Check this out from the National Academy of Science:

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

The contention that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact" confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.

That is exactly the point.

The ball is falling more slowly than anticipated. but it is still falling. Falling slower than expected does not mean rising.

No, what I'm saying it a pitched baseball cannot flatten out as you suggest. The ball is in a constant state of deceleration and free fall from the nano second it's released.

If you have an understanding of slightly advanced mathematics this might interest you.

I'll try to make this my last post on the subject. If someone doesn't understand what I'm saying after looking at this calculation and reading the information in the following link, then I guess I can't help them

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~vawter/Physic...leMotion03.gif


http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~vawter/Physic...lvingMain.html


Tim.

Falling is not an accurate description.
If release to catcher is a straight line there is no falling.
If the trajectory of the ball at release puts the ball 2' above the plate, but because of speed, spin and whatever else goes into it the ball arrives at the plate at 2' 2", has it not risen?
Admittedly the ball has dropped in elevation from 5' to 2' 2" but the original trajectory should have put it at 2' exactly.
So a rising fastball is not going to have an upward movement that we are all envisioning like an inverted curve ball. Rather since it is already in a downward trajectory, the rise will only be a lessening of the original angle of descent.
Or what some people may describe as falling slower than expected.

i'm impressed....tim used calculations from the school i go to! anyways, it is definitely falling. Balls don't go in straight lines. (unless you throw the ball up and it lands at an equal elevation.....which is rising and then falling)

Sure if you put it that way how can I argue.
But you know what they say about figures

Seriously, as a sad troll I have to plead ignorance here.
When I'm behind the plate, the catcher calls a curve low and away but the pitcher throws a chest high 85 mph fastball and I'm watching the ball coming squarely between my eyes with no catcher to be found, the only 'free fall' I'm thinking of is my own.

Here is the mis-use of language; and it is yours, not mc's:
When scientists use the word "theory", they DO NOT use it as you and other "young earthers" are prone to do when "refuting" the "theory" of the big bang, evolution, and other scientific principles. Gravity is also a "theory" according to the scientists. As soon as you can experimentally drop a hammer and have it hit the ceiling, rather than the floor: come talk to us about "it's only a theory". Relativity [E=mC2] is also a "theory": I am sure that the folks in Hiroshima are glad to know that their city was flattened at the end of WWII by "only a theory". The accuracy of carbon dating [and remember, being scientists, they admit to a window of uncertainty: "10,000 yrs b.c.e, plus or minus ..." XYZ years] has been amply demonstrated [and in some cases made more precise] by comparison with tree-ring and historical evidence.

To the TOPIC of this misbegotten thread: the "theory" of the "rising fastball" has been disproven/debunked both experimentally [what you PERCIEVE is not experimental evidence, by the way, any more than what you believe: the only thing that counts is what you can demonstrate and measure in repeatable experiments] and mathematically/ logically. Which, by the way, is what separates scientific facts/ "theories" from ignorant blind "faith" in cherished myths [like, for instance, the "rising fastball" and the "8,000 year old earth"]: when science discovers that there is evidence which cannot be reconciled with theory, they admit that there is something wrong with the theory, and go looking for the answer/ solution. When mythologists are presented with evidence which disproves their beliefs, they insist that there is something wrong with the evidence, and go looking for nothing, since God, Bishop Usher, or Roger Clemens has already passed down the "truth".

RANT OFF!!

Re: Re: Do you actually believe that?
 

I believe in God.

I also am aware that the "Big bang theory" is the most complete current explanation for origin of the observed universe, and that NO-ONE, especially not scientists; believes that it is the final and ABSOLUTELY complete explanation. Not least, there is at present little or no good basis for saying what came before, or why the Big One went BANG. [As an aside, I think that "God said 'Let there be Light' ..." is a really excellent pre-scientific description of what scientists tell us happened during the Big One. Don't you?]

The two are not incompatable.

