Comments by "nexus1g" (@nexus1g) on "Electromagnetic Levitation Quadcopter" video.

Pladimir Vutin Elon Musk hires engineers and scientists like Thunderf00t to determine feasibility of projects. This vacuum train idea has been around since like the 50's. It's going to happen, but the technology and investment needed to mature. I agree that we're about there.
5
D4MNF0xy You really think it's easy to travel into space -- even relative to what's required to build and maintain the hyperloop? Lifting a 2-million-kilo, 18-storey structure into orbit by controlling 3 million ft. lbs. of thrust in 127 seconds, not to mention the extreme stresses of reentry is a HUGELY monumental task unlikely to happen from an engineering perspective.
3
By your reasoning of there being no way to deal with expansion and shrinking due to heating and cooling means the SR-71, rockets and the space shuttle, guns, etc. would not exist. Since there's little fluid resistance since it's a partial vacuum in the tube, most of the heat we deal with in the other applications I mentioned earlier won't be an issue. If anything, accounting for thermals will be easier.
2
Cao Cao By your standards, I don't think you believe the space shuttle should work.
2
Master Evar Seriously, stop thinking Thunderf00t is an expert in everything. He's simply not a structural engineer, and he's going outside of his expertise in this matter. He's a biochemist. He's using his authority of having an advanced degree to talk about things he doesn't have any position to really be discussing with authority. In other words, he's using a logical fallacy: a fallacious appeal to authority.
2
InSQUIDious What I find most funny is that you nor thunderf00t think the idea of earthquakes has not, at some point, crossed the mind of the engineers planning the project and that they already have a solution. To paraphrase Thomas Edison: I can think of a billion ways how a light bulb would fail, but it still works because someone found the solutions to the issues.
2
Master Evar "A fallacy is something that undermines the argument. thunderf00t never used authority as an argument," He's using his authority to avoid using proper sources while still being taken seriously. "And no, I don't think your use of "appeal to authority" is correct. Authority is one who has deciding power over someone else. Just becasue you think you are smarter than someone else on a subject you don't have to believe you have any deciding power in that subject. And even then, you don't have to believe you are smarter than someone to make the claim that you are right about one thing they are not." An authority, in this case, is a person with knowledge in a subject. "Oh, and a lot of this is based on your interpretation of the video. I didn't interpret it as if he made himself an authority on the subject, and I do not view him as an authority on the subject." You being persuaded is not a requirement here. "In order to be fallacious, the argument must appeal to the authority because of their qualification in an irrelevant field" A biochemist speaking authoritatively, without presenting valid evidence, about structural engineering. "If you have any other sources, you are free to present them." John Lock, Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Argumentum ad Veracundiam. As Wiki sums it up, "...[An appeal to authority] can be misused by taking advantage of the 'respect' and 'submission' of the reader or listener to persuade them to accept the conclusion."
2
EclecticBuddha Part of Los Angeles' light rail is a subway. Structural engineers have learned pretty well how to deal with earthquakes.
1
Master Evar A fallacious appeal to authority does not need to be explicit to still constitute a fallacious appeal to authority.
1
Master Evar "I wouldn't say it was implicit either, so I guess by that logic every person of authority int he world does this, and we shouldn't listen to them?" Yeah. That's how logic works. When someone is an authority on the subject being discussed, their opinions and assessments hold more weight than someone who is not an authority on the subject. Let's say you have two applicants for a computer programming job. One applicant holds a degree in English. One applicant holds a degree in computer science. Who are you going to pick for the job? Despite having the same level of education (both bachelor's let's say), why is one more of an authority in the matter of computer programming than the other? Now that I have gotten you to think, that's exactly what's wrong with making a fallacious appeal to authority. When you make such an appeal, it's like hiring an English major for a computer programming job. I couldn't care less about what you said outside of this. The point is that you're making a fallacious appeal to authority just as thunderf00t has. If you're following his assessment over the engineers behind the Hyperloop, then you're being a fool.
