Posted by: Teacherman () on Tue May 18 11:39:32 2004

>>> The movement of the bathead at this point is reactionary. <<<
>
> Hi Teacherman
>
> Please explain how your “reactionary” force induces angular displacement differently than torque, the recognized physics law governing angular displacement. IF “reactionary” is a law of physics, list any text where I can study its definition and principles.
>
> You stated, “You continue to use Sheffield's prelaunch movement as proof of something you call an absolute when in fact, Sheffield and a handful of others are the only ones that do what he does. How can that be an absolute.”
>
> Teacherman, the laws of physics must remain constant under all circumstances, not just the obvious as when obtaining readings from a torque wrench. The laws must also cover the more rare circumstances such as the torque applied in Sheffield’s pre-launch movements.
>
> Jack Mankin
>

I'm not a scientist and try not to be a pseudo-scientist.

But, I know what I see. And if it doesn't smell right I ask questions. IF you'll try to swing a bat with the bat cocked toward the pitcher and rear elbow up and consciously NOT apply THT you'll understand the reactionary nature of the bat head moving back toward the catcher.

As far as Sheffield is concerned, you're using him as an example to show your point. However, what he does is ony done by a handful of mlb players. I guess Pujols, Manny, Arod and many others are not rotational because they don't do what Sheffield does??? After all the laws of physics are constant. Pujols, Manny, and Arod use a different technique. They can't be in the same category as Sheffield. Because the laws are constant.

Again, I'm not disputing that the bat arcs behind the hitter. It's just not done with the top hand. And you've never proven it. It's at best a hypothesis. One that doesn't stand up.