I’m not sure if you’re joking about the patent peer review process. Patents go through a rigorous review with multiple participants and stakeholders until approval. They don’t let you patent something that is not provable and accurate.
The fact is they don't rigorously test the science therein. You're patently wrong (see what I did there?
) about the science here, which is why you completely ducked any discussion of it. And you doubled down with your "hold the starting line" stuff.
The important part of all of this is a miss hit will travel more offline with a lower MOI, higher spinning, golf ball. Titleist’s patent’s state this.
Do you believe everything you read in a patent application? Why, it must be true! No?
Anyone with a deep experience playing golf has encountered this. Even flight calculators state this.
Please cite more anecdata when actual science is available.
A miss hit that produces a 20* spin axis will move the ball offline ~30% more at 5500 rpm than at 2500 rpm. That is very substantial.
I don't agree that a 30% difference at more than double the spin is "substantial." It's not nothing, but 5500 RPM is getting pretty ridiculous. And if it's a mis-hit, the ball speed will take a hit, too, so the ball won't fly as far and thus won't go as far offline as a ball hit flush with the same spin axis, spin rate, and a higher ball speed.
This isn’t a question about a flushed shot. This is about how the ball turns on a miss hit. A lower MOI golf ball will turn more on a miss hit shot.
PGA Tour players don't mis-hit the ball all that often. You can't keep saying "anyone who ever played with balata knows this" because balata went out just as bigger headed drivers, etc. came into play, too. It's not a direct comparison. It's anecdotal.
I didn’t ignore your friend’s science, I provided patents containing physics from the leading golf ball experts in the world.
Again, patent applications aren't "science." They're not rigorously peer reviewed by interested parties in that specific field. They just check the design or feature to make sure it hasn't been patented before and that it's clearly defined. My friend has his name on some patents regarding the use of something that is literally physically impossible, but the lawyers wanted patented "just in case" somebody else got "close enough" to the use cases.
Tesla just patented laser beams as windshield wipers. You can patent anything regardless of whether it actually works or is even feasible. Patent application reviewers are often engineers, but they're not paid enough to "prove" or "disprove" if it works, only to check to see if it's been patented before.
Furthermore, you've yet to tell us what the MOI of a balata ball is versus a modern ball. Solid golf balls existed back then, too: Pinnacles, etc. And amateurs still managed to hit some awfully bad slices with them, too. Just as they continue to hit them with the Pro V1.
P.S. Those patents aren't even for a "high MOI golf ball." That's a different patent. Those patents are for a vague "combination" of "spin rate, lift coefficient, drag coefficients, and optionally moment of intertia:" Ball companies filed patents for all kinds of stuff back then, so they could sue Kirkland and KickX and other companies for vague infringements, and force settlements. Callaway and Titleist were in lawsuits, TaylorMade was in a few, etc.