The EDGES of Pool Balls

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Fact: Geometrically, circles do not have edges, therefore spheres do not have edges.

Fact: When aiming one pool ball into another (unless one or the other is airborne), it's the horizontal circumference of the balls that actually collide/touch on impact. It is this same horizontal circumference that is used for contact point aiming, as well as fractional aiming, CTE, etc... everything except ghostball.

Hiwever, when we look at an ob we see a 2D circle, not a sphere. We capture two perspectives of a plain circle, one 2D image from each eye. The brain then creates the perception of 3D. It's not really 3D because we can't actually see the other side of the ball, which means we aren't using a horizontal circumference at all. We are using a horizontal diameter.

Aiming, except for ghostball, involves picking reference points located on this horizontal diameter, this straight line spanning the width of the ball. The top and bottom portion of the ball is irrelevant when it comes to aiming. We aim through the cb to a point somewhere along the horizontal diameter of the ob.

These horizontal diameters are simple straight lines as far as your brain is concerned. Each line is 2.25" wide. Each line has a left edge point, a center point, and a right edge point, and can easily be divided into quarters pieces or whatever.

The edges of a ball then, according to how we see, not according to standard geometry, are the end points of the straight line that represents the diameter of the 2D circle we are looking at.
 

Tony_in_MD

You want some of this?
Silver Member
I have seen this movie many times, and it always ends the same one.

Good for you to try though.


Fact: Geometrically, circles do not have edges, therefore spheres do not have edges.

Fact: When aiming one pool ball into another (unless one or the other is airborne), it's the horizontal circumference of the balls that actually collide/touch on impact. It is this same horizontal circumference that is used for contact point aiming, as well as fractional aiming, CTE, etc... everything except ghostball.

Hiwever, when we look at an ob we see a 2D circle, not a sphere. We capture two perspectives of a plain circle, one 2D image from each eye. The brain then creates the perception of 3D. It's not really 3D because we can't actually see the other side of the ball, which means we aren't using a horizontal circumference at all. We are using a horizontal diameter.

Aiming, except for ghostball, involves picking reference points located on this horizontal diameter, this straight line spanning the width of the ball. The top and bottom portion of the ball is irrelevant when it comes to aiming. We aim through the cb to a point somewhere along the horizontal diameter of the ob.

These horizontal diameters are simple straight lines as far as your brain is concerned. Each line is 2.25" wide. Each line has a left edge point, a center point, and a right edge point, and can easily be divided into quarters pieces or whatever.

The edges of a ball then, according to how we see, not according to standard geometry, are the end points of the straight line that represents the diameter of the 2D circle we are looking at.
 

ENGLISH!

Banned
Silver Member
Duckie is correct.

Brian is correct.

The thing is this... it is ONE Single Point. It is the "single point" on the circumference that we can see that is also on the equator of the ball. (Can we really "see" it since it is a single point?)

We can imagine a vertical line such that it is tangential to that point... & subsequent such lines can be "imagined" but not visually nor objectively "seen" across that visual circle that Brian mentioned.

The 'edge' is imagined & imaginary as are the other vertical lines.

We can NOT physically "see" the Ghost Ball either.

Best Wishes.
 
Last edited:

duckie

GregH
Silver Member
Fact: Geometrically, circles do not have edges, therefore spheres do not have edges.

Fact: When aiming one pool ball into another (unless one or the other is airborne), it's the horizontal circumference of the balls that actually collide/touch on impact. It is this same horizontal circumference that is used for contact point aiming, as well as fractional aiming, CTE, etc... everything except ghostball.

Hiwever, when we look at an ob we see a 2D circle, not a sphere. We capture two perspectives of a plain circle, one 2D image from each eye. The brain then creates the perception of 3D. It's not really 3D because we can't actually see the other side of the ball, which means we aren't using a horizontal circumference at all. We are using a horizontal diameter.

Aiming, except for ghostball, involves picking reference points located on this horizontal diameter, this straight line spanning the width of the ball. The top and bottom portion of the ball is irrelevant when it comes to aiming. We aim through the cb to a point somewhere along the horizontal diameter of the ob.

These horizontal diameters are simple straight lines as far as your brain is concerned. Each line is 2.25" wide. Each line has a left edge point, a center point, and a right edge point, and can easily be divided into quarters pieces or whatever.

The edges of a ball then, according to how we see, not according to standard geometry, are the end points of the straight line that represents the diameter of the 2D circle we are looking at.


Whose......”We”?

You can only speak for ourself.

In my world, I see in 3D, I think in 3D. I have no idea nor do you on how people see things. This assumption you made is up there with the notion that people use CTE and dont know it.

