Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[NotEvenWrong]

You should get that translated into Latin.

Better find a non-idiot translator if we want it to be accurate. Emptor caveat and all that, ya know?

 

[Vixen]

Nope.

The dimensions of the ark?

 

[Vixen]

So launch speed of 12.3 miles/h, 5.5 m/s.

Let's give an acceleration distance of 25 inches (average length of a human arm). Just an approximation of course.

To go from 0 to 5.5 m/s in 25 inches takes an acceleration of (v^2)/(2d) = 5.5^2/(2*0.635) = 23.8 m/s^2 (this comes from standard kinematics equations and a little algebra, Vixen. You know, sorcery and witchcraft.)

So assuming a ~uniform force is applied over the full distance, it would take a force of 4kg*(23.8m/s^2) = 95.2 N

That is 21.4 pounds Vixen.

Are you saying a 20 year old semi-pro basketball player cannot apply 21.4 pounds of force to a rock, Vixen?

No, it wouldn't be a 'uniform force', but we'll let that pass.

And where is your proof that a force of 21.4 lbf is enough to cause glass shards to be embedded into the wood behind?

 

[Vixen]

Better find a non-idiot translator if we want it to be accurate. Emptor caveat and all that, ya know?

Here's google translate version for you: that should keep up the standard:


"Si vero nihil noverunt amplius, sicut faciunt usque **** forsitan aliquis credere."

 

[NotEvenWrong]

No, it wouldn't be a 'uniform force', but we'll let that pass.

That is why I said "assuming a ~uniform force". It's called an approximation. Because we can't measure the force applied by the hand at every moment of time. It does take an IQ higher than that of a doorknob to realize this, I admit.

And where is your proof that a force of 21.4 lbf is enough to cause glass shards to be embedded into the wood behind?

Force is not the relevant quantity here. It is kinetic energy. 1/2*m*v^2.

1/2*4kg*(5.5m/s^2) = 60.5 Joules. This is ~one-fourth the energy of a bullet. You know, plenty of energy to embed a sharp object in wood.

But again, processing all this requires IQ > doorknob. And... well... Illuminati Freemasons right?

 

[abaddon]

No, these are Numbers' units. Take it up with Numbers.

You introduced them, Numbers simply tried to deal with your intentional obfuscation. For me, he gets kudos for even attempting to wade through the fug of obscurity that you want to present.

 

[Vixen]

That is why I said "assuming a ~uniform force". It's called an approximation. Because we can't measure the force applied by the hand at every moment of time. It does take an IQ higher than that of a doorknob to realize this, I admit.



Force is not the relevant quantity here. It is kinetic energy. 1/2*m*v^2.

1/2*4kg*(5.5m/s^2) = 60.5 Joules. This is ~one-fourth the energy of a bullet. You know, plenty of energy to embed a sharp object in wood.

But again, processing all this requires IQ > doorknob. And... well... Illuminati Freemasons right?

Blimey. <fx: faints>

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Blimey. <fx: faints>

Someone call a doctor. Vixen had an aneurysm from all this accurate science talk. Rush her back to PMF!!!

 

[Numbers]

Someone call a doctor. Vixen had an aneurysm from all this accurate science talk. Rush her back to PMF!!!

Vixen's posts, with their incredible confusion of terminology amounting to gibberish and failure to follow scientific arguments or even logic, may be simply parodies of the motivation reports of the Massei and Nencini courts, and of the Chieffi CSC panel.

No actually unbiased reasonable person would write such motivation reports, which had one absurdity after another.

 

[Bill Williams]

When Machiavelli was posting here you knew that he fervently believed what he was writing. I've never been convinced Vixen is sincere. I maintain that a plausible explanation for posts such as the one I've quoted is that Vixen is trying to see just how ridiculous she can be and still get folks to engage in a serious discussion with her.

Agreed.

 

[Vixen]

That is why I said "assuming a ~uniform force". It's called an approximation. Because we can't measure the force applied by the hand at every moment of time. It does take an IQ higher than that of a doorknob to realize this, I admit.



Force is not the relevant quantity here. It is kinetic energy. 1/2*m*v^2.

1/2*4kg*(5.5m/s^2) = 60.5 Joules. This is ~one-fourth the energy of a bullet. You know, plenty of energy to embed a sharp object in wood.

But again, processing all this requires IQ > doorknob. And... well... Illuminati Freemasons right?

Firstly:


60.5 joules = 44.622510033 lb force lbf*ft.

The foot-pound is often used to specify the muzzle energy of a bullet in small arms ballistics, particularly in the United States.


Secondly, Joules as a measure for kinetic energy in guns is NOT linear. Thus just because the average gun fires at 245 Joules, for a rock impacting at 60 joules, it does NOT follow that therefore, it is 1/4 the power of the gun.

As you can see 2.50 joules is not four times the power of 0.67 Joules but twice (I know nothing about gun/bullet measures so would hazard a guess it is similar to decibels, where magnitude is the salient measure) http://www.airsoftmaster.com/fps-chart-for-airsoft-guns/ Therefore, it is likely a misconception that 60.5 makes the presumed rock thrust a quarter of the strength of 245 - an average bullet.

Notandum

In physics, a pound is unambiguously a measure of force and a kilogram is unambiguously a measure of mass.

from wiki:

In United States engineering units, particular care must be taken to ensure that consistent units are used.
Mass, m, is usually given in grains and the speed, v, in feet per second but kinetic energy, Ek, is typically given in foot-pound force (abbreviated ft-lbf). Most sporting arms publications within the United States report muzzle energies in foot-pound force. If m is specified in grains and v in feet per second, the following formula can be used, which gives the energy in foot-pound force:
[see webpage as format not compatible here]
The bullet energy, remaining energy, down range energy, and impact energy of a projectile may also be calculated using the above formulas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_energy

 

[Vixen]

Vixen's posts, with their incredible confusion of terminology amounting to gibberish and failure to follow scientific arguments or even logic, may be simply parodies of the motivation reports of the Massei and Nencini courts, and of the Chieffi CSC panel.

