I now present a case study in human sexuality. The population of the US is roughly 300 million people.
Most of these people will accept that a young girl can throw a softball riser underhand. Some have trouble explaining how a man can throw an ^OVERHAND RISING 100 mph FASTBALL^ and find the matter unbelievable.

Let's consider half the population to be male. Out of these 150 million men, let's take 1000 of the best of the best baseball players in the country. How many of these ballplayers can actually throw 100 mph baseball consistently throughout a baseball game? If we take an ultra-conservative number of 150 MEN, then the odds of seeing someone throw a rising fastball is ONE in a MILLION. However if we want to represent reality, then we would have to only consider about 15 AMERICANS who can actually throw 100 mph fastball consistently. The odds of seeing someone throw a rising fastball is then ONE in TEN-MILLION.

Now I can understand why some would say that a rising fastball cannot be thrown overhand with odds like that. It's certainly a one in ten-million search. It's like saying that you'll never win the state lottery. That may be TRUE, but someone else will WIN the lottery. He just has to have a WINNING TICKET specifically wrapped up in a STRONG RIGHT or LEFT ARM. I want to know why you refuse to beleive former lottery winners and very special BASEBALL HALL of FAMERS could not do it. Their strikeout records speak for them. Why would you argue against the possibility?


[Edited by SAump on Mar 4th, 2006 at 08:27 PM]

One word: Physics

<i>Why would you still argue against the possibility? </i>

We had a cosultant working for us last year, and he is reknown for his research in baseball physics. I believe he said in order for a normally seamed baseball to rise from that distance it has to be thrown over 150mph.

Let me know when THAT guy comes up to pitch.

"The odds of seeing someone throw a rising fastball is then ONE in TEN-MILLION."

I think I see your problem. "Seeing" a rising fastball, and it actually happening are two different things. I've "seen"(I grew up in the '70's) lots of stuff. Don't mean they actually exsisted.

I like your logic however. Can you extrapolate the same thinking for human levetation? Now THAT would be cool!

not this **** again

Brian:

Can't you take this to one of your professors in the physics department and see what they have to say? I'd like to put an end to this as well.


Tim.

thats actually not a bad idea. im on spring break right now but i could probably stop in and talk for a while with one of my old teachers when i get back.

"Most of these people will accept that a young girl can throw a softball riser underhand."

And 100% of those people would be wrong.

That myth has been debunked with the use of video analysis. The study was done using a college D-1 pitcher who is generally regarded as having one of the best "risers" in the game, Sarah Pauley. Throughout her career she has been among the college leaders in strikeouts, with the "riser" her bread-and-butter pitch.

To a man- or woman- her teammates, coaches and the opposing players have all credited her pitch with "rising" through the strike zone. But when analyzed with video, where the trajectory of her "riser" could be easily tracked, this was found to not be the case.

The fact is, this "rise ball" as thrown by an accomplished D-1 college pitcher regarded as having one of the best "risers" in the game, was actually coming through the zone about flat with a couple of degrees of downward angle.

The conclusion of the study was that the "rise ball" does not rise. That is, it does not follow a gravity-defying upside-down parabolic path, like going up a ski jump.

Rather, the ball was simply not dropping at a rate the hitter's would normally see and was thus creating the illusion to be "rising".

If your premise is that "even a little girl can do it, so why not a big, strong man" your premise would be wrong. In reality, even a big, strong highly-trained and accomplished girl can't do it!

[Edited by BretMan on Mar 4th, 2006 at 05:59 PM]

Let me put this to rest, with the help of a friend.

http://www.sie.arizona.edu/sysengr/

Click on his baseball link, and find the Power Point file that references the rising fastball myth.

Lots of science to make your head spin.

"deja vu all over again"

A friend of mine is a professor of aeronautical engineering at Princeton University. I assume he would know the issues involved. I'm going to ask him and relay what he says.

About your friend?
 

