swansont

So you're comparing a new design with an electric motor vs an old design with combustion, instead of comparing electric vs combustion in a new design. That kinda skews the analysis, don't you think?

! Moderator Note I will reiterate Phi's note above, since it was missed. Even though this is in the Lounge, I'm going to request that first-time posters stay away. If you are joining just to advertise your YouTube Channel, your links will be removed. We are not here to advertise for you. IOW, you can link to other peoples' youtube channels. If you're new, we aren't going to bother verifying if there's a question about who owns it. We will just disappear the post

Aviation fuel has an energy density > 40 MJ/kg, and the bonus of not having to fill the tank up all the way (i.e. the mass is variable) so you don't have to provide additional lift for a short flight — you just load less fuel. Does the efficiency of a battery-powered engine make up for this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_fuel#Energy_content Jet-A doesn't look to be that much more expensive than gasoline https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2008/04/how-much-does-it-cost-to-fill-up-the-tank-on-a-corporate-jet.html 6.75 lbs/gal, so that's a little over 3 kg, or about 120-130 MJ. For electricity, it's around $0.12 per kWh, which is 3.6 MJ. So about $3 - $4 for 120 MJ. Perhaps half the cost, but not accounting for the extra weight you have to lug into the air because you've got all those batteries, which means you need additional fuel. (plus the amortized cost of the batteries over their useful life) I'm sure they would , but what connection is there to this? I can appreciate that the electric engine would be silent, but the propeller?

Q-reeus and beecee have both been suspended for three days for not being able to lay off the personal jabs at each other.

To paraphrase a fellow staff member: as if any of us have time for that. It's clear from what you've written elsewhere that you have no clue why you were suspended. It's easy to blame it on prejudice and bigotry; it requires no effort on your part to examine your actions. But the fact of the matter is that we have rules, and you have violated them. This is not your platform. You are a visitor in someone else's home, and came here voluntarily. While we enjoy spirited discussion, you must stay within the guidelines that have been established. If you don't, you will be shown the door. It's up to you.

quantenmaschine has been suspended three days for repeated hijacking of discussions with a personal theory. It belongs in a museum speculations.

coffeesippin has been suspended 3 days for repeated thread hijacking

Reg Prescott has been banned for serial hijacking, which has become worse with time.

Olin has been banned for not correcting his soapboxing behavior, along with other transgressions of the rules.

franco malgarini has had his posting privileges revoked until the spring, due to numerous violations of rule 2.7 (linking and including content without explanation, so that people might participate in the discussion here on SFN)

Olin has been suspended 3 days for repeated soapboxing (including re-opening closed threads)

Menan has been banned for not modifying his behavior after his suspension.

Z10 has been added

Menan has been suspended three days for some less-than-civil posts, a tendency to soapbox, and an unwillingness to modify this behavior.

Bucky Barnes has been banned as another sockpuppet of John Harmonic Third@rk has been suspended 3 days for repeated preaching and thread hijacking

I explained the two cases, so to say that you only have your own concept to work with isn't actually the case, is it? It's pretty clear he was wrong. By the very definition of the word, something that was established with evidence cannot be dogma, since it was not laid down by an authority, nor is it considered incontrovertibly true. Born was an expert in physics. I am unaware of his expertise regarding dogma. I think I know what he meant, and he would be correct, but dogma is not the right word. Because you are only considering one meaning of the phrase. As I've explained, it is not an appeal to expertise, despite your assertion, since it's not a matter of physics. I made no such assertion.

John Harmonic has been banned for an egregiously inappropriate response to moderator feedback, on top of his failure to embrace the concept of this site.

I pointed out before that there are two different ways that "questioned" is being used. By mixing the two, you are engaging the fallacy of equivocation. Also the fallacy of argument from authority: just because Max Born said it does not make it correct. In the sense that Phi used, Born is not correct. Even in the other sense of the word, I would argue that he is not correct. Trivially so.

I did not claim otherwise. Since you do not appear to have noticed, my objection is to your claim that we can't reformulate an hypothesis. (the ontology can't increase) "Plenty of things are abstractions" ≠ "all things are abstractions" Also, physics is a part of science, but not all science is physics. Shall I draw you a Venn diagram? Would that make this clearer?

That's not how we do science. Expanding the number of possibilities is perfectly normal. Plenty of things in physics are abstractions, and not things that necessarily exist as physical entities. (electron holes being one of them. Phonons. Photons.) Yes, exactly. You adjust the background hypothesis. But you said we could not do this. That it could not happen. "could not have appeared in any background assumption or auxiliary hypothesis" (emphasis added) There is no "derivation". This isn't a math problem. It is a fact that neutrinos were predicted before they were experimentally confirmed, and the predictions were based on existing data that had inconsistencies in it, based on what could be observed.

Ontology is philosophy. We are talking about science.

Yes, this is what everyone has been saying. What is the distinction that you are drawing here? It is lost on me. You claimed "could not have appeared in any background assumption or auxiliary hypothesis " and yet here we have this as a background assumption, leading to the prediction and discovery.

I had science in mind, and not just math. You lose something when you try and reduce this to an algebra problem. Science uses math, but it is not just math. It's all in how you set up the problem. You say nothing has changed in the problem. But this is science _ we do a measurement, and find that x is not 3. It is 2.5. We rewrite the equation 2x + y = 6 and conclude that y is 1. We would then go and do a measurement to confirm that y is indeed 1. It's still math — we haven't changed that. It's the realization that there are two variables, not one, and writing down 2x = 6 was not encompassing everything. You seem to be suggesting that because we had confirmed 7 planets that we were not allowed to write down an equation that had 8 planets to see if that were a better fit for the data. Which is preposterous. And yet, that's what happened. Your hypothesis does not match with history. Ergo, it is false. It is amazing that you can say that you can't measure something in a system by measuring everything else involved in the system, and solving for the unknown. Because in my first postdoc, that's exactly what we set out to do. It's hard to measure neutrinos, so we measured the emitted electrons and the recoils of the daughters to deduce the neutrino spectrum. But you now tell me we could not have done this.

! Moderator Note This is a science discussion forum, not a conspiracy site. Take this nonsense elsewhere.

But that's not naive falsification. NONE of the example given above are examples of naive falsification, as you have described it. And so here you argue that naive falsification is in effect, when I thought we agreed that it wasn't. Which position are you arguing? Who are the people who are insisting this? Are they perhaps made of straw? Major paradigms perhaps, but for lesser ideas it happens regularly. One has to consider that to become a major paradigm, there must be considerable evidence that supports it. For hypotheses without that support, experiments that fail to corroborate will relegate it to the trash heap much faster. Chances are few people hear about it, because such work is rarely published. Nothing surprising here for anyone familiar with science, and some of this has already been noted in this discussion.