1
Master Evar I really don't feel like holding your hand through this entire thing, so I'm going to answer these questions and that's it. "And where does thunderf00t break this principle?" Where he expects that his opining is infallible enough to consider a project like the Hyperloop "debunked." "And Elon isn't an engineer or scientist - he's an entrepreneur. He finds people with ideas and fund it for them, help out with marketing and growing a business." He hires the talent required to solve the issues. He isn't making claims -- his engineering staff are, and he's the messenger. "Nope. Just nope. If he was your father or some other person with authority and says he should get the job because of that, then it's a fallacious appeal to authority. What you're talking about is stupidity." Nepotism isn't even related here. You're way off base. You're too quick to make an argument and not slow enough to really think through what I'm saying. "The one with a degree in computer science, of course. I fail to see what this have to do with our discussion. I never said thunderf00t knows better or is right." The person I actually responded to did.
1
Master Evar "Which is nowhere" Oh, excuse me -- not debunked, he titled his video, "The Hyperloop: BUSTED!" Close enough. He even goes so far as to assume that they, and I quote, "...haven't done even the simplest expansion calculations." His assertion is that an entire team engineers just simultaneously and inexplicably forgot about their high school physics classes. But thunderf00t remembered because he's just awesome like that. Of course, the more likely alternative, apply Occam's razor here, is that they have a solution for this issue, but they're keeping the method and/or materials proprietary. "Then I think you accidentally wrote the wrong name when you responded, because I'm very sure I've only responded to comments who have responded to me." Yeah, that was my bad. It was a response to you.
1
Master Evar I changed my post. You replied too quickly.
1
Master Evar "Nope, nowhere close to being a fallacious appeal to authority." He's pretending to be an authority on the matter, so, yes, this is a fallacious appeal to authority. "Yes, he's arrogant like that. As I said, I don't think of him as an expert on the subject and I do dislike that side of him." If I say, "I know better than professionals in their field," am I not making myself out to be an authority on the matter?
1
Master Evar "No. It's a bold statement, but not an appeal to authority." Are professionals in their field authorities on the matter? Yes. To assert your opinion contrary to theirs is putting yourself in a class of authority higher than their authority. Whether you want to say it's arrogant or bold is not exclusionary to it being an implicit appeal to authority. In fact, a false appeal to authority in oneself would, in every circumstance I can think of, be arrogant. "If a kid says he will beat a professional football player, is that kid also making an appeal to authority?" Considering he's not trying to pose an argument and simply making a claim, no.
1
Master Evar "Authority? More like independence from the authority." I feel like you're just playing word games. Everything you describe would fit under the definition of authority. "In fact, if we are going to be really nitpicky, appeal to authority is actually citing an authority on something that's outside of their field as a standalone argument." Who the authority being appealed to is irrelevant to whether something qualifies as an appeal to authority. One may appeal to oneself as an authority, just like they may appeal to a third party authority. "Kid with an argument. So how about it now?" That depends. As it simply stands of everything we know about this kid at this point, no. Let's say his dad was Troy Aikman. Now it is an appeal to authority, implicitly, because his dad being who he is would likely give a higher credence to his word among his audience. It's how he presents himself and the effect he has on his audience whether or not he is making an implicit appeal to himself as an authority. It's irrefutable that some people here who state that the Hyperloop is an impossibility and citing thunderf00t as their reasoning are citing him because they view him as an authority on the matter. They clearly take thunderf00t's word as gospel because they look up to his advanced STEM degree -- even if it's in a completely unrelated field on which he discusses. Thunderf00t is making a fallacious appeal to himself as an authority, and those who accept his projected authority also cite him as an authority. This is really a clear case.
1
Master Evar "No, it wouldn't. Please explain why." For instance, you say that what I stated isn't authority but independence from authority. Well, then you're just establishing yourself as a better or, at the very least, alternative authority. "What if his dad was not Troy Aikman, but he had a little brother who believed in him a lot and thus put higher credence on his big brother than the professional football player? Or what if his dad was a high-ranking politician?" If he's persuasive based on that authority, he's implicitly using that authority to support his arguments. If his authority is irrelevant to the argument, it's a fallacious appeal to authority. "By your logic, anyone who has something impressive in their life can't make a claim without making an appeal to authority. What if some movie star claimed that 1+1=2 because they learned that in school. They make an argument, and they are no an authority on the subject of math but they they still are some sort of authority." If they used their notoriety in a way that persuaded people that they were right, it would be a fallacious appeal to authority. A valid argument would have to be made for why 1+1=2 is true. A celebrity simply claiming that 1+1=2 is true, with an expectation to be taken on their word is a fallacious appeal to their authority over their audience. "He's using tools (mathematics and physics) that he has studied up on in order to make his argument." He throws out finished product numbers and assumptions. It's entirely his authority that sells these points. It's worth noting here that you don't have to be wrong to make a fallacious appeal to authority. "So people who knows how to speak are always making appeals to authority as well?" Again, only if they are persuading using their perceived authority. It's important to note here that there are valid appeals to authority. For instance, if you get a doctor saying that they think you have the cold, not a flu, they are validly appealing to their authority as a doctor. "Yes, but then it's THOSE PEOPLE who are making an appeal to authority, not thunderf00t." No, they are both making an appeal to authority. "If someone cited your comments here because they thought you were right, does that mean your comment suddenly becomes an appeal to authority?" Clearly I am appealing to myself as an authority here. I'm not comprising my argument of anything but my opinion. I haven't even quoted a dictionary definition. Absolutely I'm making an appeal to my own logical authority. If I weren't, I would be presenting external resources from globally-recognized authorities on the matter for proof of my conclusions, not arguing my own conclusions using my own logic.
