I've heard comments from the DMG camp
regarding the need for more "Time" & "Space"
to get Flattrack back on "Course" as a result of
the depth in "Dimension" regarding the sport's
current "State" of affairs?
Mike Kidd eludes towards an axiom or premise
that the problems with our sport are in fact
"Multi-Dimensional" with "Boundries" &
similtaniously proclaiming that he has
seemingly infinite A-priori knowledge with
regard to solutions which are of course paradoxal
in nature & will approach remedies for next years
season understanding that any veiwpoint attacking
problems as though they are mutually exclusive
one to the other might in fact be short selling
the dimensional depth that adversely effects our sport!
Well?
Mike?
I don't know?
I think you may be overstating things a bit &
maybe reaching into Analitic Philosophy or
possibly depending on Euclidean Geo-physical
proofs for cause & effect more than flattrack
may require.
If you intend to insist a Hypothetical Universe
is possibly in play holding back our sport
whereby a pragmatic approach would be foolhardy &
metaphysics are a more direct approach towards
seeking an increase in both fan base & resulting
spectator count....
Well, I respectfully disagree
Your assertion regarding "Multi-Dimentional Problems"
simply does not hold water!
Mike!
Your premise will not allow you any breathing room up or down
in dimential shift to the positive or negative?
You don't make logical sence in any way shape or form!
You might try going off in an orthogonal direction,
but then of course you gotta stop when you get to 0 dimensions &
then one might conclude there's no more orthogonal directions
to remove which is absurb considering the hypothetical negitive!
You made a comment about "Boundaries" which implies guidlines,
which inturn indicates rules, which again eludes to laws &
if we are gonna start talking about laws,
then I'm going to go right to the freak'n top &
defer to "Natural Law" & Go Freak'n Wild On You...
through a Dimensional Shift Time Warp Gismo Thing!
This shoulda given you a hint right off the freak'n bat...
that you can't get to negative dimensions in Flattrack!!
These guys are lucky enough to stay within a freak'n circle
going forwards & you want to take that away from them?
Dude!...These guys got families & stuff...
Some of their families even like them!
Brass Tacks & Basics before Mike schedules a National
on an "Event Horizon" & gets Chris, Jared, Sammy, Kenny & Joe
sucked into a "Black Freak'n Hole" compressed into
a Squashed Raisin & Getta a Freak'n Raisinette!
A 3Dim. cube has 6 squares bounding it!
A 2Dim. square has 4 lines bounding it!
A 1Dim. line has 2 points bounding it!
Following the pattern,
a 0Dim. point would have 0
(IE) No, Zero, Zip, NADA... lower-Dim. objects bounding it!
MIKE! FOR GOD'S SAKE MAN...WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?
Incidentally, let me also add that "Analogy"
is not an acceptable way of demonstrating the
existence of higher-dimensional spaces.
The 2Dim. to 3Dim. analogy is useful in giving you
clues as to what 4Dim. space might be like,
but it's only a guess until you actually construct
4Dim. space and explore its properties.
For example:
There are no knots in 2Dim. while there are a number of
classes of knots in 3Dim.
See what I mean Mike?...It's so freak'n simple!
You & DMG both...should be embarassed!
Anyway,
By analogy you might expect even more types of knots in 4Dim.
But... in reality there are no knots in 4Dimentions either!
In any case, all this "Going Fast & Turning Left"
using any "analogy"...
is completely pointless!
higher-dimensional spaces are well-understood!
What you're talking about here is R^3...
(ordinary 3Dim. Euclidean space) and
R^4 (4d Euclidean space.)!
Indeed it's trivial to actually construct them
at this point because your probably gonna go right ahead &
add as much calcium to the tracks as you want anyway
probably creating an un-warrented rift in time & space
which in turn causes most of our first turn pile ups
but...It is what it is...What A Jerk!
It would truly be disappointing if this supposed argument
did not get taken seriously by the flattrack community
as I can't believe Mike's attitube towards basic Quantum Physics!
Dale!...Back me up on this Dude!...
