[Margin: See ch. 19, from no. 1 to 7. — No solid response.]

[I.] First Argument. Many heavy bodies, dropped through the air in the plane of the Equator, would descend to the Earth with a real, and not merely apparent, increment of velocity. But if the Earth were moved by the motion of the diurnal whirling, they would not descend with a real increment, but only with an apparent increment of velocity. Therefore the Earth is not moved by the motion of the diurnal whirling. The Major has been demonstrated from our and others’ most certain experiments — made outside the Equator indeed, but shown to hold even in the Equator. The Minor too has been demonstrated from the Uniformity of the real motion, which [the bodies] would necessarily preserve by the force of the diurnal whirling; and the Argument is in [syllogistic] form. And therefore no solid response could be found, by me at least, to this argument; but it extorted — on account of [its] Physico-mathematical evidence — a necessary assent from me and from others to whom I proposed it. Yet some frivolous and insufficient responses have been adduced, and rejected, at number 5. But the same Argument was applied (ch. 19, no. 7) to Heavy [bodies] placed outside the Equator.

[Margin: See ch. 19, from no. 8 to 15. — No solid response.]

[II.] Second Argument. It is entirely the same as the preceding, but in the Minor the Annual motion too has been added, and in the Conclusion the same [is] excluded: which argument has been demonstrated in ch. 19, from no. 8 to 15 inclusive. Nor can those demonstrations — being subaltern to Geometry rather than to Physics — be reduced to a compendium; yet they tend to this, that it be demonstrated that the motion of Heavy [bodies], if the Earth were moved by the diurnal and annual motion together, would still be really uniform (or without sensible inequality), and accordingly Physically repugnant to a real increment of impetus — which from the stronger impact we certainly know. And so to this argument too no solution could hitherto be found which was not sophistical, and full of empty evasion. The same argument likewise was applied (ch. 19, no. 15) to Heavy [bodies] placed outside the Equator.

[…continues on p. 473 (PDF 508) with the catchword “III. Ter-” (Tertium) — the third anti-motion argument.]

(printed p. 473 — within Chapter XXXIV, the immobility epitome continues with Arguments III–XI against the Earth’s motion, chiefly from falling and rising bodies. The Copernican responses are repeatedly judged “begged” from the hypothesis or “of little firmness”; the centerpiece is Argument VI, that heavy bodies evidently fall by a straight perpendicular — if that is not evident to sense, “the whole science of Physics will perish.”)

[Header: DE SYSTEMATE TERRÆ MOTÆ — 473]

[Margin: See ch. 19, no. 16 & 17.]

[III.] Third Argument. If the Earth were moved by the diurnal motion, the same Heavy [body] — retaining the same gravity, figure, bulk, density, and all the other intrinsic conditions, and dropped from an equal height through air of the same temperature — would nevertheless not descend with equal velocity, whichever part of the Earth it be dropped above: for [a body] dropped at the Equator would descend without real inequality, by a curved line (granted that it would apparently descend unequally, by a straight line); but [a body] dropped above the poles of the terrestrial Equator would descend — not apparently only, but even really — by a straight line, accomplishing in equal times unequal spaces, as was shown in ch. 19, no. 16. But this is absurd in itself, and against the nature of heavy [bodies] holding themselves in the same way; nor is the absurdity avoided in any other way than by supposing the hypothesis of the diurnal motion of the Earth, with circumstances feigned by the Copernicans. But the motion of the earth is controverted, and ought not to be supposed as known, but to be proved or disproved from [things] better known; and it is better known that the same [thing] remaining the same, if it be a natural agent, always does the same, than [it is known] that the Earth moves.

[Margin: Three responses rejected.]

Three responses, by which the argument might be eluded, are rejected (ch. 19, no. 17) as empty: one which is sought from the air being thicker under the poles; another which [is sought] from the magnetic power of the earth; and a third, which [is sought] from the twofold power of Heavy [bodies] — one moving [them] downward for the good of the parts of the Heavy [bodies], the other moving [them] circularly for the common good of the parts following their whole [the Earth] — which [twofold power] is plainly feigned from the presumption of this hypothesis; otherwise it serves no good, since it is better for heavy [bodies] to arrive at their place and their whole by a straight and shortest way, etc. — about which [see] there. Wherefore the aforesaid Argument has Physical evidence.

[Margin: See ch. 19, no. 18.]

[IV.] Fourth Argument. It is the same as the 3rd, but applied to excluding the Annual motion: for, that being posited, there would still be no diurnal motion at the poles of the Earth; wherefore Heavy [bodies] would not have to traverse that portion of the line which, outside the poles, they would have to traverse by the force of the diurnal motion, but only that [portion] which [they traverse] by the force of the annual motion, transferring the poles; and therefore the motion would in reality be unequal, precisely on account of the descent over diverse parts of the Earth.

[Margin: See ch. 19, no. 19.]

[V.] Fifth Argument. It is the same as the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th, but applied to Light [bodies] tending upward: which — on account of the real increment of impetus observed by us, by certain experiments, in Light [bodies] too (though not so obvious to everyone) — compels us to retain the immobility of the Earth.

[Margin: See ch. 20, no. 1.]

[VI.] Sixth Argument. It is Physically evident that Heavy [bodies] naturally descend by a straight line perpendicular to the Earth, and, if they have been thrown upward along it, fall back by the same [line] into the same place; and [it is] so evident that its evidence can be convicted of falsity neither by other more certain sensations, nor by any necessary a priori reasons, nor by [things] revealed by God; and so sense, and the intellect leaning on sensations of this kind, is in possession of this evidence, nor can it ever be cast down from it on account of mere congruences [adduced] for the opposite. But now, if the Earth were moved by the diurnal or even the annual motion, Heavy [bodies] would really descend by a curved and longer line, as has now been demonstrated (ch. 17, from no. 16), and the Copernicans themselves confess [it].

[Margin: Invalid response.]

All the responses at length conspire to this, that they teach the sense to be fallacious, and accordingly that only this is evident, under a disjunction — one of two [things]: namely, that Heavy [bodies] descend either by such a line as that by which they appear to descend (namely by a straight [line]), or by [one] different from that by which they appear to descend; but which of these it is must be determined from somewhere other than from sense, since the senses are fallacious and cannot discern it. But that disjunctive proposition is evident not only Physically, but also Mathematically and Metaphysically; for us, however, in this place the Physical evidence suffices — [evidence] which not the sensation of one, or of a few men or times, but of all, [a sensation] almost infinitely repeated, has produced, and which holds its force so long as the contrary is not proved. But I have said more concerning the degrees of this and of other species of evidence in ch. 20, no. 6. Certainly, if it is not evident to sense that Heavy [bodies] descend by a straight line, nothing will be evident to it, and the whole science of Physics will perish: for nothing is so presented to sense which could not be otherwise by the absolute power of God.

