Well, you didn't answer my questions. That's a red flag.
Yes, you are claiming to be the first to figure this out. REAL ballisticians, hunters and shooters have been trying to figure out how to quantify the performance of bullets on game for years. There is a reason why it's not "simple physics", because it's not simple. Like I've said multiple times, you are over-simplifying something that is far from simple.
Testing on what, exactly? And how does it apply to terminal ballistics.
Yes, you are claiming to be the first to figure this out. REAL ballisticians, hunters and shooters have been trying to figure out how to quantify the performance of bullets on game for years. There is a reason why it's not "simple physics", because it's not simple. Like I've said multiple times, you are over-simplifying something that is far from simple.
Name-dropping anything that is not related to ballistics is not going to help you. This reminds me of conversations with engineers on most any subject. Even if the subject is completely unrelated to their area of study or field of expertise, they 'think' they have it all figured out. Even when it's obvious to all those involved, they haven't the slightest clue. I'm sorry but I don't think your knowledge/experience is applicable to terminal ballistics. At least not in the way you think it does.
You would do well not to assume you're speaking to narrow-minded, stubborn morons. Believe me, if there was a way to mathematically predict the effectiveness of any bullet at any velocity on any target, the shooting industry would embrace it. Because energy is a joke. Perhaps it is YOU who is clinging to something that is comfortable and outdated???
