(694)
be none of the strongest, taketh occasion to let the world see, that they are not more esteem'd in Italy, than in other places. Manfredi, in behalf of Riccioli, endeavours to answer the Objections of Angeli, and this latter replyes to Manfredi''s Answer. The substance of their discourse is this following.
Although the Arguments of Riccioli be many, yet the strength of them consists chiefly in these three:
The first.
Multa corpora gravia, dimissa per Aerem, in Plano Æquatoris existentem, descenderent ad Terram cum Velocitatis Incremento reali & notabili, & non tantùm apparenti. Sed si tellus moveretur motu diurnotantùm circa sui centrum, nulla corpora gravia, dimissa per Aerem, in Plano Æquatoris existentem, descenderent ad Terram cum velocitatis incremento reali ac notabili, sed tantùm cum apparenti. E. Tellus aut non movetur, aut non movetur diurno tantùm motu.
The second.
Si Tellus moveretur motu diurno, aut etiam ammo, multò debilior esset ictus Globi bombardici explosi in Septentrionem aut Meridiem, quàm ab Occidente in Orientem. At consequens est falsum. E. & antecedens.
The third.
Si tellus diurno revolutione moveretur, Globus argillaceus unciarum 8. ex altitudine Romanorum pedum 240. per acrem quietum dimissus, obliquo desccesu in Terram delaberetur absque incremento reali ac physico velocitatis, vel certè nunquam tanto, quanta est proportio percusionis ac soni per casum ex dicta altitudine fasti Sed posterins est absurdum. E. & prius.
In Answer to the first of these Arguments, Angeli denieth the Minor, which Riccioli pretends to prove thus;
