PDA

View Full Version : The Cause Of Spin Motion



IMMSHARMA
2004-Jul-31, 05:28 AM
Hello All,
I would like to share my thoughts with you.

I am IMMSHARMA and have done research on the subject of 'aiming' ..it's involve ment of human brain....in billiards........

The strange result is that human mind(irrespective of age,sex etc.,) does require to complete a simple (seemingly.... but complex in depth) routine-a 'mental process',along the line of aim, before we strike the ball to produce a spin motion in it and more amazing is that the 'routine' is to be applied(mental completion) in the opposite (back ward) direction of the line of aim in order to get a 'spin stroke' and that if the same routine is applied along line in the same forward direction to get a 'spin less stroke'.

Also...the results show that it's just impossible to produce the 'spin motion' in the required direction without the specific 'routine' (mental process) duely completed by the mind.

This 'routine'(my discovery) is unknown even to masters of the game except that they just do the required routine completion out of practice...just by feel without it's concrete knowledge.

Thus,apart from mechanical explanations of cause of spin,I feel,it can be proved that a specific mental process i.e the mind is the real cause of spin.

My conclusion is that ,in a way...the stroke knowledge pre exists in the mind and all that (out of practice)a player learns to get used to it (only by feel ..I mean not knowing it concretely)...Does it lead us to conclude that Mind is the all knowing entity and that all kinds of knowledge pre exists in the mind it self?

And as for 'celestial spin',it's known to all that one of the very fundamental questions of cosmology,the cause of spin of the 'celestial balls'-the erath and the other bodies,still remains unanswered(satisfactorily) by modern science.The question has been set aside with some 'vague' explanation......

So....based on my research results,couldn't it be convincingly proved that a ball (terrestial or celestial) DOES require a MIND at work with a SPECIFIC process/Then it's not hard to imagine whose MIND is behind the spin of the earth....in other words..doesn't this conclusion lead to the proof of 'Existence Of God' ? and is it not for us to conclude (philosophically) that what's true is "mind over matter"?

Your input is welcome..

Thanks,IMMSHARMA (immsharma@yahoo.com)

Gullible Jones
2004-Jul-31, 05:30 AM
..doesn't this conclusion lead to the proof of 'Existence Of God' ?

[-X

Musashi
2004-Jul-31, 06:22 AM
Mixed metaphor?

Welcome to the board.

genebujold
2004-Jul-31, 09:10 AM
Maybe, maybe not.

Regardless of my personal beliefs, I can't share them here, as the discussion of religon and politics on this board is prohibited.

You might try re-posting here: http://www.thechristiandefense.com.

Ciao!

Chip
2004-Jul-31, 09:11 AM
...My conclusion is that …knowledge pre exists in the mind and all that (out of practice) a player learns to get used to it (only by feel ..I mean not knowing it concretely)...Does it lead us to conclude that Mind is the all knowing entity and that all kinds of knowledge pre exists in the mind it self?...Your input is welcome..

Perhaps what you are (unconsciously) referring to here is a phenomenon that has been studied, and is one of the elements in Jaynes theory of The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. (You can read pro and con reviews of it here (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0618057072/qid%3D1091263769/sr%3D1-1).) Specifically, that consciousness is not necessary for learning. Although the central tenet of his theory is still speculative, this one sidelight of his research is likely his greatest contribution to psychology. (As well as his justification that consciousness is not even necessary for thinking.) Consider someone playing a piano without paying any attention to the many multiple tasks their body is performing while also talking or singing. Jaynes was fascinated by learned routines such as this in relation to human consciousness. There are other good books about consciousness, with very different views worth reading, here (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/019515343X/qid%3D1091264185).


...And as for 'celestial spin', it's known to all that one of the very fundamental questions of cosmology, the cause of spin of the 'celestial balls'-the Erath and the other bodies, still remains unanswered (satisfactorily) by modern science. The question has been set aside with some 'vague' explanation....

Well maybe not. I don’t know if you’re referring to momentum, rotation or gravitation, but I wouldn't say that the rotation of worlds, and their orbits around (also rotating) stars, and so on - are "unsatisfactorily" explained by modern science. The "vague explanation" might be within your own understanding rather than the body of knowledge of this subject.

If you are trying to draw a relationship between the psychological origins of unconscious human actions (by skilled billiard players,) and the origins of planetary rotation you might have to first define consciousness, and then scientifically clearly theorize that consciousness can exist independently of sentient beings. That’s very slippery.

My advice is to start by reading Jaynes theory and a few others, and then read up on Newtonian gravitation and general relativity (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521455065/qid%3D1091265184/sr%3D1-2/ref%3Dsr%5F1%5F2/104-7826187-7760700).