I look at a pool ball....it’s not flat, but round. Are you gonna say that I don’t?
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Whose......”We”?

You can only speak for ourself.

In my world, I see in 3D, I think in 3D. I have no idea nor do you on how people see things. This assumption you made is up there with the notion that people use CTE and dont know it.

I look at a pool ball....it’s not flat, but round. Are you gonna say that I don’t?

By "we", I am referring to human beings. You know how the eyes work. I know you know because I've read a post or two by you concerning vision. So it is not assumption to say that each eye grabs a 2D image, as reflected by available light, and then the brain uses these 2D images and the change in perspective between them, to create the perception of 3D. It is not really 3D. The images the brain is working with are no different than drawings on a piece of paper, which are not 3D.

With fractional aiming, for example, the aim points are visualized in accordance with a 2D image of a circle, just as flat and round as a plain circle drawn on a chalkboard or printed in book. It's the horizontal diameter of the circle that gets used, not the equator/circumference of a sphere. Shot angles are calculated using the diameter of a circle also, a plain circle as seen by each or our eyes. (By "our", I mean all human beings with eyes.)

1/4 of a pool ball is 0.5625". It is measured and viewed from a simple 2D perspective based on the width/diameter of the circle we are looking at. Using the circumference/equator of the ball would make 1/4 equal to 0.884". But we don't do this because that's not how the brain processes vision.
 
Last edited:

croscoe

Retired
Silver Member
Whose......”We”?

You can only speak for ourself.

In my world, I see in 3D, I think in 3D. I have no idea nor do you on how people see things. This assumption you made is up there with the notion that people use CTE and dont know it.

I look at a pool ball....it’s not flat, but round. Are you gonna say that I don’t?


Below is the link.

Image result for human eye see 2d or 3d
http://http://scecinfo.usc.edu/geowall/stereohow.html

We are 3D creatures, living in a 3D world but our eyes can show us only two dimensions. ... The miracle of our depth perception comes from our brain's ability to put together two 2D images in such a way as to extrapolate depth. This is called stereoscopic vision.

scecinfo.usc.edu › geowall › stereohow
 

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
It's not really 3D because we can't actually see the other side of the ball, which means we aren't using a horizontal circumference at all. We are using a horizontal diameter.
I can see it as a 2D disc and a line, but I'm a contact point aimer so I see the 3D surface of half a sphere and a circumference.

The edges of a ball then, according to how we see, not according to standard geometry, are the end points of the straight line that represents the diameter of the 2D circle we are looking at.
Yes, and for me the outermost visible points of the sphere on its equatorial circumference are its edges.

pj <- semantics shmemantics
chgo
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Duckie is correct.

Brian is correct.

The thing is this... it is ONE Single Point. It is the "single point" on the circumference that we can see that is also on the equator of the ball. (Can we really "see" it since it is a single point?)

We can imagine a vertical line such that it is tangential to that point... & subsequent such lines can be "imagined" but not visually nor objectively "seen" across that visual circle that Brian mentioned.

The 'edge' is imagined & imaginary as are the other vertical lines.

We can NOT physically "see" the Ghost Ball either.

Best Wishes.

Looking at and recognizing the farthest outer point on a circle, that single place on either side of the diameter of the circle, isn't quite as imaginary as a ghostball, not even close. We have a solid object with well defined outer limits, easy to pinpoint, unless your vision does not allow for fine details.

It's no more imaginary than looking at and recognizing the edge of a building from a block away with a bright blue sky as a backdrop. Of course we can't see the sand fragments in the concrete, but we can easily see a defined edge or outer limit.

Not to get into an objective/subjective detour, but it's pretty obvious to recognize the farthest point on either side of a ball, or a building. It is not something ambiguous, requiring one to use estimation or opinion. But recognizing any other point or location between the obvious end points is a matter of opinion because those points are not so obviously defined.
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
I can see it as a 2D disc and a line, but I'm a contact point aimer so I see the 3D surface of half a sphere and a circumference.


Yes, and for me the outermost visible points of the sphere on its equatorial circumference are its edges.

pj <- semantics shmemantics
chgo

That's the beauty of brain power.... You can see it however you program yourself to see it. But the outer most limits, the place where the ball and background meet, are so recognizable that it requires no individual thinking or opinion or imagination to say, "Right there it is".
 

SpiderWebComm

HelpImBeingOppressed
Silver Member
For anybody in either of these camps... those who can see edges and those who don't believe an edge exists on a sphere.

Please explain what you see and how you align a shot of 87 or 88 degrees which is not on a rail or close to a rail.