[Margin: See ch. 20, no. 10.]

[VII.] Seventh Argument. The nature of Heavy and Light [bodies] demands that they return to their place, and be united to their whole, by the shortest possible way. But if the Earth were moved by the diurnal or even the annual motion, they would not return to their place by the shortest way — not, namely, by a straight [line] perpendicular to the earth, but by a much longer curved [one], as we showed in ch. 20, no. 10. Therefore the Earth is moved neither by the diurnal nor the annual motion.

[Margin: A response of little firmness.]

It is answered that the shortness of this return is not to be taken absolutely, but comparatively with respect to the motions necessary for Heavy [bodies] — among which is the curvilinear [motion], that they may fall into the place over which they once perpendicularly impended when they were dropped. But who does not see that this is begged [beggar-like] not from the nature of Heavy [bodies], but to defend the hypothesis of the earth’s motion? For it was more connatural for Heavy [bodies] to be moved downward by a straight perpendicular line, and after their union with the Earth to rest with it [when it is] resting, or to be moved circularly with it [when it is] moved; but, that they may fall into the same place, it was necessary to feign this longer motion by a curvilinear way. A better response seemed [to be] that of those conceding the Major, unless — the Earth being at rest — the diurnal motion in the stars and the motion of the second inequality in the five lesser Planets had to be multiplied. But that more motions are multiplied in the World if the Earth move than if it rest (the motions of the heavenly bodies also being computed), we have already said in the preceding chapter, in the responses to Arguments 13, 14, and 11 (no. 31); and so either Response seems of little firmness.

[Margin: See ch. 20, no. 12 & 13.]

[VIII.] Eighth Argument. If the Earth be not moved, a most natural reason can be rendered why Heavy [bodies], in descending, tend to the place to which we see them tend — namely, that as soon as possible and by the shortest way they may be beneath the less heavy [bodies], and thus occupy the place due to them in the system of the elements. But on the contrary, if the Earth be moved, such a reason cannot be rendered, except by recurring to the very motion of the Earth, which is in controversy; for why does water, dropped onto dust or sand or live coals, fall into the dust or into the coals (by which it is to be absorbed) — certainly not in order to be joined to the sand or the coals, etc.? But see the whole discourse made in ch. 20, from no. 12. Certainly, from these [things] which we know, no one of sound judgment would say that a rock placed near the center of the Earth would ascend, through the water set all around [it], to the rest of the earth, that it might be united to its whole — since neither do we see a rock dropped down a well cling to the side of the well, that thus it might at once be united to its whole, namely the earth.

[Margin: A response of little firmness.]

Any response supposes what is in question, and, prior to [the establishing of] the motion of the Earth, has no foundation.

[Margin: See ch. 20, no. 11.]

[IX.] Ninth Argument. The species of motions, or diverse inequalities, and diverse degrees of velocity in the same movable [body], are not to be multiplied without necessity. But they are multiplied, if the Earth be moved by the diurnal or even the annual motion: as was shown in ch. 20, no. 11.

[Margin: A response of little firmness.]

It is answered by denying that this happens without necessity; for [they say] it happens lest the diurnal motion be multiplied in the Fixed [stars] and in the Planets, and besides [lest] in the Planets [there be] the Epicyclic motion. But the Response collapses, because in reality more motions are posited in the World-system if the Earth move than if it rest, and without a foundation taken from the senses — nay, against sense. For the apparent motion in the Planets and in the Fixed [stars], though the earth be at rest, is single in each — namely the diurnal [motion] toward the West, but slower in those nearer the Earth; on account of which slowness it is believed that there is another motion toward the East.

[Margin: See ch. 20, no. 14.]

[X.] Tenth Argument. If an Angel were to let down a metallic sphere of great weight, hung from a chain, holding the other end of the chain immovable, that chain would be stretched perpendicularly toward the Earth by the force of the sphere; but according to the Copernicans it ought to be bent obliquely toward the East. But from this neither hypothesis can be convicted of falsity, because everyone must imagine this experiment according to the properties of his own hypothesis.

[Margin: See ch. 20, no. 15.]

[XI.] Eleventh Argument. The motion of the Earth being posited, none of the straight lines which we mark out by cord, thread, or ink would in reality be straight; but before God and the Angels they would be diverse figures, etc. But the Copernicans will deny that [these] are absurd to those who understand the reasons for which they assert the Earth’s motion; and since they have once dared to deny the Physical evidence…

[…continues on p. 474 (PDF 509) with the catchword “cam” (Physi-cam) — completing the eleventh anti-motion argument.]

(printed p. 474 — Chapter XXXIV continues with Arguments XI–XXVI, the cluster of mechanical and ballistic arguments against the Earth’s motion, including cannonball experiments fired toward the poles versus east and west and Grimaldi’s demonstration of unequal projectile impact. Several of these — notably XVII, XIX, XX, XXIII, and XXV — Riccioli marks as having no solid Copernican response.)

[Header: BOOK IX. SECTION IV. — 474]

…[and since they have once dared to deny the Physical evidence] of the natural motion of heavy [bodies] by a straight line, what wonder if, in other similar [cases] too, they have denied the real straightness of the lines drawn by us, and conceded only the apparent [straightness]?

[Margin: See ch. 21, from no. 1.]

[XII.] Twelfth Argument. If the Earth were moved by the diurnal or even the annual motion, clouds and birds hanging in the air — or trying to fly toward the East, and the like — would nevertheless seem to fly toward the West, as being left behind by the Earth, and by us [who are] carried with the Earth much more swiftly toward the East. But this is against the experiments. Therefore, etc.

[Margin: Response.]

The Copernicans respond by denying the Major: because all bodies akin to Earth and Water, besides their own private motion (if they have any), have also a motion common to the whole earth and water, by which they are carried toward the East with equal velocity (or through similar arcs); granted that it is not seen by us, because that motion is common to us also.

[Margin: See ch. 21, no. 3.]

