Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[abaddon]

I entirely concur. As I've written before, the extraordinary ignorance of physics and the sheer magnitude of mistakes and fundamental misunderstandings contained within Vixen's "arguments" genuinely make me wonder whether it's all actually a knowing satire. But actually, history and other factors make me believe it's all, sadly, too real. Which makes it all the more extraordinary. I've never seen physics this wrong, and repeatedly, woefully wrong, from anyone over the age of about 10 in my whole life.

Pounds measure force but kilograms measure mass. It is difficult to get more wrong than such a claim. It is exactly the kind of outright buffoonery which makes me delurk for a while simply because it is egregious nonsense. Heaven forfend that some random browser happens upon it.

 

[PhreePhly]

Ok, I have just followed the past few pages of physics "lessons" by Vixen, and I need some clarification. She has claimed that she is a member of MENSA, correct? While her specialty is more in the direction of economics, not physics, she should still have some grasp of numbers and simple Newtonian physics, right. She has also claimed to have graduated with honors from some prestigious London college, right?

I ask, because I have worked with kids in some pretty rough neighborhoods here in Los Angeles, who could easily calculate the basic velocity, inertia, kinetic energy and even graph out the basic path of travel of this rock, using the high school physics they learned in their junior year. They would have made assumptions of neglecting air resistance, and would have assumed uniform force in the throwing arm, but they could have come up with some pretty good estimates.

I bring this up, because given the tremendous level of ignorance shown by this Vixen poster, why does anyone on this board giver her the time of day? If this is an example of her ability to reason, then why would anyone take any of her analysis seriously.

 

[Numbers]

Well...... first of all:

YOU KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT EVEN BASIC PHYSICS. AND YOUR ATTEMPTS TO PRESENT FURTHER "ARGUMENTS" IN THIS RESPECT ARE UTTERLY, UTTERLY PITIFUL - AND ENTIRELY, WHOLLY, INCORRECT. IT'S LAUGHABLE. THAT'S THE TRUTH. FULL STOP.

I have no appetite to address the sheer avalanche of wrongness within this one post - just as every single post of your covering ballistics and the physics of motion has been all kinds of wrong. Every SINGLE calculation within this post is wrong. It's pathetic.

But this one little piece deserves to be called out for special attention. You have no idea what the foot-pound is, nor the type of quantity it represents, nor where it is usefully employed. You ludicrously believe it's a measure of "muzzle energy". It's not even a measure of energy. It's a measure of TORQUE, Vixen. You don't know what torque is, do you Vixen? That's because you are ignorant of physics.

Torque, for your education, is the turning force applied to an object such as a screw. Technically the foot-pound is an incorrect quantity for measuring torque, since the unit should be force multiplied by distance - but since "pound" in this instance can be taken as a linear proxy for "pound-force" (which IS a measure of force, and is calculated as mass in pounds multiplied by the acceleration due to gravity -e.g. one pound of mass exerts 9.8 pounds-force of force), the foot-pound can usefully be used as a measure of torque. However, the Newton-metre (NM) is a better, more appropriate, and more commonplace measure of torque these days.

What the foot-pound categorically is NOT, and could never be, is any type of measure of energy, as fatuously claimed in your post. In small-arms ballistics, the foot-pound actually relates to the spin applied to a small-arms bullet by the rifling within the barrel - a certain torque is applied to the bullet as it travels down the barrel, in order to make it spin around its longitudinal axis in flight (thus vastly improving flight characteristics). But of course you don't understand that either. Are you just writing whatever comes into your head, in the absence of even a modicum of knowledge or research? Seriously? Is that what's going on here?

Please could a pro-guilt commentator with even an ounce (or should that be a lb-foot per inch mile squared....) of integrity and even the most basic knowledge of physics kindly quietly inform Vixen of just what an embarrassing blizzard of wrong she's been posting in her "arguments" about ballistics and the physics of motion here over the past few days. Because obviously she believes that our laughing at her ignorance and incompetence in this field is driven purely by some form of partisan blinkering. Who knows: perhaps then, the message might finally get through............