I HAVE "researched the other [your] side". The "evidence", such as there is, for "young-earth" theory simply does not stand up to critical examination. It is on the same level and has the same validity as those who argued, based on the same scriptures, that the earth did not orbit the sun, but vice-versa [or is that also a "God-thing" that you are unwilling to to concede to the "theories" of the unbelievers?]. Even hard-core "intelligent design" types concede some validity to evolution, at least on a micro level, because it is so easily demonstrated and even observed: it is only on the macro or new species level that they seriously try to "refute" evolution. The reason is that it is only on the macro level that they have any hope of convincing anyone, and because the argument, for them, on that level is a priori: macro evolution takes tens of thousands to millions of years- the earth is only 8,000 years old- there hasn't been enough time for macro evolution to happen- therefore macro evolution hasn't happened, -therefore the earth is only 8,000 years old, - because that's what our leaders tell us scripture says.

The "theory" is also on pretty shaky legs from a scriptural basis as well. As a suggestion: when the scientific evidence conflicts with one's understanding/ interpretation of scripture, it is best to doubt one's understanding, not the science. The WORD may be inerrant, but human understanding of the WORD is highly fallible.

Nicely said. Gravity is still referred to as a theory even though it has withstood a few hundred years of rigorous experimentation for historical purposes. Evolution is similar in the eyes of the scientific community, it has been supported by so much experimentation and it really does match what is observed in nature.

Here again is the scientific meaning of theory as written by the National Academy of Sciences:

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

The contention that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact" confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.

McPhysics Fails Reading
 

"A) unwilling to believe that spin curves a ball, B) insists that because a ball thrown fast from 3rd to 1st doesn't appear to be affected by gravity, that it is in fact not affected by gravity, or C) believes the earth is 8000 years old in the face of overwhelming evidence otherwise."

A) WRONG! Please find any reference in this thread where I discuss that I am unwilling to believe that spin curves a BALL at low velocity. I wrote that almost anybody (15 million men or more) can throw a 70 mph curve ball. You FAIL.

B) WRONG! Please find any reference in this thread where I discuss that I am unwilling to believe that a fastball thrown below 90 mph will NOT RISE! I clearly stated that my calculations require 93 mph, 96 mph or 98 mph or MORE. To be sure, within a certain statistical degree of certainty, I have always written about a 100 mph or greater fastball. But all my hard work was DELETED. YOU Sir, FAIL again.

C) WRONG! Please find any reference in this thread where I discuss that the earth is only 8000 years old. This was strictly an absurd comment to make by ANY SCIENTIST or credible person. I think you confuse my reference to MODERN (MAN) CIVILIZATIONS, written communication, etc. I can only imagine why someone fell in tune with your version of of a 100 mph EVOLUTION. SIR, you FAIL miserably.

McPhysics, batting 0 for 3 again. I don't believe you wasted your money on education. I really believe you should spend some more of your money trying to find it again. Is there anything in my writing that you do understand?

Okay, since you asked.....
 

Yes, there is one thing for certain that I understand about your "writings." Most, if not all of them are completely worthless and ill-conceived.


Tim.

Here is the mis-use of language; and it is yours, not mc's:
When scientists use the word "theory", they DO NOT use it as you and other "young earthers" are prone to do when "refuting" the "theory" of the big bang, evolution, and other scientific principles. Gravity is also a "theory" according to the scientists. As soon as you can experimentally drop a hammer and have it hit the ceiling, rather than the floor: come talk to us about "it's only a theory". Relativity [E=mC2] is also a "theory": I am sure that the folks in Hiroshima are glad to know that their city was flattened at the end of WWII by "only a theory". The accuracy of carbon dating [and remember, being scientists, they admit to a window of uncertainty: "10,000 yrs b.c.e, plus or minus ..." XYZ years] has been amply demonstrated [and in some cases made more precise] by comparison with tree-ring and historical evidence.