Does s/he like stockcar racing? Tell 'em that I once saw a stockcar RISE 10-12 feet through the air and tumble over and over at speeds of 180 mph. There was such a strong upward lift on the bottom of all cars that race officials had to adopt SAFETY requirements MANY years ago. Wings were required to provide a downward force to keep the car from RISING off the ground. The same thing is true for powerboats traveling at speeds of 100 mph. Now I want to know if a 5 ounce baseball with SEAMS passing through the heavy warm AIR I breath at sea-level in June at speeds of 100 mph also experiences a small RISE due to a well-known force called LIFT.

Re: About your friend?
 

If you ever see a spherical race car or speedboat, let me know. 'Til then .......

"Now I want to know if a 5 ounce baseball with SEAMS passing through the heavy warm AIR I breath at sea-level in June at speeds of 100 mph also experiences a small RISE due to a well-known force called LIFT. "

SAump,

Did you read the info I provided?

If you did, what part of it don't you get? I know it was a lot of big words, but he did provide some neato pictures too.

Catch it?
 

Most of what I read sounds like any baseball writer's comments on pitching, not very scientific. I found several ERRORS. He quickly dismissed the MLB pitchers swearing they get a rise out of the four seam fastball. That claim doesn't agree with the guy in the white coat. I would like to KNOW what MLB PITCHERS said it rises. Skeptically, I would like to know how they feel about having an optical dillusion.

http://www.sie.arizona.edu/sysengr/p...seballPath.pdf

The lab guy said, "This could be the reason that pitchers often say the four-seam fastball rises." So ONE guy in the WHITE coat is your credible witness. You rely on him for all this info. You believe his optical illusion tune. With the story goes the incredible evidence of at least 15 HALL of FAME pitchers who all established league leading strikeout records throwing a four-seam fastball.

The pitcher and catcher both say it RISES above the intended target and hitters also swear to that. The MLB pitcher has years of experience under his belt and he should have a clue where he is aiming his pitch by now. If he is surprised by the location of a sailing four-seam fastball, then it may be because it rose above the intended target. Get a clue from the guy throwing in the majors! The MLB hitter has a better idea of why he swung and missed than the story the guy in the white coat has been spreading around the country.


[Edited by SAump on Mar 5th, 2006 at 04:06 AM]

"So ONE guy in the WHITE coat is your credible witness."

Yup. I know this guy, work that he does, and the people he's worked for. Trust me (or not) he knows what he's talking about.

Actually, it's an optical conclusion he's writing about. It's a little different, and probably outside the realm of thinking of the typical MLB player and some posters.

You believe what you want to. I've got no problem with that. We all know how hard baseball myths are to kill.



[Edited by kylejt on Mar 5th, 2006 at 12:57 PM]

He sees dead people.
 

Trust me, his theory has so many holes that its beginning to smell alot like Swiss cheese. I really hope not to offend, but to educate.

"This model has not been validated experimentally"

"Anyone can prove that a body moving in air goes the opposite direction of the deflected air, which conserves momentum."

"The principle of conservation of momentum requires that the ball have downward momentum, which makes it go down."

I don't want to take away from your friend's accomplishments. Afterall, he has already published this article in the American Scientist. I only wish some other American scientists would have been a little more skeptical before the article went public.

But how could he miss the location of the seperation points? One and four o'clock are way out of whack. Take a look at the streamline photo. A child would tell the seperation points lie at twelve and five oclock.

Why five and not six? LIFT!

Hey, isn't Roger throwing the two-seamer? That is one beautiful picture. I will save that article just for his picture.

Does he make this up?
 

"A good major league batter can distinguish the difference between these angles."

He's talking about 2.3 and 2.4 degrees of seperation. The difference in a tenth of a degree at such a relatively LOW angle is almost impossible to recognize. A critical flicker-fusion frequency validates my opinion. Don't believe me? Watch the second hand on a clock. It moves. Watch the minute hand on a clock. It appears to move over time. Watch the hour hand on a clock. It doesn't appear to move at all. One can only sense the change by keeping track over time of the old vs. new location in between the old vs new hour.

Hey that also validates my RISING fastball theory. The difference in a tenth of a degree at such a relatively LOW angle is almost impossible to recognize. One can only sense the change by keeping track of the old vs. new pitch location between the old 2-seam straight pitch vs new 4-seam RISING pitch. The difference on location as sworn by pitcher, catcher, batter and umpire describes the LIFT of a RISING fastball.