ETA. No, no, I see one other small sentence which also deserves to be called out for its fundamental ignorance. It's this:

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

Vixen....... a pound is, erm, unambiguously NOT (and never was, and never will be) a measure of force. You have, as I say, no idea of even the most basic concepts of physics. Rather, a pound is unambiguously a measure of mass (just like a kilogram is). The unit of force associated with the imperial pound system is the pound-force. The pound-force is exactly as different (in magnitude and unit) from the pound as is the Newton from the kilogram. But you don't understand this, do you Vixen? Pitiful.

The use of "pound" for either "mass" or "force" is terribly confusing, and actually reflects two different systems of units. To reduce confusion, some have suggested lbm for the mass unit, and lbf for the force unit.

Here's one reference on this topic:

A unit of weight in the British engineering system (O'Hanian 1985, pp. 14 and 96) equal to 4.448 newtons that is commonly used in the United States. Unfortunately, there is a great deal of confusion about the definition of the pound, with many authors using the unit to denote the mass-equivalent of 4.448 newtons, namely 453.592 grams. The use of the unqualified term "pound" is therefore discouraged, with the more descriptive terms pound-mass (abbreviated lbm) and pound-force (lbf) being preferred. The confusion between pound-mass and pound-force alone is a good reason to use metric units wherever possible (in the MKS system, the base unit of mass is the kilogram, while the unit of force is the newton).

In the foot-pound-second system of units, the pound is defined as the weight of a pound-mass at a point on the Earth's surface where the acceleration due to gravity is 32.174 ft s, while the slug is a derived unit of mass equal to 1/32.174 lbm, or 14.5939 kg.

14 pounds equal one stone, 94 pounds equal one bag.

Source: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Pound.html
__
I have never heard or seen "stone" or "bag" used as a unit by a US-based speaker or writer. In fact, I had never seen the term "bag" used as a unit until I saw the above reference.

To further complicate matters, there is a unit of force called the "poundal" which I have heard or seen used:

The poundal is defined as the force necessary to accelerate 1 pound-mass at 1 foot per second per second. 1 pdl = 0.138254954376 N exactly.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poundal
____
I believe using the MKS system exclusively is the only sure path to sanity.

 

[LondonJohn]

Maybe the problem is that some persons - perhaps more so in Europe - have never bowled (ten-pin bowling as in the US)?

Bowling balls range in weight from 6 lbs to 16 lbs, with the lowest weights for children. Now, while bowling balls used in ten-pin bowling are propelled along the surface of a lane (or alley) by three fingers in the respective holes, I can picture someone throwing a bowling ball of 8, 9, or 10 lbs, using a basketball-type throw (not a bounce pass), two-handed, or if one's hand is large enough, one-handed.

I'm not saying that the rock was a bowling ball, but its weight of about 8.8 lbs, based on its reported 4 kg mass, was well within the range of that of bowling balls.

And the higher density of stone, compared with the polyurethane composites used in bowling balls, means that a 4.5kg rock could be held and manipulated comfortably by an average adult male hand (whereas a bowling ball of the same mass would probably require two hands on account of its larger physical size). So it's even easier to postulate the idea of an adult male being able to pick up and throw a 4.5kg rock over a fair distance (and certainly over a horizontal distance of some 3.5m with high accuracy).

In fact, I could not be more certain of the ease with which Guede could have thrown that rock through Romanelli's window. As it happens, I went to my local out-of-town garden centre this evening to collect a Christmas tree. And guess what? There's an affiliated garden landscaping company adjoining the garden centre - and guess what? They sell rocks of various masses for people to use as part of the landscaping of their garden. And guess what? One of the types of rocks they sell is 5kg sandstone rocks. Which happen to be of (almost certainly) the same material as the rock in the Kercher case, and of slightly heavier mass. I was able to pick up one of these rocks with total ease, and toss it from hand to hand. If I had wanted to throw the rock - though of course it was totally inappropriate to do so there - I am 100% certain I would have been able to throw it at least 10m with total ease, and I'm equally certain that I could have thrown it a horizontal distance of 2.5m with easily the accuracy required for Guede to have been able to hit Romanelli's window.

But then, any sane adult with any real-world experience and any basic intellect has always known that this throw, with this rock, would have been manifestly easy for the likes of Guede. It was interesting to be able to handle almost the same rock though (actually a slightly heavier rock, for what it's worth....) and be left in absolutely no doubt. But there you go..........