As for me, I’m going to have a cookie with a glass of milk, and go to bed. :wink:

IMMSHARMA
2004-Aug-05, 05:31 AM
...My conclusion is that …knowledge pre exists in the mind and all that (out of practice) a player learns to get used to it (only by feel ..I mean not knowing it concretely)...Does it lead us to conclude that Mind is the all knowing entity and that all kinds of knowledge pre exists in the mind it self?...Your input is welcome..

Perhaps what you are (unconsciously) referring to here is a phenomenon that has been studied, and is one of the elements in Jaynes theory of The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. (You can read pro and con reviews of it here (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0618057072/qid%3D1091263769/sr%3D1-1).) Specifically, that consciousness is not necessary for learning. Although the central tenet of his theory is still speculative, this one sidelight of his research is likely his greatest contribution to psychology. (As well as his justification that consciousness is not even necessary for thinking.) Consider someone playing a piano without paying any attention to the many multiple tasks their body is performing while also talking or singing. Jaynes was fascinated by learned routines such as this in relation to human consciousness. There are other good books about consciousness, with very different views worth reading, here (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/019515343X/qid%3D1091264185).


...And as for 'celestial spin', it's known to all that one of the very fundamental questions of cosmology, the cause of spin of the 'celestial balls'-the Erath and the other bodies, still remains unanswered (satisfactorily) by modern science. The question has been set aside with some 'vague' explanation....

Well maybe not. I don’t know if you’re referring to momentum, rotation or gravitation, but I wouldn't say that the rotation of worlds, and their orbits around (also rotating) stars, and so on - are "unsatisfactorily" explained by modern science. The "vague explanation" might be within your own understanding rather than the body of knowledge of this subject.

If you are trying to draw a relationship between the psychological origins of unconscious human actions (by skilled billiard players,) and the origins of planetary rotation you might have to first define consciousness, and then scientifically clearly theorize that consciousness can exist independently of sentient beings. That’s very slippery.

My advice is to start by reading Jaynes theory and a few others, and then read up on Newtonian gravitation and general relativity (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521455065/qid%3D1091265184/sr%3D1-2/ref%3Dsr%5F1%5F2/104-7826187-7760700).

As for me, I’m going to have a cookie with a glass of milk, and go to bed. :wink:


Let me make my point more clear.......

Using a cue any player can produce two types (a plain 'spin less and 'spin stroke' ) while making a shot....but what he requires is to set the cue ball into any one of these two types of motion in the REQUIRED LINE to make the object ball getting pocketed.

It's exactly here,while hitting the ball,his mind requires to get into action and completes a 'specific routine'(the concerned mental process).If he hits without the mental routine (common to all types of shots) the cue ball NEVER takes the intended path !!! This 'routine ' completion takes place without his actual knowledge.Just ,he learns through practice,to get USED to hit the ball exactly when the mind has completed the routine...he does it just by FEEL....

Also....Physical part of aiming is just limited to searching for the aim point (actually a player never gets it,while sroking...he pretends to be concentrating on it for the fear of miss) or trying to get a vague 'un seeable' line of aim...etc.But what plays the entire role is totally MENTAL.....

A player HAS to stroke(hitting of cb) only AS AND WHEN a particular 'routine' is completed mentally !!!! Of course different players apply it (the same routine) in different ways...yes,there are different modes of applying it and most probably this must be the reason why we have different styles of stroking like fast,slow,care free etc...

And WITHOUT this mental routine completion it's simply IMPOSSIBLE (for any human being..even for a champion of the game) to send the ball in the intended line !!!!It's like getting oil from sand !!!(provable)...

Also....after some acuaintance of this 'true knowledge of the stroke',we actually need not worry about the aim point or line of aim....mind does it...(getting the line and completing the routine),in just fraction of a second,independent ot of our willing ness...whenever you get to deliver your stroke !!!!!!!!(any body..even a ten year old,can be taught or made to grasp it)

Even more,contrary to our mechanical conceptions like conc. on aim point,(focus) visually... etc...,we CAN execute the shot( with equal success)with our eyes CLOSED too...depending only on the 'mental routine' !!!!(provable)

Now...my discovery is that what exactly this mental process (the routine) is and how it works.Is it not an exploration of the miracles or the secrets of mind to which even modern science has no access yet?I mean my discovery trasforms a 'thing of feel' into a 'thing of concrete knowledge' Isn't it a miracle? !!!

Hope I made the thing clear.

TheLion
2004-Aug-05, 05:47 AM
So....based on my research results,couldn't it be convincingly proved that a ball (terrestial or celestial) DOES require a MIND at work with a SPECIFIC process/Then it's not hard to imagine whose MIND is behind the spin of the earth....in other words..doesn't this conclusion lead to the proof of 'Existence Of God' ? and is it not for us to conclude (philosophically) that what's true is "mind over matter"?