To the TOPIC of this misbegotten thread: the "theory" of the "rising fastball" has been disproven/debunked both experimentally [what you PERCIEVE is not experimental evidence, by the way, any more than what you believe: the only thing that counts is what you can demonstrate and measure in repeatable experiments] and mathematically/ logically. Which, by the way, is what separates scientific facts/ "theories" from ignorant blind "faith" in cherished myths [like, for instance, the "rising fastball" and the "8,000 year old earth"]: when science discovers that there is evidence which cannot be reconciled with theory, they admit that there is something wrong with the theory, and go looking for the answer/ solution. When mythologists are presented with evidence which disproves their beliefs, they insist that there is something wrong with the evidence, and go looking for nothing, since God, Bishop Usher, or Roger Clemens has already passed down the "truth".

RANT OFF!!
[/B][/QUOTE]

If I misused the scientific meaning of theory I apologize.
Sorry

You said:

Gravity is also a "theory" according to the scientists

Yes, but not in the way you're trying to pass it off.

Actually there is a universal law of gravity, and when you talk about a hammer falling down insead going to the roof you're actually referring to the law of gravity. The generalized theory of gravity that Einstien tried to prove was an attempt to combine the universal law of gravity with mathematics and be able to quantify gravity.
He failed.
Are the reast of your theoritical 'facts' presented just as clumsily?
What is the difference between a scientific fact and theory, surely they are not interchangeable words like you just used in the post.
To my knowledge it's impossible to prove the accuracy of carbon dating on something supposedly a million years old.
To know for sure you have to have an item that is irrufatably a million years old, which we don't have and perform the test to see if the test is accurate. It's one thing to carbon test a 200 year old tree, you can match the results up against other measures of time. I think there is a big difference between a 200 yr old tree and a million yr old fossil. I would think there would be a few more variables to consider and some we may not even be aware, consequently without absolute certainty of the age or another form of measurement to help support the result it's still theoritical results. The fact that the results support your theoritical bent does not make it anymore or less a fact.
There's no way for you to prove big bang, it's just the best explanation you can come up with to avoid creation.
Big bang is pure theory at best.
The FACT that millions have been duped doesn't make it more or less so.
You and the rest of the scientific world have to work real hard to get from nothing, I said nothing, to the formation of this galaxy to a living organism on this planet to the evolution of this enlightened race.
BTW as smart as we are, why hasn't science been able to create life just like the big bang did? All of our technological know how and we can't duplicate what random matter that somehow was floating around did what 4 billion years ago. I'll make you a deal, when science creates something out of nothing OR creates life from dust I'll seriously consider your myth.
In the meantime, why don't you go visit your cousins at the zoo and teach them the proper mechanics of beating their chest. You seem to have it down pat.

Mr Beautiful, This ROCKS!
 

Thank YOU, Mr. B, for your wonderful contribution to this thread. I completely agree with your very careful analysis. I am almost flabberghasted when I read the things these guys write. Their argument is so silly and fictitious. I have been completely amused from the very beginning. I really thought that this was another entertaining myth similar to the FLIGHT of the BUMBLE BEE. The LORD knows that I have tried to put an end to this FALLING 100-mph BASEBALL MYTH for some time. Page after page and FINALLY someone else (YOU) admits that there just might be another OUTSIDE force equal to or greater in the opposite direction to balance or overcome the force of gravity "g". NOW STOP to consider all the contributions of ALL UPWARD OUTSIDE forces for a moment. Do any of these exist in a FLUID?

I LOVE IT when a PHYSICIST with a 100 mph WIND TUNNEL at his disposal will refuse to CORRECTLY acknowledge LIFT! {Please take it away from him GEORGE before he hurts himself.} Oh, he did incorrectly SPIN UP the story. His ONE assumption of INCREASING SPIN only provides a smaller secondary UPWARD force at lower velocity. I also love to describe LIFT as an outside FORCE. You ride in the inside of an airplane because LIFT is acting UPWARD along the OUTSIDE wings of an airplane. My favorite OUTSIDE FORCES, of course, are HORIZONTAL and VERTICAL AIR RESISTANCE; alala the AIR via 100-mph WINDS. Did I not explain properties of FLUID DYNAMICS from the very beginning? You would think the PHYSICS majors would have taken courses in FLUID DYNAMICS. What about FRICTION and other Boundary-layer DYNAMICS? CORIOLIS, turbulence, eddies, and pertubations must be as meaningless as a knuckleball to these DARK-AGE men.

