Elon Musk invents the tunnel

[cubby]

This quote pretty much sums up why people shouldn't take cubby Trump seriously:

A high school student would be able to tell if it's correct or not. Anyone with a functioning brain, having watched the video, will say that it's correct. This is not doctorate-level math here.

Funny how people will go so far, and say the most stupid shit just to deny reality because they're essentially fanboing.

I'm happy to clarify what I meant there, because yeah, looking at that statement, I wouldn't mind clarifying it.

What's amazing to me, still, is that you guys are now into personal attacks and insults (yes, calling me a trump supporter is an insult), yet you still can't link anything to back up Thunderbutt's claim. And now we find out from another poster that Thunderbutt is a known Musk hater.

You cult-guys just keep on going. I'm laughing at your inability, continually and consistently, to find anything that backs up his claim. Which is all I'm asking for - a second source.

[Burgerberg]

Yep, that's all I've done. Ask for a second source on a claim. Pretty basic stuff, and yet no one seems to be able to do it. Why is that?

(you also realize that Thunderbutt is a known Musk hater, right? you saw that in this thread, right?)

Because it's not necessary. The points have already been made, you've yet to refute any.

By some rando? Oh that must mean it is so then. The videos don't attack Musk personally, they're attacking his IDEAS. Leveled criticisms at some of the concepts he's come up with that are laughable from a scientific standpoint. There's a reason why they're up there with solar roadways, that dehumidifier bottle, etc. Calling him a "hater" isn't an argument. It doesn't address any points he's made, it's basically the same thing as saying "you're a meanine" when someone points out a flaw in your argument.

Yeah, um, no. But I do love the personal attacks. Calling me "lazy" while I continue to provide new links while you continue to not do anything. Lovely.

You realize your entire answer, almost every time, is "the original video is right, why do you want more". You claim to understand science. Do scientists just take one source and run with it? Or do they go for multiple sources to back a claim.

You're one to talk, calling me an idiot earlier. You can add "hypocrite" too. You are lazy. You were banging on about his resume/CV, not taking him seriously as a scientist when all you needed to do was simply look him up.

All I'm making is a scientific request. Give me another article/journal that states hyperloop tech doesn't work.

Why? You already have a genuine professional scientist telling you why it won't work. It's quite clear if you understood anything about how a vacuum chamber works.

[Fargus]

I'm happy to clarify what I meant there, because yeah, looking at that statement, I wouldn't mind clarifying it.

What's amazing to me, still, is that you guys are now into personal attacks and insults (yes, calling me a trump supporter is an insult), yet you still can't link anything to back up Thunderbutt's claim. And now we find out from another poster that Thunderbutt is a known Musk hater.

You cult-guys just keep on going. I'm laughing at your inability, continually and consistently, to find anything that backs up his claim. Which is all I'm asking for - a second source.

Stop playing the victim. You've been rolled, and no one called you a Trump supporter. They just said the way you're arguing reminds them of Donald Trump. In that you keep on contradict yourself and ignore the evidence that was right in front of you. How is anyone supposed to have a serious and intellectual conversation with you when you use names like "Thunderbutt" to downplay someone who does scientific work for a living, and would have a better grasp of what he's talking about than you do?

Since when are the laws of physics a cult? Get over yourself.

[cubby]

Yep, that's all I've done. Ask for a second source on a claim. Pretty basic stuff, and yet no one seems to be able to do it. Why is that?

Because it's not necessary.

According to you. But scientists consistently demand more than one source for their material. Asking for a second source isn't unreasonable at all. Why can't you provide one?

The points have already been made, you've yet to refute any.

By some rando? Oh that must mean it is so then. The videos don't attack Musk personally, they're attacking his IDEAS. Leveled criticisms at some of the concepts he's come up with that are laughable from a scientific standpoint. There's a reason why they're up there with solar roadways, that dehumidifier bottle, etc. Calling him a "hater" isn't an argument. It doesn't address any points he's made, it's basically the same thing as saying "you're a meanine" when someone points out a flaw in your argument.

You're one to talk, calling me an idiot earlier. You can add "hypocrite" too. You are lazy. You were banging on about his resume/CV, not taking him seriously as a scientist when all you needed to do was simply look him up.


Why? You already have a genuine professional scientist telling you why it won't work. It's quite clear if you understood anything about how a vacuum chamber works.

More of your vitrol. Lovely. Intellectual honesty dying right here folks. One post at a time.

Oh, hey - isn't it true Thunderbutt's a known Musk hater? I'm seeing more evidence of that claim by the other poster in this thread.

