Forums > Advanced Poi Moves > My thoughts on Plane Bending
Login/Join to ParticipateGOLD Member
stranger
16 posts
Location: Oakland, CA, USA
stranger
16 posts
Location: Oakland, CA, USA
Posted:
This is be one of my first posts on the HOP in many years. I put a good amount of work into this post (sorry it's so long) I hope the community gets something out of it.
Video demo of things I talk about:
I think what I have been calling plane bending has been called 3-D spinning by Alien Jon, I like both terms. Is there a difference between them? I am thinking of spinning where the planes are continuously changing, for the most part using gravity to do so. Correct me if I’m wrong about this, other non-linear planes (I like this word) like atomics do not change planes, ideally they stay fixed relative to each other. So plane bending would not be an accurate adjective because the planes remain still. Is there something else besides 3-D spinning that that term ‘plane bending’ includes?
My specific investigation of plane bending utilizes planes between vertical and horizontal, and spinning with less force than what is required to keep the plane still. As the poi goes up to the highest point gravity will be pulling it down, sliding it into a different plane. Sometimes I think of it as a mini upward stall with an additional horizontal spinning component; in fact, I liken most of my plane bending to partial stalls. For example, at the moment in an upward stall where the poi is still, there is the choice to bring it into any plane, the poi has no momentum therefore it can be directed in any direction. What I do is spin the poi up on a diagonal lightly and at the top the poi does not have too much momentum, which allows me to direct it to a degree, or just let it fall into a new plane. Or to put it a different way: Since the poi is spinning between vertical and horizontal there is both a vertical component and a horizontal component that are for the most part independent. What I am trying to describe and utilize is when the vertical component period (time for complete circle) is shorter than the horizontal component period.
I have not found plane bending where the poi remains vertical throughout the entire shift particularly interesting (i.e. Nick Woolsey). I believe this technique requires shifting the plane in opposite directions every half spin, half to shift planes, half to correct to maintain verticality. I do not do this because planes have inertia (the amount is correlated with the speed of spin); when a plane is set in motion it takes effort to stop it and make it go the other way and my style is one of finding paths of least resistance. The idea is demonstrated by turning around in circles while spinning at a 45 degree angle. The plane maintains it self, relative to me not the audience, as long as my poi does not go the other direction. This is an example of plane bending in the same direction. When I do decide to stop and turn the other way the plane pops back to vertical before tilting the other way and it required more energy to avoid hitting yourself (it doesn’t have to go through vertical, but a certain amount of anti-spin will start happening). This is plane bending the ‘opposite direction’. Compare that with the feeling of keeping the plane vertical and shifting from one wheel plane to the other. This idea of plane bending ‘in the same direction’ is a bit tricky there must be a better way to describe it.
(Demonstration of the previous paragraph is on the accompanying video, number 1)
Another good example of this technique for the type of plane bending I am writing about, is:
(#2 on the video)
1.) Start spinning with your right hand in a plane that is 45 degrees between a vertical and horizontal plane, make sure it is slanted toward you at the top of the spin and away from you at the bottom and that you are spinning counter-clockwise from your point of view.
2.) Put hand directly above head and begin to only apply force directly upwards. As less force is applied, the plane will start to rotate around to the left in a precession.
4.) If this is continued the plane should slide all the way around the head always tilted between horizontal and vertical upwards towards the head.
Beyond that control of the amount of bending is desirable. Try doing four beats and going all the way around the head. One beat at the front, side, back, other side.
Very often while plane bending the planes will be approximately at 90 degrees from each other, like an atom. At this point, the two poi are half way between at least two easily definable timing-directions. Any pattern done with planes at 90 degrees to each other will be some mixture of moves in each of those timing-directions. I’m sure this has been talked about in other threads, it is my favorite part of exploring non-linear planes, finding the connection between the timing-directions.
