JaKiri

No, I'd say that you insulting me after I had proved you wrong was more an instance of flaming, than trolling.

You can't accept being wrong, can you?

I only said that you were wrong about the equations in the post. All subsequent discussion doesn't take your original statement into account, because you were arguing in the general rather than the specific, such as in this post.

comedy goldmine

You're obviously confused.

I'm trolling YOU because you argued something that you knew was wrong? [edit] To clarify the general position of it, you were wrong when you said that horsepower doesn't determine top speed; it does, but only with other factors. If you had two identical cars, and one of them had 10x the horsepower of the other, which one would you think would go faster? (Obviously, this model is a simplification, because you have to take into account the size/vibrations from the engine, and the like).

So, you're wrong, you know you're wrong, yet you're still arguing? What?

Power = Nm/s Speed = m/s Force = N How is it then that you're claiming that N is not equal to Nm/s / m/s ?

Back to strawmanning. It's quite clear what my comment was referring to, and now you're just being argumentative.

Whilst this is true, it doesn't make your first statement (the one with 'power' and 'work' and the like) true, which it wasn't.

No, you're wrong. For one thing, you quoted general physical formulae, and used them to 'prove' your statement that power doesn't affect top speed, which is incorrect (see: my statement, or most mechanics books). Furthermore, without further expansion on your statement, I don't see how horsepower (about 750W) cannot be considered power.

Just reading this thread for the first time, and you're wrong. Top speed = Power/(Sum resistive forces).

Well, radicaledward's presented the current thinking of science, it's you who have the burden of proof. Get on it, bring mathematics.

Start talking about house prices, and I'll get on the phone to fleet street.

20 hours is a reasonably small workload.

You should work for the daily mail duder. Your unbacked-up, emotive arguments would fit in well.

Good old EM exchange particles.

That's an oversimplification of Occam's Razor. And the world WASN'T flat when people thought it was. There WAS quantum effects when Laplacian determinism was in vogue. And so forth. I'd advise reading a book on empirical method; the essays by Kuhn in 'On the Structure of Scientific Revolutions' may be a tad 'dull', so maybe a book by SJ Gould.

I originally thought that you were being confused by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (you can only measure position or velocity precisely [sort of]), but after a reread of your post I don't know what you're talking about at all, I'm afraid.

Friction = :mu:mgcos:lctheta: Friction is defined as having a maximum of the reaction force ('R') multiplied by the coefficient of friction (':mu:') The normal reaction (ie the force perpendicular to the plane) will be equal and opposite to the component of gravity in that plane (obviously; the object doesn't fly off the plane, or through it, so there must be no resultant force). R = mgcos:lctheta: (a simple way to remember wheterh it's sin or cos is to decrease the angle to 0, and if the multiple you'd get is 0 it'll be sin, 1 it'll be cos). FR = :mu:R = :mu: mg cos :lctheta:, as above.

The IQ test was only designed to be able to measure intellect when combined with a large number of other scores, and even then it's making quite a few assumptions about the distribution of intelligence, and the tests that are given are in fact almost always wrong, as they don't take the assumed distribution into account. For instance, in the 'Test the Nation' thing on BBC, they not only had a very very poor IQ test, they also came out with an average IQ of 107 for the country, which is impossible given that the average is ALWAYS 100.

Actually, it's only statistically significant if you get 4 or fewer right or wrong, by the standard 10% two tailed significance test.

Looking at a light would be a good way to detect lots of photons.

Plastics are made from fossil fuels, for the most part.

If we're talking cars: Hydrogen, ethanol (alcohol to the layman), electricity. If we're talking power plants: Nuclear fusion.