Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[Bill Williams]

No, he would not have been horizontally level with the window. The window sill was 12'4" from the ground. Let's say the drop down to the ground was circa five feet, then Rudy being 5'10, so definitely an upward trajectory.

In any case, you are woefully ignorant of physics. You have already been told it is not horizontal velocity. However, here is an animation to help illustrate it clearly for you.


http://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/vectors/hlp.cfm

Oh for pete's sake, Vixen. Are we back to there being no bars on the window below Filomena's. Remember the pic you posted claiming it showed no bars; except that it did.

Guede probably used the rock from the standing position from the bars on the window below. That put the bottom of Filomean's window at at least shoulder height.

 

[Numbers]

The collection of the past two-dozen or so of Vixen's posts could serve as a vivid example of the potent combination of lack of understanding of the most basic concepts of motion & ballistics physics, coupled with a complete inability to recognise that lack of understanding. I actually know a girl from uni who studied particle physics and who now works in research (and has spent a lot of time at CERN in Switzerland), to whom I'm seriously thinking of sending Vixen's collected physics musings as a fun Christmas present

Be sure to warn her not to drink hot liquid while reading the material!

 

[Vixen]

The collection of the past two-dozen or so of Vixen's posts could serve as a vivid example of the potent combination of lack of understanding of the most basic concepts of motion & ballistics physics, coupled with a complete inability to recognise that lack of understanding. I actually know a girl from uni who studied particle physics and who now works in research (and has spent a lot of time at CERN in Switzerland), to whom I'm seriously thinking of sending Vixen's collected physics musings as a fun Christmas present

Gosh. LoJo knows someone who studied particle physics. LOL.

 

[Bill Williams]

Gravity is a force. A trajectory will continue it its path unless there is a force that changes it, or accelerates it. Mass is density and can be measured as weight per cubic feet, inertia is the presence of no forces on an object.

Instead of looking in Merriam-Webster, do look in a physics dictionary as these terms have specific meaning which may vary from their common or garden usage.

Wrong again, Vixen. It is VELOCITY which is the movement of an object with no forces acting on it. Inertia is simply inertia, mass x velocity.

Velocity is speed + direction. With the presence of no forces acting on an object the velocity remains unchanged.

Why do you continue with these inanities?

 

[Bill Williams]

Gosh. LoJo knows someone who studied particle physics. LOL.

You know someone who once ventured an opinion that the type of acquittal that AK and RS received was not an exoneration (as per subsequent Italian judges), but was equivalent to the Scottish "not proven". You won't tell us who this person is or cite his/her credentials for offering that factoid, yet you continue to push it as if fact.

 

[Vixen]

Oh for pete's sake, Vixen. Are we back to there being no bars on the window below Filomena's. Remember the pic you posted claiming it showed no bars; except that it did.

Guede probably used the rock from the standing position from the bars on the window below. That put the bottom of Filomean's window at at least shoulder height.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_53971524324c05488e.jpg[/qimg]

What? You are claiming the professional rock climber jumped eight feet (including railing) down to the ground. LOL.

 

[Vixen]

You know someone who once ventured an opinion that the type of acquittal that AK and RS received was not an exoneration (as per subsequent Italian judges), but was equivalent to the Scottish "not proven". You won't tell us who this person is or cite his/her credentials for offering that factoid, yet you continue to push it as if fact.

Professor Anna Celli Bull of Bath Uni. Expert in Italian politics, law, constitution and culture.

 

[Numbers]

You are still not getting it. You still believe that if something is thrown through the air in a straight line it carries on in a straight line..
No, no, no, no no.

Does this mean that, in my example, twin "B" will never be able to catch the ball thrown by twin "A"? How can these two practice their pitching?

How should one person 10 feet (3 meters) throw throw a ball at a target that is directly across from his head? Should he aim directly upward, at some angle upward, at the target, down at some angle?

I ask, since you apparently claim that something thrown in the air in a straight line does not carry on in a straight line. So how much is the deviation from a straight line?

And how then does one aim to hit a target that is relatively close by? How much does the ball deviate from the horizontal, and how does one correct for it?

If there is no easy way to do that, how can a baseball outfielder who has caught a bounced ball throw accurately to the player covering second base, or to the one at short stop, and how can the pitcher throw accurately to the strike zone (60.6 feet away) or to the first base player (about 50 feet away)? Must we give up baseball as technically not feasible?

 

[Vixen]

Wrong again, Vixen. It is VELOCITY which is the movement of an object with no forces acting on it. Inertia is simply inertia, mass x velocity.

Velocity is speed + direction. With the presence of no forces acting on an object the velocity remains unchanged.

Why do you continue with these inanities?

Numbers didn't ask about velocity.

 

[LondonJohn]

You are still not getting it. You still believe that if something is thrown through the air in a straight line it carries on in a straight line..

No, no, no, no no.

Oh dear. You've changed the goalposts once again. Predictable really.

If an object is thrown through the air with a component of horizontal velocity, then that horizontal component remains unchanged unless a force in the opposing horizontal vector acts upon it.

