An Unbelievable Throw?

[NIump50]

Originally posted by mcrowder
Next on Jerry Springer, "When Trolls Collide - the seedy underbelly of Troll arguments"

Let them ramble on, guys, this is going no where. You can't convince someone who is 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.

Let it die.

As I suspected you lack character as well as an ability to think critically.
If you maliciously and purposefully misquoted me have the cohunnas to admit it. Talk about losing credibility, if you can't even quote a post on the officials forum correctly how can we believe your interpretation of physics, perhaps you're misquoting Newton as well.
Also, you and CJ play fast and loose with your terminology:
"scientific fact" and "overwhelming evidence"
Last I heard big bang is a theory, evolution is a theory and it is impossible to prove the accuracy of carbon dating.
Since you are the resident "expert" in physics, can you please tell us all the difference between scientific theory and fact.
I suggest you pull out your high school freshman science book and read it over a few times so as to avoid misquoting.

[Tim C]

I got it:

The earth is 8,000 years old.

No one has ever walked on the moon.

No airplane actually crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11.

And the Holocaust didn't happen.

Now I have my point of reference.

[jxt127]

George Carlin says it all when it comes to religion.

Gravity acts on everything. Even on a baseball thrown 100 mph between two players standing 5 feet apart.

[MrB]

If you guys are just happy sling stuff at each other then fine, but here goes

Newton’s First Law – if no net force acts on an object, it maintains it state of rest or its constant speed in a straight line.

Newton’s Second Law – if an unbalance force acts on an object, the object accelerates in the direction of force. The acceleration varies directly with the unbalance forced and inversely with the mass of the object. F = ma

Newton’s Third Law – for every action force, there is an equal and opposite reaction force.

Inertia – resistance to movement.

Newtons Law of Gravitation: Any object attracts another with a force that is directly proportional to their masses, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.



All of that stuff just says that a ball throwing at any speed will continue to travel in that direction and at that speed and will do so until it is acted upon by an outside force.
It also states that the largest mass around will have the greatest attractive force on an object.
So in theory the ball will be attracted toward the earth, unless there is an equal force in the opposite direction to balance out the force of gravity "g".

Regardless of anyone's belief system, that is what the science says, right or wrong, that is what it says.

Let's just get back to talking about situations on the field that directly impact us working the game.

[Tim C]

Actually, we all enjoy watching SAUmp self destruct. And I will always let PWL's complete body of work speak for itself.

Of course these are just my opinions,

[NIump50]

Originally posted by Tim C
I got it:

The earth is 8,000 years old.

No one has ever walked on the moon.

No airplane actually crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11.

And the Holocaust didn't happen.

Now I have my point of reference.

Certainly an attempt at logic.

Is your logic truly this flawed or are you simply so intolerant of anyone with a different veiw from yours that you're forced to lash out in such an absurd way?

If I had to guess, I'd say you've never read the first serious article or book for the case of a young earth.
Certainly I wouldn't expect someone with your sense of logic to change his mind, but it would show some initiative if you had even a fraction of info on the theory. I think the Highlights magazine had an article.
Go to your local pediatricians office for a copy, if you don't already subscribe.

[NIump50]

Originally posted by MrB
If you guys are just happy sling stuff at each other then fine, but here goes

Newton’s First Law – if no net force acts on an object, it maintains it state of rest or its constant speed in a straight line.

Newton’s Second Law – if an unbalance force acts on an object, the object accelerates in the direction of force. The acceleration varies directly with the unbalance forced and inversely with the mass of the object. F = ma

Newton’s Third Law – for every action force, there is an equal and opposite reaction force.

Inertia – resistance to movement.

Newtons Law of Gravitation: Any object attracts another with a force that is directly proportional to their masses, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.



All of that stuff just says that a ball throwing at any speed will continue to travel in that direction and at that speed and will do so until it is acted upon by an outside force.
It also states that the largest mass around will have the greatest attractive force on an object.
So in theory the ball will be attracted toward the earth, unless there is an equal force in the opposite direction to balance out the force of gravity "g".

Regardless of anyone's belief system, that is what the science says, right or wrong, that is what it says.

Let's just get back to talking about situations on the field that directly impact us working the game.

I've got audio from Howard Wood aka Smokey Joe Wood.
Reportedly one of the two fastest pitchers of his era, hence the nickname smokey, along with Walter Johnson. He claims he and Walter were the only pitchers of his time to have a "hump" in their fastball. He uses the word hump and also rising in his descriptions.
My bottom line is if the pitcher, catcher and batter all say it rose I'm not arguing. Someone said earlier, and I paraphrase 'if the world is against you, bet on the world'
Well, in the world of fastballs, if the pitcher, catcher and batter all agree it rose and the ump calls strike 3, what else is there?
Newton be damned, life is good!

[NIump50]

Originally posted by GarthB

According to my dad, I did.

Touche

[BigUmp56]

Nlump:

No one here has ever disputed the fact that a fastball can appear to rise. The jist of this discussion has been centered around the fact that while it may appear to rise, that appearance is an optical illusion. What it's doing is falling at a slower rate than expected. The laws of physics cannot be cheated or fooled like the perceptual capabilities of a man can be.


Tim.

[NIump50]

Originally posted by BigUmp56
Nlump:

No one here has ever disputed the fact that a fastball can appear to rise. The jist of this discussion has been centered around the fact that while it may appear to rise, that appearance is an optical illusion. What it's doing is falling at a slower rate than expected. The laws of physics cannot be cheated or fooled like the perceptual capabilities of a man can be.


Tim.

Are you saying that the trajectory of a 90mph fastball released 53.5'-54' from the plate the first 2 feet out of the pitchers hand is different than when it crosses the plate. We've all been behind the plate of a 85-90mph fastball there's no arc.
A 6' pitcher is releasing the ball at about shoulder height, he's coming down off the mound a bit, let's say he releases the ball about 5' above the plate and throwing to the knees 2' above the plate. The trajectory of the ball coming out of the hand is directly to the spot on a downward angle.
The ball is in a downward trajectory, because of our incredible minds and eyes we are able to determine right out of the pitchers hand where the ball should end up at the plate, if not, how could the ball ever be hit.
Now if the ball is coming toward you in a downward trajectory but does not go as low as it should, is it not rising above it's anticipated trajectory?
If the ball because of speed and backspin flattens out a 1/2 degree from it's downward trajectory isn't that for all practical purposes a rise?

[CJN]

Originally posted by NIump50

As I suspected you lack character as well as an ability to think critically.
If you maliciously and purposefully misquoted me have the cohunnas to admit it. Talk about losing credibility, if you can't even quote a post on the officials forum correctly how can we believe your interpretation of physics, perhaps you're misquoting Newton as well.
Also, you and CJ play fast and loose with your terminology:
"scientific fact" and "overwhelming evidence"
Last I heard big bang is a theory, evolution is a theory and it is impossible to prove the accuracy of carbon dating.
Since you are the resident "expert" in physics, can you please tell us all the difference between scientific theory and fact.
I suggest you pull out your high school freshman science book and read it over a few times so as to avoid misquoting.

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.

[jxt127]

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.

[BigUmp56]

Originally posted by NIump50

If the ball because of speed and backspin flattens out a 1/2 degree from it's downward trajectory isn't that for all practical purposes a rise?

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...lvingMain.html


Tim.

[NIump50]

Originally posted by jxt127
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.

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.

[phillips.alex]

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)