AND this my friends has already been experimentally validated throughout the last 100 years of baseball.




[Edited by SAump on Mar 5th, 2006 at 01:15 PM]

Obviously physics is involved, but aren't physicists accustomed to dealing with objects in a vacuum? Isn't the "rising fastball" question really more one of aerodynamics?

Anyone who has ever played wiffle ball (everybody on this forum, I'm sure) knows that a wiffle ball can rise on its way to the batter. And I would bet that nobody could make a 16-lb shotput rise. A baseball is somewhere in between. Does anyone doubt that a machine could be developed that could shoot a baseball through air and provide it with such spin that it would rise? It seems to me that the question is not whether it is possible, but whether a human being could do it.

The I Speaketh
 

"We all know how hard baseball myths are to kill."

You are defending a myth. One created for entertainment value because there is little scientific basis in your pseudo-scientific research as it aplies to our ATMOSPHERE^. Now come down from those clouds (gravity and SPIN) and take a deep breath of fresh AIR. Did you reach terminal velocity (120 mph or HIGHER) and feel a strong wind?

You have no WIND in your argument. You have no wind resistance. Then you have no HOOK, LINER, SINKER or RISER. All you have is gravity and SPIN. You incorrectly allow gravity and SPIN to supply the PRIMARY forces on a baseball. I have said, all along, that these are only SECONDARY forces.

The primary force must be supplied by the PITCHER. You fail to recognize a very strong HPG in the AIR passing around a 100 mph baseball. You fail to recognize qualities about the air you breath, both horizontally (humid sea-level) and vertically. You fail to recognize WIND, WIND resistance, and LIFT.

But you continue to defend the myth.

It's fine that you don't understand this. Most people don't. You're not alone. It's OK, really.

http://www.usastats.com/Section58/Mar2003/wood.html

I've now put this to five physicists including one at the Fermi National Accelarator Laboratory. All agreed that a pitched baseball cannot rise at the time it is near or crosses the plate.

It is obvious that we could have 500 physicists agree and SA would still not accept reality. Maybe he stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Re: About your friend?
 

I saw a car get air under it and leave the track in the 1st turn at the ROCK many years ago. The turns are banked pretty good so it took another car bump to get wind under the car to make it leave the track. Wings provide lift for an airplane to fly. Spoilers help keep race cars on the track, although they will get up if air gets under them. NASCAR is a different subject entirely from a fastball that is thrown at a downward angle toward the plate, and once released can not accelerate, it can only slow down, and drop.

I could exercise my connection at Fermi as well, making it two people working for the US DoE that are physicists saying this can't happen, but Garth is still right. I need to try those Holiday Inn Express places.

id also like to point out that comparing a baseball to a boat or a car is one of the most ridiculous things ever.

The only thing sillier is us arguing with him.

Re: Re: About your friend?
 

Yes, you are correct. NASCAR cars only flip when they are spun around backwards, causing air to be trapped underneath the rear of the car. This creates so much push that the air packs in under the rear of the car, and flips it. It has nothing to do with a fastball, total moot point.

you are getting angles very, very wrong. The difference between a 2.3 and a 2.4 degree angle are huge, if you look from really far away. Let's start close. Assume we are on a unit circle (with diameter of 2 ft) For every 1 degree of seperation, there is a (pi*2)/360 difference at the edge of the circle. When the circumference moves to 121 ft (2x distance from mound to home plate. It is twice as far because we are pitching from the middle of the circle, not the edge, so we must assume that the edge of the circle is 60'6" away), this changes to (pi*121)/360, or roughly a little over a foot. divide that down to get a tenth of a degree, and we still have a very noticeable difference. Hardly noticeable? You may just be swinging in the dirt.

i also forgot to mention how ridiculous this argument is, but i'll add my two cents. There are many optical illusions in real life. Think of looking down the blacktop when it is really hot out, seeing tall buildings as your line of sight is curved, etc. There are many things that generate lift. It may very well be possible for a human to generate this lift. So let me come to a conclusion: I will defend the rising fastball. I will also defend the laws of physics. Both are possible. Only one of the two happens every single time.

