"Fredxxx" wrote in message news ..

Do you understand that an increase in a car's speed requires an increase in kinetic
energy?

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?



michael adams

....

On Saturday, 7 October 2017 13:09:51 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote in message news .

Do you understand that an increase in a car's speed requires an increase in kinetic
energy?

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?

Oh dear.

On 07/10/2017 13:10, michael adams wrote:

snip

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?



michael adams


Are you drunk, high on something, or is that a serious question?

"Fredxxx" wrote in message news
On 07/10/2017 13:10, michael adams wrote:

snip

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?



michael adams


Are you drunk, high on something, or is that a serious question?

It's a serious question

It was posted in response to this claim of yours.

Which for some reason you chose to snip.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message news ..

Do you understand that an increase in a car's speed requires an increase in kinetic
energy?

So I can only ask you again

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?



michael adams

....

michael adams wrote:

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news wrote:

snip

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?



michael adams


Are you drunk, high on something, or is that a serious question?

It's a serious question

It was posted in response to this claim of yours.

Which for some reason you chose to snip.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news

Do you understand that an increase in a car's speed requires an increase
in kinetic energy?

So I can only ask you again

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?



If you have no apples is there any particular problem in increasing the
number of apples you have? Compared with already having some apples. I
can see that negative apples would create a problem, but not one that a
vector quantity would share. For aeroplanes in particular, acceleration
in one direction may be necessary despite velocity being in another.
The behaviour of kinetic energy in this case is harder to calculate, but
follows rules.


--

Roger Hayter

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote:

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news wrote:

snip

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?



michael adams


Are you drunk, high on something, or is that a serious question?

It's a serious question

It was posted in response to this claim of yours.

Which for some reason you chose to snip.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news

Do you understand that an increase in a car's speed requires an increase
in kinetic energy?

So I can only ask you again

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?



If you have no apples is there any particular problem in increasing the
number of apples you have?

Not if the apples can self generate, no.

(Which is equivalent to applying Fred's definition to a stationary
vehicle)

It might be the foundation of a very profitable business
in fact.

But otherwise it would require an outside agency to provide the
apples.


michael adams

....

On Saturday, 7 October 2017 14:01:48 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote in message news
On 07/10/2017 13:10, michael adams wrote:

snip

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?



michael adams


Are you drunk, high on something, or is that a serious question?

It's a serious question

need one say more

On 07/10/2017 14:31, wrote:
On Saturday, 7 October 2017 14:01:48 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote in message news
On 07/10/2017 13:10, michael adams wrote:

snip

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?



michael adams


Are you drunk, high on something, or is that a serious question?

It's a serious question

need one say more

I assume he has in mind the way

dv/dt=p/(mv)

begs the question "does this mean you get infinite acceleration when the
vehicle is stationary"? And I assume he is looking for the answer "no
because the *useful* power delivered is also nil when the vehicle is
stationary".

I do not know if he is deliberately trolling by starting a new thread
without quoting the relevant preceding post(s) or just striving to be
seen as too clever by half.



--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Saturday, 7 October 2017 15:07:02 UTC+1, Robin wrote:
On 07/10/2017 14:31, tabbypurr wrote:
On Saturday, 7 October 2017 14:01:48 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote in message news On 07/10/2017 13:10, michael adams wrote:

snip

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?

Are you drunk, high on something, or is that a serious question?

It's a serious question

need one say more

I assume he has in mind the way

dv/dt=p/(mv)

begs the question "does this mean you get infinite acceleration when the
vehicle is stationary"? And I assume he is looking for the answer "no
because the *useful* power delivered is also nil when the vehicle is
stationary".

I do not know if he is deliberately trolling by starting a new thread
without quoting the relevant preceding post(s) or just striving to be
seen as too clever by half.

Having read Michael before I doubt he has put a moment of thought into either point. Or any other.


NT

"Robin" wrote in message
...
On 07/10/2017 14:31, wrote:
On Saturday, 7 October 2017 14:01:48 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote in message news On 07/10/2017 13:10, michael adams wrote:

snip

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?



michael adams


Are you drunk, high on something, or is that a serious question?

It's a serious question

need one say more

I assume he has in mind the way

dv/dt=p/(mv)

begs the question "does this mean you get infinite acceleration when the vehicle is
stationary"? And I assume he is looking for the answer "no because the *useful* power
delivered is also nil when the vehicle is stationary".

