You're welcome. You deserve the props for what you developed & also for how you have handled yourself here in this whirlwind of twisting & distorting the truth.
The EDGES of Pool Balls
- Thread starter BC21
- Start date
You're welcome. You deserve the props for what you developed & also for how you have handled yourself here in this whirlwind of twisting & distorting the truth.
You need to read up on how the brain sees 3D.....cause now you are talking out your ass.
And some of the distorting of truth is coming from him.
The brain sees in 3D......not 2d.
To keep stating the brain sees a circle is instead of a sphere is wrong.
BTW..........a circle drawn on paper has a circumference........and guess what......it doesn’t have edges either.
But, you can define, for aiming conversation only, what is meant when the phrase “edge of ball” is used.
This doesn’t mean that balls have edges, it just a way to define what is meant in regards to aiming.
It’s common to have a glossary with definitions is specifications and tech manuals of what some words and phrases mean in order to have a clear understanding of them.
“Edge of balls” falls into this category.
There’s nothing wrong with accepting that balls don’t have edges.
When the phrase is defined and then used in regards to aiming,now it takes on the definition provided for when used in aiming conversations.
But......balls still don’t have edges, nor does the circumference of a circle.
But, you can define, for aiming conversation only, what is meant when the phrase “edge of ball” is used.
This doesn’t mean that balls have edges, it just a way to define what is meant in regards to aiming.
It’s common to have a glossary with definitions is specifications and tech manuals of what some words and phrases mean in order to have a clear understanding of them.
“Edge of balls” falls into this category.
There’s nothing wrong with accepting that balls don’t have edges.
When the phrase is defined and then used in regards to aiming,now it takes on the definition provided for when used in aiming conversations.
But......balls still don’t have edges, nor does the circumference of a circle.
I do not think he has ever said that the Brain "sees" in 2D. He's said that each eye sees a 2D image & then the brain takes those slightly different images & combines them to form the 3D 'image' that we need to function in 3 dimensions... actually 4 including time.
NASA did an experiment where they put goggles on subjects that made them 'see' up side down. Over time the Brain reversed the 'images' back to up side up. When the googles were taken off the subjects again saw up side down on their own & again over time the brain reversed the 'images' back to up side up.
The 'images' are up side down on our retina just as they are on the film of a camera. It is the brain that alters our perception of that.
Brian is NOT intentionally twisting & distorting the truth as some others do. Sometimes he misspeaks as we all do. The English Language is not the best for proper communication. Miscommunication is one of the worlds worst problems.
Last edited:
A pool ball is of a smooth surface. Have you ever walked up to the waters edge or come up upon the edge of a forest?
Those are still different examples because they are 2D references.
There are 'lines' if demarcation.
What phrase would you suggest to denote what is seen where on one side is ball & on the other side air? We can not see the other side of the ball even though we know that it is there.
Does a ball have a side? The high side. The right side. etc.?
Last edited:
Sorry Duck. I know all about it. The brain does not see 3D. It creates the illusion of 3D. It extrapolates the perception of depth based off of the 2D images obtained by our eyes. Our vision, yours too, is actually referred to as "2D+" for those of us that have studied neurology. 2D Plus Depth.
All true. But we don't use the circle's circumference for aiming, maybe except for contact points. We use it's horizontal diameter. Of course a circle or a ball has no edge. But that diameter is a straight line with two end points, two edges about 0.5mm in thickness, for practical aiming purposes, and 180° apart.
Last edited:
Whose this “we”?
People who use “we” are trying to add credibility to weak statements by implying everybody goes it.
I use the base of the ball that touches the table, the contact patch, the only real world point that can be seen by everybody. You can point to it......you don’t have to imagine it......cause it is real.
Points on the circumference of a circle does not make it a edge. They are just points at a certain location on the circumference of the circle in relation to the table top.
Correct, the brain takes the 2d imagines from the retina and forms the 3D imagine we see in the mind.
So......we see in 3D.
To keep implying this is not true is just wrong.
All this shows is there are people willing to keep rationalizing anything as long as it suits their purpose.......science be damned.