The first time this came up, I did my homework and presented it here, and SAump disgraced my state by just not getting it and insisting on bringing inappropriate calculations into the mix (LIFT??? That's embarrassingly stupid --- please SA, move across the Red River and raise the average IQ in both states).

Now I realize he's just a troll trying to stir stuff up. His entire argument is verbal and non-analytical. Go into a physics lab and tell them that something they know to be impossible is in fact possible, based on the word of MLB players, and you'll be laughed out of the joint (by the 2 out of 10 physicists that have a sense of humor).

Troll, Troll, Troll. Stop feeding him.

From reading a document from a physicist it would take a backspin of 3600 rpm at 90mph to have a pitch rise. It's the magnus force and the best pitchers throw at 1800 rpm.

Besides theres been soooo much debate on this over the years that there would be conclusive video were it possible.

"Fed the fish it provided entertainment"

Calculations
 

Tan(.1 degree) => Get your facts. My calculations over 60 feet is a 1.2 inch difference. That means the faster ball would rise 1.2 inches if released from the same angle. I know, I know, it doesn't RISE because it only appears to fall less than normal due to gravitational influences. Add the air resistance passing around 100 mph fastball and the gravitaional effect will decrease even more as the target trajectory approaches a straight line -> FLIGHT.

Now when does a rise appear. I have read 150 mph and 135 mph. But was that in Denver or LA? Anyone care to recognize the difference in atmospheric conditions?
Don't let that little baseball fool you. Don't drop the ball like the grown adult reaching up into the sky only to have it fall right behind him. Gee, why didn't the ball come straight down. You may answer SPIN, but it actually has to do with falling through increasing AIR PRESSURE -> LIFT. What are the needed ingredients for FLIGHT?

The Fermi lab guys have their hands full w/ more impt things. Now I only suppose the Fermi guys say a baseball cannot achieve LIFT at 100 mph? I would hope they know something about FLIGHT characteristics: 1) Atmosphere, 2) Velocity, 3) Lift! I tend to think the conditions are RIPE.

The calc at 135 was done at sea level. Anything higher would need to be faster.

The reason the Fermi guys won't bother calculating lift on a sphere is that there can be no lift on a sphere - whatever calculation you use to come up with an upward force on the bottom of the ball is exactly negated by the same calculation on the top of the ball.

And no, raised seams will not change this particular calculation, although they do come into play when calculating the Bernoulli Force that comes from the spin of the ball.

I'll give this one last try, against my better judgement.

If you insist on saying a ball has lift, why does it only have lift if the ball has backspin? Almost all of the change in vector (and all of that that matters for this discussion) of the ball that is not because of gravity is related to spin - which is why a curveball curves, and a ball with topspin drops ... and a ball with backspin falls more slowly than it might otherwise have fallen.

If a sphere had lift, then a CURVEball would rise. It doesn't.

day-yum, SA, if you spent a 1/10 as much time working on your game as you do spewing BS arguments, you'd be in the bigs already :D

I resighted my 308 last fall for 200 yards. After I had it zeroed in I took some shots off the bench at 50, 100 and 150 yds because you never know where Bambi is going to show up. Anyway, I wanted to know how high I was at each yardage so I would know how to adjust my shot. Interestingly enough, at 50 yds I was dead on to .5 high. I expected to be a 2-3 inches high.
At 100 yds I was 2.5 inches high, at 150 yds between 1.5 and 1.75 high and at 200 dead on. Which means between 50 yds and 100 yds the bullet defied gravity and rose 2 inches.
My boys and I often play paintball on the farm and many times I see the little round spherical ball rise up and over my intended target right before I get blasted with one that didn't rise.

Why did these two objects rise? I don't know, I'm just a dumb farm boy and I haven't taken the time to learn all this aerodynamic stuff, but if the pitcher the hitter and the catcher all say the ball rose, I'm not arguing with them.
In every industry, it's the white shirts in the office working on theory and the men in the field working in reality, I tend to side with reality.

Deep Deep thought of the day...
The baseball is like a microcosm of the earth.
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.

