The Truly Magical Bullet

[Mitch Todd]

I'm a physicist because I took the time to get a degree in physics, your Wikipedia cut and paste notwithstanding.

So you should be able to explain what was wrong with the physics I posted with little difficulty.

And, no, it wasn't cut-n-pasted from Wikipedia or anywhere else. I'll even repost what I wrote.

Consider for a moment Newton's second law, F=ma. Simple isn't it?

But it doesn't tell the whole story. It assumes that the mass cannot deform, and that there is no drag acting on it once it moves.

So, the real equation has to add those terms, and we get the familiar 2nd order ODE, F=ma+cv+kx where cv is the the drag term and kx represents the deformation of the mass under load. F=ma is simple, but F=ma+cv+kx is correct.

At least, more correct. F=ma+cv+kx assumes that the ma, cv, and kx terms are linear. But they really aren't. It turns out that mass is a function of velocity, and kx is only considered to be linear through a relatively limited range of x-values.

Removing the assumptions makes things more complicated.

[Jack Trojan]

So you should be able to explain what was wrong with the physics I posted with little difficulty.

And, no, it wasn't cut-n-pasted from Wikipedia or anywhere else. I'll even repost what I wrote.

Consider for a moment Newton's second law, F=ma. Simple isn't it?

But it doesn't tell the whole story. It assumes that the mass cannot deform, and that there is no drag acting on it once it moves.

So, the real equation has to add those terms, and we get the familiar 2nd order ODE, F=ma+cv+kx where cv is the the drag term and kx represents the deformation of the mass under load. F=ma is simple, but F=ma+cv+kx is correct.

At least, more correct. F=ma+cv+kx assumes that the ma, cv, and kx terms are linear. But they really aren't. It turns out that mass is a function of velocity, and kx is only considered to be linear through a relatively limited range of x-values.

Removing the assumptions makes things more complicated.

Not sure how this advances the SBT, but welcome to physics. But don't confuse practical with hypothetical. Hypothetically speaking, anything is possible and "complicated" is a relative term.

[Tim Nickerson]

But I thought you said JFK was turned towards Jackie.

You thought wrong.

Otherwise, JFK's head orientation had nothing to do with C7 and T1.

How do you figure that?

Here is YOUR solution then (which is also close to mine).



Still smashes thru JFK's spine anyway you slice it.

Nope. You have to rotate C7 relative to the torso, not together with the torso. Also, you still have the bullet exiting midpoint of the trachea, not to the right of the midline where the wound was located. And you have to move the trachea itself laterally to the right. Not sure how much. Perhaps only a half inch.

[Matt Grantham]

You thought wrong.

How do you figure that?

Nope. You have to rotate C7 relative to the torso, not together with the torso. Also, you still have the bullet exiting midpoint of the trachea, not to the right of the midline where the wound was located. And you have to move the trachea itself laterally to the right. Not sure how much. Perhaps only a half inch.

 Transversing the spine?

[Tim Nickerson]

Transversing the spine?

It did not strike bone. If that's what you're asking.

[Mitch Todd]

Transversing the spine?

I think that's an exciting new Xtreme sportz skiing move

[Mitch Todd]

Not sure how this advances the SBT, but welcome to physics. But don't confuse practical with hypothetical. Hypothetically speaking, anything is possible and "complicated" is a relative term.

You're a little late. My welcome to physics came in the 80's. Anyway, I used the progression out of F=ma as an example because it's well enough documented that it's hard to argue with. And it's a good example of something that is generally taken as simple and foundational  is more complicated that folks tend to think.

[John Mytton]

So you should be able to explain what was wrong with the physics I posted with little difficulty.

And, no, it wasn't cut-n-pasted from Wikipedia or anywhere else. I'll even repost what I wrote.

Consider for a moment Newton's second law, F=ma. Simple isn't it?

But it doesn't tell the whole story. It assumes that the mass cannot deform, and that there is no drag acting on it once it moves.

So, the real equation has to add those terms, and we get the familiar 2nd order ODE, F=ma+cv+kx where cv is the the drag term and kx represents the deformation of the mass under load. F=ma is simple, but F=ma+cv+kx is correct.

At least, more correct. F=ma+cv+kx assumes that the ma, cv, and kx terms are linear. But they really aren't. It turns out that mass is a function of velocity, and kx is only considered to be linear through a relatively limited range of x-values.

Removing the assumptions makes things more complicated.

Hey Mitch watch out, Trojan our resident Einstein is on record as being a Nuclear Scientist/Photogrammetrist/Optical Printer Operator/Film Editor/Special Effects Supervisor/Physicist/Lasers lasers lasers/ etc etc etc...
So yeah, basically whatever hat needs to be worn, he's worn it!



JohnM