Easy to describe if you can see edges. How about the "no edgers" ? What do you see and how do you align?
 
Last edited:

ENGLISH!

Banned
Silver Member
Looking at and recognizing the farthest outer point on a circle, that single place on either side of the diameter of the circle, isn't quite as imaginary as a ghostball, not even close. We have a solid object with well defined outer limits, easy to pinpoint, unless your vision does not allow for fine details.

It's no more imaginary than looking at and recognizing the edge of a building from a block away with a bright blue sky as a backdrop. Of course we can't see the sand fragments in the concrete, but we can easily see a defined edge or outer limit.

Not to get into an objective/subjective detour, but it's pretty obvious to recognize the farthest point on either side of a ball, or a building. It is not something ambiguous, requiring one to use estimation or opinion. But recognizing any other point or location between the obvious end points is a matter of opinion because those points are not so obviously defined.

Brian,

I said that you were correct. I tried to make the "point" that it is a single point... & since the ball is a sphere that point is extremely perspective sensitive. If it was indeed a circle we would view that same point no matter from where we view it. That is not the case with the sphere. As we move while looking at the sphere that "edge" point is changing.

Apparently Ducky, Greg, does not override his Subconscious Brain. He stays in the realm of 3D. The 2 of you & others(including me) are not using the same meaning of
the word "see". Since Greg uses Ghost Ball he is more into the 3D realm.

As for the objective thing, for the sake of 'argument' a concession has sort been given by most, but not all, that the 1/4 division lines are 'objective' even though as you stated they really are not. They are subjective estimates. You or I may be able to estimate them precisely while someone else may shade toward the center of the ball or the outer perimeter.

For someone who learned to pocket balls by no method other than HAMB all of our words are rather meaningless. They just "play" the game. That is to where most want to be.

When one uses a defined method to get there, they can always go back in their mind to the times of the methods.

We all, or rather most, want to be in Dead Stoke or The Zone where we think about nothing regarding the aiming aspect so we can focus on only getting to where we want to be, by that I mean putting the CB where we want it. Methods can inhibit that for some.

Ducky, Greg, is not going to leave the 3D realm in which he plays & he is more into the reality of it all.

'We' when talking about it sort of leave that reality & go into a paper representation of the reality which is NOT real.

We have a brain & a mind & a "minds eye".

I would say the Greg plays with his "minds eye".

There are "tricks" that we can use. You probably "see" a circle that is standing up horizontally. CJ Wiley conveyed 'seeing' the balls as discs laying flat.

I say TomAtoe & you say Tom(a)toe.

Then Ducky Greg says it is food.

ALL Best Wishes.

PS For some it is not important to be able to describe what they do. For some there is no conscious recognition of what they do. We are individuals & we do not have to conform to the wishes of others. We should not even attempt to say what was in the "mind" of say Alex Higgins nor try to say what He was thinking or saw. We should simply admire his 'magic'.
 
Last edited:

duckie

GregH
Silver Member
For anybody in either of these camps... those who can see edges and those who don't believe an edge exists on a sphere.

Please explain what you see and how you align a shot of 87 or 88 degrees which is not on a rail or close to a rail.

Easy to describe if you can see edges. How about the "no edgers" ? What do you see and how do you align?

First....edges are not on a sphere. That’s a fact. Nothing to do with belief. Thinking a sphere has edges is not fact, but a belief.

Simple.....see where the CB needs to go, and put it there. Once I determined where the CB needs to roll, I get into position that allows me to roll the CB to where I want. I don’t use the cue for anything but putting the ball where I want.

How do I know where the CB goes.............hours and hours at the table.

Does a pitcher aim when throwing to the catcher? How bout a quarterback, do they aim before they pass the football?

Or do they just put the ball where they want from hours and hours of practice?

No matter how much you try, spheres will never have edges. You can think they do all you want......this doesn’t make it a fact.

My life depends on me seeing and thinking in 3D.........see I ride a motorcycle and raced one for awhile. And I ride quite fast in the twisties here. Your vision, being able to see and think in 3D is critical in determining braking points, when to let off brakes, when to turn in and so on.

Any of you lanesplit? Here in good ole CA, a motorcyclist can split between lanes of traffic. You must see and think in 3D in order to survive lanesplitting.

I’ve often thought that because I ride and raced motorcycles, for a long time now, I use my vision different that car drivers.

What brothers y’all is someone who is just different in the ways of thinking about pool.

I sure as hell don’t see edges on balls.

But then again, I need someone else to really tell me what I am really doing, what’s going on in my mind......there apparently are mind readers on this forum.

