...andddd those last three posts retire the side. trolls 0, non-trolls 1,000,000. next thread.

SAUMP will not let this one die.

Can we send them to Lance's camp for training ?

Love that Curve Ball
 

Not only are you guys wrong about a rising fastball, but I still remember some DUMB comment on a late breaking curve ball, not really breaking late at all. Just as incorrect, oh DIMWIT. But that argument was a NO-brainer, no matter what your white coat guys think or SAY to the contrary. YOU would never believe me, so I can only quote the RIGHT answer from: http://whyfiles.org/152baseball/3.html.

"That's amazing, but does a curve actually "break" (curve faster) near the plate? Yes. Every second it's in the air, the ball deflects sideways at about the same rate. As a result, it moves on a circular trajectory when seen from above. And that means that most of that curving seems to happen at the end of the pitch -- perfect for confusing batters."

"One last thing before we swerve away from curve balls. Because the drag force SUBSIDES above 70 miles per hour, fast balls make lousy curve balls. Moreover, because a fastball gets to the plate quicker, the drag force has less time to act on the ball, further reducing the curve."

If you are still thinking that MORE SPIN will get a bigger upward curve, then your in the WRONG ballpark AGAIN. But please, don't comment on the late breaking curve. You have enough on your plate trying to explain ZERO lift at 100 mph plus on a downward baseball trajectory through thick "muddy" sea-level AIR (PS: Muddy = polluted).

Please explain what happened to the drag force above 70 mph. What is the drag force difference at 70 mph and 100 mph? How much of a reduction did you calculate and where did it go? There's a rhetorical question in there. How much does a 100 mph fastball slow down upon release: more, the same rate or less than a 70 mph fastball; and where is all this energy going? Lift, damn it, LIFT!

Again I quote somebody else, "We're talking, as nerds would, about the effect of air on the ball. It turns out that air -- the fluid in which a baseball moves -- can slow a ball, change its direction, or both."

Oh, I forgot. Not only are you asking a pitcher to throw the baseball 100 mph, but you're also demanding that he SPIN the damn thing quickly too. Do you know what that does to an arm? Can I say, "SNAP!" I only want him to let go of the 5 ounce sphere at 100 mph or MORE with a small upward spin because I know the AIR will respond with a FORCE in the opposite and UPWARD direction; according to that NEWton guy and simple physics.

I just can't let it die because I too love the chuckles. See how you quickly gang up on a NEW guy (using the same ole tricks too). I am willing to bet you didn't even consider the philosphical nature of his remarks. You can't PROVE that he's wrong, so your E-GOes toss a few wet insults into a 100 mph WIND TUNNEL. You guys are so darn funny, wet behind the ears, but funny.

It Lifts, damn it, IT LIFTS!

Mush Mush IdidAROD
 

COACHES and SCOUTS have been given an ample opportunity to expand their baseball knowledge. Here are my secret laws for finding baseball-talented players and to help those who LOVE the GAME put up with an UMPIRE.

1) First Law You can’t teach SPEED,
But AROD will need SPEED to get underneath a hard hit ball.

2) Second Law You can’t teach LIFT,
But AROD will need LIFT when diving horizontally through the AIR.

3) Third Law You can’t teach DIVING (over the catcher),
But AROD will need a faster FLYING through FLUID-like agility to catch the lower ones.

4) Fourth Law You can’t teach STEALING,
But AROD will need that ability to take away a good base hit.

5) Fifth Law You can’t teach an UMPIRE about RISING baseballs,
But AROD will need a big heart to disagree with an umpire who refuses to change his original call.

Like the kids, I haven’t seen much yet, but I’ll keep LOOKING for that special kind of talent.

[Edited by SAump on Mar 9th, 2006 at 06:53 AM]

like why don't you go download something dude

Another New Spin
 

At high velocity, spin doesn't create any lift because it stabilizes the object around its own center of gravity.

