The Flight of Tennis Balls

 

The Flight of Tennis Balls: A Cameo of Creative Thinking & Understanding
.
By Herb Wiggins, M.D.; Clinical Neurosciences; Discoverer/Creator of the Comparison Process/CP Theory/Model; 14 Mar. 2014.
Copyright © 2019
.
This will show the great flexibility and near universal applicability of the CP/LE methods. Using the basic Pentad of understanding, The Comparison Process (CP) which drives the creation of information and shows us LE outcomes, Least Energy (LE), Structure/Function (S/F) Relationships, Complex System (Cx Sys) thinking/processing, Plus the unlimited multiplicities of methods, skills & skill sets, ways of doing things, approaches, Techniques & Technologies, devices, tools, etc.,& how understanding becomes more detailedly observable in seeing our brains work to solve problems.
.
This was at first addressed by “A Mother’s Wisdom”, and developed since then to a nearly complete MOE, but not quite.
.
.
.
As a result, the question became what drives the flight of tennis balls? Rather than do the entire visual processing, process thinking, CP and LE of all of it, will simplify it down to why does overspin on the Ball drive the ball down? It’s a Cx Sys, and thus is going to be amenable Not to math, logic or much else at first. First, as with Einstein we get a descriptive model of what’s going on, and then we can mathematize it, but not completely. The processes of thinking (logics) of the CP, LE are the guides here.
.
We must visualize the tennis ball. It’s given overspin, which means the ball is more or less rotating on a horizontal axis from Back to front. Having defined the conditions, we then analyze, visually what’s going on, and apply the necessary physical principles to see what’s going on, which is VERY Cx Sys. Or how to make a better tennis ball, and make the overspin work better by understanding it in more details. Brought to us by visualizing what’s going on. IOW we are simplifying the complexities of it down, by this test case to understanding it better. Simplification, Efficiency, Least energy in that progression.
.
So the ball is spinning fast from back up to front And that’s the first part of the major 4-5 vector elements at work, too. Which makes it Cx Sys, too. As the ball moves very quickly forward, that is the next speed set of vectors. Then we visualize what’s happening within a gravitation field, and why the ball is fuzzy, too.
.
As the ball moves forward at a set speed, the rotation of the ball means that the velocities of the air moving around the ball at the top Hemisphere, is moving Against the velocity of the forward motion of the ball. Thus, it’s the subtraction of two vectors the one moving forward and the one opposing that motion. Thus, the velocity of the air OVER the top of the ball is slower than its air speed. As the ball rotates, the vector in the front of the ball goes downwards, thus providing an upwards thrust, which should make it rise. But it does not!! And that’s because gravity is operating to bring the ball down. Thus the front part of the ball is trying to rise,  but gravity stops a lot of that. IOW, the ball moves Down in a gravity field, which is LE, again. Thus in this case combining Thermodynamics of the 2nd Law and making that equivalent to gravity in this case.
.
So why does the ball go down with all of those vectors working, as we know by Empirical outcomes testing? We’d expect it to rise, but it goes down much faster than a ball with almost no spin, by CP or the outcomes of tennis ball flight. The empirical information trumps our guessing. Thus we have a contradiction here. The front downward thrust of the fuzzy ball, carrying it Down, should make it rise. So, what’s happening?
.
Enter Bernoulli. His principle states that when air moves faster relative to a part of a surface where it’s moving more slowly, the pressure goes down, relative to the lower part. This is essentially how an aircraft wing works. The curvature of the upper surface of the wing creates faster flow, pressure goes down, because the air underside of the wing is not as fast being straight. Thus, the under surface pushed up & Lift is created. And generally, Bernoulli’s principle is that relative to water, air or other gases and liquids, this occurs predictably.
.
Now, it’s clear how this applies to the Tennis ball in Overspin flight. The pressure at the top of the ball, because it’s moving more slowly, is higher than the pressure of the bottom part of the ball, because that air is moving at the Higher Sum of velocities at the bottom. The forward motion speed vector PLUS the spin of the ball Adding to that. Thus, the over pressure of the Top, more slowly moving air near the ball, is higher. And THAT forces the ball down. Plus, of course, gravity as well.
.
Thus the ball moves downwards due to Bernoulli’s principle AND gravity, which naturally makes balls fall as Newton’s apple showed so long again, to him, as he was visualizing, process thinking about what happens to objects in a gravitational field. Again, Visual thinking, and then mathematized, just like Einstein did it. Just like WE are doing that here.
.
This process thinking allows us to look inside the minds of the great scientists, by using that CP, LE method to figure out what’s going on, in exact detail. Of course, this is largely idealized because there is a differential pressure as the air flows over the front of the ball, and steadily increases to the max at the bottom of the ball. The the back of the ball pushing air up, and should make the ball drop. But the front and back pretty much cancel each other, so we’re left with the top and bottom ball pressures plus gravity, to do the work. That’s why the ball goes down with overspin.