(The following two paragraphs are #3, on the video))
To illustrate this idea I use the atomic split-time weave. The pattern I am thinking of is very similar to the linear plane version, each hand does two beats on the away side and one on the home side. It’s different in that the ‘away’ side is more in front, 45 degrees towards the wall plane and the home side is 45 degrees behind, and this applies to both hands. Doing this atomic weave there is the option of stopping in the middle, as either hand crosses over the other, into a split-time, crossed-hands, butterfly. The way that both a weave pattern and a butterfly exist in this move illustrates that the atomic weave is half way between a weave and a crossed-hands butterfly and uses principals from both. When both hands are on the same side of the body, the arm the movement acts like that of a weave. When one hand is crossing over to the other side it’s like an opposite direction move, in that there is a moment when the hand comes up and over and must avoid the other poi in a similar manner to a butterfly.
If the planes continue past a 90 degrees orientation towards the opposite direction, the weave pattern can continue however it becomes more awkward the closer to opposite direction the planes come. But the weave pattern is still possible in that opposite direction pattern.
What I find fascinating about this is the conceptual connections that are made between the planes/directions/timings. As I have explored the possibilities between the planes/direction/timing (dimensions), sharp conceptual distinctions between them disappear. It becomes a matter of perspective. Instead of ‘same direction, split time’ opposed to ‘opposite direction, same time’ moves, they all become part of a spectrum. The box is filled in with possibilities and gravity.
To illustrate a different way: There is a conceptual connection between a weave and windmill, in so far as they use similar principals. There is the same type of connection between the weave and butterfly, they also use the same principals and it is difficult to see without exploring what is between them. I enjoy trying to see 3-D tricks from many different plane perspectives. When looked at from different planes perspectives, the same pattern can be both same-direction, split-time and opposite-direction, together-time.
Right now my terminology and understanding exist mostly in 2-D. Coming from that thinking, there are at least three or four perspectives to see most 3-D moves from, the three different planes, and also pendulums (maybe; I don’t quite know how to fit pendulums in yet, I have been thinking of them as another plane (ever tried a pendulum weave?) but I am starting to see them as the normal timings/directions only folded in on themselves). Every thing becomes relative to every thing else, in a smooth continuum, in a multi-dimensional space of possibilities.
My goal has been to be able to stop time, put the poi in random spots around me and give them random direction to start traveling in, then start time and I wouldn’t tangle because no matter what they will be within 45 degrees of a move I know and can define. To me 3-D spinning feels like it fills in the grid of what is defined in 2-D. It connects everything through a path of least resistance and might result in a grand unifying concept of poi, an understanding that will encompass all possible poi movements! ... …
Realistically though, I’ve felt like this several times in the past and whenever I get close to my conceptual goal the ceiling breaks, I have a wonderfully frustrating epiphany and I see a whole new aspect to explore. When that happens I feel like there will never be an end, a complete understanding of poi cannot possibly exist. However, whenever I am close to reaching my current conceptual ceiling I say, “This must be it! After this I will know everything.” This cycle starting to amuse me, but I cannot help it, it is exciting and keeps me motivated and moving forward.
So, onwards! When I started looking at this stuff I was just throwing my poi around and trying not to tangle, spinning at 45 degrees and much as possible. Then I got more specific and tried to find smooth pathways between same direction and opposite direction. This actually got me somewhere. After a while I started to flow without using any concept of planes. I did not know what I was doing, just letting my unconscious learn by trial and error. I really enjoy this method of dynamic intuition (to take a term from Alien Jon). I believe that my unconscious mind is much better at comprehending and utilizing complex systems than my conscious mind (I believe there have been studies that came to this conclusion, i.e Blink by Malcolm Gladwell). Almost right from the start I have always been able to do things that I did not understand. The analytical understanding, which I think is very important, always came later as I watched what I was doing and made generalizations which lead to a filling out of technique that I had not stumbled upon during the trial and error, like trying it in another direction-timing or upside-down. I think this is an important point especially for people learning from teachers. Just because a move can be done does not automatically mean the understanding is there. Not only do the mechanics need to be understood, it also needs to be placed in a relation to every other move, extracting the essence of the move that will allow for variations and for it to be transferred to other timing-directions.