- - - Updated - - -

Stop playing the victim. You've been rolled, and no one called you a Trump supporter. They just said the way you're arguing reminds them of Donald Trump. In that you keep on contradict yourself and ignore the evidence that was right in front of you. How is anyone supposed to have a serious and intellectual conversation with you when you use names like "Thunderbutt" to downplay someone who does scientific work for a living, and would have a better grasp of what he's talking about than you do?

Since when are the laws of physics a cult? Get over yourself.

I love how much effort you guys are putting into not finding a second source. We are all wondering why you guys can't provide a secondary source to this guys claim. Please, keep on making your personal attacks - I really don't care beyond the obvious lack of ethos they provide to your otherwise legitimate claims.

If this guy in the youtube video is so right, then why can't you find another source stating the hyperloop tech won't work?

[Burgerberg]

According to you. But scientists consistently demand more than one source for their material. Asking for a second source isn't unreasonable at all. Why can't you provide one?

As I said, because it's not necessary. It's pointless. We aren't writing a thesis on string theory here, we're demonstrating why a specific idea will not work. You don't need a paper for that, just basic fundamental physics. A fully detailed video that goes through the various concepts by a qualified scientist, is enough. It's not like he is writing a research paper on a ground-breaking topic. He doesn't have to. Just simple calculations will do, and a brain.

Oh, hey - isn't it true Thunderbutt's a known Musk hater? I'm seeing more evidence of that claim by the other poster in this thread.

Who cares? You're diverting from the point of why Musk's idea won't work to "he's a hater!!!" Seems like you care more about what other people think of Musk personally than actual facts pertaining to physical reality.

- - - Updated - - -

You have to admit it's at least a little funny that that guy claimed I was a Trump supporter, just another of his personal attacks, without even bothering to read the avatar....

What's funny is making things up out of thin air. I never called you a Trump supporter, I said you argue like Donald Trump. Quite a distinction.

[cubby]

As I said, because it's not necessary. It's pointless. We aren't writing a thesis on string theory here, we're demonstrating why a specific idea will not work. You don't need a paper for that, just basic fundamental physics. A fully detailed video that goes through the various concepts by a qualified scientist, is enough. It's not like he is writing a research paper on a ground-breaking topic. He doesn't have to. Just simple calculations will do, and a brain.

And that's your opinion. Myself, I prefer a second opinion. Even a second source. As all scientists do. And if he's so right about the science demonstrably proving that hyperloop tech won't work, why aren't there other sources out there making the same claims?

Who cares? You're diverting from the point of why Musk's idea won't work to "he's a hater!!!" Seems like you care more about what other people think of Musk personally than actual facts pertaining to physical reality.

It's an issue (that I wasn't aware of until someone else pointed it out) because it makes his conclusions questionable. He's telling us that the science won't work, and walking us through the issues, but what if he's skipping something important, or leaving out something that change the conclusion, or at least call into question his opinions on the science.

If Thunder's conclusions are so obvious, and so clear, and so conclusive, why aren't others out there making the same conclusion?

And why are so many companies and countries signing on to move forward with these projects (granted they are all years away)?

We've been throwing barbs and such at each other for awhile here, but I've been fairly consistent with my request. Even if you think it's unreasonable, wouldn't it be fun for you to find a second source and shut me up? I've already proven I can admit when I'm wrong in this thread (the construction claims I had to walk back a little)? So why not make the effort, especially if it's as easy and obvious as you claim, to do so?

- - - Updated - - -

What's funny is making things up out of thin air. I never called you a Trump supporter, I said you argue like Donald Trump. Quite a distinction.

Good point. You did just say that, not claim I was a Trump supporter. Definitely a distinction - and frankly, a good one. Because that fucker is a horrific debater.

[zorkuus]

Just remember, I'm the one listing facts and citations to my points. You're the ones harping on Musk's "failures" without data or other objective material. When you're ready to have an adult conversation on this topic, we'll be here.

You didn't read it did you?

[Cosmic Janitor]

For once, I do not think that heat generation is actually going to be a problem for Hyperloop, assuming it is going to be a maglev system. Sure, magnets would generate heat as the capsule moves. But most of it is going to be radiated by the steel tube into the environment, because the actual current is running through the base platform, and not through a levitating train car. And obviously, the platform is physically connected to the tube itself, thus creating a very large radiator. And the capsule itself is going to generate something like 12W of heat energy per meter of the capsule (or magnet levitating the capsule to be exact) due to electromagnetic vibration, if I remember correctly figures from existing maglev trains. That is nowhere near critical levels and would hardly be noticeable. It is likely going to be even less than that due to size differences.
No, lets stick to actual and practical difficulties of the system. There are more than enough of those. And many make this project practically impossible.

