Abstract
THE correspondence on terrestrial refraction from Mr. Mallock and Dr. de Graaff Hunter in NATURE of June 9, p. 456, and August 11, p. 745, raises a paradox which I think must have puzzled many readers of NATURE besides myself. Mr. Mallock is, of course, quite correct in stating that the diminution of density of the air observable under ordinary conditions is practically linear for moderate increases of height above the earth's surface, and that, consequently, the refractive index of the air may for moderate increases of altitude be taken as diminishing linearly at such a rate that it would reach vacuum value at the height H ot the homogeneous atmosphere. Dr. Hunter is equally correct in pointing out that Mr. Mallock's reasoning, based on the above-mentioned observational fact, leads to a value of k, the coefficient of terrestrial refraction, which is almost exactly twice as great as that found by observation under ordinary conditions. Dr. Hunter does not, however, point out what I think is the real fallacy in Mr. Mallock's argument.
Similar content being viewed by others
Article PDF
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
BALL, J. Atmospheric Refraction. Nature 109, 8 (1922). https://doi.org/10.1038/109008a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/109008a0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.