Damn... well that says it all, doesn't it.

Could you give me the fancy scientific calculations for me to determine which way my son's knuckleball is going to go?

You are apparently new and missed the initial discussion. Knuckleballs were not part of this discussion. The initial question was whether an overhand fastball can rise.

SAump

The Magnus force has been proven in wind tunnels.

BUT

As stated in the article you provided:

"A fastball delivered with an overhand arm motion produces backspin. That is, the balls top surfaces spins back toward the pitcher, and the bottom spins forward. The Magnus force will “lift” such a pitch. More accurately it decreases the distance the ball falls due to gravity."

As I'm sure you know, even an airplane, which has lifting surfaces (wings) that are designed to provide maximum lift will not lift the airplane if the volume of air passing underneath the lifting surfaces is not adequate.

In your calculation you must consider:

1. The shape of the ball (Calculate the surface area of the ball which can provide lift).
2. The weight of the ball.
3. The volume of air that would be required to pass under the lifting surfaces of the ball in order to provide positive lift.
4. The speed a human would have to throw the ball in order to acheive the required volume of air passing underneath the lifting surfaces for the ball to rise (this would have to take into account the density of the air where the pitch occurred).

There is no indication in the data provided (the publication you referenced) that indicates that a MLB player throwing a baseball can achieve the required airflow, in fact, it indicates that a ball thrown by a MLB pitcher does not provide adequate airflow under the ball's lifting surfaces to provide positive lift.

Bottom line....the ball does not rise...it merely does not drop as fast as other types of pitches. Sorry!

i used to play paintball and never saw a paintball rise, even when shooting at grossly over-the-limit settings. i dont remember what normal fields limit you to, maybe like 275 FPS or something like that, but even with my Impulse cranked up to essentially it's maximum before it breaks, balls still dropped.

Perhaps his paintball gun was shooting knuckleballs.

No, I understand the discussion.
My point is that I believe the movement of a knuckleball cannot be predicted because there are too many variables.
If that is true then I humbly submit that perhaps a 100 mph fastball can't always be predicted because of variables not accounted for.
Is it possible that whatever conditions enable a 65 mph knuckler to rise 3-4 inches could also help a 100 mph 4 seamer with backspin rise a 1/2".
I'm no scientist, but it doesn't seem out of the question.

You are right on one account
I am new to the group and look forward to having fun discussing and learning more about the rules, as well as debating subjects like these.
In the long run I don't care if a ball goes up, down or around, I'm just looking for strikes.

I'm not diving into this... but I can tell you for certain that the forces that cause a knuckleball to move in unpredictable ways are minimal (i.e. less than 1/1000 of a percent of the total forces) when the ball is spinning even a little.

Come to think of it all my shots eventually dropped as well.
I suggest however that a few of them rose before they dropped. You just weren't paying attention.
I don't think your barrel was rifled, the balls certainly are not, consequently, the spin is not always consistent. The Impulse is a good gun but not above shooting a knuckler on occasion.

Now we're getting somewhere.
SAump was at 1 in ten million
now we're at 1 in a 1000.
Pretty soon even the change-ups are going to be rising

saump....your calculation and mine are the exact same.....how about reading my post first? besides that, who cares....

It would take someone who thinks the earth is 8000 years old to think that a fastball can rise as it crosses the plate and not understand the concept of sighting-in a rifle.

My lord, this is just too fargin phunni for words, so I'll stop now. No, I have to add, at least we have seen what it takes to agree with SA.

[Edited by GarthB on Mar 7th, 2006 at 09:59 PM]

Some paintball guns run a curved barrel, called a flatline. It puts tremendous backspin on the ball, and couple that with deflection of the shape of the balls caused by the G's and you get lift.

I've seen Tippman guns shoot risers. If a human being could throws balls that fast with deformed sphere, I'm sure they'd rise too. No doubt about it.

Relativity
 

Check out: http://www.physics.ubc.ca/%7Ewaltham/air/FwB.pdf
Let me sumarize for YOU. The title speaks for itself, "Flight without Bernoulli." Then to the point, "Birds and aircraft fly because they are constantly pushing AIR downwards."

