and am fearfull that our Authors have done the divine Vrania wrong in attiring her simple excellence in such a particoloured vesture CHAP. V. Whether the second inequalitie of the Moon have dependance of the Sunnes mean or true and apparent place BY the quality of that table of the Moones equations our Authors have set downe occasion is given me to imagine they have therein followed a Theorie equivolent to that of Copernicus viz a double Epicycle the circumference of the one carrying the Center of the other Yet however the two inequalities which are by Copernicus attributed to these Epicycles are here by our Authors digested into one Table which without question were of great concernment to him that desires speedinesse in calculation if the Artist could be assured of its exactnesse and agreement with the Heavens and those legitimate and Physicall Theories which may be thence deduced But whereas it appeares by the Precepts which guide us to the use of this Table that the mean distance of the Luminaries is one of the steps wherby we attain the Moons equation we may and not without just cause suspect it of error It is true that in those Theories of the Planets which were used before Tycho had happily confuted the solidity of Caelestiall Orbs there might be some appearance of reason why the Centers of those solid Spheres rather then the Centers of the eccentricke Circles should regulate those other inequalities which depended thereon they being supposed in that age not imaginary but reall points and therefore sufficient whereon to build a connexion of mosions But after that Tycho had by the helpe of his exact Instruments found the existence of temporary and fading Lights within that Circuit which was supposed to be free from generation and corruption and thereby solidly refuted the solidity of those Orbs and Spheres so laboriously demonstrated by Ptolemie Proclus Peurbachius and others this disclosure gaue the minde liberty to thinke of more rational wayes then the old multiplicity of Circles and Motions whereby to salve caelestiall appearances And hereby it came to be known that the Causes of Motions were meerly Physicall and dapended not upon the variety of Orbs but followed that simple and uniforme course Nature had assigned them and respected not those imaginary Centers which prudent Antiquity had for want of other helpes devised for them but the very body of the Sun the fountaine of Motion and common node of all their Orbs. Why then the Moon which though a secondary Planet yet hath relation to the Suns course should receive the Lawes of her extra-sysygiall inaequality from the Suns mean motion I cannot see These reasons will evince she contrary 1. The mean motion of the Sun as also of any other Planet is not in nature but onely devised to regulate those exorbitances and deviations from equality to which their apparent motions are subject 2. Observations testifie that the longest line of every Primary Theory which exactly bisects the orbe into two semicircles equall in the quantity and celerity of the same parts passeth by the center of the Sun in which the Aphelian lines of the primary Planets concur 3. The orbite of every primary Planet is intersected by the Eclipticke in places opposite by the center of the Sun and not by any point without it 4. The fountaine of motion and the generall antecedent to the particular relative inequalities of the Planets ought rather to be in the most excellent body then any where without it for these reasons first because the moving force cannot reside in any Mathematicall point such as this is imagined to be but requires a body the more fully to exercise his operating power Secondly it is most cnnsentaneous to reason that the moving force should be in the Center of the world where it is evident the Sunne is there being rest in the superficies or sphere of the fixed Stars and motion in the intermediate places 5. The cause why Copernius and Tycho supposed the two Centers viz. of the Orbe and of the Eccentrick to be different things in themselves is not sufficiently Mathematicall they being drawn hereto by the desire of making their Hypotheses equivalent to those of Ptolomie But it was not necessary to follow the steps of Ptolomie so diligently for Ptolomie made not every part of his Hypothesis from observations but grounded many things upon a fore-conceived opinion that the motions of the Planets were equall through every portion of their own circles which Observations do sufficiently evince to be untrue as may appear by famous Kepler in his learned Comentaries of the

soleat si per instrumenta fiant Observatirnes quae non illarum tempore exquisite positae sunt sed iam olim ita constituta ut diu firmata lapsu temporum tandem commoveantur ac in situ deficiant This and more Ptolom Almag lib. 3 cap. 2. How sandy a foundation his Observations are whereon to build Astronomy especially seeing they disagree from others may by his own words best be gathered He that desires to see a more full confutation of this inequality may have it in Phocylides his Examen Astronom●ae Lansbergianiae who from page 38. to page 63. he cleerly evinceth the same from all the Observations of Equinoxes had by the best Astronomers in every Age and proveth a constant quantity of the Tropicall yeers in all Ages A short Synopsis whereof we had here presented the Reader with but that it would grow beyond our intentions and that if the disposer of all our actions grant me ability and conveniency to prosecute the service of Urania I may hereafter both enlarge and correct my present thoughts upon this subject The learned Kepler pag. 27. Prec tab Rudolph doubts not to assert that there hath never