What’s worse is you know the imagine in the brain is 3D yet you keep implying it isn’t.
Base of ball and contact patch. Ok. So you are using a spot, or small "patch", on the ob's equator, utilizing the horizontal circumference of the sphere? You certainly aren't saying you can see the spot on the ball that is actually touching the table cloth, right? Because that spot is not visible to anyone.
For those of us that just see the shots and recognize which cb-ob relationship/overlap is needed to pocket the ball, "we" are using the brain's stored data of one simple 2D circle overlapping another. For fractional aiming, "we" use the horizontal diameter of a 2D circle. Aiming 1.125" from the center of the circle (at either end point of the diameter), produces a 30° angle. Aiming at any point along that diameter, away from center ob, will produce a certain fractional relationship between the cb and ob. This aim point can be recognized and focused on just as accurately as looking at the contact patch/point. In my opinion it is easier to recognize because an eighth of a ball, or a quarter or a sixteenth, etc... remains exactly the same, visually, from any perspective. But the contact point looks dead center when lining the ob to the pocket, and as you move around to the cb's perspective the visual of that contact point shifts across the equator of the ball. I've always had a hard time keeping this point in focus. But I like your thought of just putting the cb where it needs to be, because that's how I play 99% of the time.
Anyway, a halfball hit is asin(1.125/2.25) = 30°, where 2.25 is the width/diameter of the circle we are looking at. Though the math works out the same, you never see a shot angle calculated using the 3D circumference, like asin(1.767/3.535), where 3.535" is the visible portion of the ball's circumference from any perspective. The basic 2D values are used instead.
Last edited:
It's beyond ludicrous how any player of ANY level doesn't understand the concept of CB/OB "edges." If you honestly can't understand that very, very basic concept you're a troll or deficient.
From ANY eye position the edge is the left or right visual point at the equator.
Those points, from a top-down view, rotate clockwise or counter clockwise as your eye position shifts to the left or right.
This is a GREAT example of staying out of threads that deal with CB edge aiming if you don't get it.
From ANY eye position the edge is the left or right visual point at the equator.
Those points, from a top-down view, rotate clockwise or counter clockwise as your eye position shifts to the left or right.
This is a GREAT example of staying out of threads that deal with CB edge aiming if you don't get it.
The reality of the real world vs how "we"/some interpret it.
Ducky/Greg aggressively rides motorcycles & had better stay in the reality of the real world as split second decisions are needed & made for his survival. He is also attuned to depth because he has to look & see what is ahead of him that will very quickly be upon him & then hopefully quickly to his rear.
The English language is not the best form of communication, but it is basically all that we have as English speaking people. Words have meanings, but in the English language many have multiple meanings & it is the context in which they are used that denotes the meaning being employed.
I recently used the phrase "shade to one side or the other" & Brian said that he likes that better than some other terms that are used. I was not speaking of the shade under a tree.
For spheres/balls there are (an infinite #?) of lines of demarcation between where there is ball & no ball/air. They are situated out equal distant from the core center of the sphere & someone "assigned" the word circumference to denote those(infinite #) of points that make up the (infinite #)of lines of demarcation...the edge where there is a 'transformation' from the existence of Ball to where there is air but no ball.
The word circumference also denotes the 'line' that composes a circle & the perimeter of a sphere/ball consists of an infinite(?) number of circumferences.
If we assigned the X, Y & Z to the 90* orientations & gave Greg a 2D picture of a ball, I am sure Greg could put an ink pen mark at the right & left end points of the diameter of that "circle" that represents the sphere/ball. There is no need to try to make Greg appear unintelligent in that regard.
That picture is a 2d optical 'interpretation'/NON-REAL representation of that sphere/ball.
So... most of the time when aiming is talked about we do so in 2D & there is a reason for that. the equator of all of the balls are on the single horizontal plane. However, if we lift the viewing perspective up from the horizontal plane. we then have a 3D image...because... we now see the composition of the ball that is closer to us than the diameter 'slice' that would consists only of the X & Y points. We 'see' some of the Z components. We actually "saw"(past tense of "see") them when we were "looking" straight head on from a point onthe Z "plane".