Now which way was that 100 mph baseball headed and which way was the air pushing back? Didn't Katrina's and Rita's winds devestate the lower GULF coast this past summer. There is a big difference between 70 mph and 100 mph WINDS. Someone needs to consider AIR viscosity, pressure, temperature and density in them, there winds too.

All I have read about gravity and spin could take place in DENVER during the winter. How many people can throw a curveball (millions) compared to 100 mph fastball (15)? Oh you can make it curve, but YOU cannot make it rise. Why must you insist so damn hard that the few who CAN are really no different than YOU? They can make it RISE because they can throw it a lot harder than YOU.

For entertainment, this article about the flight charcteristics of a bumble bee comes to mind.
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/...1/mathtrek.asp

I know one thing
 

I will not delete this thread.

Just thought I would add my Angle of Attack is 5 degrees.

http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/airflylvl3.htm

Check out Figures 9 AoA vs Lift Coeffivient and 14. AoA vs Speed

Very similar to a 100 mph BASEBALL tossed from a pitchers mound. All I need to FLY!

[Edited by SAump on Mar 8th, 2006 at 02:42 AM]

Ballistics test
 

I have already given a reason that confirms/predicts the ballistic results described by Nlump50. Too bad it was deleted. But remember the gardern hose analogy. Attach a small handle and restrict the pressure comming out at the end of the hose. Drop the hose on the ground. The garden hose should dance around and defy the laws of gravity. Anyone care to try to hang on to a 3 inch firehose under significant water pressure? I think you would need help holding the nozzle still. The responsible force in both examples is not Bernoulli, it is LIFT.

And I suppose your thoughts have more credibility since your ancestral line includes fish and monkeys?

Those who do not have brains that evolved from the amoeba understood the two points I was trying to make.

1. Spinning objects can rise depite gravity.
Therefore a mere gravitational argument against a rising fastball is not sufficient.

2. I admitted that I have not taken the time to understand aerodynamics of why the bullet rises.

Like I said before, if the pitcher said it rose, the catcher said it rose and the batter said it rose I tend to believe it rose despite what all the white coats have to say about it. Ironically enough they all believe they evolved from the lemming.

Wait a minute... are you trying to imply that those of certain religious persuasions have brains that evolved from different sources than those with different persuasions?

Of course. That's why the bulk of the discussion revolves around SPIN (and specifically what effect spin has on a ball). Did you even read the links? But gravity can be calculated - and is the basis of the argument in that you know exactly how much acceleration downward must be counteracted by whatever other forces are acting on the ball.

Yes, this is obvious. Among other things.

Perhaps you can relate to this:
Newtons theory of energy didn't include mass converting to energy because he never saw mass moving any where close to the speed of light, however when Einstien was able to see mass moving at or close to the speed of light he added to his formula to prove that mass can convert to energy.
Was Newton wrong? To be kind we can say he didn't have all the facts or consider all the variables.
So to be kind I won't say you're wrong, perhaps you're just not considering all the facts and variables.

PS
It's not so bad being compared to Newton is it?

Good grief. If a physics degree from a major university is not enough to allow me to understand the simple mechanics of a spinning ball moving over a short distance, I wasted a WHOLE lot of money.

I assure you that we have all of the relevant information for such a simple problem.

And you, sir, are now relegated to the sad stack of trolls that should be ignored going forward. Heck... you've just made one poster only the 2nd most obtuse troll around. SA should thank you.

This is about as funny as watching my oldest son argue with his mother about how he doesnt make any mess in the house. The clothes on the bathroom floor are all his yet it's not his mess.

You said it not me

Quote:

I assure you that we have all of the relevant information for such a simple problem.

Said the physics community 40 years ago when explaining the curveball was an optical illusion.

But of course now we are in the enlightened era where we have no more to learn.

I'm wondering why this forum even exists. It seems it should just be "Ask mcrowder" since you know it all anyway.
And had I known you could relegate me to a sad troll I promise I wouldn't have crossed you.
Please have mercy O Great One

Man,
 

I thought PWL and SAUmp were the bestest!

I finally have a six man crew.