been any other obliquity of the Zodiack then what is now viz. 23. degr 31. min. 30. sec or by reason of his diminution of the Sun's paralax 23. degr 30. min. 30. sec or consequently any inequality of the Precession of the Equinoctiall points and affirms he can demonstrate it but methinks it is too manifest an injury to the Ancients to deny the one so constantly evinced from their observations But we must ever look with an indulgent eye upon that worthy man whole Astronomicall performances do sufficiently make known his worth and memorize him to Posterity It is not one Age much lesse one man that is able to restore Astronomy His setting down five forms hereof in his Rudolphine Tables shew the copiousnesse of his wit his choosing of none manifest the penury and uncertainty of former Observations And surely these things with many more lye hidden in the Pandects of Posterity not to be disclosed untill God the arbiter of Ages shall open this eternall book and disclose the secrets hereof to mortals That noble French-man Ismael Bullialdus the latest restorer of Astronomy hath in his Astronomia Philolaica followed Longomontanus in the obliquity of the Zodiack but rejects the aequation of the Equinoxes for these reasons First there are no observations of the Ancients which gives a sufficient exactnesse in the times of the Equinoxes or places of the fixed Stars whereupon to build such a fabrick of turbination and that it were rashnesse in any to attempt it Secondly no circular revolution in the Heavens admits in its whole circumference more inequalities then one being slow in the one semicircle swift in the other but if we admit this inequality of the Precession of the Equinox the simple motion is many times intended and remitted But in other revolutions intended but once and remitted no oftner Thirdly so small a difference is there found in distinct intervals of time that it cannot be attributed to any true aod naturall motion but with great boldnesse and temerity whereby we impudently fasten upon the Heavens the fictions and Chymera's of our own imperfect intellect Fourthly that body which is furthest distant from the center of the World would be immovable which yet notwithsanding ought to partake of motion as wel as other bodies which move obout the Sun although the motion be very slow by reason of its immense distance from the Center and the amplitude of the space in which it moves but why should other bodies move and the whole Systeme of fixed Stars remain unmovable every body placed about the Center of the World ought to have a motion about that otherwise it would be a stranger to nature and no partaker thereof it keeping all things in motion and not suffering them to be idle Fiftly we ought not to think that the fixed Stars have an apparent progressive motion according to the order of the Signs for that cause alone because the fixed Stars and the Equinoctiall points have a slow motion upon the terrestriall Poles in antecedence of the Signs For although in respect of the fixed Stars such an Hypothesis might be true because there is no exteriour body diversly proved to which the motion of the fixed Stars may be sensibly compared yet is it not to be admitted because it cannot stand with the Planets motions yet might it stand if the Sun alone did appear for by the annuall motion of the Poles of the Earth the Sun which then would not be supposed to run his annuall motion through the Zodiack would manifest his accesse and recesse but the Planets would be seen in the circle of Altitudes subject to irregular deviat ons which neverthelesse is not Therefore this Hypothesis were possible were there but one Planet but there being more it is not possible nor ought to be admitted Sixtly this Argument is drawn a simili we see in the Moon a certain direction of her parts to the Earth it is therefore likely that there is also direction of the Earths parts to the Sun and that their axes retain alwayes the same positure the one to the other without any turbination of either These are the Arguments which the learned Bullialdus lib. 5. cap. 2. Astron. Philol. hath brought for the dissolution of this inequality which I have here presented to the Reader in the same manner that he hath delivered them which though some of them vary from my present conceits yet do the rest notably fortifie my opinion Adde to these what Bullialdus hath demonstrated concerning the perpetuall equality of the Tropicall yeers and I would fain see how the Authors of Urania Practica will disprove them But such is their want of consideration they have not sufficiently followed their own Theory herein and though admitting of this inequality yet have given no rules or tables how to obtain it The lustre of Urania hath it may be dazled their eyes and the high flight of their Pen hath left their judgements behinde it so that we may justly wonder what concert whether the desire of being serviceable to Urania rr enobling their names hath drawn them to be actors upon the publick stage where every judicious Spectator may discern their insufficiency CHAP. IIII. Of the Sun and Moons Tables THe next thing in order we should take notice of is the Sun and Moons tables and hereof we can say little because our Authors have said nothing they onely affording us Epochaes for some few yeers without any sufficient rule whereby to perpetuate them For those annuall motions by them set down in the end of page 65. cannot be perpetually consonant to their own Rule unlesse they will with us deny the inequall Precession of the Equinoctiall points which their own words mentioned in the precedent Chapter do oppose Yet what we can gather from the Tables themselves and our