BTW, a circle drawn on paper is not a sphere, but a circle drawn on paper.
 
Last edited:

SpiderWebComm

HelpImBeingOppressed
Silver Member
First....edges are not on a sphere. That’s a fact. Nothing to do with belief. Thinking a sphere has edges is not fact, but a belief.

Simple.....see where the CB needs to go, and put it there. Once I determined where the CB needs to roll, I get into position that allows me to roll the CB to where I want. I don’t use the cue for anything but putting the ball where I want.

How do I know where the CB goes.............hours and hours at the table.

Does a pitcher aim when throwing to the catcher? How bout a quarterback, do they aim before they pass the football?

Or do they just put the ball where they want from hours and hours of practice?

No matter how much you try, spheres will never have edges. You can think they do all you want......this doesn’t make it a fact.

My life depends on me seeing and thinking in 3D.........see I ride a motorcycle and raced one for awhile. And I ride quite fast in the twisties here. Your vision, being able to see and think in 3D is critical in determining braking points, when to let off brakes, when to turn in and so on.

Any of you lanesplit? Here in good ole CA, a motorcyclist can split between lanes of traffic. You must see and think in 3D in order to survive lanesplitting.

I’ve often thought that because I ride and raced motorcycles, for a long time now, I use my vision different that car drivers.

What brothers y’all is someone who is just different in the ways of thinking about pool.

I sure as hell don’t see edges on balls.

But then again, I need someone else to really tell me what I am really doing, what’s going on in my mind......there apparently are mind readers on this forum.

BTW, a circle drawn on paper is not a sphere, but a circle drawn on paper.

Hey, whatever you see and do is what you do after you see. If it works it works and you're completely happy where your game is at.

Just one question, a couple of years ago you were playing in a handicapped 14.1 league with players of all levels. Against the better or best players you were getting a 40 ball spot in games to 100.

I assume you were just seeing the two balls and firing back then also. Something must have been haywire in the shooting process to require that kind of head start.

What I do agree with you 100% is what I have in BOLD RED above. The know it all mind readers who tell me and other CTE users we're really doing something else or don't know what we're doing. Only THEY in all of their infinite universal wisdom know what we're doing or not doing. The other would be someone saying we don't see edges when we in fact do. Take 1/2 step to the right or left and go around the OB 360 degrees and you see a NEW edge every time, but it's still an edge.

I guess we actually do have something in common in addition to owning at least one pool cue or more and some chalk.
 
Last edited:

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
But isn't part of the deal -- as to what we see/visualize -- how tall we are and where we choose to stand when viewing any given shot?

IOWs, to exaggerate the point a bit to make it more understandable, if I stand at ground level, I'm going to have a different visual of the ball/disk than if I were to be at the exact same spot but on a step ladder. The visual changes regardless of whether that's a step ladder or the difference between a player 5'7" and 6'2". Same if one guy likes to stand slightly left of the CB v slightly right of the CB v centered on the Cb v close to the CB v far from the CB or standing straight on v slightly diagonal.

Besides everything else, it's one of the reasons CTE is deeply flawed. I try and demonstrate that every time I teach it :)

Lou Figueroa
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
But isn't part of the deal -- as to what we see/visualize -- how tall we are and where we choose to stand when viewing any given shot?

IOWs, to exaggerate the point a bit to make it more understandable, if I stand at ground level, I'm going to have a different visual of the ball/disk than if I were to be at the exact same spot but on a step ladder. The visual changes regardless of whether that's a step ladder or the difference between a player 5'7" and 6'2". Same if one guy likes to stand slightly left of the CB v slightly right of the CB v centered on the Cb v close to the CB v far from the CB or standing straight on v slightly diagonal.

Besides everything else, it's one of the reasons CTE is deeply flawed. I try and demonstrate that every time I teach it :)

Lou Figueroa

Yes, I suppose varying heights provide different perspectives for different players. But, by looking over the tops of the balls, it's not difficult to visualize where the cb needs to go.

Glad to hear you're giving lessons.... keep up the good work. :D
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
.....since the ball is a sphere that point is extremely perspective sensitive. If it was indeed a circle we would view that same point no matter from where we view it. That is not the case with the sphere. As we move while looking at the sphere that "edge" point is changing.

.......

If you look at a ball, a sphere, from any angle, from any perspective, it's still just a circle to your brain. Those points at the outer edges of the width/diameter are always there. 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.

