Talk:Dayton Miller

Roberts Section Fails Verification
The Robert section both misrepresents the paper cited and cites a paper from arXiv which is neither peer reviewed, nor even endorsed in the arXiv system. Additionally wording represents strong bias with hyperbole. Appears to be a self-publish. Needs to be completely removed or balanced and framed as examples of contentious debate of opinion still active. Nemesis75 (talk) 14:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Roberts section, references, and statements directly based upon this self publish have been removed Nemesis75 (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile it seems that there's sufficient secondary sources quoting Roberts, so I have re-inserted (with the additional sources) the part that had been removed here, and which is now verified. - DVdm (talk) 14:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The "secondary sources quoting Roberts" seem insufficient to establish the self-published pre-print as a reputable source. One is a footnote in a book on Clifford bundles (having noithing to do with statistical data analysis), one is to a single sentence in an elementary and self-admittedly non-technical beginner's book on relativity (whose author does not claim to know anything about statistical data analysis), and one is to a List of Dissident Crackpots.  (The linked page in the latter doesn't seem to actually mention Roberts' preprint, but even if it did, it's not providing any verification of validity.)  None of these brief off-hand mentions provides any verifiability of the validity of the self-published preprint.  Also, the Roberts' section as currently written is non-encyclopedic, e.g., describing the preprint as "unassailable".  Seems like a promotional entry.  The fact that the preprint was never published is worth noting.  (It reverses the conclusion of the Shankland analysis, so it would be significant if valid.)  Wikipedia is not the place for supporters of the preprint to inject it into the mainstream.  Suggest moving the link to External Sources section, and eliminate the "Roberts' Analysis" section.Cranebadge (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The following reliable source provides detailed commentary on Roberts' analysis of Miller's results. From this commentary, we may infer that Roberts's preprint is itself reliable.

Shankland analysis
The use of the term “relativists” in that section to mean “proponents of the theories of relativity” does not bear well for the neutrality of the section of the article and the neutrality and reputation of the cited sources. In my experience, you only ever read that term from relativity-deniers, i.e. crackpots, who have the misconception of “relativity” to mean “relativism” (a relativist is a proponent of the philosophical concept of relativism, which has nothing to do with the theories of relativity: those are theories of invariances, the exact opposite). This section should be checked for neutrality and updated, which I why I have added the corresponding template reference for the time being. --PointedEars (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You used the template, which refers to the title of the article. I assume you meant to use the  template here. I have replaced it.
 * Regarding the usage of the word "relativists": as far as I know, that term is perfectly neutral and means "relativity experts". On Usenet it seems to have a different meaning indeed, but this is not Usenet, so I see no problem here. We can of course just replace it with "relativity experts", and then remove the tag. Would that be OK? - DVdm (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the update. No, the modification that you suggest would not be OK.
 * First of all, usage of the term “relativist” in a derogatory way for “supporter of the theories of relativity” is unfortunately not limited to Usenet.
 * Second, a proponent of the theories of relativity is not necessarily a “relativity expert”, and Dictionary.com is the only online dictionary, among those including Wiktionary, on the first three Google result pages for “relativist” to make the connection by giving the alternative meaning (without reference) as “adherent of the principle of relativity”. Wikipedia redirects “Relativist” to Relativism, too, for good reason.
 * Third, I have reviewed this section now, and determined that the last paragraph actually consists only of unsourced/irrelevant crackpot nonsense: the links are dead, the referenced papers are not published in a peer-reviewed journal and are tied to crackpot organizations like the “Natural Philosophy Alliance” (why is psiram.com blacklisted here?), and the argument made (which should not have been in there in the first place) digresses from the lemma on top of that it sounds like a combination of conspiracy theories.
 * Therefore, the last paragraph should be removed altogether. If nobody comes forward with a convincing argument in due time as to why any of this should be retained, or is faster than me, I will remove that paragraph. --PointedEars (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Your analysis of the meaning of "relativist" can convince me. Otoh, I had read this entire closing paragraph as somewhat anti-crackpot, but I agree that it is not properly sourced, and certainly irrelevant in this section. The link to Robert Crease is certainly improper (dead, and against wp:MOS). So AFAIAC, feel free to remove that last paragraph and the tag. - DVdm (talk) 09:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Done. --PointedEars (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dayton Miller. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060206085312/http://www.ohiosci.org/OHIOSCIENCE200APPENDIX.htm to http://www.ohiosci.org/OHIOSCIENCE200APPENDIX.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040903110950/http://www.aip.org/history/esva/catalog/esva/Miller_Clarence.html to http://www.aip.org/history/esva/catalog/esva/Miller_Clarence.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030621192009/http://www.srm.com/1916/lecture3phonodeik.html to http://www.srm.com/1916/lecture3phonodeik.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030624032414/http://www.cwru.edu/artsci/dittrick/artifactspages/b-4tubes.htm to http://www.cwru.edu/artsci/dittrick/artifactspages/b-4tubes.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

New Evidence of the valid detection of the Aether by both Michelson-Morley and Miller due to a correction to the mathematical model used for Gas-Mode Interferometers.
I have new evidence that I have published in a peer-reviewed Physics journal that confirms the detection of the Aether by Michelson-Morley and Miller (Mt Wilson) and agrees with the magnitude of the Aether wind determined by Cahill of around 486km/sec. Please carefully read and understand the explanation and maths presented in this paper:

Find a link to the paper on my webpage here, or look up the reference details below: https://www.energyfieldtheory.com/copy-of-my-papers

Reference: Traill, D. (2022) The Light Timing Calculations of the Interferometer in the Quest to Detect Light Speed Anisotropy and a Case Study of the Michelson-Morley and Miller Mt Wilson Experiments. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics, 10, 802-827. doi: 10.4236/jamp.2022.103055. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Declan Traill (talk • contribs) 09:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes ( ~ ) — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.
 * Not for Wikipedia — see wp:NOR, wp:Reliable sources, wp:secondary sources, wp:UNDUE, wp:FRINGE, wp:COI. You were amply warned about all this six years ago. - DVdm (talk) 09:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the talk page - not the main site, so this is entirely appropriate to discuss here.
 * Try actually reading it and understanding it before declaring it 'Fringe' etc. It makes complete sense and explains the experimental results completely. Declan Traill (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the talk page - not the main site, so this is entirely appropriate to discuss here. No, it's not, since the purpose of the Talk page is to improve the article. See WP:NOTFORUM. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)