The biggest issue with this is that entire concept of an inversion on a flier is ill-defined.
Traditionally, we would class "normal" as being gravity pulling from our heads towards our feet (or arse if you're sitting for the pedants in the audience). To invert us as humans (in this context positionally, not biologically (eugh, messy), sexually (common enough in coaster groups), alignment (lawful good to chaotic evil) - or any other way you can think to argue that my definition of inversion is wrong
), gravity should be pulling from our heads to our feet (arses).
On a Flying Coaster (B&M, before anyone starts with the Vekoma monstrosities), gravity pulls from the back (arse) to the front (dick/vag). To invert that you need front (dick/vag) to back (arse).
However, in our "normal" position on a coaster, the track lies under the train, unless it's an invert, then it doesn't. An inversion in this sense occurs when the track rotates through (roughly) 180 degrees to face downwards (or upwards on an invert). With a flier, the track is above and facing down, so an inverted piece of track is below facing up and bollocks to what your body is doing.
I think that is all very clear
So, how do we actually work this out? For that, we need science. And if we have science, we need a spreadsheet.
This simple chart makes everything quite clear. There are only two sources that can assert if a ride contains an inversion or not. The park or the manufacturer. If either of these entities states it is an inversion, then we must also assume it is. They have cleared (probably ride by ride) a range of criteria for a specific ride to meet for it to have an element that is an inversion or not.
So if the park or manufacturer say it's an inversion, then it's an inversion. If the park or manufacturer say yes it isn't an inversion, then it's not an inversion.
This is all very simple and clear so far, no?
Now it starts to get complicated.
The issue is that the above table doesn't take into account all of the variables. If you were to ask the manufacturer and the park if it's an inversion and one says yes, but the other doesn't reply - you step out of binary and into quantum inversion mathematics. This is a highly dangerous and understudied field of physics that could have disastrous results for us all. Let me demonstrate with more science and Excel.
Here we have the new narrative
This gives us the same result as above, only now we can see it expanded to take into account that the Park and Manufacturer may give different responses or no response. As long as both have the same response and their inversions aligned, we don't have an issue. However, what happens if one or the other doesn't respond? Here is where we get into the realms of quantum. If the manufacturer says "Inversion", but the Park stays quiet, then the Park position is both Inversion and Not Inversion at the same time until asked - then it becomes the definitive answer. We can assume a binary multiplication on the answer, so an "Inversion" from the manufacturer, but the park being quiet will result in an automatic positive for Inversion from the park. However, that assumes too much and we can't rely on the assumption of a logical OR in this case.
So we now see the science building below
Due to abject laziness, I haven't included the options for "not, not an inversion" in the positive. I didn't want to confuse anyone by over complicating this.
We see the impact of quantum inversion mechanic discussion criteria (acronym "QuIMDiC") here with several cases where the park or manufacturer do not confirm if it is an inversion or not, leaving us in a state of "not a bloody clue". QuIMDiC analysis is quite clear on the degree of bollock droppingly bottomless cluelessness on this.
There is, of course, another level to this. There's a chance that (possibly to avoid the quantum confusion), the park and manufacturer both respond, but with opposing statements on if it is an inversion or not.
We can see the results here, once again, using science.
I think it's worth noting the potential disastrous nature of the park and manufacturer disagreeing. This would lead to a massive universe shattering argument on coaster forums across the world, resulting in the utter destruction of all known life and matter in the universe.
Hopefully, that makes it easier for everyone to understand now. I think I proven that a picture is definitely worth a thousand words
Traditionally, we would class "normal" as being gravity pulling from our heads towards our feet (or arse if you're sitting for the pedants in the audience). To invert us as humans (in this context positionally, not biologically (eugh, messy), sexually (common enough in coaster groups), alignment (lawful good to chaotic evil) - or any other way you can think to argue that my definition of inversion is wrong
), gravity should be pulling from our heads to our feet (arses).On a Flying Coaster (B&M, before anyone starts with the Vekoma monstrosities), gravity pulls from the back (arse) to the front (dick/vag). To invert that you need front (dick/vag) to back (arse).
However, in our "normal" position on a coaster, the track lies under the train, unless it's an invert, then it doesn't. An inversion in this sense occurs when the track rotates through (roughly) 180 degrees to face downwards (or upwards on an invert). With a flier, the track is above and facing down, so an inverted piece of track is below facing up and bollocks to what your body is doing.
I think that is all very clear
So, how do we actually work this out? For that, we need science. And if we have science, we need a spreadsheet.
This simple chart makes everything quite clear. There are only two sources that can assert if a ride contains an inversion or not. The park or the manufacturer. If either of these entities states it is an inversion, then we must also assume it is. They have cleared (probably ride by ride) a range of criteria for a specific ride to meet for it to have an element that is an inversion or not.
So if the park or manufacturer say it's an inversion, then it's an inversion. If the park or manufacturer say yes it isn't an inversion, then it's not an inversion.
This is all very simple and clear so far, no?
Now it starts to get complicated.
The issue is that the above table doesn't take into account all of the variables. If you were to ask the manufacturer and the park if it's an inversion and one says yes, but the other doesn't reply - you step out of binary and into quantum inversion mathematics. This is a highly dangerous and understudied field of physics that could have disastrous results for us all. Let me demonstrate with more science and Excel.
Here we have the new narrative
This gives us the same result as above, only now we can see it expanded to take into account that the Park and Manufacturer may give different responses or no response. As long as both have the same response and their inversions aligned, we don't have an issue. However, what happens if one or the other doesn't respond? Here is where we get into the realms of quantum. If the manufacturer says "Inversion", but the Park stays quiet, then the Park position is both Inversion and Not Inversion at the same time until asked - then it becomes the definitive answer. We can assume a binary multiplication on the answer, so an "Inversion" from the manufacturer, but the park being quiet will result in an automatic positive for Inversion from the park. However, that assumes too much and we can't rely on the assumption of a logical OR in this case.
So we now see the science building below
Due to abject laziness, I haven't included the options for "not, not an inversion" in the positive. I didn't want to confuse anyone by over complicating this.
We see the impact of quantum inversion mechanic discussion criteria (acronym "QuIMDiC") here with several cases where the park or manufacturer do not confirm if it is an inversion or not, leaving us in a state of "not a bloody clue". QuIMDiC analysis is quite clear on the degree of bollock droppingly bottomless cluelessness on this.
There is, of course, another level to this. There's a chance that (possibly to avoid the quantum confusion), the park and manufacturer both respond, but with opposing statements on if it is an inversion or not.
We can see the results here, once again, using science.
I think it's worth noting the potential disastrous nature of the park and manufacturer disagreeing. This would lead to a massive universe shattering argument on coaster forums across the world, resulting in the utter destruction of all known life and matter in the universe.
Hopefully, that makes it easier for everyone to understand now. I think I proven that a picture is definitely worth a thousand words
