Educators that refer to billiards during lessons

justnum

justnum

Billiards Improvement Research Projects Associate
Silver Member
The school year is starting up. Are there any educators that have introduced billiards through class discussion or exercises?

In college physics, billiard balls were used in many problems. However the professor never once recommended going to a billiard room.

I am considering working billiards into some math problems. Has anyone had success with this and can share?
 
I had a physics teacher in high school, who told the class: "If you understood physics, you could be the best pool player in the world".

So off I went to the University. I studied and studied, and finally earned my BS in Physics. But I still can't beat the ghost.

Six years of college, down the drain.
 
Banger said:
So off I went to the University. I studied and studied, and finally earned my BS in Physics. But I still can't beat the ghost.

Six years of college, down the drain.
Click to expand...
What do you expect? You studied BS

giphy.gif
 
I have used bullet trajectory as a way to explain how various forces interact at the same time. (drag, gravity, current trajectory)
Billiards math was all done by Jr year high school physics. {Except when you get to how spin alters elastic collisions. but you need calculus and understand how cross products work.}
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbb
Since you're using the term, there are trilliards, quadrilliards and beyond. Equation food if that's all you want.
 
justnum said:
However the professor never once recommended going to a billiard room.
Click to expand...
This would be good for elementary school math.
You cut school in the future. Go to a pool room and play for 4.25 hours at 4.00 per hour. But seniors play all day for $10. You lose 3 sets of 9 ball to a banger at $5.00 a set. You then play odd ball for $1.00 a way. You buy a soda, pack of crackers for $1.00 each. The crackers are stale… you tossed them. How far did the crackers travel if you’re playing on a bar table?
 
I use billiard examples when I explain to my students the 18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume's critique of induction and causality (as did Hume).
 
PoolBum said:
I use billiard examples when I explain to my students the 18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume's critique of induction and causality (as did Hume).
Click to expand...
"Hume shows that experience does not tell us much. Of two events, A and B, we say that A causes B when the two always occur together, that is, are constantly conjoined. Whenever we find A, we also find B, and we have a certainty that this conjunction will continue to happen. Once we realize that “A must bring about B” is tantamount merely to “Due to their constant conjunction, we are psychologically certain that B will follow A”, then we are left with a very weak notion of necessity. This tenuous grasp on causal efficacy helps give rise to the Problem of Induction–that we are not reasonably justified in making any inductive inference about the world. Among Hume scholars it is a matter of debate how seriously Hume means us to take this conclusion and whether causation consists wholly in constant conjunction."
...................................................
poolbum could you explain what that paragraph says and how it relates to pool please?
respecfully
a little dense pool player....... 😂
 
bbb said:
"Hume shows that experience does not tell us much. Of two events, A and B, we say that A causes B when the two always occur together, that is, are constantly conjoined. Whenever we find A, we also find B, and we have a certainty that this conjunction will continue to happen. Once we realize that “A must bring about B” is tantamount merely to “Due to their constant conjunction, we are psychologically certain that B will follow A”, then we are left with a very weak notion of necessity. This tenuous grasp on causal efficacy helps give rise to the Problem of Induction–that we are not reasonably justified in making any inductive inference about the world. Among Hume scholars it is a matter of debate how seriously Hume means us to take this conclusion and whether causation consists wholly in constant conjunction."
...................................................
poolbum could you explain what that paragraph says and how it relates to pool please?
respecfully
a little dense pool player....... 😂
Click to expand...
For Hume's point about causality, the short answer is that nothing in our sense experience corresponds to what we think of as the necessary connection between two events related causally. The claim that event A causes event B includes that claim that if A happens then B must happen. But we don't observe/experience this necessary connection between events--we have to infer it from what we observe. Given his austere version of empiricism, Hume is skeptical that this inference is justified.

In his critique of induction (the more profound and influential of his two points here) Hume shows that there is no way to rationally justify conclusions based on inductive reasoning because we cannot establish in a non-circular way that the laws of nature will not change in the future, which must be true in order for induction to work.

This all relates to pool because it shows that despite these epistemological difficulties Efren is still probably the great one-pocket player ever.
 
PoolBum said:
For Hume's point about causality, the short answer is that nothing in our sense experience corresponds to what we think of as the necessary connection between two events related causally. The claim that event A causes event B includes that claim that if A happens then B must happen. But we don't observe/experience this necessary connection between events--we have to infer it from what we observe. Given his austere version of empiricism, Hume is skeptical that this inference is justified.

In his critique of induction (the more profound and influential of his two points here) Hume shows that there is no way to rationally justify conclusions based on inductive reasoning because we cannot establish in a non-circular way that the laws of nature will not change in the future, which must be true in order for induction to work.

This all relates to pool because it shows that despite these epistemological difficulties Efren is still probably the great one-pocket player ever.
Click to expand...
i dont understand all you said but it still gets a
:love::love::love::love::love:
 
GoldCrown said:
This would be good for elementary school math.
You cut school in the future. Go to a pool room and play for 4.25 hours at 4.00 per hour. But seniors play all day for $10. You lose 3 sets of 9 ball to a banger at $5.00 a set. You then play odd ball for $1.00 a way. You buy a soda, pack of crackers for $1.00 each. The crackers are stale… you tossed them. How far did the crackers travel if you’re playing on a bar table?
Click to expand...
I ate the stale crackers. Just put ketchup on them and pepper. They are delicious. 😋 You will forget they are stale.

Best
Fatboy <———I’ve actually done this plenty of times back in the 80’s.
 
Fatboy said:
Just put ketchup on them and pepper. They are delicious. 😋 You will forget they are stale.

Best
Fatboy <———I’ve actually done this plenty of times back in the 80’s.
Click to expand...
This really depends on what part of the country a person is from. Phila would call for cheese wiz on crackers. My relatives from NC stoned me once for putting mustard on a pig-the-blanket. A man could get killed.
 
Back to physics. You break.. 2 balls fly off the table. One ball goes on the rail and back to the table.
What song is playing?
What is the house man’s name?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top