Lets go back over your F equation. What again is your point of this post if velocity is static again? Teach us. and why would we care if velocity stayed constant. That doesn't work in the really real world. He's on the ropes.
Your the one who quoted the equation and asked me, I answered. I am dead on correct.
My equation? That equation was developed before I was even a gleam in my fathers eye.
You kill me bc. You claim to be so smart with your peer reviewed papers and all but you don't even understand the fundamentals of whats been presented.Even after a detailed explanation was placed right in front of youalong with severallinks to other sights explaining as well, your posts clearly demonstrate you don't understand.
Go back to post#68 and read the excerptslowly and try harder. You will discover that
the v in the equation represents virtual mass not velocity. For heaven's sake, bc, it's virtual mass that remains constant,not velocity. It's the point of the whole explanation.It should have been obviousyet you missed it completely. Pretty amateurish error for a supposed peer reviewed engineer.I suppose you think the F stands for force too! LOL, then you gleefully reported to all that Iapparently thought velocity would remain constant. Now that's funny right there. Clueless and proud of it is not a good way to go through life. You're embarraing yourself and you don't even realize it.
The construct of a constant virtual mass and the idea that eff increases with arrow masshave been well understood and well established for a long time. I'm not presenting anything new here. The equations speak for themselves. Go back and learn what they have to say.
"...dead on correct"? LOL, you'rerelly funny bc. I take back the boring comment. You are at least entertaining.