An Unbelievable Throw?

[NIump50]

Originally posted by BigUmp56

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.

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.

[cbfoulds]

Originally posted by NIump50

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.

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!!

[cbfoulds]

Originally posted by NIump50

Do you seriously believe we came from a big bang?
IMHO it's a much greater stretch to believe big bang than it is to believe in God

I'll save you some time in this discussion.
I doubt that you have researched the other side of the argument. There's much evidence to disprove evolution and volumes of info on the subject.

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.

[CJN]

Originally posted by cbfoulds

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!!

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.

[SAump]

"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?

[BigUmp56]

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.

[NIump50]

Originally posted by cbfoulds

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. [/B]

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.

[SAump]

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.

[DG]

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.

[cbfoulds]

Originally posted by NIump50
What is the difference between a scientific fact and theory, surely they are not interchangeable words like you just used in the post.
I'll play:
- a scientific "fact" is objective experimental results or empirical observation: if you drop a hammer, it always falls toward the floor, not the ceiling. It is repeatable, and it is universally and indisputably true: every observer will see the hammer fall toward the floor, every time.
- a "theory" is an explanation of "why" a fact is so; or a prediction of "what" will happen or be observed under certain circumstances; in fact, the true test of a good theory is it's predictive ability - it's capacity to foretell the outcome of experiments or investigations that no-one has made yet, and to be correct in those "prophesies". Einstein made a number of [at the time] outlandish predictions, based on relativity, none of which, to my knowledge, have failed to be demonstrated correct. Gravitational lensing of light by and from distant galaxies is the most spectacular and memorable [for me, at the moment]. A theory can be DIS-proved [by demonstration of a single fact (see above) which cannot be true if the theory is correct; it is the nature of science that NO true "theory" can ever be definitively "proved" to be true, since a genuine scientific mind is always willing to considcer the possibility that there is, somewhere, that single inconsistent fact. Rarely, when a set of principles of a theory has been tested and found to have no observable flaws, it may be called a "law": gravity, thermodynamics, Newtonian mechanics, and so forth: but science remains sufficiently skeptical that the possibility that these "laws" are wrong is left open [you'd just better bring your "A" game and some real GOOD evidence, if you plan to challenge them].

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.
Nobody tries to carbon date anything a million years old: won't work - too little Carbon 14 left after that long.
CAN carbon date stuff more than 8,000 years old. Been done literally thousands of times. Each one is a scientific "fact" which completely DISproves the "theory" of the "young earth".
There are other scientific methods of dating older items, esp. rocks and such. Suffice it to say that some fossils [which, as my 14 year old son urges me to point out, are traces of prior life where the organic matter has (usually)been replaced by minerals, leaving no Carbon 14 to date: "DUH, Dad", says he] are found in rocks which can be dated by scientifically reliable methods to ages orders of magnitude greater than 8,000 years b.p.

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.
I don't "seek to avoid creation". On the contrary, I am perfectly comfortable believing that "In the beginning, God created ..." and continues to create, everything that is, was, or ever will be. I do, however, find it almost too funny for words that there are people claiming to be people of faith who refuse to believe that the Almighty was capable of ordaining and setting in motion the mechanisms of creation that we are capable of observing thru science, simply because it offends their pride that He may have chosen to create our species from the elements of the earth thru an intermediate step of "lower" life.

Have to go now, my son needs to e-mail his girlfriend.
[/B]

[SAump]

"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!

[Rich Ives]

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.

[BigUmp56]

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]

[SAump]

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"

[cbfoulds]

Originally posted by Rich Ives


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.

So he tells me.