I think Eddington cooked the books .

[DAANEL]

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.

 

[phyzguy]

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.

 

[Chronos]

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.

 

[BillSaltLake]

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.