>> ^arvana:
From a physics point of view, I don't see that leaning the wheels gives you any more traction than keeping them vertical. Tilting the machine and rider while keeping all four wheels on the ground should give more stability.... and it definitely looks very cool. But I wouldn't say it's as radical an innovation as a hydrofoil.


I agree about it not being as radical an innovation as a hydrofoil...however from a physics point of view, it does give you more traction in cornering as your weight will be shifted in line with the wheels to the ground. Without being able to draw you a pic, just think racecar oval tracks. They are banked, not flat. Why is this? For traction so the cars don't slide off the tracks in cornering.

this is Pergatory for racecar drivers

For literal sake of argument, here is the transcript:

'Hello, my name is Kelly Tripplehorn, and my company is ready to offer anyone one thousand dollars if they can explain how they are able to account for modern science without invoking god to do so.

Here is the basic problem that all non-theists face when engaging in inductive science: The modern scientific method is grounded in the idea that one is able to correctly form and deduce scientific theories and scientific laws through one's inductive inference, but before we are able to understand what induction is, we must first learn what DEduction is.

Deduction is, for instance, when I say something like "all fire is hot therefore that particular fire over there is hot" - thus, deduction makes inferences from the GENERAL to the specific.

INduction, on the other hand, would be like when a child touches fire for the very first time and he says "Ouch - that fire is hot therefore ALL fire is hot." Thus, induction makes inferences from the specific to the general.

Now for modern science to work, it must assume the truth of induction, or something more commonly known as "The Uniformity of Nature." If one does not assume that the natural laws work uniformly, then modern science as we know it is impossible.

So, for instance, as a scientist, if I release this fork from my hand, I can assume that it will fall towards the ground at 9.78m/s^2.

But if I do not assume the existance of a creator that created this world uniformly, what warrant do I have to believe that this fork, in the future, will continue to fall at exactly 9.78m/s^2. More specifically, what warrant would I have, as a non-theist, to believe that this fork when released, will not just continue to hover in the air, or begin to spontaneously fly upwards. Because, you see, you can not point to the past to prove the future without fundamentally begging the question as to why it is I should assume that the past events will continue to resemble the future events.

As a Christian, though, I do not have this problem, since the first two chapters of Genesis inform me that God created the world with order and uniformity. And, I, as a Christian can assume that the past laws of nature will be like the future laws of nature because god has implicitly told me so in his word.

Unless you are a theist, your worldview cannot even begin to justify why it is that the natural laws of the past will continue to operate uniformly.

Now, by this point, you're probably very confused, so let me give you a very vivid illustration of this.

Suppose you're playing a racecar video game and then I ask you "why is it that you believe your racecar in the next few seconds will not spontaneously turn into a horse?" Now no "thinking person" is going to say "well that's because my car has never turned into a horse in the past." No! noone would say that, because noone would ever believe that the past events govern the future events.

Rather, the videogame designer designed the game in such a way so that the rules and laws of the game operate uniformly.

This analogy applies to real life.

I can say that I have warrant for not believing that my car will spontaneously turn into a horse because I believe in a logical god that has created the world to reflect his own logical nature.

So here's the challenge:

All any non-theist has to do is give a justification concerning their inductive inference. In other words, justify why it is that you believe the sun will come up tomorrow, or that in the next few seconds why it is that you won't spontaneously turn into a grasshopper.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is just dying for someone to answer them, and if you, as a non-theist - that is, if you are an agnostic or an atheist - can get your answer published in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and have the Encyclopedia acknowlege that you have justified your inductive inference, then we will give you one thousand dollars.

In the Encyclopedia section entitled "The Problem of Induction," it gives a 250 year history of man trying to justify his inductive inference without invoking God. After having exhausted every notable thinker who has tackled this problem in the last 250 years, the encyclopedia concludes as follows:

"David Humes' simple argument for the impossibility of a justification of induction is a dilemma. Induction is hence unjustifiable."

So in other words, there is not one atheist/agnostic philosopher in the history of the world who has been able to justify his inductive inference, and christians have basically ignored this fact, but that time has now ceased.

So all the agnostic has to do is to submit his response that fully resolves the problem of induction to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, have them publish your answer, and the i53 Broadcasting Corporation will give you one thousand dollars.

All submissions should be emailed to webmaster@plato.stanford.edu. Once again, that email address is webmaster@plato.stanford.edu.

And please remember not to fall into this common trap by saying "well I have to admit that I do not know for sure that the sun will rise tomorrow or that the laws of nature will continue to operate uniformly, but I just think that it is highly probable, based on my past experiences." But, as the atheist David Hume has already pointed out to us "probability itself assumes uniformity," and thus probability cannot itself justify belief in uniformity.'

(continued below)

The racecar crash at 1:16. anyone know anything about that one? looked fatal.

After figuring out a couple of the lines of the lyrics and then Googling for those lines, the song is Dusk by the band Reuben, from their album "Racecar Is Racecar Backwards".

see, i knew this was going to happen. it passes the 'get off to it' test, in my opinion... but the nude magician would have made it, if i hadn't struck it down. the racecar vid with the crash caused by a flashing girl also was knocked off. i'm just saying...

i figured this would end up in the *blog , so there we go. i just think that either some consistency is in order, or the ruleset needs to be clarified.

i would sooooooooooooooooo LOVE to be a racecar driver!!

Violence is okay (ironically), problem is someone actually dying - "snuff".

Three examples of videos we've removed
- cameraman dies recording fireworks explosions (we learned about this subsequently)
- dying voice of a man in one of the WTC towers
- racecar crashes where we know the driver dies (noted in the video itself)

Thanks for your understanding and welcome to videosift!

I haven't discarded it myself even though the rules technically apply because:
1. it was a form self-defense
2. the guy was asking for it by trying to kill another person
3. I wouldn't feel bad about watching this in sequence with a video of cute kittens.

Despite my interpretation, other community members may disagree and as videosift grand poo-bah dag has pointed out, any gold star has the right to enforce the policies if they believe they've been broken (they can discard vids). Main reason a person would do that would be b/c they don't want to upset people by showing real death right after watching vids of cute kittens and the like. Hence my third reason for not removing this vid.

I'm just going to stir up some discussion. Oh wait, done that. I'll just stop typing now.

Again, welcome.