.
And this bit of cameo shows us how the brain, like Einstein’s, can do Thought Experiments, as in Sagan’s Cosmos, or in Whiteheadian terms, Process thinking, AKA visualizing of how physical processes work. Btu with Empirical outcomes testing to sort out the complexities, which cannot otherwise be understood. Bernoulli’s Principle is thus Cx Sys, empirical outcomes, is not?
.
Now we must factor in Cx Systems thinking to figure out more of what’s going on, with balls of all sorts, by comparing squash balls, very round and smooth and bouncy; with Baseballs, not as bouncy but harder and with a very much not as smooth surface of the squash ball; then with the golf ball, which is very hard, but with a dimpled surface, tho it can bounce some; And lastly with the Tennis ball with a very fuzzy surface which paradoxically would slow down the ball’s speed, compared to a squash ball, a baseball, and the golf ball.
.
Let’s compare surface effects of air resistance among all 4. The wind resistance of the Squash ball is very low, relatively as it’s nearly perfectly round (but not quite, as it’s NOT a mathematically ideal sphere, which is an approximation to that ball). Then the baseball which has a softer surface than the golf ball, and a pattern of surface sewing, stitching which is very precisely defined, but yet again, not perfect roundness or curved, either; and lastly the tennis ball, which is very fuzzy, & has high wind Resistance compared to the others.
.
So, this CP creates information about how those balls behave. The Tennis ball has the most, fuzzy surface and highest wind resistance of same. It doesn’t have to go very far, either. The fuzziness creates more options for ball control, however. The pitch of the baseball is a longer distance CP to that of the squash ball and the tennis ball. So speed, as in baseball which makes it harder to hit, and a golf ball, which makes it easier to hit a very long distance, upwards of 100 m. or more, is the case.
.
Each of those balls is carefully made to specifications, which are not perfect nor exact. & so the flights of each ball, the increased surface area of the soft ball, versus the baseball, means that speed in softball is not a big issue, compared to the near 100 mph pitches in pro baseball, which make the ball much harder to hit. Versus the much smaller golf ball which flies a LOT further, because it’s smaller, roundish and hard, lots less wind resistance, plus a driver high speed, arcing, so it can go further. These show us the mechanics of why and how each ball goes the distances they do, by CP!!
.
So, why do the seams of the baseball work? Well, it increases air resistances and that allows the pitcher by using various vectors of spin to make the ball drift in, with low spin, or curve to the right or left with a not vertical nor horizontal spin, the so called curve ball. And then the ball that drops very suddenly when pitched with overspin, as in the tennis ball. These are very hard to calculate, being many complex system factors, speed, overspin, ball surface resistances and so forth. Then how do we EVER figure these out?
.
And that’s the key to our understanding yet again. We judge by Comparing Empirical OUTCOMES of the various surfaces, seams, dimples, fuzziness and smoothness of the balls. We know by those multiple CP’s by Trail and Error (T&E) HOW the balls work and why. Altho we cannot mathematically calculate why each moves as they do. Those equations are far, far too varying among the speed, surface, hardness, spins and so forth. N factors are clearly very much =/> 3!!! Cx Sys, Indeed! And that’s what’s going on here. We compare HOW well the golf ball drives, and the dimples increase surface “Resistances”, too. As do the seams of the baseball. Thus their characteristics are widely, Cx Sys variable due to all of those factors.
.
So we have surface resistance, weight, size of the balls, and the various spins which can be put upon those balls. PLUS wind speeds, too. Tennis players won’t play in high wind speeds if occurring. & in golfing played outside where weather can’t be controlled, let alone wind, the ball’s flight and aim  directly must be figured out by compensation, by T&E comparisons, how to make the ball go where we want it do. Thus the dimples of the golf ball make those adjustments possible.
.
The same is true of wind on the baseball fields, or if it’s an enclosed stadium or open. The latter being a lot more complicated. Same with tennis. Squash is most always indoors, but will not deal with the Paddle ball sports, either.
.
Those all create complex systems interactions which CANNOT at this time be solved, even with our best computers. Now how did, without computers, the baseball, tennis, and golfers figure out how to handle all of this? Simply by Trial & Error (T&E) Empirical outcomes comparisons. That cuts the Gordian knot of complexities & finds the stable, repeating events in the flights of all of the balls, which can be used to control them, more or less. If we throw a ball in a set way, we get a set outcome in a windless, simpler system. Then we observe all of those and make a detailed set of  “if I do that,then I get this”, which is OUTCOMES CP. & the brain is as Ulam showed, well enough set up to see those repeating, confirming events in existence which makes possible a partial understanding of what’s going on, likely.