[XIII.] Thirteenth Argument. [The thirteenth] is taken from the more difficult motion which there would be toward the West than toward the East, on account of the resistance of the air coming to meet [it]. But the Copernicans say that to bodies akin to the Earth — no otherwise than to the air neighboring the earth — there is a common motion toward the East.

[Margin: See ch. 21, no. 4.]

[XIV.] Fourteenth Argument. If the Earth were moved daily or even yearly, the vanes of towers, the plumes [tufts], flames, [and] smoke would be turned toward the East — or rather toward the West. But this the Copernicans deny, on account of the common motion which the terrestrial air and the other bodies akin to the Earth have toward the East.

[Margin: See ch. 21, no. 5.]

[XV.] Fifteenth Argument. [The fifteenth] is sought from the dissipation of many things which would arise from the motion of the earth; which, however, the Copernicans deny, on account of the so-often-mentioned common motion toward the East [belonging] to all bodies akin to the earth.

[Margin: See ch. 21, no. 6 & 7.]

[XVI.] Sixteenth Argument. If the Earth were turned by the diurnal whirling or even by the annual motion, the same cannonball, exploded in the same way and with the same force, would accomplish less space fired toward the East than toward the West; because the Earth, by sweeping the cannon toward the East, would pursue the Eastern ball, but would leave behind the Western ball (or [the one] fired at a Western target), inasmuch as the force impressed on the ball by the kindled powder would resist and break the [Earth’s] diurnal-motion-imitating force intrinsic to the ball — just as the same [impressed force] overcomes the gravity of the same ball, not allowing it to descend for some space from the straight line along which the cannon-ball is carried (granted that in this it be overcome, namely that it carries it more slowly). But the consequent is against the experiments of Tycho and of the Landgrave of Hesse, about which [see] more in ch. 21, no. 6.

[Margin: Response.]

It is answered by denying the Major: for rather the matter would be the other way round — that is, the ball would be more distant from the cannon fired toward the East than toward the West, because toward the East both motive powers would conspire; but in a ball exploded toward the West, the force of the fiery exhalation would so resist the eastward-moving power, that nevertheless this [eastward natural power] would resist the former more, and would blunt it more — being indeed stronger, perpetual, natural, etc.

[Margin: See ch. 21, no. 8. — No solid response.]

[XVII.] Seventeenth Argument. If the Earth were moved by the diurnal or even the annual motion, the same cannon-ball, fired in the same way, would traverse a notably different space if it were fired in parallels near the poles than if [fired] in parallels near the Equator, or in the plane of the Meridian toward the poles — on account of the very slow motion of the earth near the poles, and the smaller resistance from it in the motion of the ball fired toward the poles. But this is against the experiments of Tycho, etc. Therefore, etc. To this argument no valid response appears, unless perhaps someone deny that experiments of this kind have been made. But surely they can be made; nor will the difference between the aforesaid intervals be insensible, since each motion is so violent [forceful].

[Margin: See ch. 21, no. 9.]

[XVIII.] Eighteenth Argument. If the Earth were moved by the diurnal or even the annual motion, the cannon-ball, exploded either toward the East or toward the West, would fail of striking the target; for if it were directed toward the East, it would strike above [the target], if toward the West it would strike below — because, by the force of the earth’s motion, the Eastern target would be depressed, but the Western would be raised. But this is against Experiment.

[Margin: Response.]

Galileo responded, first, by recalling these experiments into doubt, as [there being] an insufficiency for discerning so great a subtlety and difference of excess or defect from the target; but [he answered] better by denying the Major, because the ball would not run along the same tangent of the Earth (as the unskilled imagine), but along now one and now another, and at the end of the motion would be found in that [tangent] which can be drawn from the target to the mouth of the cannon. But more is to be seen by you in ch. 21, no. 9.

[Margin: See ch. 21, no. 10. — No response.]

[XIX.] Nineteenth Argument. If the Earth were moved by the diurnal or even the annual motion, the impact of a cannon-ball — or [of a body] thrust by a ramrod or ballista toward one or other pole of the world — would be much weaker than the impact of the same fired toward the East or West, even if other things were equal. But this is against the Experiments: therefore the Earth would be moved by neither of those motions. About the Minor there is no controversy. The Major has been Physically demonstrated by Fr. Francesco Maria Grimaldi (ch. 21, no. 10). Nor has a response been adduced that enervates the better part of the Argument made there.

[Margin: See ch. 21, no. 11. — No response that is solid.]

[XX.] Twentieth Argument. If the Earth were moved by the diurnal or even the annual motion, the same ball — whether by cannon, or ballista, or driven by a ramrod, fired in the same way, once toward the East and again toward the West — would strike the Eastern target with a greater impact than the equally-distant Western [target]. But the consequent is utterly false, and repugnant to our experiments, and to those obvious to anyone; therefore the Earth is moved by neither the diurnal nor the annual motion. To which argument no solid response has been found.

[Margin: See ch. 21, no. 12.]

[XXI.] Twenty-first Argument. If the Earth were moved by the diurnal, or also the annual, motion, the same movable [body] could be moved at the same time by two contrary motions; for whatever [things] we now see moved toward the West would nevertheless also be moved toward the East with equal motion with the Earth. But this is impossible. Therefore, etc.

[Margin: Twofold response.]

It is answered. First, by Denying the Major in that sense in which the Minor is to be conceded: for the movable [body] would not really approach the same terminus fixed in the space of the world, from which meanwhile it would recede; but in reality it would always approach the Eastern terminus — yet less swiftly than if, by its endeavor toward the West, it did not diminish the velocity it would otherwise have toward the East. Secondly, the argument was Retorted [pointing] to the two contrary motions of the heaven; which, if they can be reconciled in the heaven, can also by an equivalent reasoning be reconciled in the Earth. But see ch. 21, no. 12.

[Margin: See ch. 21, no. 13.]

[XXII.] Twenty-second Argument. If the Earth be moved by the diurnal, or also the annual, motion, innumerable motions of the same species would be multiplied without necessity; for to each individual of the animals it would be necessary to attribute, besides its proper motion, the common motion of the Earth, so that the apparent experiments be saved. But this multiplication is absurd. Therefore.

[Margin: Response.]

It is answered by denying the Major: for there is a necessity, lest motions be multiplied in the heaven. But there is less foundation for multiplying these motions in the heaven than in the Earth; and fewer are really multiplied if they be attributed to the heaven than if to the Earth; whence arises the following most valid argument.

[Margin: See ch. 21, no. 14. — No solid response.]