How we "refer" to things & matters depends on "relativity".
I think Greg is aware, more aware, of "relativity" than many & some who seem totally unaware of it.
Brian is well aware of it.
They each are speaking from there 'viewpoints' & where they are in their minds relative to the subject of a sphere/ball.
When any of us join in we bring in our own reference 'point' of "relativity".
Some will understand all of the above. Some will understand most of the above. Some will understand little if the above.
That goes to the purpose of my post as well.
With Sincere Best Wishes to ALL.
The reality of the Real World vs how 'we'/some interpret it.
Ducky/Greg aggressively rides motorcycles & had better stay in the reality of the real world as split second decisions are needed & made for his survival. He is also attuned to depth because he has to look & see what is ahead of him that will very quickly be upon him & then hopefully quickly to his rear.
The English language is not the best form of communication, but it is basically all that we have as English speaking people. Words have meanings, but in the English language many have multiple meanings & it is the context in which they are used that denotes the meaning being employed.
I recently used the phrase "shade to one side or the other" & Brian said that he likes that better than some other terms that are used. I was not speaking of the shade under a tree.
For spheres/balls there are (an infinite #?) of lines of demarcation between where there is ball & no ball/air. They are situated out equal distant from the core center of the sphere & someone "assigned" the word circumference to denote those(infinite #) of points that make up the (infinite #)of lines of demarcation...the edge where there is a 'transformation' from the existence of Ball to where there is air but no ball.
The word circumference also denotes the 'line' that composes a circle & the perimeter of a sphere/ball consists of an infinite(?) number of circumferences.
If we assigned the X, Y & Z to the 90* orientations & gave Greg a 2D picture of a ball, I am sure Greg could put an ink pen mark at the right & left end points of the diameter of that "circle" that represents the sphere/ball. There is no need to try to make Greg appear unintelligent in that regard.
That picture is a 2d optical 'interpretation'/NON-REAL representation of that sphere/ball.
So... most of the time when aiming is talked about we do so in 2D & there is a reason for that. the equator of all of the balls are on the single horizontal plane. However, if we lift the viewing perspective up from the horizontal plane. we then have a 3D image...because... we now see the composition of the ball that is closer to us than the diameter 'slice' that would consists only of the X & Y points. We 'see' some of the Z components. We actually "saw"(past tense of "see") them when we were "looking" straight head on from a point onthe Z "plane".
How we "refer" to things & matters depends on "relativity".
I think Greg is aware, more aware, of "relativity" than many & some who seem totally unaware of it.
Brian is well aware of it.
They each are speaking from there 'viewpoints' & where they are in their minds relative to the subject of a sphere/ball.
When any of us join in we bring in our own reference 'point' of "relativity".
Some will understand all of the above. Some will understand most of the above. Some will understand little if the above.
That goes to the purpose of my post as well.
With Sincere Best Wishes to ALL.
The reality of the Real World vs how 'we'/some interpret it.
Last edited:
What would "seeing 3D" mean? Is there an example of it in the real world or is it purely theoretical? Is it even physically possible?
pj
chgo
Not possible without additional eyes that could somehow leave your body and capture the hidden portions (sides and back perspectives) of whatever object you're looking at. Makes for good scifi though.
You think "seeing 3D" means "able to see the backside of things" (or around corners)? I think it just means "able to perceive depth".
And I wonder if that's possible with less than two images.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
If you move to the right, changing your perspective, it's just another simple circle, and the outer edges are redefined from that perspective. If you're looking at the center of the circle, regardless of your perspective, it's always in the same place -- middle of the circle. If you imagine splitting the ball into vertical quarter slices, and then focus on the first quarter left of center, changing your perspective won't change where that vertical slice appears on the circle. It's always a circle.
Worth repeating
As we move while looking at the sphere that "edge" point is changing.
You guys were so close then got side tracked.
So, using the same "perception" and pivot, you end up in a different physical place relative to the CB?
pj
chgo