I don't mean to offend you, but you're using circular reasoning here. You're assuming that "god" put the planets in motion, therefore "god" exists. In other words, your evidence relies on your conclusion being true. You SHOULD prove that "god" put them in motion before you can make this claim. I know I'm probably being nit-picky on your example though, so you probably should ignore it.

Ricimer
2004-Aug-05, 06:15 AM
the cause of spin is a direct consequence of the conservation of momentum. It's very well understood, and requires no "mind routine" to set it in motion.

Things spin and rotate on thier own all the time, without people starting it.

Morrolan
2004-Aug-05, 06:50 AM
i'm sorry, but you conclude that because there is a brain process behind a cue shot creating a spin (the spin is created by hitting the ball in a certain way, the brain is merely coordinating the limbs in creating the physical requirements to create the spin), the spin is created by the mind. from there you step this up by concluding that 'of course' this means that any spin (including planetary) is created by a mind, therefore there is a god?

truly flawed reasoning.

and as others have said earlier: this kind of theological 'reasoning' has no place here.

Oyvey
2004-Aug-06, 02:11 AM
According to the mystics and the divines the planets are spinning (except the Earth!), because as sentient beings they are constantly agitated into swift circular motion by their desire to gain comprehension of the Creator. In the case of stars, their comprehension is greater, and they spontaneously combust in their awesome awareness of Him!

aurora
2004-Aug-06, 03:53 AM
A quick web search reveals that IMMSHARMA has been spamming various groups trying to sell his secrets. On billiards discussion boards he is considered a quack. Same thing on Golf bulletin boards.

On a physics board, he posted basically the same idea as here, namely that planets spin, therefore god exists. :roll:

electromagneticpulse
2004-Aug-06, 04:45 PM
Spin is just caused because atoms collided relatively slowly and avoided each others neuclius so a spin was caused, which is why stars spin.
Not because someone got a snooker que and shot a hydrogen atom at another to make them spin. it's a nice idea but i don't think that's how a god would work, if it took him 6 days to make the universe i think he'd be a better billiards player :lol:

Jim
2004-Aug-06, 05:03 PM
I thought it was all in the wrist.

Gullible Jones
2004-Aug-06, 08:35 PM
According to the mystics and the divines the planets are spinning (except the Earth!), because as sentient beings they are constantly agitated into swift circular motion by their desire to gain comprehension of the Creator. In the case of stars, their comprehension is greater, and they spontaneously combust in their awesome awareness of Him!

That's a myth, not a proper theory, and should not be confused with reality.

BTW, are you a sock puppet for Yannox or Yul?

Celestial Mechanic
2004-Aug-06, 08:44 PM
According to the mystics and the divines [always the best source of information!--CM] the planets are spinning (except the Earth!), because as sentient beings they are constantly agitated into swift circular motion by their desire to gain comprehension of the Creator. In the case of stars, their comprehension is greater, and they spontaneously combust in their awesome awareness of Him!
Well, better stop thumpin' the scripture of your choice before you burst into flames! [-X

Glom
2004-Aug-07, 09:51 AM
Maybe they're just Kylie fans.

Celestial Mechanic
2004-Aug-09, 03:57 AM
One last comment on this utterly inane post:

According to the mystics and the divines [always my first source for cutting-edge astronomical information!--CM] the planets are spinning (except the Earth!), because as sentient beings they are constantly agitated into swift circular motion by their desire to gain comprehension of the Creator. In the case of stars, their comprehension is greater, and they spontaneously combust in their awesome awareness of Him!
The Sun rotates about every 27 days (less at the equator, longer at the poles). Almost everything else in the Solar System rotates faster, with the exception of the Moon, Mercury, and Venus. Most asteroids and comets rotate faster. So why aren't they all consumed by "their awesome awareness of Him"?
:roll:

Brady Yoon
2004-Aug-09, 05:42 AM
BTW, are you a sock puppet for Yannox or Yul?

Isn't that the guy who's pushing geocentrism?

Oyvey
2004-Aug-10, 08:41 PM
The Bible refers to the heavenly orbs as being sentient eg. "The Sun knows his going down" (Psalm 104). Just like with humans, generally the bigger the brain the cleverer the person, maybe the bigger the orb the more aware it is; with a star it is sufficiently big to combust in awareness!

The Supreme Canuck
2004-Aug-10, 09:12 PM
<Snip>
Just like with humans, generally the bigger the brain the cleverer the person
<Snip>


I'm afraid that this is untrue. It was considered scientific fact in the 1800s but has since been disproved. The significant factor is also not brain size relative to body size.