I do not know if he is deliberately trolling by starting a new thread without quoting
the relevant preceding post(s) or just striving to be seen as too clever by half.

I'm simply asking Fred a simple question.

I can only say I'm sorry if my doing this upsets you so much that you
feel you the need to comment; but there's not that much else I
offer you by way of reassurance, I'm afraid.

Who would have thought that one simple question could cause
so much fuss ?


michael adams

....










--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

michael adams wrote:

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote:

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news wrote:

snip

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?



michael adams


Are you drunk, high on something, or is that a serious question?

It's a serious question

It was posted in response to this claim of yours.

Which for some reason you chose to snip.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news
Do you understand that an increase in a car's speed requires an increase
in kinetic energy?

So I can only ask you again

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?



If you have no apples is there any particular problem in increasing the
number of apples you have?

Not if the apples can self generate, no.

(Which is equivalent to applying Fred's definition to a stationary
vehicle)

It might be the foundation of a very profitable business
in fact.

But otherwise it would require an outside agency to provide the
apples.


michael adams

...
If you accelerate a moving car in the direction of its motion, its
kinetic energy increases. If you accelerate a stationary[1] car, it
acquires kinetic energy. I think I am missing the problem.

[1] Stationary only in our local frame of reference, of course, but
that has no relevance at the sort of speeds we are talking about.

--

Roger Hayter

Robin wrote:

On 07/10/2017 14:31, wrote:
On Saturday, 7 October 2017 14:01:48 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news wrote:
snip

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?



michael adams


Are you drunk, high on something, or is that a serious question?

It's a serious question

need one say more

I assume he has in mind the way

dv/dt=p/(mv)

begs the question "does this mean you get infinite acceleration when the
vehicle is stationary"? And I assume he is looking for the answer "no
because the *useful* power delivered is also nil when the vehicle is
stationary".

We are also talking about cars, and we know that in practice moving off
from stationary is a rather discontinuous process. But it is also true
that in any real car the acceleration at low speed is very much limited
by the traction the tyre can achieve rather than the power the engine
can produce. So the usable torque will be equivalent to quite low
engine power. Drag racing is another issue. It was unwise to stray
from the 60mph.


I do not know if he is deliberately trolling by starting a new thread
without quoting the relevant preceding post(s) or just striving to be
seen as too clever by half.


--

Roger Hayter

On 07/10/2017 15:25, michael adams wrote:

Who would have thought that one simple question could cause
so much fuss ?

"Hey Gavrilo, I'm bored. Fancy coming out and taking a few pot shots at
the Archduke Ferdinand?"

"Have you put on a bit of weight darling?"

"Fancy one for the road?"

"Fancy a quickie?"

Bill

On 07/10/2017 15:39, Roger Hayter wrote:

But it is also true
that in any real car the acceleration at low speed is very much limited
by the traction the tyre can achieve rather than the power the engine
can produce.

Not in my car.

Bill

"Robin" wrote in message
...
On 07/10/2017 14:31, wrote:
On Saturday, 7 October 2017 14:01:48 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news On 07/10/2017 13:10, michael adams wrote:

snip

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?



michael adams


Are you drunk, high on something, or is that a serious question?

It's a serious question

need one say more

I assume he has in mind the way

dv/dt=p/(mv)

begs the question "does this mean you get infinite acceleration when the
vehicle is stationary"? And I assume he is looking for the answer "no
because the *useful* power delivered is also nil when the vehicle is
stationary".

I do not know if he is deliberately trolling by starting a new thread
without quoting the relevant preceding post(s) or just striving to be seen
as too clever by half.

Fredxxx has now used a different address, so I had to add this to my
killfile as well.
--
Dave W

Bill Wright wrote:

On 07/10/2017 15:25, michael adams wrote:

Who would have thought that one simple question could cause
so much fuss ?

"Hey Gavrilo, I'm bored. Fancy coming out and taking a few pot shots at
the Archduke Ferdinand?"

"Have you put on a bit of weight darling?"

"Fancy one for the road?"

"Fancy a quickie?"

Bill

First treated as one conversation, this mystified me.

--

Roger Hayter

On Saturday, 7 October 2017 15:39:40 UTC+1, Roger Hayter wrote:
Robin wrote:
On 07/10/2017 14:31, tabbypurr wrote:
On Saturday, 7 October 2017 14:01:48 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news wrote:
snip

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?



michael adams


Are you drunk, high on something, or is that a serious question?

