Sid, will you still think competition is "good for everyone, always" when your taxes go up so your local fire department can compete for firefighters with private firms?
I appreciate Jenni's protestations, but her logic is skewed. Making a distinction between private fire protection and first-class ticket because "anyone" can save up the money for the ticket is just a question of scale (as well as simply untrue). Conceptually, it's the same. Both are available to those who can pay for them. And yes, I know private fire protection is only available in certain counties, but that's hardly a basis for claims of preferential treatment. If it were, I could complain that people who live in New Delhi get "preferential treatment" because the Indian food is better there than it is in my neighborhood.
So, on face value, I agree with people who don't think there's anything inherently wrong with this. It's a service that the homeowners are paying for, just like any other. The contractor who puts a new roof on my house isn't showing me "preferential treatment": he's just doing what I paid him to do. But: there is a larger issue lurking under the surface. Some people can pay for private fire protection for their absurdly large, opulent houses while others don't even have a roof over their head. I think it's safe to say that it takes preferential treatment, in many and varied forms, to create such broad divides between haves and have-nots.
Again, I don't disagree. I think we just see the potential in this project differently: I see as more conceptual, a means of raising awareness about the kinds of issues that are popping up on these posts. Would it have made more sense for him to start with a more rational vehicle? From an engineering standpoint, certainly. But would it have been written up in "Fast Company" and posted on this blog if he had? Probably not.
Some of these look real, but there are a few that just aren't right: the trajectory is a bit off, or something. For example, look at -1:35 on the first video. The can levels off a little bit as it falls towards the can.
(And Yak Boy, just because they show someone missing, doesn't "prove" it's real when they show someone making it.)
Well, Sid, now you've gone and disarmed me with an entirely thoughtful response (although I do have to say that I predicted your "door-handle engineer" comment with startling accuracy). I happen to agree with much of what you said, at least as much as I'm qualified to understand (I had a bit of engineering in college, but not much). Again, I'll let the guy prove himself wrong. It seems like he's done some pretty amazing stuff so far – stuff I certainly haven’t seen before – so he gets my encouragement.
I think I do disagree with your statement that it's "dumb" to start with a Hummer. I think it's actually quite brilliant, because it demonstrates the power of the technology without alienating people who love their big, ridiculous truckzillas. Changing people's perceived "need" for massive, overly powerful vehicles isn’t his game, which is fine. He’s doing what he’s interested in, and good at, and that’s a net gain all around.
Ugh, Sid. I'll say, "GM engineers are industry professionals," and you'll say, "The article doesn't say what KIND of engineers they were and besides, it doesn’t take much to be an engineer at GM, the company that brought us the Chevy Vega blah blah blah." I know the routine. My point still stands: simply saying something won’t work isn’t the same thing as demonstrating that it won’t. So I’ll let the guy with the wrench in his hand show me what he can do, rather than listening to blowhards on the web.
Anita, they state right off the bat, "For our hypothetical journey we will assume the Earth to be of uniform density and neglect air friction and the high temperature of this trip."
That's a fascinating twist, Ted: if your center is at the Earth's center, is gravity pulling you apart, or compressing you? Gravity pulls towards the center of the Earth, so if you're at the center, maybe it WOULD compress you -- but does the theoretical void (the tunnel) at the center of the Earth change that, since the actual mass that creates the gravity would be surrounding you? I think that mass would have to be inside of you in order to compress you...?
You're not getting my point: by your own logic, your claims that it won't work are closer to being "fairytale bullsh**" than his are that it will – the difference being that you cite far less evidence than he does. He's been successfully implementing his ideas for years, gaining support of industry professionals all along the way, and you... well, you just read an article in a magazine.
Thanks for the response. You're right. When I said, "worst-case scenario," I meant having all the gravitational force concentrated in two forces operating in direct opposition to one another -- meaning the scenario most likely to pull you apart. But you're right to say that the overall gravitational forces at the center of the Earth would be greater than that at the surface, absolutely.
Andrew, I read post #5, and there's no evidence there. Expressing doubt without citing cause is not the same thing as evidence -- and if your cause for doubt is just that he hasn't finished the project yet, well, then you are closed-minded. By definition.
So, on face value, I agree with people who don't think there's anything inherently wrong with this. It's a service that the homeowners are paying for, just like any other. The contractor who puts a new roof on my house isn't showing me "preferential treatment": he's just doing what I paid him to do. But: there is a larger issue lurking under the surface. Some people can pay for private fire protection for their absurdly large, opulent houses while others don't even have a roof over their head. I think it's safe to say that it takes preferential treatment, in many and varied forms, to create such broad divides between haves and have-nots.
Again, I don't disagree. I think we just see the potential in this project differently: I see as more conceptual, a means of raising awareness about the kinds of issues that are popping up on these posts. Would it have made more sense for him to start with a more rational vehicle? From an engineering standpoint, certainly. But would it have been written up in "Fast Company" and posted on this blog if he had? Probably not.
(And Yak Boy, just because they show someone missing, doesn't "prove" it's real when they show someone making it.)
I think I do disagree with your statement that it's "dumb" to start with a Hummer. I think it's actually quite brilliant, because it demonstrates the power of the technology without alienating people who love their big, ridiculous truckzillas. Changing people's perceived "need" for massive, overly powerful vehicles isn’t his game, which is fine. He’s doing what he’s interested in, and good at, and that’s a net gain all around.
You're not getting my point: by your own logic, your claims that it won't work are closer to being "fairytale bullsh**" than his are that it will – the difference being that you cite far less evidence than he does. He's been successfully implementing his ideas for years, gaining support of industry professionals all along the way, and you... well, you just read an article in a magazine.
"Shenanigans" is exactly right.
Thanks for the response. You're right. When I said, "worst-case scenario," I meant having all the gravitational force concentrated in two forces operating in direct opposition to one another -- meaning the scenario most likely to pull you apart. But you're right to say that the overall gravitational forces at the center of the Earth would be greater than that at the surface, absolutely.