[mcrowder]

My Physics degree will not let that nonsense pass, on the off chance that there's one uninformed person out there reading this drivel. There's only one word that comes to mind here... and in the interest of keeping with the policy we've recently been reminded of, I'll direct it at the argument, and not the poster. SA, I'm not calling you stupid. But the argument you just posted is just flat stupid.

Before I explain why, I wish to note that I am saying a 135mph fastball with the same amount of spin used on a primo curveball, applied as backspin instead of sidespin, WILL rise. You seemed to have thought I was saying a 135 mph fastball would not rise.

First, gravity works with the same acceleration on ALL objects - be they baseballs, bowling balls, or peas. There are other forces (such as wind resistance) that will react differently to these items, but the affect of gravity on ANY object moving at 90 mph over 60 feet 6 inches is identical. If you throw a baseball that distance at that speed, it will drop a certain amount. If you can manage to propel a bowling ball 90 mph, it will also drop exactly the same amount over the same distance, due to gravity. (Calculate it - it's about a 6 foot drop).

Second, and more importantly, your concept of lift is so far wrong that a high-school physics student should be able to shoot holes in it.

So, for you and anyone who might be swayed by the argument, I'll simplify.

Lift is essentially the force of wind resistance hitting an angular object, and transferring that force in a perpendicular direction to the angle it is hitting (usually this is "up" when you're calling it lift, but there is such a thing as negative lift - which would be downward).

A plane has lift because the wind hitting the bottom of the wings is transferred perpendicularly to the wing itself - ie. up and back.

By definition, a spherical object has zero lift. Period end of story. The wind resistance hitting the bottom half of the ball DOES apply upward force to the ball. Assuming the ball is travelling parallel to the ground, however, the wind resistance hitting the TOP half of the ball applies EXACTLY equal downward force to the ball. EXACTLY. Hence the zero lift. (It should be noted that if the ball has an initial vector that is slightly downward, the "lift" calculated would be negative (i.e. downward))