I have an average sized brain and an averaged size body, but above average intelligence. If brain size or brain-to-body mass ratio determined intelligence, I would have an average intelligence.

Edited to add negative. #-o

amateurphysicist
2004-Aug-11, 01:13 AM
Disclaimer: I feel compelled to offer some constructive criticism on this post, which I've chosen to do piece-wise, but this is intended to be simply that (constructive criticism), and does not in any manner reflect on the author of the original post.



The strange result is that human mind(irrespective of age,sex etc.,) does require to complete a simple (seemingly.... but complex in depth) routine-a 'mental process',along the line of aim, before we strike the ball to produce a spin motion in it and more amazing is that the 'routine' is to be applied(mental completion) in the opposite (back ward) direction of the line of aim in order to get a 'spin stroke' and that if the same routine is applied along line in the same forward direction to get a 'spin less stroke'.


I'm afraid you've lost me here a bit. If you mean that one usually aims/concentrates/in some other manner pays attention to one's shot prior to making it in the expectation of a successful result, then I would agree with you.



Also...the results show that it's just impossible to produce the 'spin motion' in the required direction without the specific 'routine' (mental process) duely completed by the mind.


1.) ... what results/source?
2.) I disagree. A force applied off-axis from the ball's center of mass will produce a torque, and hence, spin the ball.




This 'routine'(my discovery) is unknown even to masters of the game except that they just do the required routine completion out of practice...just by feel without it's concrete knowledge.


If the 'masters of the game' are able to be successful independent of your discovery (independent of any validity your discovery might possess), do you accept the possibility that your 'routine' (as you put it) is not a requisite for spinning a billiard ball?



Thus,apart from mechanical explanations of cause of spin,I feel,it can be proved that a specific mental process i.e the mind is the real cause of spin.


I emphatically disagree with you in this case. As stated previously, the real cause of spin is in generating angular momentum by applying a torque to the ball. The thought process employed prior to doing so will certainly improve the person's chances of a successful shot, but simply thinking about spinning the ball won't do anything. The ball spins when the que hits it off-center and not before.



My conclusion is that ,in a way...the stroke knowledge pre exists in the mind and all that (out of practice)a player learns to get used to it (only by feel ..I mean not knowing it concretely)...Does it lead us to conclude that Mind is the all knowing entity and that all kinds of knowledge pre exists in the mind it self?


1.) A trained professional billiards player probably does need to think less about a shot than an amateur would for the simple reason that they have more experience and have thus trained themselves to act more instinctively. I expect this is true of any athlete/sport.

2.) I'm not convinced your conclusion necessarily follows from your argument.



And as for 'celestial spin',it's known to all that one of the very fundamental questions of cosmology,the cause of spin of the 'celestial balls'-the erath and the other bodies,still remains unanswered(satisfactorily) by modern science.The question has been set aside with some 'vague' explanation......


1.) I might be better to avoid using phrases along the lines of: "it's known to all that (x)."

2.) With respect to the rest of this particular statement, I would earnestly recommend to any interested person that he/she pick up any astronomy/astrophysics textbook and find the chapter(s) describing celestial mechanics.



So....based on my research results,couldn't it be convincingly proved that a ball (terrestial or celestial) DOES require a MIND at work with a SPECIFIC process/Then it's not hard to imagine whose MIND is behind the spin of the earth....in other words..doesn't this conclusion lead to the proof of 'Existence Of God' ? and is it not for us to conclude (philosophically) that what's true is "mind over matter"?


Your argument rather nicely parallels the "first mover" argument postulated by St. Thomas Aquinas. That aside, I still disagree with it.

Celestial Mechanic
2004-Aug-11, 04:01 AM
The Bible [A proven source of scientific information--NOT! --CM] refers to the heavenly orbs as being sentient eg. "The Sun knows his going down" (Psalm 104).
The Sun does not "know" "his going down". An observer at the Sun sees a nearly-spherical Earth that presents different views towards it in a regular pattern, in fact, at regular intervals of about 24 hours. The Sun rises at some places, sets at others at the same time.

Just like with humans, generally the bigger the brain the cleverer the person, maybe the bigger the orb the more aware it is; with a star it is sufficiently big to combust in awareness!
Humans with intellect regardless of brain size know that the Bible, like all scripture, has poetic and literary elements that are not to be taken literally. If you are to take this Psalm literally, it would seem to indicate support for not merely Geocentrism, but for a flat Earth as well. You don't really believe in such nonsense, do you?

And as for stars "combusting", stars are powered by various processes of nuclear fusion taking place in a comparatively small volume, either at the center of the star or in thin layers concentric about the center. No knowledge of divine beings required!