It's a serious question

need one say more

I assume he has in mind the way

dv/dt=p/(mv)

begs the question "does this mean you get infinite acceleration when the
vehicle is stationary"? And I assume he is looking for the answer "no
because the *useful* power delivered is also nil when the vehicle is
stationary".

We are also talking about cars, and we know that in practice moving off
from stationary is a rather discontinuous process. But it is also true
that in any real car the acceleration at low speed is very much limited
by the traction the tyre can achieve rather than the power the engine
can produce.

I had no idea so many road cars were unreal.


NT

On 07/10/2017 14:28, michael adams wrote:
"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote:

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news wrote:

snip

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?



michael adams


Are you drunk, high on something, or is that a serious question?

It's a serious question

It was posted in response to this claim of yours.

Which for some reason you chose to snip.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news
Do you understand that an increase in a car's speed requires an increase
in kinetic energy?

So I can only ask you again

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?



If you have no apples is there any particular problem in increasing the
number of apples you have?

Not if the apples can self generate, no.

You might receive a more meaningful answer in uk.rec.gardening

On 07/10/2017 14:02, michael adams wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote in message news
On 07/10/2017 13:10, michael adams wrote:

snip

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?



michael adams


Are you drunk, high on something, or is that a serious question?

It's a serious question

It was posted in response to this claim of yours.

Which for some reason you chose to snip.

Because you asked a question, presumably posed to DP, to my question.
This would have been some time ago.

snip an old post

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?

I find it most disturbing you need to ask twice. Google is your friend.

If you want to make a point then make it, don't ask a stupid question a
child would ask, and more likely know the answer.

On 07/10/2017 15:39, Roger Hayter wrote:
michael adams wrote:

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote:

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news wrote:

snip

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?



michael adams


Are you drunk, high on something, or is that a serious question?

It's a serious question

It was posted in response to this claim of yours.

Which for some reason you chose to snip.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news
Do you understand that an increase in a car's speed requires an increase
in kinetic energy?

So I can only ask you again

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?



If you have no apples is there any particular problem in increasing the
number of apples you have?

Not if the apples can self generate, no.

(Which is equivalent to applying Fred's definition to a stationary
vehicle)

It might be the foundation of a very profitable business
in fact.

But otherwise it would require an outside agency to provide the
apples.


michael adams

...
If you accelerate a moving car in the direction of its motion, its
kinetic energy increases. If you accelerate a stationary[1] car, it
acquires kinetic energy. I think I am missing the problem.

I don't believe you're missing any problem. Mr Adams is trying to make a
point and failing handsomely in the process.

On 07/10/2017 16:53, Dave W wrote:
"Robin" wrote in message
...
On 07/10/2017 14:31, wrote:
On Saturday, 7 October 2017 14:01:48 UTC+1, michael adams wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news On 07/10/2017 13:10, michael adams wrote:

snip

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?



michael adams


Are you drunk, high on something, or is that a serious question?

It's a serious question

need one say more

I assume he has in mind the way

dv/dt=p/(mv)

begs the question "does this mean you get infinite acceleration when the
vehicle is stationary"? And I assume he is looking for the answer "no
because the *useful* power delivered is also nil when the vehicle is
stationary".

I do not know if he is deliberately trolling by starting a new thread
without quoting the relevant preceding post(s) or just striving to be seen
as too clever by half.

Fredxxx has now used a different address, so I had to add this to my
killfile as well.

You're welcome. I hadn't realised an extra 'x' had crept in, it's
certainly not intentional.

I presume you too have limited knowledge of applying simple classical
mechanics.

You could have simply killed the thread, but hey.

On 07/10/2017 17:02, Roger Hayter wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:

On 07/10/2017 15:25, michael adams wrote:

Who would have thought that one simple question could cause
so much fuss ?

"Hey Gavrilo, I'm bored. Fancy coming out and taking a few pot shots at
the Archduke Ferdinand?"

"Have you put on a bit of weight darling?"

"Fancy one for the road?"

"Fancy a quickie?"

Bill

First treated as one conversation, this mystified me.

They are all valid answers to the question "How many surrealists does it
take to change a light bulb?"


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 07/10/2017 13:10, michael adams wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote in message news .

Do you understand that an increase in a car's speed requires an increase in kinetic
energy?