DudeinBlue
Dumbdrum
SAUmp
PWL
Nlump50
btdt

I can now rest in piece.

Re: Man,
 

Goodness, all six of them would want to be URF.

Re: Man,
 

What a coincidence. I've got a banjo sextet with the same performers.

...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.

Bullets do not rise from spin.
Airplanes do not fly by pushing air down.

All firearms are bore-sighted by aligning the angle of the barrel with the angle of the sight at a fixed point in the distance. Up until that point the bullet 'rises' due to the upward angle of the barrel in relation to the sight.
Airplanes fly by pusing air up. Look at the shape of a wing, flat on bottom and curved over the top. The Flat surface does not push air down but the curved surface pushes air up. The wing displace the same amount of air over both top and bottom surfaces. With the air going over the top, it need to travel a greater distance so the air pressure is lower. The pressure differential pushes the wing up and the wing pushes the plane up. That is lift.
Planes have lift due to constant accelration.
Baseball's and bullets have constant decelleration. Therefore, they fall.

Re: Do you actually believe that?
 

No
Science is a man thing
Creation is a God thing.

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.
You're going to believe the evidence to support your side
I believe the evidence supporting mine. On this subject I won't be swayed. I'm sure you won't be either, so there we are.
I already know that I'm a sad troll spreading propaganda in neverneverland so save your breath.

Sorry Wool
At 50 yds my 308 shoots flat, between 100-150 yds it's 1.5-2" high and then flat again at 200.
It does make a small difference based on how hot a round I'm firing but it rises none the less.
I'm pretty sure it's not an optical illusion.

Re: Re: Do you actually believe that?
 

According to my dad, I did.

Let me repeat
 

If anything, each of my post adds something NEW. I have posted many times on this theme because I enjoy it. I don't keep repeating the same old lines. I have offered a variety of ideas for you to consider. About the only thing I repeat is that a baseball can be thrown THROWN OVERHAND over a horizontal distance. If it is thrown hard enough, say 100 mph, it will not appear to rise, IT WILL RISE before it HITS the MITT. It REALLY NEVER FALLS if it travels horizontally, does it? The fact you can't see it RISE may be the very reason you don't believe it is rising at all. Let's see, Horizontal flight = Balance of RISE and FALL, Hmmmm.

The baseball, released from about 7 feet (under GRAVITY) falls 5 feet into the 2 foot high strike zone because that is where the PITCHER AIMED. That's my argument. An 18 year old kid can throw the baseball HORIZONTALLY for 60 feet. He doesn't need to aim above the catcher's mit. The catcher can stand up and raise his arm to seven feet. The pitcher after some warm up tosses can throw the ball straight into the catcher's mitt. NO GRAVITATIONAL effects until the ball begins to FALL. No aiming 5 feet above the mitt (HEEHEEHEE). Any third baseman in pro ball can throw a LINER to first. Gravity plays little role on a LINER. SORRY DUDES. Its time to change the tune. Perhaps the ball would have fallen had the mitt not been there. But I didn't see any fall over shorter distances.

Whose Silly Logic?
 

Who deleted the original thread? I posted many quality statements and mostly original. Now I have read similar statements expressed by another NEW member. You guys confuse his argument with mine. You attack him as if it was me who is repeating the message. You add his name to the SEXtet because he is willing to express an opinion different from your own. How can you shave in the morning?

Man is walking the earth for some 8000 (or more) years wondering about FLIGHT. For the last 100 years, man has witnessed FLIGHT. Don't pretend LIFT only exists for airplanes because they have wings. I have often stated that it is time to update your physics book.

When you JUMP, the GROUND supplies LIFT. Well so does the air at 100 mph. The arms and legs supply the energy. LIFT exists for any FLYING OBJECT (spinning or NOT). It would be another falling object and falling doesn't amount to FLYING, unless your an acrobatic skydiver using his arms and legs like WINGS.

[Edited by SAump on Mar 10th, 2006 at 02:29 AM]

Re: Let me repeat
 

when sitting in my grandfather's seats on the first base side, pretty good seats, aramis ramirez does not throw liners to first. if i remember correctly, hes a third baseman, in pro ball, and hes a good player (opinion). i might just have super human eyesight, but i can see a drop in the balls that he throws. ive also seen rafael furcal of the braves, who is known to have a very good arm from short, viewing from those same seats throws balls that drop.

could you also state why gravity plays little role on a "LINER", and why there is supposedly no fall over short distances?