Going back a bit...
this isn't really a "solution" to the original issue
(which is silly in itself.)
All it does is invent a scenario...
(3Dimensional Track a in 4Dimentional universe)
where the supposed problem doesn't exist.
But that's easy...
Let's imagine a 3Dim. universe containing
just a single perfect Flattrack Bike.
Or a 3Dim. universe containing 2 perfect Flattrack Bikes,
one Left Harley and one Right Harley
both mirror images of themselves!
So what?
If you think it's a "paradox"
that we can imagine a 3Dim. Harley in a 3Dim. universe,
then what difference does it make that we can invent a
different scenario without the supposed paradox?...
See What I Mean Mike?
As to the original question, well...
it's just one of many equally 'paradoxical' questions.
For example:
If the first thing in the universe were a CRF450,
would it be stock or a framer?
If there were Indigenous Illiniosanites and they had invented
a written language like Pig-Latin would they write
left-to-right or right-to-left?
If I were a marsupial, would I be platypus from down under
or from Illinios & over the top?
It's important & just does not matter
all at the same freak'n time!
See What I Mean?
In fact,
if you have an ordinary positive dimensional space
but where some of the coordinates are anticommuting
rather than commuting,
(in a limited sense)...
these can be considered as having negative dimensions.
But...
this isn't a "real" negative dimension
(in the way that e.g. R^6 really has 6 dimensions)...
it's more like the non-integer "fractal dimension"
that people ascribe to fractals.
That is, a few particular formulae that apply to
ordinary spaces between dimensions that also apply to
Flattrack Bikes & Flattrackers nearly Nationwide
other than those mentioned earlier
from Illinios & Austrailia!
On the other hand...
Mike did make some valid points...
I'll give him credit for that...
But...Naturally He is in desperate need of
correction on some minor issues & mis-calculations...
I promise to keep it simple & to the point!
First...
There are many problems with Mike's reasoning.
Correct me if I'm wrong but this is how Mike's argument goes...
1) Some proposition P is true for 2Dim. figures in 3Dim. space.
2) P is also true if we increase all the dimensions involved by 1.
Example...(3Dim. figures in 4Dim. space)..
oh! I've got you now Mike!
3) Therefore P must be true if we increase or
reduce the dimensions involved by any natural number!...
ya Mike...Bow Your Head In Shame!
I'm sure you saw that one coming...CHECKMATE DUDE!
Mike...I'm in no way fixed on this subject &
would be more than happy to discus in further detail even though
I KNOW I'M RIGHT & YOUR FREAK'N WRONG!
Anyway...Back to my point...
Some of proposition P is true for 2Dim. figures in 3Dim. space.
This formulation ignores the distinction between
qualia-type propositions, relative propositions &
and belies a logical-positivist bias,
(limiting formal logic to truth value probabilities)
Certainly Mike...you can agree this is a long standing
bias that has neglected Metaphcsics altogether,
for the abstract nature of the discipline is
not suited to structures of metalinguistics!
I think when it's put plainly like that,
this is clearly nonsense.
If you want a demonstration...
just note that we can derive all sorts
of ridiculous things with this reasoning!
Example:... n=2 is a positive number.
If we increase n by 1, then n=3 is also positive.
By your reasoning above...then,
we can keep decreasing n &
it will always still be positive!
I would agree,
the arument you outline above is nominally weak
(though not invalid)
but this is YOUR argument...Not Mine &
MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON YOUR SOUL!
Ok, let's talk about the "Front Fender Issue"
Absolute Nonsence!
Nonsense is a word I usually reserve for an argument without merit,
or empirical or rational foundation.
You are clearly aware of some of the issues raised here,
but I’m disappointed you lack the ability to form
ideogenetic responses beyond this nonsense
but that would raise an argument on meta-language and language &
certainly not what this thread is all about
so why in the hell did you bring up Front Fenders in the first place
other than to simply evaid the issue at hand whatever that might be...
I'm on to you now Mike!...I didn't just fall outa the van yesterday
especially if Suzy where half naked in the back!