The problem with that approach (the classical one) is then that the design just repeats pure engineering folly, as it is known here. Putting all the expensive parts into the track, which is pretty much the cardinal sin of transportation, kind of guarantees that you will never be economically viable. That is essentially the equivalent of multiplying all bad aspects of one technology with all the bad aspects of another and the only thing you gained was a "bit" reduced air resistance. Ah why do I even bother, the whole concept is lacking from beginning to end. Not the first time I've reached that conclusion either, at least more people agree these days. /shrug

[Rexosaurus]

I didn't need this video, or any hard data, to tell me that Elon Musk isn't as smart as some people seem to believe he is. That was easy enough to tell just by reading some of his statements and listening to the way that he has talked over the years. The dude clearly has a massive ego and is prone to throwing tantrums/making strange comments when people dispute him.

More on topic, I did skim through the OP video, as well as the hyperloop video. While I thought he was a little grating and disagreed on the presentation of some of his math/points, I agree with the overall conclusion that these things really aren't worth the hassle.

I was dubious that the original idea of the tunnel would do anything but shift the areas of congestion or become a niche route for the wealthy, but the current rendition of it is basically useless. The hyperloop is at least good for research purposes, but addressing the large amount of complications and engineering challenges that it presents makes it seem very likely that it will cost much more than the $6-$7 billion estimation that they made. I personally doubt that they can currently make it cost effective enough (if at all) to be relevant. If you want more sources besides this guy, all you have to do is google "Risks of the Hyperloop" or "Hyperloop viability" and you'll find plenty of controversy surrounding its viability, including from a few engineers/researchers/scientists.

[Forogil]

The science part. Find me someone else that agrees with the youtube video. That states hyperloop tech won't work. It's all I've been asking for this entire time.

You asked me to back up my claim and I did, which by using your links. I haven't made those other claims.

According to you. But scientists consistently demand more than one source for their material. Asking for a second source isn't unreasonable at all. Why can't you provide one?

That is not how science work. You simply don't understand science.

For experimental science one could argue that something like that would be ideal. However, one well-made significant experiment can be enough; e.g. for gravitational waves; it's all about significance, avoiding biases, and the consistency with theories.

For non-experimental science the proof is given in the presentation. Scientists, and people trained in the sciences, check that proof - and if it holds up no other source is needed. Thunderf00t's video contain a lot of that, that's why people understanding science don't require other sources, however, that video also contain engineering - indicating that even if not necessarily impossible it would be really expensive and really difficult to get right.

In engineering the burden of proof is one the ones proposing it, you don't propose a new form of bridge with a vague outline and then tell others that it surely works - unless they can disprove it, - and that's why the lack of actual hyperloops speaks volumes.

[Noradin]

According to you. But scientists consistently demand more than one source for their material. Asking for a second source isn't unreasonable at all. Why can't you provide one?

It is unresonable to ask for superflous sources just because you do not like the ones you were linked.

- - - Updated - - -

And that's your opinion. Myself, I prefer a second opinion. Even a second source. As all scientists do. And if he's so right about the science demonstrably proving that hyperloop tech won't work, why aren't there other sources out there making the same claims?

Not in clear cut cases like this one.
You do not link a bunch of sources for basic principles like "1+1=2", that you think scientists expect it tells us all there is to know about your understanding of science.

- - - Updated - - -

That is not how science work. You simply don't understand science.

He's a lawyer...

[Fargus]

A lawyer? Not someone I'd hire given their strength of argument. Or maybe they're an elementary school teacher. Guess hanging around children enough, you start acting childish. Been like that with everyone wh doesn't tow the Musk line since the beginning of the thread.

[ipaq]

Most replies are just nobodies doing nothing of their life.

The guy is at least doing something. And is actually producing ~5k cars a month.

What did you do lately beside taking a dump?

From hyperloop to good 'ol regular car tunnel. Revolutionary. Please have my babies Elon.

[Burgerberg]

Most replies are just nobodies doing nothing of their life.

The guy is at least doing something. And is actually producing ~5k cars a month.

What did you do lately beside taking a dump?

"He did something".

So what?

The vast majority of the world's population aren't billionaires. Your post is completely redundant and fails to see the actual issues presented.

[cubby]

You asked me to back up my claim and I did, which by using your links. I haven't made those other claims.


That is not how science work. You simply don't understand science.

For experimental science one could argue that something like that would be ideal. However, one well-made significant experiment can be enough; e.g. for gravitational waves; it's all about significance, avoiding biases, and the consistency with theories.