1
Dietmar Gaber But he hasn't reasoned well. For instance, regarding the vacuum: He maintains the atmospheric pressure inside the tube is going to be a near-perfect vacuum (99 Pascals, but on the white paper this is labeled as the pressure at the intake, not the actual pressure of the chamber). Now, the Hyperloop is expected to travel at about 700 MPH. The current speed record holder is a maglev train in Japan that has reached a little over 350 MPH. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe drag coefficient is linear. In order to go 700 MPH using the same amount of energy, you would need to be at half a bar of pressure, or 50,000 Pa, not 99 Pa.
1
NuclearSavety If we can run a maglev through a tight tunnel at 375 MPH at 1 bar (current passenger-load world record), why couldn't we run a maglev through a tight tunnel at 700 MPH at half a bar?
1
NuclearSavety You're making claims, but no numbers. A turboprop costs a passenger about $100. I don't think anyone's willing to pay that for a daily commute, and the time it takes for that commute would not be feasible. This train would greatly increase job markets and trade for city centers and more rural locations. Here is one of Japan's maglevs setting the current world record with passengers watch?v=Lw0CYYiNYaY -- watch the LCD display near the start of the video showing how tight the tunnel is as it reaches the world record. watch?v=ltqp4McM2wY This is a video from inside the train that you can see the walls are rather close to either side of the train in the tunnel. It's also worth noting since the issue was pointed out earlier, Japan is one of the most seismically-active regions of the world.
1
NuclearSavety Perhaps you could clear up the math. Transonic speeds are considered mach .85 up to mach 1. Mach .85 (transonic) is when the movement of the air exceeds the speed of sound of, let's just use the easy number, 340 m/s. That means when a craft is traveling 289 m/s, it is moving the air out of the way at 340 m/s. Presuming this is a linear figure based on percentages (so correct me if I'm wrong on this), that means that 700 MPH should be moving the air out of the way 15% faster than the speed of the craft which would give us 360 m/s, not 700 m/s. "in the videos you explicitely see how large the maglev tunnels are." Perhaps at the exits and entrances. I couldn't find a video or picture of a better demonstration than from inside the car itself.
1
zwerko "With our current scientific knowledge - that's clearly and demonstrably false statement." Prove your claim. "And that's while ignoring that the place they want to build this is one of the most seismically active places on the planet and burrowing the pipe into the ground doesn't help you with that." LA already has subways and Japan's maglev train already spends a significant amount of time under ground. The issues of earthquakes has been solved for a while now.
1
Technocracy Communism is an entire socioeconomic model. Socialism is an economic model that is the de facto economic model of communism. What you're talking about is specifically Marxism, which is one of many philosophies of communism. You can't nail communism down to a single definition as you have done. It's a broad topic with many writers over hundreds of years contributing to different philosophies of what such a socioeconomic system would look like and how it would come about. Leninism, which is a communist ideology, is what the CCCP was.
1
Technocracy Socialism is simply the public ownership of the means of production. Nothing more and nothing less. Communism cannot be communism without socialism being active at the same time. What you confuse is the dictatorship of the proletariat with socialism, the two of which has the same qualities but describe quite different things. Socialism does not cease to exist under a communist system, and the dictatorship of the proletariat is specifically the transition from capitalism to socialism. Leninism was the "practical application" of Marxism. The reason that there has "never really been a communist state," is because it's impossible to achieve. So while you can hang onto "there's never been a real communist state," think a bit about why there has never been one, despite the endless attempts.
1