DO YOU TAKE ME FOR A FOOL?
In your opinion perhaps...
As you have presented the argument,
one might, as you have, conclude that it is nonsense
(which I take to mean that the argument is problematic)
or do you insist it's invalid?
But it doesn’t represent a structure I would use,
nor did I feel that I initially pursued!
Mike you subtely expresses autologous contradictions
that you may derive from this thread...
Labelling it ‘clearly nonsense’ which undermines your
assertian of verisimilitude with the syllogisms buried
in this thread...
In other words...SCREW YOU AND YOUR DAMN FENDERS!
let's just get down to brass tacks & DMG!
P1: A premise is proposed,
that the congruity of entiamorphic pairs,
can be affirmed to represent the illusion of differentiation &
allow for their ‘rotation’ through n+1 dimensions.
P2. That given P1,
when applied to 2Dim. incongruous counterparts,
the incongruous nature of these objects can be
dismissed as representing ‘qualia’
(not things) in themselves,
observers bounded by 2Dim. space must accept axiomatically
that incongruous counterparts,
reveal differet qualia through their incongruity in Flattrack &
it's Racing Community not withstanding it's Ambidextrous Universe,
that positioned it in a 4th dimension of space.
To give some pointers on what the issues are here...
P3. Incongrous counterparts (ICs) in 3d space
(eg – enantiomorphic polyhedrons)
could be made to ‘inteleginbly’ collapse into a deep cushion
causing congruent similitude, and therefore share...
(all except absolute space-vector) "qualia"...
while remaining entirely unchanged to the 3Dimensional observer
in the pits, for whom left and right are fundamental properties
of the localised space they inhabit at the track,
I do not by induction,
expect their broken right Harley to diplace itself
into a broken left Harley simply becuse
the latest Metaphsics colloquim has determined
a 4th dimension of space wherein left and right &
up and down, mysteriously disappear as qualia leading to
the inevitable debate of differentiation &
arguably persude through logic that spatial extension is in fact
an illusion of the "Bererkleyian" type of...
"Solipcism" (a lonely mode of thought) whereby we...
are all living in a computer generated simulation or
"FLATTRACK MATRIX" predicated preferably to accept some
P1, P2, Pn probabilities on quantum computing’s processing limits &
our ability or desire to generate an artificial reality
as just some simulation of a National rather than the real deal!
P4, the process of rotating a 3Dimensional object such as...
an RS750 through 4Dimensional space is not a...
"simple" abstract process that is a empirically-derived
perception that can be engaged!
An extended 4th dimension of space that allows for
3Dimensional enantiomorphicity to be revealed as illusory &
is not readily acceptable to the imagination Mike!
Many necessary features of extended 3D space require symmetry &
this is where I feel Mike & DMG are missing the boat!
Positioning non-experiential features of reality,
though acceptable theoretically makes relational assumptions
that can but be based on experiential experience of
relational features observed between empirical datum
whereby causing alot of our Air-Fence deflation troubles &
or "Soft Spots"!
The assumption that the relationship of the theoretical
4D to experiential 3D is not equivalent,
nor even similar to that which exists between 3D and 2D,
or if it is...
Then one might easily conclude Mike & or DMG are proceeding
to make truth statements about 4Dimensional space &
I find it difficult to accept any additional premise
based clearly on Matrix oriented assumptions!
I Got's To Draw The Line Somewhere!
Dimensions are qualatitively related...
such that truth statements about theoretical dimensions below 0,
hold equi-ideoglyphic reality as a positive integer dimension
of space above 3 is just plain freak'n obvious &
Mike just don't see it...
or...maybe he don't want to see it...hmmmm?
I hate to say this but...
Truth values that describe 4D space,
are etiher as equally valid as Truth statements made about -1D &
such statements derive their logic by super-imposing
the interdimensionally-relative so you can plainly see why...
empirically-derived Euclidian-geometric epistemology works for
Mike & all his DMG cronies!...AhHa!!! I got them on the run now!!!