.
This is the Beauty of the CP system. It creates useful, empirical, repeating confirming methods to figure out complex systems, even without computers. OR science. & that’s how the brain largely works in high level cortical processing. It does this repeatedly. & that’s how we Confirm that it all works, too.
.
Confirmation article and repetitions, stabilities and LE here.
.
.
This is in a nutshell, how we can use the Pentad system of CP, LE, S/F (ball surfaces, weights, etc. CP outcomes), plus Cx Sys Kategoria, to figure out HOW to make all of the various balls in existence do what we want them to do. Within limits. It’s not absolute, nor can be, As in All Cx Sys it’s probabilities, not determinism nor certainties. It’s the variations on these make the many sports very interesting as oval US footballs compared to roundish Soccer balls, with their standard surfaces, too, do the work.
.
Thus with golf balls, or tennis balls, there are unlimited ways to change those surfaces, & then test for outcomes as to what creates more stable, determinable, and above all, the professional skills at putting those balls into flight. Most of which skills sets make up the professional sports men & women. & there it is. Simple, elegant, and easy to understand more deeply. This is the power of CP driven methods, and their outcomes of LE, S/F, Cx Sys and then all of the virtually Unlimited methods of making balls in flight work.
.
As a last, will make this short cameo. When playing volley ball, 50 years ago, noted that if the ball was launched, pitched, or rather in this case, serving (Kategoria of Aristoteles, which tells us which game we are playing!)  with some spin, it would be more predictable about where it was going. But, and this is the point, if served quickly it got into a real problem with the receiving team members not being able process quickly enough were it was going! But we were playing with younger people and women and the underhand serve was required, unlike overhand, high speed launches with competition VB. Again, another ball size, surface, weight, etc., problem.
.
And noted that it was possible to serve a ball without much spin & that would move in unpredictable directions, too. So my serves altho low speed, were very hard to predict where it would go. The ball would wobble in flight!!! Thus, by T&E once again, found a way to make a tough serve to return, even at low speeds. No one else could do that. & that’s my special skill, to find, create unexpected ways of performance, which others can’t match. Thus Depths within Depths and the entire Pentad of thinking. And the Wiggins Prime sieve, too.
.
Unlimited creativity is possible, by understanding better, our understanding. Whitehead said that we might not be able to understand understanding. And he couldn’t.  But using these methods we can much better, even into figuring out HOW information verbal and data mathematical is created by CP And organized into formal knowledge using the Kategoria of Aristoteles as the base form of the Hierarchies which relate most all to most all else.
.
AND that has AI implications of extraordinary value. Because if we want to simulate the brain, we are dependent upon a MODEL of some accuracy about HOW the brain does its tasks, esp. the higher functions of understanding, creativities, and basically, the Cameo of Walking, plus as addended by the Walkabout article. Which rather extends to day to day life how our brains work, to create biological general intelligence.
.
If we know where we’re going, we’re most of the way there, are we not? And this models takes us more than that, by far. Because it delimits and in details describes exactly a very good model of how the brain processes information to create language, creativity (the WellspringS of creativity in most all the fields, including manufacture and play of ball sports!) and much else besides. That’s what the Tennis ball article shows. Not only how our sporting balls work, but how the brain works, as exemplified by how our balls act in flight. & thus we can do most anything we want to, by understanding the ball sports, even create new sports/balls, in fact. Or better, more interesting pitches and serves in the same ways.
.
It’s a general, nearly universal Model of Everything, which applies not only to the sciences and how those work, but how we get on in daily life, time to time and find the ways of doing things, Viz., “Personal Knowledge” which was the goal of Polanyi, here largely solved.
.
Or, in fact, universal processors which can create unifying models, too. Largely solved to most extents, but not perfectly because there is NO perfect heat engine, any more than there are perfect descriptions or legal prescriptions for events in existence. Which is why we have judges in the sports as well as judges in the Law courts. No laws can be perfect, and we require judges to make up the difference between the cognitive dissonances we recognize in difficult law, or ref calls cases, as well. From the sciences to sports, then the law, and every field. This model largely, specifically & detailedly applies.
.
That, in short is what has been found. Universal processors (almost) creating unifying models applicable to most everything, most all events inside of us and outside of us, too. And let the chips fall where they may. Unlimited creativity, unlimited progress, unlimited improvements in both our knowledge and the means of education, but not quite. From the hard problems of solving, nearly forever, microbial resistances to antibiotics, or how to make Sildenafil 50 mg. last 3 days with simple Cx Sys rules. Or why the “side effects” are not that, but Cx Sys effects, indeed, making possible a very revolutionary & new Cx Sys pharmacology. & in Physics as well. The Cx Sys of the 2nd Law. Applicable without limits, but not quite.
.
& That, clearly, is what’s been shown here.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s