The Truly Magical Bullet

[Tim Nickerson]

Did so.

Did not.

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,181.msg11339.html#msg11339

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,181.msg11566.html#msg11566

You claimed that the back wound was 2 inches right of center and the distance from the back to neck was 6.5 inches, correct?

That is correct.

I put the wound 2 inches right of the spine and extended a line thru the spine and out the throat. The angle for that happened to be 12 degrees. I admit that I shouldn't have extended the line to the chest cavity but this was merely to show you the path of the MB thru JFK's spine. You seem to be confusing this with the pitch angle from the 6th floor of the TSBD. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and setting that at 9 degrees, when the official angle was actually estimated to be 7 degrees.

Here's YOUR final solution:



Looks like the bullet smashes thru C7 to me (just above T1 as depicted in the graphic AND the x-ray)

That's your solution, not mine. You have the torso positioned incorrectly, the bullet wrongly exiting the center of the trachea , and you have not factored in Kennedy's head being turned 60 degrees to the right. That right rotation of the head results in about 3 degrees rotation of the C7 vertebrae and it moves the point in space of the exit location on the trachea to the right.

[Tim Nickerson]

I'm sure you didn't mean it this way. When I read it, all I could think of was Mary McCarthy and Lillian Hellman

 

[Mitch Todd]

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.

But you're a physicist, so you know that already, right?

Yes I am, and you obviously aren't and it takes one to know one. You do realize that Occam's Razor is just a philosophical principle, right?

Why do I have this feeling that it would be fairly entertaining to have you explain what you think is wrong about my physics? Or why you consider yourself a 'physicist' and any conventionally-accepted definition of the term?

And, yes, Occam's Razor is a rule of thumb. But I explained how it applies in terms of classical mechanics, especially in the sense that the simplest answer is not the most correct one.

[Jack Trojan]

Did not.

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,181.msg11339.html#msg11339

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,181.msg11566.html#msg11566
 

That is correct.

That's your solution, not mine. You have the torso positioned incorrectly, the bullet wrongly exiting the center of the trachea , and you have not factored in Kennedy's head being turned 60 degrees to the right. That right rotation of the head results in about 3 degrees rotation of the C7 vertebrae and it moves the point in space of the exit location on the trachea to the right.

But I thought you said JFK was turned towards Jackie. Otherwise, JFK's head orientation had nothing to do with C7 and T1. Here is YOUR solution then (which is also close to mine).



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

[Jack Trojan]

Why do I have this feeling that it would be fairly entertaining to have you explain what you think is wrong about my physics? Or why you consider yourself a 'physicist' and any conventionally-accepted definition of the term?

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

[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.