I think Eddington cooked the books .

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter DAANEL
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Books
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the historical analysis of Arthur Eddington's observations during a solar eclipse, questioning the accuracy of his results using a 60 mm telescope. Participants highlight that modern evidence overwhelmingly supports General Relativity's predictions regarding light deviation. It is noted that Eddington would have required a telescope of at least 200 mm to achieve the necessary precision, which daytime atmospheric turbulence would have compromised. The consensus is that while Eddington's findings are debated, they are largely considered questionable in light of contemporary understanding.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of General Relativity principles
  • Familiarity with astronomical observation techniques
  • Knowledge of telescope specifications and their impact on observational accuracy
  • Awareness of historical scientific controversies
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the specifications and capabilities of telescopes, particularly the 200 mm models
  • Explore the historical context of Eddington's 1919 solar eclipse observations
  • Study the statistical methods used in astronomical data analysis
  • Investigate modern experiments that confirm General Relativity's predictions
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, physics students, historians of science, and anyone interested in the validation of General Relativity and the accuracy of historical scientific observations.

DAANEL
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Ive been viewing for years but never posted. I am curious since I use a telescope a lot whether anyone knows if Hubble has redone Eddingtons look at stars during an eclipse because looking at the numbers in his results its obvious to me that he cooked the books. With a 60 mm telescope at the equater during the day he couldn't have got the accuracy he claimed.
 
Space news on Phys.org
This paper argues pretty convincingly in Eddington's favor:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.0685

The question is only of historical interest, because today there is a huge body of evidence supporting the General Relativistic calculation of light deviation.
 
There is some historical controversy over Eddington's findings, but, most are . . . questionable. As phyzguy noted, GR proponents have long since scored a decisive victory in this debate.
 
He'd need at least 200 mm to get sub-second accuracy, but daytime turbulence would kill it. With a lot of stars on each side, he could at least use statistics to cut uncertainty by factor ~sq rt N.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K