Unfortunately for Miller, the Einstein media craze pushed ether research into obscurity, and his efforts to prove his work were dismissed without proper scientific review. Einstein personally played a part in dismissing Miller's work, knowing that supporting it would end his special and general relativity theories. Perhaps the media pressure on Einstein was too great, had he acknowledged Miller's positive result, the backlash would have been too much to bear.
This has been discussed HERE and HERE (though those other threads have run their course - I recommend quoting from them instead of moving the discussion to them).
Basically, Miller had sources of error he didn't take into account (environmental) and better experiments have been performed since then. There is nothing to his theory.
Please give us an address where we can find Miller's experiments re-examination,
and also the better experiments that have been performed since then.
It is interesting to note what Einstein himself said about an ether:
Did you look at either thread I posted? Both include links to experiments that support SR. The first contains THIS link that has results for a dozen MM experiments, including several of Miller's.
For some reason, despite getting a wide spread of results in 4 experiments, he considered himself to have found the aether. Sounds to me like he latched on to a conclusion and refused to even consider his own data that contradicted it.
Also, a note on burden-of-proof: Miller's results were flawed due to errors. The burden of proof remains on aether "theorists" to provide evidence to support their claim.
Why have an ether, when there is space-time?
A review of his work by James DeMeo shows indisputable evidence that data collected by Miller was affected by the sidereal period and this is clear proof of a cosmological ether drift effect.
Normally any two-way Michelson-Morley type experiment carried out at sea-level would produce a null result. But Miller's insight was to conduct his tests at altitude (Mt. Wilson - 6,000' elevation), which produced clear positive results with a sidereal period variation.
I have followed up SR links that were suggested to show Miller was wrong and found tolerance issues and wrong assumptions. I can’t find anything wrong with Miller’s work. Is there a specific link that shows Miller’s work to be wrong?
Of course, there is no preferred frame of reference, but the metric of space-time can be defined by events, such, that there is no space-time if there are no events.
Separate names with a comma.