Oh well, your bright bit of beautiful sunshine over this DARK landscape renewed my hope for intelligent signs of life on EARTH. I'll keep searching for more on this website because I get a kick from the surprises found in an unexpected chaotic WORLD. If only our ENVIRONMENT would settle down under the GRAVITY of ALL 3(.5=inertia) Laws of MOTION. Please tell them for ME, that gravity and spin are not the only outside forces found beneath our GLOBAL DOME.

Since Bob or Mick have not chosen to end this lunacy the only possible solution is for all of us to boycott any future posts to this subject. SAUMP will be left talking to himself, which may go on for months, but we will not be participants in that singular discussion. To that end this is my last post on this non-subject.

OFF along another TANGENT
 

"Yes, there is one thing for certain that I understand about your "writings." Most, if not all of them are completely worthless and ill-conceived."

Why is it every time I, PWL or WINY SHOW YOU the ERRORS of your ways, the THREADS SEAM to disappear, vanish, or vaporize! Who BLEW IT time after time. If you read my original thread on the purpose of this post, I think you would find the facts substantiate my POV.

I would also request that the owners {if they see this}remove the DELETE feature after threads grow above a certain size requirement of their chioce. I believe that once a thread grows over this size requirement, it becomes PUBLIC DOMAIN and property of the website. I think they would agree with this POV too.

Readers can find out what happened to one of our NEWEST guests in the last 3 pages. I forgot to mention to our friends one of your best(est) POSTS. Something along the lines of -> Why do you think that was an arrow aimed at YOU? Why is it everytime I blah blah blah, YOU think it is an attack or an insult, blah blah blah. Why do you have to call me a dimwit, blah blah blah. Imagine how our guest may feel about "turning his A-words around" without regard to CONTEXT.

Hey, if you don't like this discussion; simply DISAPPEAR, VANISH, or VAPORIZE!
I would like to get back to RISING FASTBALLS!

I saw David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disapear. It must have been real because it sure wasn't there after he did it.

I saw Penn & Teller make a submarine disapear. It must have been real because it sure wasn't there after they did it.

I saw Teller catch a bullet (fired by Penn) in his teeth. It must have been real because the bullet had the same initials scribed on it as it did before it was fired.

I saw David Coperfield fly.

I saw a fastball rise.

BTW, the clothes on the floor aren't the teenager's mess, not because they weren't his, but because he doesn't think it constitutes a mess.

I can only assume your lastest rant was directed at me so please allow me the opportunity to respond.

First of all to even mention you in the same sentence with Windy is an insult to Windy. Everyone here knows that Windy and I have had some serious disagreements in the past. However extremely adversarial those disagreements became his point of view was always founded on substance. There is simply no substance to anything you've ever said here. If you would have at least once provide something with an implied value things might be different. Half of the posts you make are so convoluted with all your use of caps and stupidity they are barely understandable.

Not only are you unable or unwilling to understand some of the basic tenents of umpiring, you show us that you understand even less about the laws of physics. Yet, you continue to argue with professionals who have shown you documented research that completely contradicts your ridiculous position.

As far as PWL goes, you two are in a class all by yourselves. More than likely the day one of the two of you shows me the error of my ways the eternal resting place for unrepentant sinners will have frozen over.


Tim.

[Edited by BigUmp56 on Mar 10th, 2006 at 11:01 PM]

Another GAG-GLE Attempt
 

Remember the story of "Chicken Little?" There was ONE famous line repeated throughout the story. "The sky is falling. The sky is falling."

I believe that this story is retold in every early childhood science education classroom across America. The theme of the story was NOT about the pseudo-scientific argument on the strength of gravitational forces on FALLING objects. OUR little flock of children must learn about the very SPECIAL NATURE of our protective ATMOSPHERE.

Well, now I am not sure anymore because I think I found an older group of silly Chicken Littles. Let me be specific by taking the definition off the internet. "Applied to people, it is used disparagingly of a crowd or of the masses and suggests the gregarious aspect of crowd psychology" Wake up the children, its another story time about another {flock, 1herd, drove, 2pack, 1gang, 1brood} of farm animals.