In my personal practice there has never been a time when there been such a spread between what I can do and what I understand. I am only just beginning to understand what is going on with this 3-D spinning and I have been doing it for a year. Trying to teach it at Wild Fire really made me realize how little I consciously grasped what I was doing. All I could do was try to lead people through the same path I took. Since then I have found much shorter paths, while trying to explain it to several people at the Vulcan. I have identified two moves I believe are central, I have been calling them the 3-D weave and the 3-D corkscrew. The name analogy only goes so far. As I explained before each of these tricks are halfway between several moves. For example the 3-D weave is between an atomic weave, a horizontal together-time Thread the Needle (TTN), a together time pendulum TTN, and a side-to-side one point five, among others. I have started work on a tutorial for these moves, I will try to get it out soon.
This is be one of my first posts on the HOP in many years. I put a good amount of work into this post (sorry it's so long) I hope the community gets something out of it.
Video demo of things I talk about:
I think what I have been calling plane bending has been called 3-D spinning by Alien Jon, I like both terms. Is there a difference between them? I am thinking of spinning where the planes are continuously changing, for the most part using gravity to do so. Correct me if I’m wrong about this, other non-linear planes (I like this word) like atomics do not change planes, ideally they stay fixed relative to each other. So plane bending would not be an accurate adjective because the planes remain still. Is there something else besides 3-D spinning that that term ‘plane bending’ includes?
My specific investigation of plane bending utilizes planes between vertical and horizontal, and spinning with less force than what is required to keep the plane still. As the poi goes up to the highest point gravity will be pulling it down, sliding it into a different plane. Sometimes I think of it as a mini upward stall with an additional horizontal spinning component; in fact, I liken most of my plane bending to partial stalls. For example, at the moment in an upward stall where the poi is still, there is the choice to bring it into any plane, the poi has no momentum therefore it can be directed in any direction. What I do is spin the poi up on a diagonal lightly and at the top the poi does not have too much momentum, which allows me to direct it to a degree, or just let it fall into a new plane. Or to put it a different way: Since the poi is spinning between vertical and horizontal there is both a vertical component and a horizontal component that are for the most part independent. What I am trying to describe and utilize is when the vertical component period (time for complete circle) is shorter than the horizontal component period.
I have not found plane bending where the poi remains vertical throughout the entire shift particularly interesting (i.e. Nick Woolsey). I believe this technique requires shifting the plane in opposite directions every half spin, half to shift planes, half to correct to maintain verticality. I do not do this because planes have inertia (the amount is correlated with the speed of spin); when a plane is set in motion it takes effort to stop it and make it go the other way and my style is one of finding paths of least resistance. The idea is demonstrated by turning around in circles while spinning at a 45 degree angle. The plane maintains it self, relative to me not the audience, as long as my poi does not go the other direction. This is an example of plane bending in the same direction. When I do decide to stop and turn the other way the plane pops back to vertical before tilting the other way and it required more energy to avoid hitting yourself (it doesn’t have to go through vertical, but a certain amount of anti-spin will start happening). This is plane bending the ‘opposite direction’. Compare that with the feeling of keeping the plane vertical and shifting from one wheel plane to the other. This idea of plane bending ‘in the same direction’ is a bit tricky there must be a better way to describe it.
(Demonstration of the previous paragraph is on the accompanying video, number 1)
Another good example of this technique for the type of plane bending I am writing about, is:
(#2 on the video)
1.) Start spinning with your right hand in a plane that is 45 degrees between a vertical and horizontal plane, make sure it is slanted toward you at the top of the spin and away from you at the bottom and that you are spinning counter-clockwise from your point of view.
2.) Put hand directly above head and begin to only apply force directly upwards. As less force is applied, the plane will start to rotate around to the left in a precession.
4.) If this is continued the plane should slide all the way around the head always tilted between horizontal and vertical upwards towards the head.
Beyond that control of the amount of bending is desirable. Try doing four beats and going all the way around the head. One beat at the front, side, back, other side.
Very often while plane bending the planes will be approximately at 90 degrees from each other, like an atom. At this point, the two poi are half way between at least two easily definable timing-directions. Any pattern done with planes at 90 degrees to each other will be some mixture of moves in each of those timing-directions. I’m sure this has been talked about in other threads, it is my favorite part of exploring non-linear planes, finding the connection between the timing-directions.