Contact point aiming is different because you aren't trying to create a cb to ob overlap/relationship. You're trying to match contact points on the outer surface of the sphere, and those points change in accordance with your change in perspective, which is why I've never been good at keeping those points in focus. For one thing, the brain processes the image as a flat circle/disk, so simple spacial skills can be used. Estimating a point on the circumference is a little more involved. I mean, we're talking about keeping a 1mm spot in sight and on target along the perimeter of convex object while changing our perspective of the object. But for those who work it out, good for them.

I keep reading things like, it's too much guesswork or too difficult to reference aim points in 1/8 fractions, or 1/16, or 1/32. But referencing a 1mm contact point is supposed to be easier? 1mm is about 1/57 of a ball. If accurately recognizing 1/16 or 1/32 of a ball is unlikely, how is recognizing 1/57 more likely?
 

ENGLISH!

Banned
Silver Member
^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hi, Brian.

Imagery. It is not just about how our eyes work but our minds. CJ Wiley has said that he imagines the balls to be flat discs. He was/is a pretty damn good "player".

I found going to 1/16s too straining & worrisome. So I then went to equal & opposite overlap. I went from Ghost ball to Fractions to Equal & Opposite Overlap from 13 to 14 years old.

I think it is about what best suites our "minds" eye.

If your vision allows you to gauge down to 32s or 64s, then I would not be rounding the numbers down to 1/4s & 1/8s when you use Poolology.

I found trying to do such too straining & worrisome. Your Poolology would take the worry out.

Back when I was using Fractions some 52 years ago I was not into shading the 1/8 one way or the other. I may not have spent enough time with it.

With Poolology you know in what direction the rounding of the fraction was done & you can then shade in the opposite direction.

I think Poolology is an excellent method... especially for one who has not yet developed the shot pictures to allow quick recognition of the proper overlap. Then through hitting a lot of shots that are successful with less missed shots one should more quickly build a data base of correct overlaps for a wide array of shots & always have a means to double check.

I wish I had Poolology when I was 13.

ALL the Best.
 
Last edited:

cookie man

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
If you look at a ball, a sphere, from any angle, from any perspective, it's still just a circle to your brain. Those points at the outer edges of the width/diameter are always there. 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.

It sounds like you are saying the outer edge constantly gets redefined and the inside vertical slices stay the same. Makes sense.
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
It sounds like you are saying the outer edge constantly gets redefined and the inside vertical slices stay the same. Makes sense.

When you look at a "fixed" cb, you see two fixed outer edges of a circle, along with its center. You can also visualize a quarter, halfway between the fixed center and either fixed edge. It's a simple circle, easy to partition. Now move 2 feet to the right and look directly at the cb from that perspective. It's exactly the same -- a simple circle with a fixed center, two fixed edges, fixed quarters, etc...

The exact reference points you were looking at from the first perspective are all redefined in the 2nd perspective. Spatially the reference points are in the exact same place for both perspectives, because the brain sees simple partitioning of a circle.
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hi, Brian.

Imagery. It is not just about how our eyes work but our minds. CJ Wiley has said that he imagines the balls to be flat discs. He was/is a pretty damn good "player".

I found going to 1/16s too straining & worrisome. So I then went to equal & opposite overlap. I went from Ghost ball to Fractions to Equal & Opposite Overlap from 13 to 14 years old.

I think it is about what best suites our "minds" eye.

If your vision allows you to gauge down to 32s or 64s, then I would not be rounding the numbers down to 1/4s & 1/8s when you use Poolology.

I found trying to do such too straining & worrisome. Your Poolology would take the worry out.

Back when I was using Fractions some 52 years ago I was not into shading the 1/8 one way or the other. I may not have spent enough time with it.

With Poolology you know in what direction the rounding of the fraction was done & you can then shade in the opposite direction.

I think Poolology is an excellent method... especially for one who has not yet developed the shot pictures to allow quick recognition of the proper overlap. Then through hitting a lot of shots that are successful with less missed shots one should more quickly build a data base of correct overlaps for a wide array of shots & always have a means to double check.

I wish I had Poolology when I was 13.

ALL the Best.

CJ was always one of my favorites. I miss watching him play.

I completely understand the individuality of our mind's eye and I think you nailed it with that statement. I also like the word "shade" as another way of saying fine tune or tweak.

And I'm with you on this, I wish I'd had Poolology or a system like it when I was first learning. I believe it's a great jumpstart for developing cb-ob relationship skills. By the time you've played 35 years or more, you've already stored a fairly accurate array of shots into memory, but over the last 2 or 3 years I've added a few more shots that I just never faced enough to be able to commit to memory. Now I recognize these shots much quicker due to using the system here and there.

Thanks for the props.
 
Top