Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, IA [i.e. Ind.]) 1839-1854, 1843-04-08
For the Palladium.
JAMES STARR, Sec'y.

Mr. Editor:-In late Palladium, find re-
ply made by Isaac Klnley, jr. 10 a few remarks
offered by me, concerning some objections winch
he conceived 10 exist aganat certain principles
Of Natural and Experimental Philosophy, and
which he had made public through the medium
OF your columns. That individual has very much
mis- taken the object which had in view. can
not imagine how he can have the presumption to
suppose that wished 10 enter into discussion
with him, for the purpose Of supporting primer.
pies which are too firmly established to be shaken
by him or any ono else. l do not aspire to SO
much honor. Mr.. Isaac kinley. jr. IS person
perfectly unknown 10 me, and presumed that he
knew some hing more of Dynamics than is to
be found in any elementary work, until he, him
self, has proved the contrary. When first saw
! his objections perceived iha, he labored under
a mis- take, and those objections had gone forth
10 the world without any of his friends endeav
oring to correc, him, conceived it to be my du
~ offer my first remarks, not so much from a
desire to senlighten his benighted understand
ing,'' as from fear that some of your readers
might consider that such objections did really ex-
ist. Yet because person has dared assert
tina. his hypothesis incorrect and that he was
combating an imaginary principle, his ndigna-
again notice his remarks i, no, that slight
mistake exists in my first communication, which
resulted from the omission of words in the MS
copy sen: for publication.
! stated in my first remarks that did not OBJ
ject to a single point which he had asserted to be
true, but that did object to his a,,rbutng prin-
cipes to Philosophy which it had never ADJ anced.
/ He has accused me Of making incorrect
] L .xAI.
sense TO his reading he would have seen tina,
did not attribute the quotation to him, but only
said that he had, himself, made a wrong extrac,
when he stated that the article IN question was
a principle of Philosophy, for Immediately after
quoting il, stated In this his assumption is false
for there exists such principle in Dynamcs.'
After referring him TO standard works In which
he could find that no one ever pretended that the
times Of asccn. ard descent of body in a resis-
ting medium, were equal. he still periinaciousy
persists in believing that iected to the truth
of the principles mentioned by him. can con-
vince Mr.. Kiney, jr. in a very few words that W G
agree exactly as the relative times 10 question
In the original MS. there are 3 words which
were omitted when il transcribed for publ.
cation, viz: the pelocity during which should
have been inserted Immediately before the words
the latter in the paragraph which should read the
time of fight (of body 10 a resisting medium
for ii Ia rise 10 certain height. is very different
from the time Of its descent, the retocHy during
the latter being much less than the former. !
preferred using the word velocity to the word
time, because ! presumed that Isaac Kinley, jr.
was sufficiently acquainted with dynamical rules
to know that when the same body describes two
equal spaces Tho celocities will be inversey pro-
portonal the times Of description; then, it
is ey iden, that the velocity of falling body is
less than that which il possessed while ascending
through the same space, it follows, necessarily,
that the Time of its descent is greater than that
of its ascent. This, in my very humble opinion,
is conclusive as the demonstration used by Mr..
kney. jr. to arrive at the same result, which lat
ter, although is strictly scientific, certain
ly deserves much credit for its extreme originality.
With regard TO the analytical work contained
/ in my previous remarks and in which the gen.
,leman in question has found nothing conclusive.
have only 10 state thai ifie IL able to discuss
aeehraic formulas he should be careful how he
meddisd with principles depending upon algebra
and the higher branches Of mathematics for their
proof and not upon diagrams. Those very equa-
tons aud the from which they were deduced
contain ali Inc circumstances attending the mo-
ton Of body ascending or descending in vacuo
and when introduced them did not lay any
claim 10 originality in obtaining them. They are
{ to be found 10 every standard work on dvnamcs
beg leave TO differ from The fair lady who has
so kindly offered nc, as mediator. No obiec
ton should be made 10 the opinion of la
dy but the matter in question is of too much i'm
D porance for this rule to hold good in he presen
case. When the force Of gravity alone acts up
on body the laws which govern lis rise and fal
will be the same and The times will be equal bu
if the atmosphere be taken into consideration /
acts n modifying force. If body be proec
led vertically upward By an impusive force suf
F. fcien, TO keep it in motion during one second O