[XXIII.] Twenty-third Argument. There is a greater foundation for attributing the diurnal motion to the stars and the annual to the Sun, than the diurnal and annual to the Earth; and if that be done, the multiplication of real motions is smaller than if they be attributed to the Earth. Therefore the diurnal motion is to be attributed to the stars, and the annual to the Sun, rather than to the Earth. See the force of the argument in ch. 21, no. 14; nor will you find any solid response.

[Margin: See ch. 21, no. 15.]

[XXIV.] Twenty-fourth Argument. If the Earth is moved by the diurnal or even the annual motion, the motions which manifestly appear to us must be destroyed without necessary reason, and in their place must be substituted motions which do not appear; which indeed is absurd in itself. See ch. 21, no. 15.

[Margin: See ch. 21, no. 16. — No solid response.]

[XXV.] Twenty-fifth Argument. If the Earth be moved by the diurnal and annual motion, a motion variable by innumerable inequality must be attributed to the same movable [body], and far more [so] than if it be attributed to the stars. Therefore, etc. See ch. 21, no. 16, where we said that no firm response appears to this argument.

[Margin: See ch. 22, no. 1 & 2. — Response.]

[XXVI.] Twenty-sixth Argument. The Earth is most thick [dense] and most heavy, therefore inert toward all motion. It is answered by denying the Consequence concerning circular motion, [to which]…

[…continues on p. 475 (PDF 510) with the catchword “cui” — the response to the twenty-sixth argument.]

(printed p. 475 — Chapter XXXIV finishes the thirty-eight arguments against the diurnal-plus-annual motion (XXVI–XXXVIII), most answered by the Copernicans’ appeal to the common shared motion; they include the well-bottom star argument and the three-hour eclipse at Christ’s death. A new sub-section then opens: “Thirty-nine Arguments Against the Situation and the Annual Motion of the Earth, considered apart from the Diurnal” (chs. 25–31), beginning with Aristotelian arguments from the tendency of heavy bodies to the Universe’s center.)

[Header: DE SYSTEMATE TERRÆ MOTÆ — 475]

…[It is answered by denying the consequence concerning circular motion], to which gravity does not resist. But whether the whole Earth, as a whole, is heavy, see ch. 21, no. 2.

[Margin: See ch. 22, no. 3.]

[XXVII.] Twenty-seventh Argument. So great would be the velocity of the diurnal motion that it would overcome the flight of birds — much more the course of rivers, or of ships toward the East; therefore no birds, ships, etc. could reach their eastern terminus, which is against the experiments.

[Margin: Response.]

It is answered by denying the Consequence: because birds, ships, etc. are moved not only by their own motion, but also equally by the common [motion] with the Earth, on Copernicus’s hypothesis. But how great the velocity of the Earth would be, I have taught accurately in ch. 21, no. 1.

[Margin: See ch. 22, no. 4.]

[XXVIII.] Twenty-eighth Argument. If the Earth were moved by the diurnal and annual motion, we would feel a perpetual wind toward the West, and a sound and whistling from the air dashed against trees, mountains, towers, etc. But these we by no means feel.

[Margin: Response.]

It is answered by denying the Minor concerning the nearly perpetual winds within the Tropics, but [denying] the Major concerning the other effects — because the air too, neighboring the Earth (as being full of exhalations and vapors), would be moved by the common motion with the Earth.

[Margin: See ch. 22, no. 5 & 6.]

[XXIX.] Twenty-ninth Argument. [The 29th] is from the shaking and ruin of buildings, or the hurling of bodies weakly adhering to the Earth, which would seem to follow from the rapid whirling of the Earth.

[Margin: Response.]

It is answered that there is no such danger on the Copernican hypothesis, as is clear from what is said in ch. 22, no. 6.

[Margin: See ch. 22, no. 7.]

[XXX.] Thirtieth Argument. We ought to feel this motion in ourselves, if it were common to us with the earth. But that there is in reality no necessity of this sensation, we taught in ch. 22, no. 7.

[Margin: See ch. 23, no. 1.]

[XXXI.] Thirty-first Argument. If the Earth were turned toward the East, the Eastern mountains would seem to us to descend, and the Western to ascend. But this sequel is denied by the Copernicans, because the plane on which we are with the mountains, and the mountains themselves, are moved with us by an equal motion, and therefore we do not notice their motion [which is] common to us.

[Margin: See ch. 23, from no. 2 to 8.]

[XXXII.] Thirty-second Argument. If the Earth were moved at least by the diurnal motion, we — looking from the bottom of a well at some Fixed star impending over our vertex [zenith] — would, in one blink of the eye elapsed, lose the sight of it; because in a blink of the eye the whole breadth of the mouth of the well would pass by, by the force of the diurnal whirling. But this is against the experiments. Therefore.

[Margin: Response.]

It is answered by denying the sequel of the Major: because our wells neither reach to the center of the Earth, nor are much wider than four or five feet; wherefore the visual angle existing at the bottom of such wells embraces much more of the heaven’s circumference than the terrestrial arc traversed by the Earth in one blink of the eye. But this response will become clearer from the Problems most worthy to be known, which we handed down on this occasion (ch. 23, from no. 2 to 8).

[Margin: See ch. 23, no. 8.]

[XXXIII.] Thirty-third Argument. If the Earth were moved at least by the diurnal motion, Gnomons erected in the Tropics, on the solstitial days, would cast sensible shadows around the time of Noon. But that it happens otherwise, Strabo and Pliny relate. Yet the sequel of the Major is denied, for the cause adduced in ch. 23, no. 8.

[Margin: See ch. 23, no. 9.]

[XXXIV.] Thirty-fourth Argument. The Eclipse of the Sun at the death of CHRIST was total for three hours; but if the Earth had been turned by the diurnal motion, it would not have lasted total for three hours — for the Earth’s whirling would at once have withdrawn Palestine into another situation, from which it could have seen the Sun. Therefore.

[Margin: Response.]

It is answered by denying the Minor: because the Moon could have been preserved [kept] between the Sun and Palestine for three hours — advanced toward the East just as much as the Earth’s motion would require. The rest see in ch. 23, no. 9.

[Margin: See ch. 24, no. 1 & 2.]

[XXXV.] Thirty-fifth Argument. Circular motion is violent or preternatural to the particles of the earth; therefore also to the whole Earth; therefore it does not befit it perpetually. So Aristotle.

[Margin: Twofold response.]

