Talk:Dayton Miller/Archive 1

Recent edits

To answer #4 for you, just look into the Maurice Allais links near the bottom. When a nobel prize winning economist and physicist does a statistical analysis of thousands of measurements and finds a consistent and predictable result over a number of years of measurements and those measurements change with astronomical events such as the sidereal day and the equinoxes. I call that proof. Don't you?

No, he has been disproved (by current reenactments) multiple times. The fact that he has a Nobel prize in Economy does not make him a competent physicist. Note that he (Allais) has not published his findings in a peer reviewed journal. Ati3414 17:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey Reddi:

1. if you have to add words like "purportedly" and "allegation" to Shankland's results, then in the interest of balance, you must admit my insertion of "apparently" into the statement of results of Miller.
2. This is just a matter of style, but what do you have against "data were"? I know it's a bit pedantic for me to insist on that change, but don't you think it sounds more formal and encyclopedic than "data was"?
3. Changed "some hold" to "Most mainstream scientists today hold". It is very important to me that at all times in this article, it be 100% crystal clear on the fact that æther is universally rejected among mainstream scientists, and people who consider Miller's results valid are outside of orthodox science. Do you think it is possible to reach a comprimise that does this, and accommodates your view that aelig&ther is real, and that what Miller did was valid science, and still remains NPOV?
4. I remove the sentence "Shankland's allegations have reportedly been later disproven", because I don't believe that is true. Who disproved it? Can you provide a reference?

-lethe ^talk 18:09, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

1. "purportedly" and "allegation" of Shankland's results ... admit the insertion of "apparently" into the statement of results of Miller? I'll check ... [I'll change it for NPOV if i can find the particular spot u are referencing].
2. style "data were" ... think it sounds more formal and encyclopedic than "data was"? I'll check ... [I'll change it if i can find the particular spot u are referencing].
3. Changed "some hold" to "Most mainstream scientists today hold"? I think a " arge but indefinite number" may be good ... at all times in this article, NPOV sould be held. Lets be 100% crystal clear on the fact that æther is mainly rejected among present mainstream scientists. _Some_ scientists who consider Miller's results valid are outside of orthodox science. A comprimise? I'd like to see this ... and this would accommodates the dissenting scientists view that aelig&ther is real. BTW, Dayton Miller did valid science.
4. Sentence "Shankland's allegations have reportedly been later disproven" Who disproved it? Reviewer of the literature. Can you provide a reference? It's in the external links and references (I'll see if i can find the particular link). You don't believe that is true, but "facts do not cease because they are ignored." — Aldous Huxley

JDR

Recent POV additions

The recent changes made by Ati314 are pretty heavy in POV wording, so they've been removed. For example, changing the External links section to "External links and references to biased, antirelativistic views published in non-peer reviewed venues". Way to improve the article... If you think anything should be removed, please say so here instead of making the article more ridiculous. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-20 17:45

POV

You forgot the truth that I edited the disgraceful section on Shankland's analysis, correcting it multiple times in an attempt to restore the truth. As to the external references, they are as disgraceful: pure biased antirelativistic stuff, "published" in personal pages and non-peered reviewed venues.

Please unlock the page and I will provide a balanced look. Ati3414 17:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• List here the external links to remove, and why they should be removed, and they will be removed. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-02-20 18:01

The following needs to be removed from Shankland's Analysis as unfounded and slanderous:

"Shankland believed that Miller's research was a major obstacle to and overshadowed any consideration of a Nobel Prize being awarded to Einstein for his relativity theory. In a 1973 review paper on the experimental development of relativity, Shankland included an August 31, 1954 letter to him by Einstein. Einstein wrote:

   I thank you very much for sending me your careful study about the Miller experiments. Those experiments, conducted with so much care, merit, of course, a very careful statistical investigation. This is more so as the existence of a not trivial positive effect would affect very deeply the fundament of theoretical physics as it is presently accepted.
   You have shown convincingly that the observed effect is outside the range of accidental deviations and must, therefore, have a systematic cause. You made it quite probable that this systematic cause has nothing to do with "ether-wind," but has to do with differences of temperature of the air traversed by the two light bundles which produced the bands of interference. Such an effect is indeed practically inevitable if the walls of the laboratory room have a not negligible difference in temperature.
   It is one of the cases where the systematic errors are increasing quickly with the dimension of the apparatus."

The following links need to be removed as non-scientific, non-published in peer reviewed journals:

   * DeMeo, James, "Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift Experiments: A Fresh Look".
   * Deen, Glen W., "Dayton C. Miller's 1933 Cosmic Ether Model"
   * Schleif, Siegmar, "Repetitions of the MMX". What is the experimental basis of the Special Relativity Theory. Jan. 17, 1998.
   * Allais, Maurice, "The experiments of Dayton C. Miller (1925 - 1926) and the Theory of Relativity". 21st century - Science & Technology. Spring 1998.
         o "The experiments by Dayton C Miller (1925-1926) and relativity theory". (German)
   

   * Thompson, Caroline, "Forgotten History". August 27, 2000.
   * Correa, Paulo, "A note on Dayton Miller's supposed discovery of an aether drift". 

The following text needs to be added for balance and scientific truth:

- On the other hand, the modern re-enactments (see below) make the Dayton Miller experiment irrelevant . The data for the modern experiments is readily available on the internet.

http://qom.physik.hu-berlin.de/

These people are the leading experimentalists, look at their results . The link contains a good commentary on what Dayton Miller thought he'd measured vs. what he actually did measure:

http://moriond.in2p3.fr/J03/transparencies/5_thursday/1_morning/peters.pdf

http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/Publikationen/2001/L%E4mmerzahl-OPTIS-2001.pdf

Thank you for your collaboration Ati3414 18:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, much better page

The edits have changed the page from a "National Enquirer" type (slander+innuendo+nonsense) to a scientific, dignified page. This makes wiki a much better place. Thank you for your work. Ati3414 18:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian0918 and Ati3414 edits

Thier edits have distorted the article. Removeing quotes of Miller's and sites. 134.193.168.249 15:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC) one of the last good pages are at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dayton_Miller&oldid=33643352

POV and off-topic

I now discoiver this page as well as its history; it strikes me that from being one-sided POV it has swayed to opposite-sided POV, so much that reference to opinions of physicists who somewhat agree with Miller have been removed while counter opinions of journalists are inserted together with non-peer-reviewed science articles. Thus I'll add the NPOV banner to the clean-up banner.

Note that discussion of physics theories is not appropriate in an article about a person, they should be deleted and replaced by a short mention with links. Harald88 15:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

PS IMO that implies that most of this article's contents should be removed. It's of course open to start an article about his experiments clearly there is enough material for such an article. It should contain all notable opinions as recorded in peer-reviewed journals. Harald88 16:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Shankland's critique of Miller's research is wrong and biased

Details in this article: http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm, chapter "Shankland Team's 1955 Critique of Miller". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.27.28.86 (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 09:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

still POV

I noticed that the article is still POV, falsely pretending that Shankland's review is somehow final and the only existing POV. As mentioned before, this is certainly not the case; the spaceabout that review (which is not about Miller!) should be reduced and at least one later peer reviewed critical rebuttal of Shankland's opinion needs to be included for balance (that info can be found in old versions of this article). Harald88 (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)