What is the difference between your brain knowing the center of the ball is closer to your eyes because it can perceive the distance and an illusion of 3d? In any case you "see" what is in front of you, a sphere. Your eyes tell you it's a sphere and by golly it is. Isn't that seeing it exactly as it exists? I don't get the over complication of our senses. Very unnecessary unless you're in science class.
True enough. But when it comes to aiming pool balls, only the horizontal circumference (equator) of the ball is being used. The fact that the ball is a sphere is irrelevant when it comes to aiming, unless you're using ghostball and must estimate or guess how far away the center of the ghostball has to be from the fat portion of the ob. That's why it takes so long to get really good at it... HAMB is rooted in trial and error, guesswork, because we have to estimate depth.
With contact point aiming, the contact points are on the equator of the ball, but they're oriented differently depending on your view/perspective of the ball. But still, it's the circumference (a circle or horizontal disk I suppose) that is being used. The rest of sphere is unused and just blocks our view of the backside of the ball.
With fractional aiming the aim points are based on the simple width/diameter of the ball. And in that respect the balls can be viewed as, or considered as, simple circles. Maybe that's why I'm circle oriented instead of sphere oriented. I see two round objects, two circular objects, and imagine the relationship or overlap needed to send one into the other in order to creat a certain shot angle. To me that's simpler than thinking in spheres and pretending that the unseen area of a ball plays any role in aiming. Those unseen areas are involved in the physical action of the shot, of course, but not in the aiming portion of the shot.