It is answered. First, by Denying the Antecedent: for to the parts of the Earth, on the Copernican hypothesis, a really circular motion befits naturally, when they are united to their whole; but a motion mixed of straight and circular [befits them] if they be separated — granted that it does not appear to us insofar as it is circular, because we too are turned with the Earth by such a motion. Secondly, the argument was Retorted against Aristotle, [who] admits in elementary Fire a perpetual circular motion, although preternatural.

[Margin: See ch. 24, no. 3.]

[XXXVI.] Thirty-sixth Argument. The Copernican motion of the Earth removes from the Universe the simple motion of things upward and downward; therefore it is not to be admitted. The Copernicans respond by denying the antecedent as to the apparent motion.

[Margin: See ch. 24, no. 4.]

[XXXVII.] Thirty-seventh Argument. The principle of the terrestrial motion cannot be assigned without great inconveniences. Therefore. The Copernicans respond by denying the antecedent, and say that it [the principle] is intrinsic and natural; see ch. 24, no. 4.

[Margin: See ch. 24, from no. 5 & 6.]

[XXXVIII.] Thirty-eighth Argument. The Copernican motion of the Earth renders the motion of Heavy and Light [bodies] un-natural, but the circular [motion] natural — and that [natural] to things most diverse in nature, and entangled in insoluble questions. Therefore. The Copernicans respond by denying the 1st and 3rd part of the antecedent; but to the eleven chief Questions raised by Scheiner, a response is given in ch. 24, no. 6.

Thirty-nine Arguments Against the Situation and the Annual Motion of the Earth, considered separately from the Diurnal, and their Solutions, handed down from ch. 25 to 31 inclusive.

[Margin: See ch. 25, from no. 1 to 5.]

[XXXIX.] First Argument. [The center of the Earth is] there, where is the terminus to which all Heavy [bodies] naturally and per se tend; but this terminus is the center of the Universe; therefore the center of the Earth is in the center of the Universe. The Minor Aristotle proves: first, because, the Earth being removed, heavy [bodies] would nevertheless tend to the center of the Universe; therefore heavy [bodies] are not carried to the center of the Earth per se, and insofar as [it is] of the Earth, but insofar as it is the center of the Universe. Secondly, because that is the terminus to which, per se, of heavy [bodies], which is the terminus from which, per se, of light [bodies]; but light [bodies] per se recede from the center of the Earth, insofar as it is the center of the universe, since they tend toward the circumference of the supreme heaven (or of the Universe) by perpendicular lines.

[Margin: Manifold response.]

Galileo responded in threefold manner — and not badly, from his hypothesis, as is clear in ch. 25, no. 6 — and Kepler [also responded]; but in Kepler’s solution we noted five faults, about which [see] ch. 25, no. 7. But our response is: the Major being granted, by denying the Minor and the Antecedent of [its] proof; for, the Earth being removed (that is, transferred), heavy [bodies] would tend to the center of the Earth; but it being destroyed, and the rest of the elements and the mixed [bodies] remaining, they would tend to the center of Water — which would then be vicar [substitute] for the earth — that is, to the center of the heaviest body. To the second proof, the Minor is denied: for light [bodies] tend to the supreme circumference of the elemental sphere, which Aristotle supposed (but did not prove) to be concentric with the Universe; but whether in this he begged the principle, or committed a paralogism, see the things said in ch. 25, no. 6.

[Margin: See ch. 25, no. 9.]

[XL.] Second Argument. Light [bodies], from any point of the terrestrial surface, ascend toward the supreme heaven by a straight line perpendicular both to the convexity of the terrestrial globe and to the concavity of the supreme heaven; therefore they ascend from the center of the Universe; but they ascend by receding from the center of the Earth; therefore the center of the Earth and the center of the Universe (or [its] center) are the same.

[Margin: Response.]

It is answered by denying the Major: for they tend not to the supreme heaven, but toward the supreme surface of the elemental sphere, which is concentric with the Earth; but whether it is concentric with the Universe is doubtful, unless it be shown from elsewhere — indeed the Copernicans contend that it is eccentric [to the Universe].

[Margin: See ch. 25, no. 10.]

[XLI.] Third Argument. Gravity and Levity were given to bodies not that they may be united to their whole and to what is like themselves, but that they may retain or recover a determinate place in the Universe; for place, insofar as it is place, is the formal terminus of motion [lation]. Therefore they have an immovable place at the center, or about the center, of the Universe; but this they would not have, if the Earth were moved through the annual orb.

[Margin: Response.]

It is answered by denying the Major: for it [gravity and levity] was given that they may acquire and preserve a place in the elemental system — wherever that system be — abstracting from its mobility and immobility.

[Margin: See ch. 25, no. 11.]

[XLII.] Fourth Argument. Unless the Earth occupies the center of the World…

[…continues on p. 476 (PDF 511) with the catchword “cen-” (Mundi cen-trum) — completing the statement of the fourth argument against the Earth’s situation, then its response.]

(printed p. 476 — Chapter XXXIV continues the thirty-nine arguments against the Earth’s situation and annual motion, running rapidly through Arguments XLII–LXIII: terse Aristotelian-cosmological objections on gravity, levity, the world’s center and lowest place, the planetary order, and astronomical consequences such as gnomon shadows and lunar eclipses, each with a brief Copernican reply. Argument LXIII, on the physical evidence of the Sun’s annual motion, continues onto the next page.)

[Header: BOOK IX. SECTION IV. — 476]

…[unless the Earth occupies the World’s] center, no sufficient reason can be given why the whole [Earth] is not borne downward, or to that [point] whither its parts are borne. Therefore it occupies the center of the World.

[Margin: Twofold response.]

It has been answered by Kepler, by denying the Antecedent; for [he says] the reason is that the whole Earth, insofar as it is whole, is not heavy — granted that Claramonti said both that it is heavy, and that its weight can very nearly be known (about which see ch. 25, no. 11). But other Copernicans would respond that the cause is that the whole Earth is naturally determined to circular motion about the center of the world.

[Margin: See ch. 25, no. 12. — Response.]

[XLIII.] Fifth Argument. If the Earth were transferred to [the place of] the Moon, heavy [bodies] nevertheless would not tend thither, but to the center of the Universe, etc. The Copernicans respond by denying the antecedent — which Aristotle has not yet shown.

[Margin: See ch. 25, no. 13. — Response.]

[XLIV.] Sixth Argument. To the heaviest and lowest of bodies the lowest place is due: the Earth is the heaviest, and the center of the World is the lowest place. Therefore. They respond by conceding [it] concerning the lowest place in the elemental system, [but] denying [it] concerning the absolutely lowest.