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?

At what temperature?


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 07/10/17 14:02, michael adams wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote in message news
On 07/10/2017 13:10, michael adams wrote:

snip

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?



michael adams


Are you drunk, high on something, or is that a serious question?

It's a serious question

It was posted in response to this claim of yours.

Which for some reason you chose to snip.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message news .

Do you understand that an increase in a car's speed requires an increase in kinetic
energy?

So I can only ask you again

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?


Depends on the frame of reference.,


michael adams

...









--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

On 07/10/17 15:06, Robin wrote:
On 07/10/2017 14:31, wrote:
On Saturday, 7 October 2017 14:01:48 UTC+1, michael adamsÂ* wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news On 07/10/2017 13:10, michael adams wrote:

snip

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?



michael adams


Are you drunk, high on something, or is that a serious question?

It's a serious question

need one say more

I assume he has in mind the way

dv/dt=p/(mv)

begs the question "does this mean you get infinite acceleration when the
vehicle is stationary"?Â* And I assume he is looking for theÂ* answer "no
because the *useful* power delivered is also nil when the vehicle is
stationary".

I do not know if he is deliberately trolling by starting a new thread
without quoting the relevant preceding post(s) or just striving to be
seen as too clever by half.



Or has just discovered Xeno's paradox in reverse.


--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

On 07/10/17 15:14, wrote:
Having read Michael before I doubt he has put a moment of thought into either point. Or any other.

Oh I think thats unfair. He starts with te coinclusinon his amour propre
wants to draw, and puts a *lot* of thought into inventing sentences
and anecdotes that he thinks will impress.


--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

On 07/10/17 18:23, John Rumm wrote:
On 07/10/2017 17:02, Roger Hayter wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:

On 07/10/2017 15:25, michael adams wrote:

Who would have thought that one simple question could cause
so much fuss ?

"Hey Gavrilo, I'm bored. Fancy coming out and taking a few pot shots at
the Archduke Ferdinand?"

"Have you put on a bit of weight darling?"

"Fancy one for the road?"

"Fancy a quickie?"

Bill

First treated as one conversation, this mystified me.

They are all valid answers to the question "How many surrealists does it
take to change a light bulb?"


No, they are all invalid answers to the question 'What caused causality?

--
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"

On 07/10/17 16:47, Bill Wright wrote:
On 07/10/2017 15:39, Roger Hayter wrote:

But it is also true
that in any real car the acceleration at low speed is very much limited
by the traction the tyre can achieve rather than the power the engine
can produce.

Not in my car.


I dont think we are talking about Noddy's pedal car, Big Ears...

Bill


--
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"

On Saturday, 7 October 2017 18:38:52 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/10/17 16:47, Bill Wright wrote:
On 07/10/2017 15:39, Roger Hayter wrote:

But it is also true
that in any real car the acceleration at low speed is very much limited
by the traction the tyre can achieve rather than the power the engine
can produce.

Not in my car.


I dont think we are talking about Noddy's pedal car, Big Ears...

It was a remarkably unrealistic claim.

I borrowed a new car recently, flooring it on the motorway made no noticeable difference.


NT

In article ,
wrote:
On Saturday, 7 October 2017 18:38:52 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 07/10/17 16:47, Bill Wright wrote:
On 07/10/2017 15:39, Roger Hayter wrote:

But it is also true that in any real car the acceleration at low
speed is very much limited by the traction the tyre can achieve
rather than the power the engine can produce.

Not in my car.


I dont think we are talking about Noddy's pedal car, Big Ears...

It was a remarkably unrealistic claim.

I borrowed a new car recently, flooring it on the motorway made no
noticeable difference.

It obviously wasn't a diesel

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news .

Do you understand that an increase in a car's speed requires an increase
in kinetic energy?

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?

You're increasing that from zero, stupid.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...

"Fredxxx" wrote in message news .

Do you understand that an increase in a car's speed requires an increase in kinetic
energy?

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?

You're increasing that from zero, stupid.

How can you increase the speed of a stationary car if, according
to Fred, you first require an increase in kinetic energy ?

The only way you could do that would be to push start the
car, or get a tow.


michael adams

....

On 07/10/2017 20:51, michael adams wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...

"Fredxxx" wrote in message news .

Do you understand that an increase in a car's speed requires an increase in kinetic
energy?

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?

You're increasing that from zero, stupid.