(The following two paragraphs are #3, on the video))
To illustrate this idea I use the atomic split-time weave. The pattern I am thinking of is very similar to the linear plane version, each hand does two beats on the away side and one on the home side. It’s different in that the ‘away’ side is more in front, 45 degrees towards the wall plane and the home side is 45 degrees behind, and this applies to both hands. Doing this atomic weave there is the option of stopping in the middle, as either hand crosses over the other, into a split-time, crossed-hands, butterfly. The way that both a weave pattern and a butterfly exist in this move illustrates that the atomic weave is half way between a weave and a crossed-hands butterfly and uses principals from both. When both hands are on the same side of the body, the arm the movement acts like that of a weave. When one hand is crossing over to the other side it’s like an opposite direction move, in that there is a moment when the hand comes up and over and must avoid the other poi in a similar manner to a butterfly.
If the planes continue past a 90 degrees orientation towards the opposite direction, the weave pattern can continue however it becomes more awkward the closer to opposite direction the planes come. But the weave pattern is still possible in that opposite direction pattern.
What I find fascinating about this is the conceptual connections that are made between the planes/directions/timings. As I have explored the possibilities between the planes/direction/timing (dimensions), sharp conceptual distinctions between them disappear. It becomes a matter of perspective. Instead of ‘same direction, split time’ opposed to ‘opposite direction, same time’ moves, they all become part of a spectrum. The box is filled in with possibilities and gravity.
To illustrate a different way: There is a conceptual connection between a weave and windmill, in so far as they use similar principals. There is the same type of connection between the weave and butterfly, they also use the same principals and it is difficult to see without exploring what is between them. I enjoy trying to see 3-D tricks from many different plane perspectives. When looked at from different planes perspectives, the same pattern can be both same-direction, split-time and opposite-direction, together-time.
Right now my terminology and understanding exist mostly in 2-D. Coming from that thinking, there are at least three or four perspectives to see most 3-D moves from, the three different planes, and also pendulums (maybe; I don’t quite know how to fit pendulums in yet, I have been thinking of them as another plane (ever tried a pendulum weave?) but I am starting to see them as the normal timings/directions only folded in on themselves). Every thing becomes relative to every thing else, in a smooth continuum, in a multi-dimensional space of possibilities.
My goal has been to be able to stop time, put the poi in random spots around me and give them random direction to start traveling in, then start time and I wouldn’t tangle because no matter what they will be within 45 degrees of a move I know and can define. To me 3-D spinning feels like it fills in the grid of what is defined in 2-D. It connects everything through a path of least resistance and might result in a grand unifying concept of poi, an understanding that will encompass all possible poi movements! ... …
Realistically though, I’ve felt like this several times in the past and whenever I get close to my conceptual goal the ceiling breaks, I have a wonderfully frustrating epiphany and I see a whole new aspect to explore. When that happens I feel like there will never be an end, a complete understanding of poi cannot possibly exist. However, whenever I am close to reaching my current conceptual ceiling I say, “This must be it! After this I will know everything.” This cycle starting to amuse me, but I cannot help it, it is exciting and keeps me motivated and moving forward.
So, onwards! When I started looking at this stuff I was just throwing my poi around and trying not to tangle, spinning at 45 degrees and much as possible. Then I got more specific and tried to find smooth pathways between same direction and opposite direction. This actually got me somewhere. After a while I started to flow without using any concept of planes. I did not know what I was doing, just letting my unconscious learn by trial and error. I really enjoy this method of dynamic intuition (to take a term from Alien Jon). I believe that my unconscious mind is much better at comprehending and utilizing complex systems than my conscious mind (I believe there have been studies that came to this conclusion, i.e Blink by Malcolm Gladwell). Almost right from the start I have always been able to do things that I did not understand. The analytical understanding, which I think is very important, always came later as I watched what I was doing and made generalizations which lead to a filling out of technique that I had not stumbled upon during the trial and error, like trying it in another direction-timing or upside-down. I think this is an important point especially for people learning from teachers. Just because a move can be done does not automatically mean the understanding is there. Not only do the mechanics need to be understood, it also needs to be placed in a relation to every other move, extracting the essence of the move that will allow for variations and for it to be transferred to other timing-directions.