"Ole McDensity had a FARM, E I E I OOO"

So he tells me.

Re: Re: Re: Do you actually believe that?
 

I HAVE "researched the other [your] side". The "evidence", such as there is, for "young-earth" theory simply does not stand up to critical examination.
So having no idea why big bang banged, having no idea what happened or what existed before big bang, and having not one reasonable explanation as to why inate matter even existed at all, that, that I ask holds up to critical examination?

It is on the same level and has the same validity as those who argued, based on the same scriptures, that the earth did not orbit the sun, but vice-versa [or is that also a "God-thing" that you are unwilling to to concede to the "theories" of the unbelievers?.
What does this have to do with any discussion point I've put forward?

I also am aware that the "Big bang theory" is the most complete current explanation for origin of the observed universe, and that NO-ONE, especially not scientists; believes that it is the final and ABSOLUTELY complete explanation.
I'm confused, It either banged or it didn't.
It's the current explanation, not the final explanation and not the complete explanation. But it sure holds up to critical exam. If that's all it takes to be a respected scientist I'm in.

because that's what our leaders tell us scripture says.
Think for yourself

As a suggestion: when the scientific evidence conflicts with one's understanding/ interpretation of scripture, it is best to doubt one's understanding, not the science.
yea because science is certainly infallible
and I should throw away my faith because some man came up with the flavor of the day explanation that is not final and certainly not complete.

is a really excellent pre-scientific description of what scientists tell us happened during the Big One. Don't you?
Scientists don't even know what happened during the mythical big one. How can it be an explanation for anything.
As I sit here thinking of the big one I think of the tremendous intricacies (spelling) of this galaxy much less the ecosystem of this planet, I mean everything I think of works so perfectly together and to think some big bang from mysterious matter came together and formed all this blows my mind .
I mean in any other aspect of life, if someone was trying to justify something with this much vagueness and dependence on coincidence we'd send them to the looney bin.
But a scientist said so. So it shall be.

"It crosses at 3 feet or whatever. 8-3 = 5 down.

Call me when he throws one at 8 feet all the way 8 feet."


Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner.

SAUmp, try as you might (and we all know you will) you can never, ever top this. Not even a lymeric with famous physisists capitalized would be better.

The best post of all time.

Well done Batman. A classic for the ages.

Oh I agree entirely Rich !!

Frames of reference - seems to be a lot of that on this thread. I was thinking of the comedy factor too.

Now as the atletes get faster and stronger perhaps we will one day see relativistic effects. Or play near the Event horizon - some wicked late breaking curves then.

If running two websites into the ground isn't enough error, I don't what is. I would think sitting on your fat butt all winter playing on the computer you probably gained twenty-five pounds. Time for some new pants, BigRump56.:)

Unless your going through a severe depression, because you don't really sound mentally stable at times. ;)

Hello SPACEMEN
 

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~vawter/Physic...lvingMain.html

Implied:
One should neglect air resistance.
--------------------------------------

DAH, No air resistance = NO RISE

But arn't YOU IGNORING the very AIR YOU BREATH?

I'll keep saying it until I have no WIND LEFT.

A baseball traveling at 100 mph has passed through ONE hell of a wind STORM.

TO NEGLECT AIR RESISTANCE, YOU MUST BE LOST IN SPACE!

SO take a deep BREATH. You'll need it cause your ARGUMENT doesn't hold ANY AIR.
--------------------------------------

If Mr. PYCISIST does neglect air resistance, then I can't HEAR HIM, and I can't see him either, but I do know the DIMWIT is hanging around because of GRAVITY.

And, we're back to where we started -- defining the term.

As I (and I think others) are using the term, I mean that if F1 releases the ball such that it's instantaneous /initial vector is parallel to the ground, the ball will never be farther from the ground than it is at it's initial point. In addition, the ball's distance above the ground at any position will be (a) less than at any point prior to that position and (b) greater than at any point after that position.