At high velocity the bullet point (tip) is definitely not where the center of gravity is located.

A bullet still gets one hell of a RISE in AIR before it settles under either gravitational influences and/or SPIN.

But that is another subject, and I am talking about 100 mph rising baseballs in warm AIR.

Re: Re: Man,
 

What a coincidence. Garth, Rich, and Tee Rex post back to back to back. It must be that secret umpire website they belong to.

Umpires Secretly Frequently.

Re: Love that Curve Ball
 

I was surprised that when just offering my opinion on the subject I was impuned personally. I looked back on the thread to see if I was the first to attack anyone on a personal level or call anyone out and I don't see it.
It is interesting how quick these "umpires" were to attack my intelligence and character. I wonder if they're so quick to lose discernment and self control on the diamond.
I don't mind a little verbal judo though, in fact I enjoy it. I am disappointed at the quality of the insults, lame is fairly accurate, perhaps dull, much like I envision their umpiring would be, but when you spend most of your time repeatedly telling the world you're a physics grad there's not much time for creativity.

I guess you need to understand how long this discussion has been going on and how most of us don't take kindly to being told repeatedly that the laws of physics can be cheated. Say what you want about the appearance of a baseball thrown overhand appearing to rise. However as an engineer I must tell you that absent some incredible extraneous force put on a thrown baseball, it cannot escape it's initial velocity vector once released. By extraneous I mean a force that a human cannot exert on a baseball. It's simply impossible.

Perhaps some of the hostlity you feel directed your way is a result of the frustration quite a few of us feel with SAUmp. He's been shown excact mathematical equations to prove that he's wrong, yet he continues to argue. Of course some of the problems we have with him go beyond this more complex issue and go directly to the root of his umpiring philosophies. It doesn't seem to matter to him how many excellent and seasoned umpires try to explain to him how inept his ideas are. He will still argue and argue. It's oft been said that when the worlds against you, you should bet on the world.


Tim.

Re: Re: Re: Man,
 

If we have a secret website or listserv or both, we'll never tell. We need someplace to get away from the Smitty Sextet.

But this time, alas, it was a coincidence. Sorry to disappoint.

Careful, Tim - you'll get a reputation as a troll feeder! :)

Here's my nibble for the troll... perhaps if your 1st or 2nd post on the subject didn't veer into the neverneverland of absurd Flat-Earth-Society propaganda (i.e. the earth is only 8000 years old, so therefore it's possible that a ball can rise), you might have been taken more seriously. And I, at least, was civil to you until you went off the deep end and I realized this was just more trolldom.

Are you guys serious about this stuff?

I only want to know one thing: Is the pitch good enough to get for a strike?

This is rich!
Apparently your college education stopped short of teaching you how to understand the english language.
Here is what I said:

"Science says the earth is billions of years old, all us umpires evolved from rats and a baseball can't rise.
Reality is the earth is 8,000 years old, thankfully we did not evolve from rats, at least most of us, and a baseball can rise. Of all the things science is wrong about rising fastballs seems to be the least of their transgressions."

As you can see, I never said because the earth is 8000 yrs old a baseball can rise. I simply stated that here are two mistakes science has made, the least of which is whether a baseball rises.
Did you purposely misquote me or simply not understand?
I doubt that you will respond to this, but I really would like an answer.
On top of everything else I'm learning about you I'll see if the word coward fits as well.

Here's a little window into what appears to be a little mind.
Because I take a biblical christian perspective on creation and age of the earth, in your eyes that automatically makes me a sad troll spewing propaganda in neverneverland and not worthy of civility.
WOW Is this what the officials forum is all about?

Do you actually believe that?
 

NLUmp:

Do you seriously take religion as scientific fact? There is overwhelming scientific evidence for an approxiamately 4 billion year old Earth and for evolution of species. Creationistic "theories" are completely and utterly untenable. I could keep going all day but I'll stop until you try me.