For non-experimental science the proof is given in the presentation. Scientists, and people trained in the sciences, check that proof - and if it holds up no other source is needed. Thunderf00t's video contain a lot of that, that's why people understanding science don't require other sources, however, that video also contain engineering - indicating that even if not necessarily impossible it would be really expensive and really difficult to get right.

In engineering the burden of proof is one the ones proposing it, you don't propose a new form of bridge with a vague outline and then tell others that it surely works - unless they can disprove it, - and that's why the lack of actual hyperloops speaks volumes.

So still nothing that backs up this guys point? No other evidence suggesting that hyperloops won't work?

- - - Updated - - -

It is unresonable to ask for superflous sources just because you do not like the ones you were linked.

Not in clear cut cases like this one.
You do not link a bunch of sources for basic principles like "1+1=2", that you think scientists expect it tells us all there is to know about your understanding of science.

If it's so clear, why can't you find another source that backs up the claim?

Both of you continue to falsely and erroneously claim that I don't understand science. What I know to be fundamental to any scientific endeavor is to show not only proof of a claim, but that the claim is repeatable - what some call the scientific method. You two both seem to think that if one guy tells you that 1+1=2 that all of us should automatically believe it, without ever considering a second source.

Imagine how easy a second source would be to find on the issue of 1+1=2? So if you all are right and your hero's claim that hyperloop won't work because the science is clear, then why can't you find a second source? It's all I have been asking this entire time, and it's one of the most reasonable requests in the scientific community.

[Forogil]

So still nothing that backs up this guys point? No other evidence suggesting that hyperloops won't work?

It took you a week to write that reply?

The point was that science only require one proof, and thus people don't write another - since it is wasted on people understanding science.

And that's why almost everyone is giving up on the concept, explaining this thread - "Elon Musk invents the tunnel", since it is a tunnel - not a hyperloop (since it's below ground - not above as hyperloop, not in vacuum, and the cars drive on their wheel).

And this thread has also explained severe issues with the hyperloop-concept - like the thermal expansion.

[cubby]

It took you a week to write that reply?

The point was that science only require one proof, and thus people don't write another - since it is wasted on people understanding science.

And that's why almost everyone is giving up on the concept, explaining this thread - "Elon Musk invents the tunnel", since it is a tunnel - not a hyperloop (since it's below ground - not above as hyperloop, not in vacuum, and the cars drive on their wheel).

And this thread has also explained severe issues with the hyperloop-concept - like the thermal expansion.

Lol, no - I was just waiting to see if either of you had any intellectual honestly left. Your response above makes it very clear the tank is dry.

Go ahead and link all those other articles that explained the "problems" with hyperloops. So far it's only the original.

[Forogil]

Lol, no - I was just waiting to see if either of you had any intellectual honestly left. Your response above makes it very clear the tank is dry.

I have all my intellectual honestly intact, and you are arguing at the level of Trump.

Go ahead and link all those other articles that explained the "problems" with hyperloops. So far it's only the original.

I didn't say articles - but that this thread has explained several severe problems with "hyperloops":
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post51308304
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post51308589
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post51308033

That you don't see them as problems doesn't make them go away.

[cubby]

I have all my intellectual honestly intact, and you are arguing at the level of Trump.

Awwwww - look at you trying to bait me. Adorable. Remember, you lost all intellectual and scientific honesty when you posted:

The point was that science only require one proof...

I didn't say articles - but that this thread has explained several severe problems with "hyperloops":
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post51308304
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post51308589
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post51308033

That you don't see them as problems doesn't make them go away.

That you think those opinions back up the OP's youtube link doesn't make your intellectual dishonesty go away.

The more you yahoos fail to find even one other valid opinion backing up this youtuber just makes you look more and more idiotic. But please, do go on with your adorable "one proof is all it takes".

[Forogil]

Awwwww - look at you trying to bait me. Adorable. Remember, you lost all intellectual and scientific honesty when you posted:

No, I kept all my scientific honesty when I correctly stated that science only require one proof per fact (you might need multiple experiments, or just one sufficiently well-designed, but one proof is enough).

That you think those opinions back up the OP's youtube link doesn't make your intellectual dishonesty go away. The more you guys fail to find even one other valid opinion backing up this youtuber just makes you look more and more idiotic. But please, do go on with your adorable "one proof is all it takes".

If you consider a vacuum tube between LA and SF will stand on pylons and just glide along 150 meters back and forth every day without problems sane - as is the idea of the hyperloop, then I'm glad that you don't consider me sane.