 

[LondonJohn]

The use of "pound" for either "mass" or "force" is terribly confusing, and actually reflects two different systems of units. To reduce confusion, some have suggested lbm for the mass unit, and lbf for the force unit.

Here's one reference on this topic:

A unit of weight in the British engineering system (O'Hanian 1985, pp. 14 and 96) equal to 4.448 newtons that is commonly used in the United States. Unfortunately, there is a great deal of confusion about the definition of the pound, with many authors using the unit to denote the mass-equivalent of 4.448 newtons, namely 453.592 grams. The use of the unqualified term "pound" is therefore discouraged, with the more descriptive terms pound-mass (abbreviated lbm) and pound-force (lbf) being preferred. The confusion between pound-mass and pound-force alone is a good reason to use metric units wherever possible (in the MKS system, the base unit of mass is the kilogram, while the unit of force is the newton).

In the foot-pound-second system of units, the pound is defined as the weight of a pound-mass at a point on the Earth's surface where the acceleration due to gravity is 32.174 ft s, while the slug is a derived unit of mass equal to 1/32.174 lbm, or 14.5939 kg.

14 pounds equal one stone, 94 pounds equal one bag.

Source: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Pound.html
__
I have never heard or seen "stone" or "bag" used as a unit by a US-based speaker or writer. In fact, I had never seen the term "bag" used as a unit until I saw the above reference.

To further complicate matters, there is a unit of force called the "poundal" which I have heard or seen used:

The poundal is defined as the force necessary to accelerate 1 pound-mass at 1 foot per second per second. 1 pdl = 0.138254954376 N exactly.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poundal
____
I believe using the MKS system exclusively is the only sure path to sanity.

Exactly. And that's one of very many reasons why the metric system, using SI units throughout, is now by a massive distance the best, the most efficient, and the least error-prone system to use for any serious scientific calculations and measurements. There are so many issues with the muddled, ambiguous and piecemeal-derived imperial system that it really isn't fit for purpose as a basis of doing scientific measurements and calculations. Indeed, there are many documented instances of problems with the imperial system causing significant mistakes in important calculations and measurements. The only really fit use for imperial units these days is either in a purely colloquial context, or in the small number of cases where an imperial unit is the embedded norm.

 

[LondonJohn]

Ok, I have just followed the past few pages of physics "lessons" by Vixen, and I need some clarification. She has claimed that she is a member of MENSA, correct? While her specialty is more in the direction of economics, not physics, she should still have some grasp of numbers and simple Newtonian physics, right. She has also claimed to have graduated with honors from some prestigious London college, right?

I ask, because I have worked with kids in some pretty rough neighborhoods here in Los Angeles, who could easily calculate the basic velocity, inertia, kinetic energy and even graph out the basic path of travel of this rock, using the high school physics they learned in their junior year. They would have made assumptions of neglecting air resistance, and would have assumed uniform force in the throwing arm, but they could have come up with some pretty good estimates.

I bring this up, because given the tremendous level of ignorance shown by this Vixen poster, why does anyone on this board giver her the time of day? If this is an example of her ability to reason, then why would anyone take any of her analysis seriously.

Your contribution is welcome. And it goes without saying that you are 100% correct. As you so rightly point out, it would be genuinely concerning if the type of kids you work with were making even a small fraction of the egregious number of (fundamental) errors Vixen is (repeatedly and continually) making within her "arguments". It's just a shame that the last person in the room cannot see this too (but of course it's also highly telling at the same time.........)

 

[abaddon]

Ok, I have just followed the past few pages of physics "lessons" by Vixen, and I need some clarification. She has claimed that she is a member of MENSA, correct? While her specialty is more in the direction of economics, not physics, she should still have some grasp of numbers and simple Newtonian physics, right. She has also claimed to have graduated with honors from some prestigious London college, right?

I ask, because I have worked with kids in some pretty rough neighborhoods here in Los Angeles, who could easily calculate the basic velocity, inertia, kinetic energy and even graph out the basic path of travel of this rock, using the high school physics they learned in their junior year. They would have made assumptions of neglecting air resistance, and would have assumed uniform force in the throwing arm, but they could have come up with some pretty good estimates.