In my personal practice there has never been a time when there been such a spread between what I can do and what I understand. I am only just beginning to understand what is going on with this 3-D spinning and I have been doing it for a year. Trying to teach it at Wild Fire really made me realize how little I consciously grasped what I was doing. All I could do was try to lead people through the same path I took. Since then I have found much shorter paths, while trying to explain it to several people at the Vulcan. I have identified two moves I believe are central, I have been calling them the 3-D weave and the 3-D corkscrew. The name analogy only goes so far. As I explained before each of these tricks are halfway between several moves. For example the 3-D weave is between an atomic weave, a horizontal together-time Thread the Needle (TTN), a together time pendulum TTN, and a side-to-side one point five, among others. I have started work on a tutorial for these moves, I will try to get it out soon.
BRONZE Member
HOP librarian
1,841 posts
Location: Prague, Czech. Republic
HOP librarian
1,841 posts
Location: Prague, Czech. Republic
Posted:
3D Spinning utilize techniques in third dimension.
[Old link]
What you call a 'plane bending' can be found as 'framing' or 'overlap',
but in different sense manner. Plane bending in sense of plane,over-
lap in sense of cross-over and framing in sense of sphere.
According to previos answer I can add that, new 4D Spinning thoery
include framing and much more!
[Old link]
I've discoverd this firt on FS.de:
https://www.feuershow.de/lessons/123/11966922746545/82en.html
(Vertical to horizontal)
Also I agree with the shift term for that movement.
I think I understand, but want to know more!
Atoms are directionless and time independent.
Linear = Flat.
Sharp conceptual distinction.
(What does that meen?)
The box is filled in with possibilities and gravity.
(4D Cube)
This need to be explained more, but I understand.
Here I'd reffere to 'restorspective' learning method
and learning methode at all.
[Old link]
I have a 'mid line' theory open about that theme. I'd like disscuss
that theme a lot.
--------------------------------------
Can't wait for your tutorials.
lightning,
:R
Written by:
I think what I have been calling plane bending has been called 3-D spinning by Alien Jon, I like both terms. Is there a difference between them?
3D Spinning utilize techniques in third dimension.
[Old link]What you call a 'plane bending' can be found as 'framing' or 'overlap',
but in different sense manner. Plane bending in sense of plane,over-
lap in sense of cross-over and framing in sense of sphere.
Written by:
Is there something else besides 3-D spinning that that term
‘plane bending’ includes?
According to previos answer I can add that, new 4D Spinning thoery
include framing and much more!
[Old link]Written by:
I liken most of my plane bending to partial stalls. For example, at the moment in an upward stall where the poi is still, there is the choice to bring it into any plane, the poi has no momentum therefore it can be directed in any direction.
I've discoverd this firt on FS.de:
https://www.feuershow.de/lessons/123/11966922746545/82en.html
(Vertical to horizontal)
Also I agree with the shift term for that movement.
Written by:
Since the poi is spinning between vertical and horizontal there is both a vertical component and a horizontal component that are for the most part independent. What I am trying to describe and utilize is when the vertical component period (time for complete circle) is shorter than the horizontal component period.
I think I understand, but want to know more!
Written by:
At this point, the two poi are half way between at least two easily definable timing-directions.
Atoms are directionless and time independent.
Written by:
To illustrate this idea I use the atomic split-time weave. The pattern I am thinking of is very similar to the linear plane version, each hand does two beats on the away side and one on the home side.
Linear = Flat.
Written by:
As I have explored the possibilities between the planes/direction/timing (dimensions), sharp conceptual distinctions between them disappear. It becomes a matter of perspective. Instead of ‘same direction, split time’ opposed to ‘opposite direction, same time’ moves, they all become part of a spectrum. The box is filled in with possibilities and gravity.
Sharp conceptual distinction.
(What does that meen?)
The box is filled in with possibilities and gravity.
(4D Cube)
Written by:
I really enjoy this method of dynamic intuition (to take a term from Alien Jon).
This need to be explained more, but I understand.
Written by:
The analytical understanding, which I think is very important, always came later as I watched what I was doing and made generalizations which lead to a filling out of technique that I had not stumbled upon during the trial and error, like trying it in another direction-timing or upside-down. I think this is an important point especially for people learning from teachers.
Here I'd reffere to 'restorspective' learning method
and learning methode at all.
[Old link]Written by:
All I could do was try to lead people through the same path I took. Since then I have found much shorter paths..