NONOSi NONONOSi NO
 

Airplanes do not fly by pushing air down. (FALSE, wings push air DOWN)
Airplanes fly by pushing air up. (FALSE, the ROUND leading edge pushes air BOTH UP and DOWN, mostly down) If any plane pushes air up, then it is going DOWN.

Look at the shape of a wing, flat on bottom and curved over the top. (TRUE to supply lift) If it was curved over the bottom -> NO LIFT!
The ANGLE of the bottom edge connected to the plane is PITCHED upward and pushes MORE air downward. More AIR is pushed below the plane than above.

The Flat surface does not push air down but the curved surface pushes air up. (FALSE, impossible)

The wing displace the same amount of air over both top and bottom surfaces. (FALSE)

With the air going over the top, it need to travel a greater distance so the air pressure is lower. (FALSE)

The pressure differential pushes the wing up and the wing pushes the plane up. That is lift. (TRUE)

Planes have lift due to constant acceleration. (FALSE)
----------------------------------

Almost EVERYTHING written ABOVE about AIRPLANES is completely FALSE. Please don't believe it. I have already posted a website that explains why it is WRONG. I really am not sure why he would write it.

[Edited by SAump on Mar 10th, 2006 at 01:41 AM]

Headed somehwere?
 

could you also state why gravity plays little role on a "LINER", and why there is supposedly no fall over short distances?
----------
Can you explain how - 16 ft/s/s or - 9.8 m/s/s applies to anything that rises, or even a LINER? I can only uses to explain the falling part of a non-liner parabolic flight path. I can't use it to explain the rising part of the flight path or a LINER. I need other INFO to do that. But I can use a horizontal line to explain the 57-foot path of a 100 mph fastball that comes to a very sudden STOP. I suppose you saw it FALL too.

Ever see a LINER RISE into a 3B glove from the 3B side?

Just a very good arm? Raffy has one of the best arms in the game. I don't suppose you think he only has very good footspeed. SO you saw Raffy toying with a very slow baserunner and you want to say ???. Can he throw it 100 mph?

Need a LIFT?

i knew you would post pretty much everything in that post. thanks for the laugh.

ps. i love your random caps lock problems.

I can hear Ned Beatty now.

Afraid to FLY?
 

i knew you would post pretty much everything in that post. thanks for the laugh.

I already knew you were a mindreader. You need not brag about it and tell everybody else. Oh, I forgot, thats how you mindreaders STRIKE UP the bandwagon. I also knew you weren't headed anywhere. Thanks for the confirmation.

Love the pointless questions. Too bad you never understand the answers. Can you name any other third basemen with weak arms? NO, please don't answer that COACH cause I might DISAGREE. I would rather know why they aren't playing first or second?


[Edited by SAump on Mar 10th, 2006 at 02:07 AM]

Just one problem, SNIPER
 

All firearms are bore-sighted by aligning the angle of the barrel with the angle of the sight at a fixed point in the distance.
----------
Just which fixed point in the distance are you talking about?

It takes MORE than a little talent/practice locating all those fixed points along a LINE. I suppose if you tell us, we can all become mindreading swat members overnight.

Sniper
 

You remember NEWTON's famous APPLE, I read that one was drawn on the side of his tomb somewhere in ENGLAND. Everybody here knows about Gravity. I wish they would consider a clue from the other 3 or 4 laws of MOTION.

Say a bullet exits a long barrel. Suppose those forces behind the bullet follow it upon exit. Suppose those forces are greatly reduced soon afterward by AIR. Do you think that the back end of the bullet might drop due to GRAVITATIONAL influences or is it an effect from the sudden reduction IN AIR of the original gun powder blasting force?

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.

Hmmm,
 

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.

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.

OK
 

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.

Dear Mr. B
 

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,

Re: Hmmm,
 

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.

Re: OK
 

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!

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

Touche

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?