Ahhh. MH, The second video is all too factual. Applies to ALL of us. Just remember the "Human" credo.
"Consider the source." With the current level of information out there, with examples for both sides of almost ANY opinion, determining which piece of evidence is useful has become the hard part. THIS is where more open-mindedness is required today, as one could find evidence to support almost anything. (I.E. : 1 + 1 = 2 "This is always valid?" Try quantum physics....) Now I realize that is a weird and almost senseless example, but it was typed to make a point. Everyone ends up on both sides of that little video.
To see how that applies here. For a stupid example, what if the "Fan" was the aether? Anyone not "Seeing" the fan could easily make a determination of "Something" else moving the shade. Eventually, it could get complex, but fully figured as possible effects from convection from the heat of the lamp, or whatever. Finally, it would become a "Belief" and once the math was all laid out, there would be a "Law" defined to explain it. (I'm excluding any unrealistic "Supernatural" concept for this.) What happens when the fan is now exposed? I realize this is a terrible example, but it's just given to support the "Consider the source." statement. If you were personally there, to see the lamp, and investigated yourself, I doubt it would take long to figure it out. If you just "read" or studied others observations, what results do you think you would get if none of them saw the fan.
One should not fall into the trap of thinking that others must be smarter than you are, even if they were. Humans make mistakes, no matter how smart. (I'm an expert at mistakes, but this helps me as I still consider the source.) I hope I am being somewhat understandable, as you seem to have a great grasp of many concepts. Just remember to not believe everything you read, even in published papers, and certainly not here. We are all a long way from having all the answers. I disagree with many of the greats, and some of them agree with my disagreement. "But, As long as the math looks good...." I'm sure you've heard that quote before. (It's certainly not mine...)
While I accept an aether, I doubt my concept of it is anywhere near what others here define it as. A comment you made was "The 19th century ether doesn't exist." That is a fairly good example of "End of Discussion" as noted in the video. Actually, I could agree with that for my own personal opinion, but actually don't have enough good source info to accept it as yes or no. I never have been given how it was defined, or which version you mean. There are impossibilities in some versions, but they are sort of corrected in newer versions, and I"m certainly not going to start a semantics war. Do you accept that a "Neutron" is the combination of an electron and a protron. If I gave quotes from published papers would that change your mind, if they stated the opposite of what you know? Tough to know which to believe, without personal experience, and even then, do we know enough? I could refer you to the paper proving actual work, as defined by physics, can be produced from a voltage field, without any load on said field. Simple proof of the concept of OU. Does it, or has it changed any minds? (I can't express this better, as I'm not the best with words at times.)
As you mentioned, just a little food for thought.
uC, you hit a nerve with that "car" one. I have always been of the opinion that I won't use a device unless I am somewhat versed in it's operation. Just one of my personal problems. (One of many.) This is probably one of the main reasons I am the way I am with various techs, as new things come out all the time, and if I want to use it, it's back to the specs, etc. to understand the operation. I am still astounded, to this day, as to how applicable your example is. I am fairly well versed in automotive tech, from ABS algorithms to charge density, to syncro angles for shit lever force, etc. etc. etc. To be honest, none of the "Technical" information really helps during the actual operation of the vehicle. Sure, for mileage, or clutch wear, and the like, it can be of help in knowing how it should be used to greatest effect in many ways, but in a race, or emergency situations, it's all "Feel" and experience. This still bothers me, to this day, as it's one thing to understand it, and another to experience it, and I have learned that those two cannot be reconciled. Even learning a new system, and using that info to learn the most efficient way to get the most out of it, it really comes down to "re-training" the experience side. (See! I can't really explain this, even now, and I've been aware of the "2-sided" nature of this for my entire life. It's a hard concept.) So, while I can understand what you mean, I, for myself, could never just accept it. I even used to have many of the "Blocks" used in controller I.C.s memorized so I could understand the internal flows of data in dumb things like VCR's, and the like. (I could give an interesting history on just the development of clock setting interconnections from the two original clock blocks, that are still in use today, but any sane person would get bored to death....)
So, I must agree that, in one part, you are absolutely correct, and the the "Operation" of the device is MORE important than knowledge of the workings of said device, ONCE the device is working. With the level of tech today, it's rapidly getting to the point where the two jobs are too much for one person to handle. Take a race car driver. (A Good One.) He would not be the first choice for determining the valve seat angle for specific functions, where the designer that could might have trouble even getting the car around the track. I'm sure that the Designer COULD operate the car at a basic level. I'm not so sure about the other way around. I feel this applies to most complex or technical devices, as well. The one who can "fully" understand it, WILL be able to use it, in it's basic operation, but not up to the quality of an actual operator. (There are too many great examples. Think CNC equipment also. There, the designer would need the help of an operator to even test it.)
So while I completely agree with the "Separate" abilities, I "Feel" that the one who understands the complete operation of a device will be able to use it, albiet not as well as the person with experience with using the device. If it's something new, then you really see the difference. The "Knowing" person will slightly improve with experience. The "Operating" person will vastly improve and surpass the "Knowing" person's ability, probably in a very short period of time. So if the knowing can get it to work, even without all the knowledge of how it works, the operator will still be able to make full use of it. Here is my major peve, and the nerve you hit. Things have gone so far, so fast, that very few have ANY knowledge of how anything works. I'm sure you can see the problem I have with that. Here, in these areas, it's exactly the same. The Tech users need not know. The developers MUST. So what it comes down to, for me, is what is the object? Build improved device, and be a tech user, or build "New" device. I think that learning the hidden properties of existing stuff seems to be a very clear road, and certainly less work for greater results. That certainly puts me in the "User" group. Unfortunately, I am aware of no aether-based devices, so, for this thread, I have a little problem finding the starting point without slight "Flights of fancy", as it were. Think I've rambled enough for one night?
Remember Murphy's law: Design a device that any fool can use and only fools will use it. (One of the many "Laws")
Author
Topic: Ether - Does it Exist? (Read 146161 times)