This is a fairer representation of just one of my various
DMG hypotheses that I'm suggesting in this thread.
In reality, what I'm trying to do is of course win an...
argument by induction...Sweet!
Of course? Somewhat presumptious but certainly...
Mike has no idea who he's fool'n with...THE DARTMAN COMETH!
Opps...
Back to Induction...
Sorry...I get sidetracked sometimes...
Let me critique, by deferrering to Human induction,
what I believe Mike is attempting to do to Flattrack Racers!
Over this past season & clearly at Peoria it became obvious &
leads me to believe that you are 'closed' to the methodologies
of rationalism. If you truly mistrust induction,
you're life must be quite daunting.
Your belief in the possibility of a non-rational supervention
of the laws of physics, logic etc by a new &
unrelated order beset by hyper-contra-chronological realities,
should instill a suspiscion of inductive reasoning &
clearly anything other than the above &
most certainly not a rejection of the obvious
which was oddly not the case...was it...Mike!...ahHa again!
Did you catch my drift....?
You Know What I'm Talking About...Don't Play Dumb With Me!
What you need to do...to get it to work out...
is to show the induction step in the right direction.
If you can show that for any positive integer D,
given a space of dimension D,
you can create a bigger viable space of dimension D+1!
Then you've shown that spaces of all positive integer dimension exist!
Ain't that cool how it all works out so nicely!
To get the negative dimensions it's a little harder...
You need to do the induction step in the opposite direction,
Just show that you can always construct a space of lower dimensions &
PRESTO!...You Got It!
Short Track is a very different thing,
it's not possible in any sensible way...
You might try taking it off an orthogonal direction,
but then you obviously stop when you get to 0 dimensions
or there's no more orthogonal directions to remove
but who am I kidding...you guys already knew that...
I was just thinking about Short Track out loud...sorry
Anyway Mike...
These are your criteria,
orthogonal axsese to our experienced three are...
no more ‘real’ or logically describable than the
negative dimensions that necessarily accompany truth claims
about super-tertiary space.
I am not, and have not argued for the non-existence of
super-tertiary dimensions,
but rather what truth claims can be made of them...
Please don't think I'm picking on DMG by expressing my thoughts...
You have already ascribed an orthogonal relationship with 3D,
which must be accompanied by the existence of at least -1d...
so you can plainly see that...We're Cool...& no harm intended...
I see no reason why 4d, 5d, nd etc must be inductively reasoned
before any disucussion on the problems of absolute vs relative space
can begin but that obviously will have to wait until
Pomona next year!
Note that your own dialogue about boundaries should have given
you a hint you can't get negative dimensions &
it appears as though you just shot yourself in the foot!
Did you honestly think I would miss that?
Do I have to reiterate...
A 3D cube has 6 squares bounding it...
A 2D square has 4 lines bounding it...
A 1D line has 2 points bounding it...
A 0d point would have o dimemsional objects bounding it...
Come On Mike....
This Is Basic Freak'n Flattrack 101!
You had better re-read this again & think about what I'm saying!
It's the Basic Descent of Dimensional Relationships For God's Sake!
3d cube = 6 2d ‘limits’
2d plane = 4 1d limits
1 dimensional line = 2 x 1d limit
0 d = 1 x -1 limit
You have simply inserted an arbitrary conclusion to the pattern,
Incidentally, let me also add that "analogy"
is not an acceptable way of demonstrating the existence of...
higher-dimensional spaces!
In Summary...
Mike...
I'm just trying to help with next years program &
if my calculations are correct which are based on
sound ideas & methods passed down by the early boardtrackers
Issy Newton, Franky Leibniz, Iggy Kant & Freddy Einstein...
my cosmology theories, epistemelogical theories, M-theories &
inflationary theories should be pretty accurate...
I'm currently working on a Reverse Engineering Project
that involves a Vincent Black Shadow GNC Ready Flattracker
that Operates Using "Dark Matter" as a Power Source!
Is a 32mm restrictor ok?
Seeya Art The(Did Not Head To The Light...He Went Past It)Dart