I bring this up, because given the tremendous level of ignorance shown by this Vixen poster, why does anyone on this board giver her the time of day? If this is an example of her ability to reason, then why would anyone take any of her analysis seriously.

You want vixen to post unopposed. As an educator you would be happy with that? I wouldn't.

 

[PhreePhly]

You want vixen to post unopposed. As an educator you would be happy with that? I wouldn't.

Not really an educator. I volunteer at a high school near a project I work on (I'm a chemical engineer by education). The school is in south central Los Angeles and they have a STEM program that invites professionals in the STEM fields to provide support in math and science to students who want extra help or guidance in selecting a path after high school.

So my students are pre-selected to want to learn. They aren't necessarily the best students, some are struggling with basic concepts, but they, on their own, have decided to seek help and guidance.

There is a difference in trying to educate someone who wants to better themselves and someone who simply ignores any form of logic and continues to spew falsehoods. Vixen can post all the bile she wants, because her arguments are laughingly weak and as shown in this physics example, so void of any real understanding of physical sciences, that she actually makes a fool of herself. An occasional restatement of the facts of the case, when Vixen goes on one of her rants full of falsehoods, will set the lurker straight, but otherwise why engage her at all?

 

[Bill Williams]

You want vixen to post unopposed. As an educator you would be happy with that? I wouldn't.

There have been three anti-Knox websites posting unopposed for 6 years, which have essentially the same views and bizarre logic as Vixen. Early on they started banning posters simply for posting guilt-skeptic posts.

The best thing for this thread would be to allow Vixen to post unopposed for a month or so.

 

[Numbers]

Not really an educator. I volunteer at a high school near a project I work on (I'm a chemical engineer by education). The school is in south central Los Angeles and they have a STEM program that invites professionals in the STEM fields to provide support in math and science to students who want extra help or guidance in selecting a path after high school.

So my students are pre-selected to want to learn. They aren't necessarily the best students, some are struggling with basic concepts, but they, on their own, have decided to seek help and guidance.

There is a difference in trying to educate someone who wants to better themselves and someone who simply ignores any form of logic and continues to spew falsehoods. Vixen can post all the bile she wants, because her arguments are laughingly weak and as shown in this physics example, so void of any real understanding of physical sciences, that she actually makes a fool of herself. An occasional restatement of the facts of the case, when Vixen goes on one of her rants full of falsehoods, will set the lurker straight, but otherwise why engage her at all?

I agree with your statement.

However, sometimes posts are so wrong, on such a basic subject as elementary Newtonian physics - material many of us learned in high school and perhaps in an introductory college class - that some response seems needed. Possibly there is an audience - whether other posters or lurkers - who don't have that background, and deserve truthful information.

And there have been posts here on other topics - especially the forensic sciences of DNA profiling and blood testing, as well as the specifics of Italian and international law (the European Court of Human Rights) - that are more specialized and may be less well known to the audience. The audience is best served by factual information on these topics, with references to objective knowledgeable sources.

But otherwise, I would agree with your suggestion that a poster who continually posts misinformation and falsehoods, who cannot learn from objective information, and displays incredible failures in logic, should be ignored. Otherwise, there is endless repetition of points previously well-established.

 

[PhreePhly]

I agree with your statement.

However, sometimes posts are so wrong, on such a basic subject as elementary Newtonian physics - material many of us learned in high school and perhaps in an introductory college class - that some response seems needed. Possibly there is an audience - whether other posters or lurkers - who don't have that background, and deserve truthful information.

And there have been posts here on other topics - especially the forensic sciences of DNA profiling and blood testing, as well as the specifics of Italian and international law (the European Court of Human Rights) - that are more specialized and may be less well known to the audience. The audience is best served by factual information on these topics, with references to objective knowledgeable sources.

But otherwise, I would agree with your suggestion that a poster who continually posts misinformation and falsehoods, who cannot learn from objective information, and displays incredible failures in logic, should be ignored. Otherwise, there is endless repetition of points previously well-established.