For example: suppose I throw a rock off a tall building. I throw the rock horizontally, with an initial (horizontal) velocity of 10m/s. Discounting the drag effect of air resistance for the sake of this example, the rock would maintain the same horizontal velocity of 10m/s all the way until it hit the ground. There would of course be another significant force acting on the rock: that of gravity acting in a vertical downward direction. This would cause the rock to accelerate (and thus gain increasing velocity) in the vertical downward vector. But the horizontal velocity of 10m/s would be preserved throughout. The net effect would be that the rock would follow a parabolic trajectory. But it would always have that 10m/s horizontal velocity. Thus, if the rock took 7 seconds to reach the ground, we would find that the rock would have landed 70m (10m/s x 7s) from the edge of the building.

And oh, I get it. Don't worry about that!

 

[LondonJohn]

Professor Anna Celli Bull of Bath Uni. Expert in Italian politics, law, constitution and culture.

Professor Anna Cento Bull. (She now goes by simply "Anna Bull".) And she's an expert in Italian history and politics. She is NOT an expert in Italian law.

Do some research. You can't even get people's names correct. Of course your ignorance of her area of expertise helpfully (from your perspective) supports your case. You'd LIKE her to be an expert in Italian law. But she is not.

Disgracefully slack and sloppy. But expected.

 

[LondonJohn]

Gosh. LoJo knows someone who studied particle physics. LOL.

Not sure why that's amusing. However, what would be funny would be to see her reaction upon reading your risibly ignorant attempts to educate us all about Newtonian motion and ballistics theory

 

[Vixen]

Does this mean that, in my example, twin "B" will never be able to catch the ball thrown by twin "A"? How can these two practice their pitching?

How should one person 10 feet (3 meters) throw throw a ball at a target that is directly across from his head? Should he aim directly upward, at some angle upward, at the target, down at some angle?

I ask, since you apparently claim that something thrown in the air in a straight line does not carry on in a straight line. So how much is the deviation from a straight line?

And how then does one aim to hit a target that is relatively close by? How much does the ball deviate from the horizontal, and how does one correct for it?

If there is no easy way to do that, how can a baseball outfielder who has caught a bounced ball throw accurately to the player covering second base, or to the one at short stop, and how can the pitcher throw accurately to the strike zone (60.6 feet away) or to the first base player (about 50 feet away)? Must we give up baseball as technically not feasible?

All good batsmen and pitchers/bowlers - even tennis players - know that the secret of an effective innings/bowl is the angle and strength of their thrust. They make it look easy, but these sporstmen practise for hours getting the bodies at the right angle and rotation and their batting at the perfect angle to optimise a trajectory. Some javelin throwers throw their whole body to the ground to get behind the thrust.

You can calculate the deviance from a straight line if you know any one of the following, weight, distance and time taken or velocity. Simply insert the figure into one of the relevant standard formulae and work your way through it.

 

[LondonJohn]

Gravity is a force. A trajectory will continue it its path unless there is a force that changes it, or accelerates it. Mass is density and can be measured as weight per cubic feet, inertia is the presence of no forces on an object.

Instead of looking in Merriam-Webster, do look in a physics dictionary as these terms have specific meaning which may vary from their common or garden usage.

Another priceless zinger of ignorant nonsense! They're piling up at rapid speed now!! (Perhaps there's a force acting on their originator, causing an acceleration of cow faeces...... )

 

[Vixen]

Not sure why that's amusing. However, what would be funny would be to see her reaction upon reading your risibly ignorant attempts to educate us all about Newtonian motion and ballistics theory

My father was a physicist. Plus two other close family members. Not to mention a good friend.

Perhaps I should show them your ramblings, so they can have a good laugh.

 

[Vixen]

Another priceless zinger of ignorant nonsense! They're piling up at rapid speed now!! (Perhaps there's a force acting on their originator, causing an acceleration of cow faeces...... )

I concur you are the expert in that.

 

[LondonJohn]

All good batsmen and pitchers/bowlers - even tennis players - know that the secret of an effective innings/bowl is the angle and strength of their thrust. They make it look easy, but these sporstmen practise for hours getting the bodies at the right angle and rotation and their batting at the perfect angle to optimise a trajectory. Some javelin throwers throw their whole body to the ground to get behind the thrust.

You can calculate the deviance from a straight line if you know any one of the following, weight, distance and time taken or velocity. Simply insert the figure into one of the relevant standard formulae and work your way through it.

The weight mass of an object has zero relevance* to calculations related to Newtonian motion. And that aside, you need to know accelerations acting on the object in every direction in order to calculate its trajectory. You cannot calculate trajectory without that.

But carry on digging that hole. It's brilliant to watch!


* Until and unless one extends the analysis to extremely complex and detailed levels, taking into account the effects of air resistance, Bernoulli lift effects, and the effects of the shape and profile of the object upon drag.

 

[LondonJohn]

My father was a physicist. Plus two other close family members. Not to mention a good friend.

Perhaps I should show them your ramblings, so they can have a good laugh.

Seriously: if that's the case (which I doubt, but anyhow.....), then please, please show them the past few pages of this thread. You may be in for something of a surprise and an awakening......

 

[Vixen]

Seriously: if that's the case (which I doubt, but anyhow.....), then please, please show them the past few pages of this thread. You may be in for something of a surprise and an awakening......

Do draw me a diagram of Rudy throwing this 4kg multishaped object 10 feet in a straight line three feet above his head, as we could do with some jolly good entertainment.

 

[LondonJohn]

I concur you are the expert in that.

Brilliant comeback!!! Well done!

But please, for my benefit (and amusement), could you explain in more detail exactly how and why:

"Mass is density and can be measured as weight per cubic feet"

I'm looking forward with relish to being educated by you on this one