I have a 'mid line' theory open about that theme. I'd like disscuss
that theme a lot.
--------------------------------------
Can't wait for your tutorials.
lightning,
:R
POI THEO(R)IST
GOLD Member
stranger
16 posts
Location: Oakland, CA, USA
stranger
16 posts
Location: Oakland, CA, USA
Posted:
Thanks for the reply, those links are going to take me a while to get through, I'm really interested in this 'framing' and 4-D theory you are talking about.
Written by:
It's like a physics problem when you see how far an ball is thrown if it leaves at a certain angle at a certain speed. First you separate the vertical and horizontal components of the vector. Then use the vertical component to compute the time it will take gravity to pull the object to the ground. Then use the horizontal to see how far it goes in that amount of time.
I relate the distance the ball goes to the circle the poi make in the horizontal plane and that interacts with the vertical part in fun ways.
If the time it take for the poi to go up then down (vertical period) is the same as the time it takes for it to go around in a horizontal circle (horizontal period), the plane remains stationary.
If the vertical period is half of the horizontal (poi is going up and down twice for every single horizontal circle) then you get a pendulum that travels around your head.
The moves that I plan on making a tutorial for, and I have thought are somewhere in the middle of this madness, use a 3:2 vertical period to horizontal period, but the horizontal beats are not even... ... This is actually the first time I have thought about this so I can't really say more, I'm going to have to think about it.
I agree that strict atoms are directionless, by strict atom I mean the poi are at exactly 90 degrees to each other, neither poi has any circular movement in the other poi's plane (if I look perpendicular at one poi so I see a circle, the other poi will only be making a line, no circle), which makes talking about same or opposite direction meaningless. But if the poi come away from that 90 degree angle a little in either direction the poi can be said to have a direction there is now a small circular movement in the other poi's plane perspective. When the planes are at 90 degrees it is ambiguous what direction you are in, but if you go a little one way you might be in same direction and a little the other way, opposite direction. So I think of a 90 degree atom as exactly half way between.
But I'm not sure about atoms being time independent. The atom I was talking about where both the poi are vertical, why can't I count beats the same way? Even if I am doing a horizontal - vertical atom. Can't I still count beats off an arbitrary point and compare both poi? I guess I look at timing as relative angular speed and that seems to me to be plane independent.
Timing is something I still struggle with wrapping my mind around. I feel like it should be like planes or direction... but I don't see it that way.
Ah yes... This paragraph is a little out there, at least I stopped saying that ultimately all poi moves are one! I was trying to get across my experience of doing this stuff and the timing/directions/planes start to blend together. It's like a portal that you enter into and can emerge at any timing/direction/plane you want. And while you are in it, it is hard to say what timing/direction/plane you are in because the poi are usually near a 90 degree atom, and atoms are directionless and timing independent. So instead of same direction and opposite direction being completely separate, they are points in a spectrum with atoms exactly half way between them.
I'll write again once I have digested all those other posts. I've been really bad about reading stuff online... until now.
Thanks for the reply, those links are going to take me a while to get through, I'm really interested in this 'framing' and 4-D theory you are talking about.
Written by:
Written by :
Since the poi is spinning between vertical and horizontal there is both a vertical component and a horizontal component that are for the most part independent. What I am trying to describe and utilize is when the vertical component period (time for complete circle) is shorter than the horizontal component period.Written by :
I think I understand, but want to know more!
It's like a physics problem when you see how far an ball is thrown if it leaves at a certain angle at a certain speed. First you separate the vertical and horizontal components of the vector. Then use the vertical component to compute the time it will take gravity to pull the object to the ground. Then use the horizontal to see how far it goes in that amount of time.
I relate the distance the ball goes to the circle the poi make in the horizontal plane and that interacts with the vertical part in fun ways.
If the time it take for the poi to go up then down (vertical period) is the same as the time it takes for it to go around in a horizontal circle (horizontal period), the plane remains stationary.
If the vertical period is half of the horizontal (poi is going up and down twice for every single horizontal circle) then you get a pendulum that travels around your head.