I agree with this general sentiment and have honestly enjoyed early on when the threads went into detailed DNA and biochemistry discussions, especially when Chris would discuss LCN and statistics and the forensic knowledge that so many posters have. The detail on Italian law and the ECHR info you (Numbers) provide is really educational, but in all honesty, we're really past much of that. I think the upcoming ECHR findings will lead to new discussion and possible real disagreement, but what we have now is really one person making absurd and false statements and a larger group of far more knowledgeable folks dogpiling the instigator. Not that it isn't fun on occasion. This physics discussion was seriously enjoyable in that it was so obvious that Vixen is so far out of her element that she doesn't know when to run and cut bait.

I'm a lurker, I think i have posted maybe 15 posts on this thread (mostly during the Dr. Tesla time), but I do stop by on occasion to see what's new and when I see such an incredible spectacle of ignorance such as was just demonstrated, it blows my mind and I have to speak up. I'll go back to lurking and wait for the next time .

 

[Chris_Halkides]

bleach degrades DNA as expected

Hi PhreePhly,

Some months ago I posted a link to an article that showed what a bleach-treated sample of DNA would look like. The electropherogram sloped downward from left (shorter DNA) to right (longer DNA), exactly like other degraded samples.

 

[Numbers]

I agree with this general sentiment and have honestly enjoyed early on when the threads went into detailed DNA and biochemistry discussions, especially when Chris would discuss LCN and statistics and the forensic knowledge that so many posters have. The detail on Italian law and the ECHR info you (Numbers) provide is really educational, but in all honesty, we're really past much of that. I think the upcoming ECHR findings will lead to new discussion and possible real disagreement, but what we have now is really one person making absurd and false statements and a larger group of far more knowledgeable folks dogpiling the instigator. Not that it isn't fun on occasion. This physics discussion was seriously enjoyable in that it was so obvious that Vixen is so far out of her element that she doesn't know when to run and cut bait.

I'm a lurker, I think i have posted maybe 15 posts on this thread (mostly during the Dr. Tesla time), but I do stop by on occasion to see what's new and when I see such an incredible spectacle of ignorance such as was just demonstrated, it blows my mind and I have to speak up. I'll go back to lurking and wait for the next time .

I hope that the ECHR will judge Knox v. Italy early in 2017 rather than in late 2017 or even 2018, but there is no way that I know to predict the timing. The case judgment will only be published after the ECHR is satisfied it has received answers to the questions it posed in the Communication and any follow-ups it issues. So we should anticipate silence on that front until there is news.

In respect to new developments in Italy, I am aware of Sollecito's request for compensation for unfair detention (CPP Articles 314 and 315), and perhaps there will be news about that in early 2017.

There is also Guede's request for revision, and that apparently will be reviewed early in 2017.

Since major developments may be some months away, we could all become lurkers or occasional posters with little loss to the thread while awaiting developments, in my opinion.

 

[Vixen]

Well...... first of all:

YOU KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT EVEN BASIC PHYSICS. AND YOUR ATTEMPTS TO PRESENT FURTHER "ARGUMENTS" IN THIS RESPECT ARE UTTERLY, UTTERLY PITIFUL - AND ENTIRELY, WHOLLY, INCORRECT. IT'S LAUGHABLE. THAT'S THE TRUTH. FULL STOP.

I have no appetite to address the sheer avalanche of wrongness within this one post - just as every single post of your covering ballistics and the physics of motion has been all kinds of wrong. Every SINGLE calculation within this post is wrong. It's pathetic.

But this one little piece deserves to be called out for special attention. You have no idea what the foot-pound is, nor the type of quantity it represents, nor where it is usefully employed. You ludicrously believe it's a measure of "muzzle energy". It's not even a measure of energy. It's a measure of TORQUE, Vixen. You don't know what torque is, do you Vixen? That's because you are ignorant of physics.

Torque, for your education, is the turning force applied to an object such as a screw. Technically the foot-pound is an incorrect quantity for measuring torque, since the unit should be force multiplied by distance - but since "pound" in this instance can be taken as a linear proxy for "pound-force" (which IS a measure of force, and is calculated as mass in pounds multiplied by the acceleration due to gravity -e.g. one pound of mass exerts 9.8 pounds-force of force), the foot-pound can usefully be used as a measure of torque. However, the Newton-metre (NM) is a better, more appropriate, and more commonplace measure of torque these days.