I also think that everyone agrees that if two balls are thorwn at the same initial angle relative to the ground that (all other things being constant) (a) the faster ball will "fall less" over the same distance and (b) the ball with the greater backspin rate will fall less.

Noted physicists.

Respected and published professional engineers.

In-depth studies and simulations performed at major universtities.

Respected and published phycologist's.

What do these have in common? They all show irreconcilably that a pitched fastball cannot rise, but is a perceptual illusion.


Save one stubborn individual that cannot grasp the reality of this discussion, all are in accord on this subject.

Read more on this age old myth.

http://www.public.asu.edu/~mmcbeath/...efast.html#Top

http://uanews.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects...ArticleID=1109

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=2&c=y

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rising_fastball

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract


I would ask SA what his credentials are and how they are relevant to this discussion when compared to those who have done these thorough studies.


Tim.

Myth BUSTER
 

I would ask SA what his credentials are and how they are relevant to this discussion when compared to those who have done these thorough studies.

Credentials: I don't neglect REALITY. I don't neglect AIR RESISTANCE. I don't neglect our ATMOSPHERE. I don't alter the gravitaional constant at sea-level. I rely on BOTH air resistance and the gravitational constant to determine the actual flight path of a curve ball. I rely on BOTH air resistance and the gravitational constant to determine the actual flight path of a ^RISING^ fastball.

When you refer to a BASEBALL falling less than normal, do you suggest the gravitational constant isn't actually a CONSTANT? Your wind tunnel friends can figure out the correct LIFT Coefficeient of a baseball thrown at 100 mph. I would like to know if it is closer to A) ZERO, B) .001, C) .01, or D) .1. Only selection A is impossible in all REALITY!

It's as I suspected. You have no credentials to speak to this matter. As in most all of our discussions you add only conjecture of nearly epic proportions. I'll leave you to your fantasy world on Planet SA where the very basic laws of physics do not apply to it's citizenship.


Tim.

When I see a golf ball on a line drive 20 yds off the ground for 100 yds and then rise to 40 yds before gently landing 280 yds away, notice I saw it I didn't hit it, is that just a function of the demples?

I'm glad to see the discussion getting back on track.
I have a couple final thoughts on what's gone on here the past week.
This past week was my first on the forum, on my first or second post I made a philosophical statement couched in a not so serious 'Deep deep thought of the day'
It was intended to make a point re: this discussion that maybe the science being applied here was wrong. Having no experience on this forum I had no idea that my statement would be met with such malicious and venomous personal attacks on both the posts and emails. I enjoy a good discussion/argument as much as anybody but this one got so far off point I was embarrassed. However, as you all saw I did not back off. As umpires we all put up with a certain amount of crap from others, but most of us know where the line is drawn. When a coach or player attacks us personally we don't accept it, we don't pretend not to hear it, we take action swiftly and decisively. I felt the same way here "among "my fellow brothers in blue." For making a scientific statement that coincides with my faith I was verbally attacked in a way that totally took me by surprise. The name calling, purposeful and malicious misquoting(As it turns out I understand about the misquoting and I forgive Mcowder, I'm finding he is generally unruly and usually wrong. In two other posts I saw from him on different threads he was wrong in his interps and clearly corrected by his peers. So between his misquoting of my post and his mis interps he was 0 for 3 last week. That speaks for itself.) the attacks were on my intelligence, my faith, and even whether I was human (lol)
I don't know if I went over the line in my responses but I can tell you I had lots of fun. Those who resort to name calling and personal attacks when you disagree on scientific theory show an extreme lack of intelligence and self control. Some even showed cowardice when confronted with their inability to quote correctly, I digress.

I'm sorry it got to this point but in the future, like any good umpire I will never walk away in shame when someone questions my intelligence or my liniage on the field or in the officials forum.(whether I missed the call or not)

I'm not sure of the "just" part, but, yes, it's a function of the dimples and the spin rate. In "early physics" we learn that the path of a projectile is a parabola. Because of the dimples and spin, the golf ball moves in a "upward arc", then falls more directly.

Sweaty Feet !
 