No actually unbiased reasonable person would write such motivation reports, which had one absurdity after another.

With all due respect to your own posts, I would tentatively suggest you stick to the knitting.

Thanks for the back-handed compliment as IMV Massei, Nencini and Chieffi are incisive, perspicuous and elegant.

Of course no-one will ever agree 100% with a 400 page report, especially in a multifaceted case and the judiciary are obliged to 'guess the motive', but these three come close to absolute brilliance.

 

[Stacyhs]

Please pay attention. The source is TEK Journalism in this instance, widely reported ATT.

The existence of bleach receipts was also widely reported at the time. So was the existence of CCTV tape showing Amanda near the cottage. So was Raffaele's shoes being identified as making the bloody shoeprints in the house. How did all those turn out?

 

[Stacyhs]

Here you go:

Quote:
Rumours of the hazing prank have been around for years, after a former acquaintance of Knox’s let the story slip, just a month after her arrest. On being pressed for details, the informant clammed up, and the incident has subsequently been vociferously denied by members of Knox’s family and her supporters. Meanwhile her defence have made repeated references to Rudy Guede’s past actions as character evidence against him.

Just one source. http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/amanda-knox-admits-staging-burglary.html

This is referring to the comment made by "Joh" that I posted earlier. Her is tis again:

"Knox once got a bunch of her friends to dress up in ski masks and break into her apartment and assault her roomates as an "april fools" joke. She's guilty and f****** nuts.

Posted by Joh | December 2, 2007 2:50 PM"

He heard it from someone else. No "ski masks" were involved as he reported . The prank was not a burglary in process, but to fool the girl into thinking their house had already been broken into so no ski masks were necessary. Nor was there any "assault" nor did they have to break into the apartment as Knox also lived there.

What has been denied was not the prank itself, but the false claims that were made about it like yours that the "victim had slept with Amanda's boyfriend", that it involved "rape", and those in Joh's comment. If it had been anything other than a harmless April Fools' prank and indicative of bad character, the "victim" would certainly have been willing to talk about it to the horde of tabloid reporters who descended on Seattle just looking for a juicy story. She wasn't. Neither was the person who told Joh. Think about it.

 

[Numbers]

With all due respect to your own posts, I would tentatively suggest you stick to the knitting.

Thanks for the back-handed compliment as IMV Massei, Nencini and Chieffi are incisive, perspicuous and elegant.

Of course no-one will ever agree 100% with a 400 page report, especially in a multifaceted case and the judiciary are obliged to 'guess the motive', but these three come close to absolute brilliance.

I rest my case.

 

[bagels]

...as IMV Massei, Nencini and Chieffi are incisive, perspicuous and elegant.

Of course no-one will ever agree 100% with a 400 page report, especially in a multifaceted case and the judiciary are obliged to 'guess the motive', but these three come close to absolute brilliance.

 

[Vixen]

This is referring to the comment made by "Joh" that I posted earlier. Her is tis again:

"Knox once got a bunch of her friends to dress up in ski masks and break into her apartment and assault her roomates as an "april fools" joke. She's guilty and f****** nuts.

Posted by Joh | December 2, 2007 2:50 PM"

He heard it from someone else. No "ski masks" were involved as he reported . The prank was not a burglary in process, but to fool the girl into thinking their house had already been broken into so no ski masks were necessary. Nor was there any "assault" nor did they have to break into the apartment as Knox also lived there.
What has been denied was not the prank itself, but the false claims that were made about it like yours that the "victim had slept with Amanda's boyfriend", that it involved "rape", and those in Joh's comment. If it had been anything other than a harmless April Fools' prank and indicative of bad character, the "victim" would certainly have been willing to talk about it to the horde of tabloid reporters who descended on Seattle just looking for a juicy story. She wasn't. Neither was the person who told Joh. Think about it.

nor did they have to break into the apartment as Knox also lived there. . Like via Pergola 7...?

The salient point is Amanda upset this girl and had to apologise (no doubt grudgingly; she prolly thought she deserved it). Ski masks? Nice.

 

[Stacyhs]

I have read it in several places. Obviously the motive for the nasty vandalism is conjecture. However, it is likely Amanda was jealous, given this was her boyfriend's new girlfriend.

Citation?

I've read in several places that global warming is a myth, that being gay is a "life choice", that 9/11 was an "inside job", and that Elvis is still alive, too.

Moving furniture around and hiding objects temporarily is not "vandalism".

As for your motive, maybe the "victim" had complained about Amanda's pink bunny vibrator.

 

[Bill Williams]

nor did they have to break into the apartment as Knox also lived there. . Like via Pergola 7...?

The salient point is Amanda upset this girl and had to apologise (no doubt grudgingly; she prolly thought she deserved it). Ski masks? Nice.

Then why did you lie calling it a rape prank?

 

[Stacyhs]

nor did they have to break into the apartment as Knox also lived there. . Like via Pergola 7...?

The salient point is Amanda upset this girl and had to apologise (no doubt grudgingly; she prolly thought she deserved it). Ski masks? Nice.

I made a bet with myself you would make a comparison with that and, unsurprisingly, you did. Oh, if here had ONLY been a broken window, too!

The salient point is that no one had to apologize as you keep claiming.

Once again, your psychic abilities reveal what Amanda was thinking. Have you thought of opening a booth in Blackpool and charging clients for this gift?