I think Eddington cooked the books .

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

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the historical analysis of Arthur Eddington's observations during a solar eclipse, specifically questioning the accuracy of his measurements related to light deflection as predicted by General Relativity. Participants explore the validity of Eddington's results and whether modern observations, such as those by Hubble, have revisited his findings.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Historical

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses skepticism about Eddington's accuracy, suggesting that with a 60 mm telescope, he could not have achieved the claimed precision.
  • Another participant references a paper that supports Eddington's findings, indicating that the question is primarily of historical interest due to the substantial evidence backing General Relativity today.
  • A third participant acknowledges the historical controversy surrounding Eddington's results but suggests that the debate has largely favored proponents of General Relativity.
  • It is noted that achieving sub-second accuracy would require a telescope of at least 200 mm, and that atmospheric turbulence during the day would significantly affect measurements.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the reliability of Eddington's observations, with some supporting his findings and others questioning their validity. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the accuracy of Eddington's measurements.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations related to telescope size, atmospheric conditions, and the statistical methods that could be employed to reduce uncertainty in measurements.

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 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
8K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
11K