Sweaty feet indicate moisture. Moisture on a 100-mph fastball usually evaporates very quickly, unless it is oil-based. More evaporation underneath a baseball cools the air beneath it. This adds to the LIFTING coefficient of the RISING fastball! However if the pitcher throws a wet sinker or a wet cutter, then it adds to the sink or the cut, not to the LIFT.

Yeast, algae or other foreign substances impy ITCHING which may require scratching the baseball to provide more "roughness" on the surface of the baseball. This also adds to the LIFTING/sinking or cutting motion at sea-level; and not so much a mile higher.

Baseball players are most well-known for SPITTING and SCRATCHING. More team players spit and scratch than any other athletic sport (JMOHO). I'm sure you disagree just because I wrote it just to disagree with ME here, AGAIN.

I need a HERO
 

Let's take the equations BU56 provides.

The first term is gravity (DOWN), the second term is vertical rise/fall rate of an object in horizontal motion (LIFT) and the last term is the initial height.

The only thing I have read that would add any LIFT on this thread is SPIN. Some argue that spin on a 135 mph fastball will RISE. NO one has provided a lift coeffcient/spin rate conversion factor to calculate RISE. If I set spin to ZERO, this PITCH would fall throughout its 1/2 second journey.

To properly understand LIFT, one must admit that the horizontal flightpath of a 100 mph baseball must add an energy component in the positive vertical direction. I state that there are many existing outside forces that add to this LIFT rate. ALL are more or as equally important to SPIN.

You ignore these factors when you neglect air resistance. Yet you swear that a baseball CANNOT RISE. I wouldn't hold my breath on your version of REALITY. Myth or reality; I know which one the rest of the world is putting their money on.

Try as you might, the pack mentality has provided me with the entertainment value I need to keep going UP the LADDER. Those strikeout records speak for themselves.

How much drop does a 95 mph fastball have in 53'
I contend the initial vector is at the eventual target 53 feet away. I don't see any arc in a 90 + mph fastball.
Can it be figured mathematically?

Put the MYTH to REST
 

Final PROOF; GRAVITY is not my HERO

100 mph = 146.6666666667 ft/sec

A 100 mph fastball reaches the plate 57 feet away in 0.3886 seconds.
A 100 mph fastball reaches the plate 60 feet away in 0.4091 seconds.
Let's not argue about the release point and compromise that the distance is covered in .4000 seconds.

A pitcher releases the pitch just over 7 feet towards the strike zone at 3 feet, a four foot drop.
This path can be represented by a simple linear equation, y = - 10 X + 7.
AT X = 0, Y = 7 and at X = 0.4000, Y = 3

Now consider the parbolic flightpath of a baseball with NEUTRAL/ZERO lift falling through gravitaional influences alone.
y = - 16 X squared + 7
AT X = 0, Y = 7 and at X = 0.4000, Y = 4.44

Did you read/see that? The difference in height after 0.4000 seconds is 1.44 feet lower than one following the natural laws of gravitation.

If the pitcher wants to release a 100 mph pitch into the strike zone, he must supply a downward FORCE to account for an additional 1.44 foot drop. He simply does this with a snap of the wrist in a DOWNWARD release angle.

And still you believe a 100 mph baseball cannot RISE.

ONCE AGAIN, I have provided you with physical, mathematical, psychological and SEXUAL PROOF. Yes SEXUAL, because after every math and physics proofs I have posted, I really love knowing which of YOU are full of HOT AIR.

PEACE

I believe that the stealing R3 is out on the batter's interference since B1 struck out prior to interfering.

Does DG Neglect AIR?
 

From J/R, quoted in 2005 BRD, "when determining ordinary effort, wind is a factor; sun in the fielder's eyes is not a factor." BLAH, BLAH BLAH ....
---------------

Clearly, you recognize the importance of WIND on a batted ball. But you (so often) neglect AIR resistance on a 100-mph ^rising^ fastball. Have you let an emotional condition leaning towards gravity CLOUD your better judgement?

Wouldn't you agree, "when determining a RISING fastball, AIR and VELOCITY are factors?

It also has a lot to do with the loft of the driver and the subsequent launch angle vector.