[Margin: See ch. 25, no. 14. — Response.]

[XLV.] Seventh Argument. Heavy [bodies] are said [to be such] simply [absolutely] which are borne to the Middle [center], Light [those] which [are borne] from the Middle; but these definitions would perish if this Middle were not the Middle of the Universe. They respond by denying the Minor: for it is enough if it be the middle of the elemental system.

[Margin: See ch. 25, no. 15. — Response.]

[XLVI.] Eighth Argument. Unless the center of the Earth and of the elemental system be the center of the Universe, positive levity is abolished, and reduced to a privation of greater gravity. But this is against reasons resting on our experiments. Therefore. The Major is proved from the lack of a determinate place for Light [bodies]. It is answered by denying the Major: for the Physical place of light [bodies] — fire, say — would be the space between the Moon and the heavier elements, even if the whole elemental sphere were transferred to another Mathematical place in the space of the World.

[Margin: See ch. 25, no. 16. — Response.]

[XLVII.] Ninth Argument. Heavy [bodies], in descending to the center of the Earth, would sometimes recede from the center of the World (if the Earth were outside it), and Light [bodies] would approach it by receding from the earth. Therefore the definitions of Heavy and Light would be confounded. It is answered by conceding the consequence concerning the definitions as understood by Aristotle, [but] denying [it] concerning [them] rightly understood — that is, as handed down in relation to the middle of the elemental system.

[Margin: See ch. 25, no. 17. — Response.]

[XLVIII.] Tenth Argument. Gravity and Levity are implanted in bodies, that they may rest in their place, or so tend toward it as to rest in it. But they would never rest, if the Earth with the elements were whirled through the annual orb. It is answered by conceding the Major concerning the place of Heavy and Light [bodies] as such — that is, that Heavy [bodies] may stand beneath the light, and light [bodies] stand above the heavy, in the elemental system; in which sense the Minor is denied.

[Margin: See ch. 25, no. 18. — Twofold response.]

[XLIX.] Eleventh Argument. Centers, and the positions of centers, would be multiplied without necessity; for one [thing] would be the center of the Universe, another — and always different — the center of the Earth and of the elemental system. Therefore, etc. It is answered: first, by denying the Antecedent; for the necessity [is] a priori — namely all the arguments, or all the best ones, on account of which the Copernicans posit the annual motion of the Earth. Secondly, by retorting the argument: for otherwise the center of the Universe and the center of the Planetary system would be multiplied (which is now reckoned to be the Sun) — unless the Sun were at the center of the World, and the Earth went about it.

[Margin: See ch. 26, no. 1. — Response.]

[L.] Twelfth Argument. All who behold the heaven from any part of the Earth judge the heaven to be “up” and the Earth “down”; but this judgment would be false, if the Earth were outside the center of the World. Therefore. It is answered by conceding the Minor concerning the center taken even Physically and to the senses, [but] denying [it] concerning the center taken Mathematically.

[Margin: See ch. 26, no. 2. — Response.]

[LI.] Thirteenth Argument. The Earth is the lowest not only of the elements, but of all Mundane [worldly] Bodies; therefore the lowest place is due to it not only in the elemental System, but also in the World — which is the center of the World. It is answered by denying the Antecedent, if the Earth be taken together with men and other living creatures. The other responses see in ch. 26, no. 2.

[Margin: See ch. 26, no. 3.]

[LII.] Fourteenth Argument. Too great a license would be given of placing the Earth anywhere.

[Margin: Response.]

It is answered by denying the antecedent: for it [the Earth] must be situated in such a position that half of the heaven is, to the senses, conspicuous on every side, and the rest of the heaven’s phenomena are saved.

[Margin: See ch. 26, no. 4. — Response.]

[LIII.] Fifteenth Argument. The Earth being placed outside the center of the World, the Hell of the damned would not be Hell — nay, some tending into it would ascend. Therefore. It is answered by denying the Antecedent; for that place [Hell] is so named comparatively with respect to the surface of the earth, on which men were wayfarers [viatores, souls still on life’s journey], and with respect to the Empyrean, in which [are] the possessors [comprehensores, the blessed who possess beatitude] — which two relations would remain notwithstanding the motion of the Earth. The rest see in ch. 26, no. 4.

[Margin: See ch. 26, no. 5. — Response.]

[LIV.] Sixteenth Argument. If the Earth be in the Annual Orb together with the elements, the order of the Planetary and elemental system is perverted: since the elemental sphere comes out [as] one great Planet, and is set in the heaven; and the number of the primary Planets, 7, is overthrown — since the Sun ceases to be a Planet, and the Moon [ceases to be] a primary Planet (for it comes out [as] a follower [satellite] of the earth); but the Earth with the elements comes out [as] a primary Planet, and only 6 primary Planets are retained. But this is most absurd. The Copernicans respond, the Major being conceded, by distinguishing the Minor, and conceding it with respect to those who, accustomed to the Peripatetic [school], estimate all things from the senses, [but] Denying it with respect to those who — contemplating the Platonic Ideas, and initiated into the Pythagorean mysteries — estimate the order of things from archetypal reasons.

[Margin: See ch. 27, no. 1 & 2. — Response.]

[LV.] Seventeenth Argument. The Earth being placed at the center of the World, all the Phenomena of the heaven are saved. Therefore. It is answered by denying the Consequence, because they are saved even if the Earth be moved in the annual orb, [along] with the diurnal motion.

[Margin: See ch. 27, no. 3.]

[LVI.] Eighteenth Argument. More motions would have to be attributed to the Earth, since [there are] greater changes [variations] in the stars, etc. Response: by conceding the first [part], [but] denying the second.

[Margin: See ch. 27, no. 4.]

[LVII.] Nineteenth Argument. An entire hemisphere of the heaven could not be seen by us from any part of the earth. Response: by denying the sequel, because no more of the heaven is hidden than the horizontal parallax of the stars amounts to — which, the Moon excepted, is less than a whole degree.

[Margin: See ch. 27, no. 5.]

[LVIII.] Twentieth Argument. The Fixed stars, toward which the Earth would approach, would appear larger than themselves. Response: by denying [it], if the diameter of the annual orb were — with respect to the distance of the Fixed [stars] — of imperceptible proportion, as Copernicus posits.

[Margin: See ch. 27, no. 6.]