What the foot-pound categorically is NOT, and could never be, is any type of measure of energy, as fatuously claimed in your post. In small-arms ballistics, the foot-pound actually relates to the spin applied to a small-arms bullet by the rifling within the barrel - a certain torque is applied to the bullet as it travels down the barrel, in order to make it spin around its longitudinal axis in flight (thus vastly improving flight characteristics). But of course you don't understand that either. Are you just writing whatever comes into your head, in the absence of even a modicum of knowledge or research? Seriously? Is that what's going on here?

Please could a pro-guilt commentator with even an ounce (or should that be a lb-foot per inch mile squared....) of integrity and even the most basic knowledge of physics kindly quietly inform Vixen of just what an embarrassing blizzard of wrong she's been posting in her "arguments" about ballistics and the physics of motion here over the past few days. Because obviously she believes that our laughing at her ignorance and incompetence in this field is driven purely by some form of partisan blinkering. Who knows: perhaps then, the message might finally get through............



ETA. No, no, I see one other small sentence which also deserves to be called out for its fundamental ignorance. It's this:

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

Vixen....... a pound is, erm, unambiguously NOT (and never was, and never will be) a measure of force. You have, as I say, no idea of even the most basic concepts of physics. Rather, a pound is unambiguously a measure of mass (just like a kilogram is). The unit of force associated with the imperial pound system is the pound-force. The pound-force is exactly as different (in magnitude and unit) from the pound as is the Newton from the kilogram. But you don't understand this, do you Vixen? Pitiful.

(Oh and by the way, with reference to that wiki entry, the US use a proxy measure for muzzle energy which is denominated in units of foot-pound-force - NOT "foot-pounds" (which are a different quantity altogether). But of course Vixen doesn't know or understand the difference between "foot-pounds" and "foot-pounds-force")

Grow up. It was Not Even Wrong who brought up the topic of bullets. I have to admit, that was not on my physics syllabus.

 

[Vixen]

Ok, I have just followed the past few pages of physics "lessons" by Vixen, and I need some clarification. She has claimed that she is a member of MENSA, correct? While her specialty is more in the direction of economics, not physics, she should still have some grasp of numbers and simple Newtonian physics, right. She has also claimed to have graduated with honors from some prestigious London college, right?

I ask, because I have worked with kids in some pretty rough neighborhoods here in Los Angeles, who could easily calculate the basic velocity, inertia, kinetic energy and even graph out the basic path of travel of this rock, using the high school physics they learned in their junior year. They would have made assumptions of neglecting air resistance, and would have assumed uniform force in the throwing arm, but they could have come up with some pretty good estimates.

I bring this up, because given the tremendous level of ignorance shown by this Vixen poster, why does anyone on this board giver her the time of day? If this is an example of her ability to reason, then why would anyone take any of her analysis seriously.

No, I did not claim to be in Mensa (although I am). Some folks on here thought they would bully me because in response to the question, Have you been on a forum before, I replied only Mensa's as of that date, which is a straightforward factual answer.

I had a good grammar school education, I was in the top stream, and top in almost all exams. I was more interested in Chemistry than Physics, I'll admit. I took pyschology in what was one of the top psychology departments in the country at the time, and top in child psychology, which it specialised in. I am now a chartered accountant, having been attracted to economics since sixth form.

You do know that many of the posters here belong to an organised group, Friends of Amanda, and their strategy is to hurl abuse, ridicule and a stream of invective towards anyone who has read the court documents in this case and who has come to the conclusion of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. So don't be fooled into thinking LoJo and NEW represent 'majority opinion'.

Even the final Supreme Court expressed the view the pair remain 'highly suspicious' and did not declare them innocent. Merely, 'insufficient evidence'.

 

[Vixen]

I entirely concur. As I've written before, the extraordinary ignorance of physics and the sheer magnitude of mistakes and fundamental misunderstandings contained within Vixen's "arguments" genuinely make me wonder whether it's all actually a knowing satire. But actually, history and other factors make me believe it's all, sadly, too real. Which makes it all the more extraordinary. I've never seen physics this wrong, and repeatedly, woefully wrong, from anyone over the age of about 10 in my whole life.

