An Unbelievable Throw?

[NIump50]

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. [/B]

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.

[kylejt]

"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.

[jxt127]

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.

[PWL]

Originally posted by BigUmp56


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.




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

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.

[SAump]

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.

[bob jenkins]

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?

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.

[BigUmp56]

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.

[SAump]

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!

[BigUmp56]

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.

[NIump50]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

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.

[NIump50]

Originally posted by NIump50

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?

[NIump50]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

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.

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)

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by NIump50
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 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.

[SAump]

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.

[SAump]

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.