[LIX.] Twenty-first Argument. The Eastern shadows of gnomons, at an equal altitude of the Sun above the horizon, would not be equal to the Western [shadows]. Response: by denying the sequel, because the Earth in either case would be, to the senses, equally distant from the Sun.

[Margin: See ch. 27, no. 7.]

[LX.] Twenty-second Argument. The vicissitudes of days and nights, in the threefold [position of the] sphere [right, parallel, oblique], would not happen in the way they now do. Response: by denying the sequel, which arises from ignorance of the Copernican hypothesis expounded in ch. 4.

[Margin: See ch. 27, no. 8. — Response.]

[LXI.] Twenty-third Argument. Eclipses of the Moon would not always occur with the Moon placed under the location of the Zodiac opposite to that under which the Sun is. Response: by denying the sequel; for the Sun would not be whirled annually about the Earth, but the Earth about the Sun, carrying with it the Lunar heaven, etc.; wherefore always in an eclipse [of the Moon] the Earth would be interposed between the Moon and the Sun, in some diameter of the heaven drawn through the center of the heaven — that is, through the center of the Sun or of the annual orb.

[Margin: See ch. 27, no. 9. — Response.]

[LXII.] Twenty-fourth Argument. But at least eclipses of the Moon would not occur with both Luminaries appearing on the horizon. Response: by denying the sequel, for the reason indicated in the response to the 23rd Argument. Concerning, moreover, the ignorance of Argoli, who boasts this argument, see ch. 27, no. 9.

[Margin: See ch. 27, no. 10. — Invalid response.]

[LXIII.] Twenty-fifth Argument. It is Physically evident that the Sun is moved by the annual motion — that is, that it is slower in the diurnal motion in such a way that after 365¼ days it again most nearly attains the same Fixed star. Therefore it is Physically evident that the Earth is not moved thus; for only the one [or the other] is possible in Astronomy. They respond by denying the Antecedent: for [they say] only this disjunctive is evident — either that the Sun is moved annually about the Earth (not transferred), or that the Earth [is moved] about the Sun (not transferred). But, as has been said above more than once, this disjunctive is evident not only Physically, but also Mathe-…

[…continues on p. 477 (PDF 512) with the catchword “Mathe-” (Mathe-maticè) — completing the response to the twenty-fifth argument.]

(printed p. 477 — Chapter XXXIV runs the thirty-nine arguments to their end (LXIV–LXXVII), almost entirely the parallax-and-stellar-distance battery: the absence of six-month parallax, the “insane and incredible bulk” required of the star-sphere, the vast idle gap between Saturn and the stars, and a cluster of refraction arguments — the Copernicans answering chiefly by removing the stars to immense distances and extolling Divine Magnificence. Chapter XXXIV ends.)

[Header: DE SYSTEMATE TERRÆ MOTÆ — 477]

…[evident not only Physically, but also] Mathematically. But here the Physical evidence suffices to determine the one [other] hypothesis — [evidence] such as it is, and to which nothing is repugnant. Wherefore to this Argument no valid response is brought.

[Margin: See ch. 28, from no. 1 to 6.]

[LXIV.] Twenty-sixth Argument. If the Earth were moved through the Annual orb, when it had been transferred from one point to the opposite point of the annual orb after 6 months, a sensible diversity would appear in the altitude of the same Fixed [stars], or a notable parallax — at least in the stars nearer the pole. But Astronomers have never noted any parallax within the same year in the Fixed stars. Therefore.

[Margin: Response.]

It is answered by conceding the Major against certain Copernicans who set too small a distance of the Fixed [stars]; but by denying it from Copernicus’s Hypothesis, which requires so great a distance of the Fixed [stars] that the diameter of the annual orb vanishes — that is, makes no sensible parallax in the Fixed [stars]. But many things concerning this parallax have been handed down in ch. 28, from no. 1 to 7; and thence the various responses of the Copernicans, which read.

[Margin: See ch. 28, no. 11.]

[LXV.] Twenty-seventh Argument. If the Earth were moved through the Annual orb, the earth approaching the Fixed stars after 6 months, in the Equinoctial points, a great parallax would be felt as regards the apparent distance of Sirius from the rising or setting Sun. But none is felt. Therefore.

[Margin: Response.]

It is answered by denying the Major, because that diversity arises from the distance of Sirius from the colure of the Solstices, whether the Earth stand still or be moved. And if any other diversity be said to be going to [occur], it is at once removed by the distance of the Fixed [stars], increased finitely toward infinity by the Copernicans.

[Margin: See ch. 28, no. 13. — Response.]

[LXVI.] Twenty-eighth Argument. But surely a notable parallax would be felt in the apparent magnitude of the Fixed [stars]. It is answered by denying [it] concerning the Fixed [stars]; for even if they were in the Ecliptic, that diversity would not be greater than 4 Thirds [4‴]; nay, it would be much less, if their distance be increased as much as Copernicus permits.

[Margin: See ch. 29, from no. 1 to 18.]

[LXVII.] Twenty-ninth Argument. The annual motion of the Earth being posited, lest a sensible Parallax follow, one must posit so great a distance of the Fixed [stars] from the center of the Earth and of the Universe, that their sphere would come out of an insane and altogether incredible bulk; as is clear from the things said in ch. 29 — concerning the distance indeed of the Fixed [stars] in Copernicus’s hypothesis, from no. 1 to 13 inclusive (where you have select opinions); and concerning the bulk of the sphere of the Fixed [stars], from no. 14 to 16 inclusive.

[Margin: Response.]

The Copernicans, however, respond by denying that that bulk or distance is incredible — granted it be admirable, and [that it] commends the more the Divine Omnipotence and Magnificence; but see the things said in ch. 29, no. 18.

[Margin: See ch. 29, no. 19 & 20.]

[LXVIII.] Thirtieth Argument. If the Earth were moved through the Annual orb, to avoid the sensible Parallax of the Fixed [stars] that would arise from the diameter of the annual orb, one would have to posit between Saturn and the Fixed [stars] an immense space empty and idle of stars. But this indeed is absurd, and exceeding all belief — especially since the Copernicans themselves so often inculcate that God and Nature do nothing idly or in vain. Therefore.

[Margin: Response.]