How can you increase the speed of a stationary car if, according
to Fred, you first require an increase in kinetic energy ?

The only way you could do that would be to push start the
car, or get a tow.

You seem to have little grasp on the subject of Newtonian / Classical
mechanics.

"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news .

Do you understand that an increase in a car's speed requires an
increase in kinetic energy?

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?

You're increasing that from zero, stupid.

How can you increase the speed of a stationary car if, according
to Fred, you first require an increase in kinetic energy ?

By getting the engine to increase the speed of the stationary car, stupid.

The only way you could do that would be to push start the
car, or get a tow.

Stop snorting that dog ****.

michael adams wrote:

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news Do you understand that an increase in a car's speed requires an
increase in kinetic energy?

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?

You're increasing that from zero, stupid.

How can you increase the speed of a stationary car if, according
to Fred, you first require an increase in kinetic energy ?

The only way you could do that would be to push start the
car, or get a tow.


michael adams


I suppose the idea of a self-propelled vehicle must have come as a bit
of a surprise with the first traction engines. Indeed, I believe some
of the more inflexible sections of the 19th century population did
suspect something not quite natural, and a bit magical, about a vehicle
moving without being pulled or pushed. I would have thought we would
be used to it by now, though.

The speed and the kinetic energy are not different things, neither is
prior, they are different descriptions of the same thing.


--

Roger Hayter

On Saturday, 7 October 2017 21:23:19 UTC+1, Fredxxx wrote:
On 07/10/2017 20:51, michael adams wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...
"Fredxxx" wrote in message news .

Do you understand that an increase in a car's speed requires an increase in kinetic
energy?

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?

You're increasing that from zero, stupid.

How can you increase the speed of a stationary car if, according
to Fred, you first require an increase in kinetic energy ?

The only way you could do that would be to push start the
car, or get a tow.

You seem to have little grasp on the subject of Newtonian / Classical
mechanics.

or anything else.

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote:

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news Do you understand that an increase in a car's speed requires an
increase in kinetic energy?

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?

You're increasing that from zero, stupid.

How can you increase the speed of a stationary car if, according
to Fred, you first require an increase in kinetic energy ?

The only way you could do that would be to push start the
car, or get a tow.


michael adams


I suppose the idea of a self-propelled vehicle must have come as a bit
of a surprise with the first traction engines. Indeed, I believe some
of the more inflexible sections of the 19th century population did
suspect something not quite natural, and a bit magical, about a vehicle
moving without being pulled or pushed. I would have thought we would
be used to it by now, though.

The speed and the kinetic energy are not different things, neither
is prior, they are different descriptions of the same thing.

Careful, he'll implode between the ears if you don’t watch out.

On second thoughts...

On 07/10/17 20:01, wrote:
On Saturday, 7 October 2017 18:38:52 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/10/17 16:47, Bill Wright wrote:
On 07/10/2017 15:39, Roger Hayter wrote:

But it is also true
that in any real car the acceleration at low speed is very much limited
by the traction the tyre can achieve rather than the power the engine
can produce.

Not in my car.


I dont think we are talking about Noddy's pedal car, Big Ears...

It was a remarkably unrealistic claim.

I borrowed a new car recently, flooring it on the motorway made no noticeable difference.


Hardly 'at low speed' then.

NT



--
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"

On 07/10/17 20:51, michael adams wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...

"Fredxxx" wrote in message news .

Do you understand that an increase in a car's speed requires an increase in kinetic
energy?

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?

You're increasing that from zero, stupid.

How can you increase the speed of a stationary car if, according
to Fred, you first require an increase in kinetic energy ?

The only way you could do that would be to push start the
car, or get a tow.

I see that a fundamental understanding of science does not exist in what
passes for your mind...


....a fairly typical remoaner, it would seem.



--
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"

On 07/10/17 21:23, Fredxxx wrote:
On 07/10/2017 20:51, michael adams wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news .

Do you understand that an increase in a car's speed requires an
increase in kinetic
energy?

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?

You're increasing that from zero, stupid.

How can you increase the speed of a stationary car if, according
to Fred, you first require an increase in kinetic energy ?

The only way you could do that would be to push start the
car, or get a tow.

You seem to have little grasp on the subject of Newtonian / Classical
mechanics.
None at all, I suspect.
Worse, he seems unable to distinguish scientific models from reality,

Probably believes in 'climate change' then...


--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx