...he has a razor that is very useful in these situations. You have three choices: one and two are rather bizarre theories that require significant new physics (reflecting gravitational waves or Heim theory). Choice three uses conventional physics, and is therefore boring. But it explains the GpB data so far.

Until polhode effects can be ruled out, Occam's razor pretty much requires us to stick with this explanation. Don't use a complex experiment to make claims about new physics unless you understand the experiment really, really well. It is just too easy for the "new physics" to turn out to be some subtle effect in the experimental hardware.

My understanding is that a modern twin (777) is less likely to lose one engine than an older quad (747) is to lose three engines. The 777 was more or less required to meet this challenge in order to be certified for over water use.

A 777 certainly does not have to divert to the nearest airport if it loses one engine. After all, the things fly over the Pacific where there are no airports!

Interesting thoughts. You touch on a theme that I have been thinking about lately: zero sum games versus more creative solutions.

So often we get stuck in zero sum games. You give up knowledge: I win; you lose. You get what you want: you win, I lose.

But it doesn't have to be that way. Shared knowledge can mean gains for both parties. Enabling your collaborators (competitors?) allows you to concentrate on your strengths.

Indeed, life does not have to be a chess match. But creativity and innovation are often required to avoid the trap of the zero sum game.