I have taught (ch. 29, no. 20) that the responses of the Copernicans are invalid, and rest on begged, violent, or improbable subtleties — granted that the last [response], which is there the 4th, cannot be convicted of falsity; if, namely, someone say that in that space there are many of those Fixed [stars] which cannot be discerned without a Telescope, and whose place nevertheless cannot be so exactly observed with Astronomical Instruments, that if they have any parallax, it could be felt. But other Copernicans respond by denying the incredibility of so great a magnitude, and again from this extolling the Magnificence of God, and retorting the argument [back] onto the excessive velocity of the Fixed [stars] that would follow from the Ptolemaic hypothesis — which they think more incredible than this Magnitude. On which occasion we showed (no. 8) that that velocity is more credible than this bulk of the Fixed [stars]; and (no. 7) we said that, if God had wished to be commended by this bulk, it would come about that He would give us some indication of it a posteriori, nor would He have exhibited them [the stars] so small to us, etc. But see that discourse, that you may learn that the Response, although it cannot be convicted of falsity, nevertheless cannot satisfy more prudent men.

[Margin: See ch. 29, no. 21.]

[LXIX.] Thirty-first Argument. But the stars would be so far distant from the Sun, that the Sun, beheld from them, would be like a point, and accordingly unfit to illuminate them. Response: by conceding the whole; for the Fixed stars do not have [their] light from the Sun.

[Margin: See the whole of ch. 30.]

[LXX.] Thirty-second Argument. If the Earth were moved through the Annual orb, so great would be the distance of the Fixed [stars] that their Magnitude would come out greater than the whole annual orb; but this is incredible. Therefore. Moreover, that that Magnitude would be so great we demonstrated (ch. 30, from no. 1 to 6); for in vain did Galileo and Hortensius try to diminish it, from the things said in the same place, no. 7. Response 1.

[Margin: Response.]

But other Copernicans respond by denying the incredibility of so great a magnitude, and again from this extolling the Magnificence of God, and retorting the argument [as in the response to the 30th argument above].

[Margin: See ch. 31, no. 1.]

[LXXI.] Thirty-third Argument. If the Earth were whirled in the Annual orb, so great would be the distance of the Fixed [stars] that no sensible Refractions of the Fixed [stars] would occur, because the Inclination of the ray incident on our Air — in which the refraction ought to take place — would come out imperceptible; just as [would] the whole orb of the earth and of the surrounding air; whereas nevertheless it [the inclination] is always greater than the refraction. But in the Fixed stars a sensible Refraction has been observed, and indeed of 30 Minutes at the horizon; which the more recent Copernicans admit. Therefore.

[Margin: Response.]

It is answered by denying the Major; for although the earth with the air, seen from the Fixed [stars], would be like a point, nevertheless the angle of the Inclination of the ray of the Fixed [stars] to us, who are near to it, is and would be very great; and we measure this from data of sensible and known magnitude — namely from the horizontal Refraction, the semidiameter of the earth, and the semidiameter of the refractive air.

[Margin: See ch. 31, no. 2.]

[LXXII.] Thirty-fourth Argument. But at least the Refraction would not be greater than the Inclination of the incident Ray. But this sequel likewise we denied (ch. 31, no. 2), as will be clear a fortiori from the response to the following argument.

[Margin: See ch. 31, from no. 3 to 6.]

[LXXIII.] Thirty-fifth Argument. Yet so great would be the distance of the Fixed [stars], that the Refractions could not be less than half the Inclination; but this is against the Dioptrical canons [rules]. Therefore.

[Margin: Response.]

It is answered by denying the Major, the opposite of which has been clearly shown by most subtle calculations entered into (ch. 31, from no. 3 to 6); and it has been shown that not even through a distance of the Fixed [stars] finite-toward-infinite would the refraction reach half the Inclination; nay, that they cannot, through whatever distance, be so elevated that, while they appear in the physical horizon, all refraction perishing, they really are in it.

[Margin: See ch. 31, from no. 6 to 9.]

[LXXIV.] Thirty-sixth Argument. From the certain semidiameter of the earth, and the altitude of the refractive air, and the horizontal refraction of the Fixed [stars], and their true distance from the zenith [vertex]; or at least from the proportion hence between the refractions of the Fixed [stars] compared with the proportion of the refractions of the Sun and Moon; thence from the proportion of the distance of the Sun and Moon from the earth, it follows that the distance of the Fixed [stars] from the earth ought to be far less than the Copernican hypothesis requires for the annual motion of the earth.

[Margin: Response.]

Yet the response was, by denying that this follows from the first of the aforesaid positions; and it was shown by a most certain demonstration [apodixis] that the distance of the Fixed [stars] can grow finitely-toward-infinity, the things indicated in the first position being saved. But to the aforesaid Proportion, which is touched in the second supposition, we denied that one must stand.

[Margin: See ch. 31, no. 10.]

[LXXV.] Thirty-seventh Argument. In the lenses of the Telescope all refractions of the Fixed [stars], so remote, would cease; and therefore the Fixed [stars] could not appear larger to us by benefit of the Telescope, because the inclinations of the rays upon the lenses would cease — which is repugnant to experiments.

[Margin: Response.]

The response was, by denying the sequel, by the same reasoning which we indicated in the response to argument 33.

[Margin: See ch. 31, no. 11.]

[LXXVI.] Thirty-eighth Argument. The centers of the earth and of the universe being separated by the semidiameter of the annual orb, we would be uncertain whence we ought to estimate the true altitude of the stars. It is answered by denying the sequel; for this measure would have to be estimated from either [center], though in a different way.

[Margin: See the whole of ch. 32. — Response.]

[LXXVII.] Thirty-ninth Argument. If the Copernican hypothesis were admitted, too great a license would be afforded to wits [clever minds] of feigning system after system, and of placing in the center of the World now this, now that Planet, etc. It is answered that certain systems would be unfit for maintaining all the celestial Phenomena; but of the suitable ones, none [is] more apt than the Copernican.

✠ [Chapter XXXIV ends here.]

[…continues on p. 478 (PDF 513) with the catchword “CA-” (CAPVT XXXV) — the opening of Chapter XXXV.]

(printed p. 478 — Chapter XXXV opens, the climactic chapter concluding from reasons alone which hypothesis must be asserted, proceeding by numbered Conclusions. Conclusion I holds the celestial phenomena are saved equally under either hypothesis; Conclusions II–III find that certain physical experiments on falling bodies and projectiles can be saved only on a resting Earth, with no physically evident argument for its motion; Conclusion V, the principal one, absolutely asserts the Earth’s immobility as true and its motion as false and repugnant to physico-mathematical demonstrations.)

[Header: BOOK IX. SECTION IV. — 478]