Your faux 'outrage' and hysterical overkill are extremely boring. You are the type of person who believes SHOUTING and flowery adjectives win an argument.

 

[Vixen]

And the higher density of stone, compared with the polyurethane composites used in bowling balls, means that a 4.5kg rock could be held and manipulated comfortably by an average adult male hand (whereas a bowling ball of the same mass would probably require two hands on account of its larger physical size). So it's even easier to postulate the idea of an adult male being able to pick up and throw a 4.5kg rock over a fair distance (and certainly over a horizontal distance of some 3.5m with high accuracy).

In fact, I could not be more certain of the ease with which Guede could have thrown that rock through Romanelli's window. As it happens, I went to my local out-of-town garden centre this evening to collect a Christmas tree. And guess what? There's an affiliated garden landscaping company adjoining the garden centre - and guess what? They sell rocks of various masses for people to use as part of the landscaping of their garden. And guess what? One of the types of rocks they sell is 5kg sandstone rocks. Which happen to be of (almost certainly) the same material as the rock in the Kercher case, and of slightly heavier mass. I was able to pick up one of these rocks with total ease, and toss it from hand to hand. If I had wanted to throw the rock - though of course it was totally inappropriate to do so there - I am 100% certain I would have been able to throw it at least 10m with total ease, and I'm equally certain that I could have thrown it a horizontal distance of 2.5m with easily the accuracy required for Guede to have been able to hit Romanelli's window.

But then, any sane adult with any real-world experience and any basic intellect has always known that this throw, with this rock, would have been manifestly easy for the likes of Guede. It was interesting to be able to handle almost the same rock though (actually a slightly heavier rock, for what it's worth....) and be left in absolutely no doubt. But there you go..........

I have been bowling many times and no sane person bowls over arm.

 

[Vixen]

Not really an educator. I volunteer at a high school near a project I work on (I'm a chemical engineer by education). The school is in south central Los Angeles and they have a STEM program that invites professionals in the STEM fields to provide support in math and science to students who want extra help or guidance in selecting a path after high school.

So my students are pre-selected to want to learn. They aren't necessarily the best students, some are struggling with basic concepts, but they, on their own, have decided to seek help and guidance.

There is a difference in trying to educate someone who wants to better themselves and someone who simply ignores any form of logic and continues to spew falsehoods. Vixen can post all the bile she wants, because her arguments are laughingly weak and as shown in this physics example, so void of any real understanding of physical sciences, that she actually makes a fool of herself. An occasional restatement of the facts of the case, when Vixen goes on one of her rants full of falsehoods, will set the lurker straight, but otherwise why engage her at all?

Good for you.

 

[Bill Williams]

Even the final Supreme Court expressed the view the pair remain 'highly suspicious' and did not declare them innocent. Merely, 'insufficient evidence'.

Sigh. No the Supreme Court did none of this. According to subsequent courts, they were exonerted of all allegations and charges.

The Supreme court expressed no such view. It summarized the illogical and ill founded evidence the lower court tried to use to convict.

But around we go. This is now the fifth time you've made those claims - again with no citation. You just assert it.

You should stick to physics.

 

[LondonJohn]

No, I did not claim to be in Mensa (although I am). Some folks on here thought they would bully me because in response to the question, Have you been on a forum before, I replied only Mensa's as of that date, which is a straightforward factual answer.

I had a good grammar school education, I was in the top stream, and top in almost all exams. I was more interested in Chemistry than Physics, I'll admit. I took pyschology in what was one of the top psychology departments in the country at the time, and top in child psychology, which it specialised in. I am now a chartered accountant, having been attracted to economics since sixth form.

You do know that many of the posters here belong to an organised group, Friends of Amanda, and their strategy is to hurl abuse, ridicule and a stream of invective towards anyone who has read the court documents in this case and who has come to the conclusion of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. So don't be fooled into thinking LoJo and NEW represent 'majority opinion'.

Even the final Supreme Court expressed the view the pair remain 'highly suspicious' and did not declare them innocent. Merely, 'insufficient evidence'.

Oh. Dear. How excruciatingly embarrassing