The moves that I plan on making a tutorial for, and I have thought are somewhere in the middle of this madness, use a 3:2 vertical period to horizontal period, but the horizontal beats are not even... ... This is actually the first time I have thought about this so I can't really say more, I'm going to have to think about it.
Written by :
Atoms are directionless and time independent.
I agree that strict atoms are directionless, by strict atom I mean the poi are at exactly 90 degrees to each other, neither poi has any circular movement in the other poi's plane (if I look perpendicular at one poi so I see a circle, the other poi will only be making a line, no circle), which makes talking about same or opposite direction meaningless. But if the poi come away from that 90 degree angle a little in either direction the poi can be said to have a direction there is now a small circular movement in the other poi's plane perspective. When the planes are at 90 degrees it is ambiguous what direction you are in, but if you go a little one way you might be in same direction and a little the other way, opposite direction. So I think of a 90 degree atom as exactly half way between.
But I'm not sure about atoms being time independent. The atom I was talking about where both the poi are vertical, why can't I count beats the same way? Even if I am doing a horizontal - vertical atom. Can't I still count beats off an arbitrary point and compare both poi? I guess I look at timing as relative angular speed and that seems to me to be plane independent.
Timing is something I still struggle with wrapping my mind around. I feel like it should be like planes or direction... but I don't see it that way.
Written by :
As I have explored the possibilities between the planes/direction/timing (dimensions), sharp conceptual distinctions between them disappear. It becomes a matter of perspective. Instead of ‘same direction, split time’ opposed to ‘opposite direction, same time’ moves, they all become part of a spectrum. The box is filled in with possibilities and gravity.Written by :
Sharp conceptual distinction.
(What does that meen?)
The box is filled in with possibilities and gravity.
(4D Cube)
Ah yes... This paragraph is a little out there, at least I stopped saying that ultimately all poi moves are one! I was trying to get across my experience of doing this stuff and the timing/directions/planes start to blend together. It's like a portal that you enter into and can emerge at any timing/direction/plane you want. And while you are in it, it is hard to say what timing/direction/plane you are in because the poi are usually near a 90 degree atom, and atoms are directionless and timing independent. So instead of same direction and opposite direction being completely separate, they are points in a spectrum with atoms exactly half way between them.
I'll write again once I have digested all those other posts. I've been really bad about reading stuff online... until now.
BRONZE Member
pant crafting
97 posts
Location: Ireland
pant crafting
97 posts
Location: Ireland
Posted:
Originally Posted By: IanMichaelSmith
and atoms are directionless and timing independent.
i dont think this is true. in a perfect model, perhaps, but that doesnt exist. we still have to hold the poi which means that the poi cant have a common centre (of rotation) which, if doing an atomic buzzsaw say, will make you have to spin the horizontal poi either above or below your other hand, which in turn means it will need to have a certain direction relative to the vertical poi, or they'll wrap up.
Originally Posted By: IanMichaelSmith
and atoms are directionless and timing independent.
i dont think this is true. in a perfect model, perhaps, but that doesnt exist. we still have to hold the poi which means that the poi cant have a common centre (of rotation) which, if doing an atomic buzzsaw say, will make you have to spin the horizontal poi either above or below your other hand, which in turn means it will need to have a certain direction relative to the vertical poi, or they'll wrap up.
No air drumming - Bruford could change the timing up so fast you could snap your wrist!
GOLD Member
stranger
16 posts
Location: Oakland, CA, USA
stranger
16 posts
Location: Oakland, CA, USA
Posted:
I love the fact that this forum never deletes posts. Things written two years ago can be resurrected...
Yes, I agree, only in an idealistic world are atoms directionless, not in the real world.
But I don't think there is anyway around making theory outside an ideal world. They are after all ideas... and in my opinion our ideas can never fully grasp what is really going on, poi is too complex. Our theory can only orient us enough to not tangle and allow us to see things before we actually do them.
What I find interesting about atomics is that in theory I should be able to hold the concept of spinning in at least two different timing/directions equally well. In reality I always tend towards one which tells me I'm not balanced yet.
I've started writing an update in my thoughts about this. I've had lots of new ideas about this in the last two years. I'm excited to see what everyone thinks.
I'm actually having a bit of trouble finding the current theories in 3-D spinning... Can anyone help me out to find posts?
EDITED_BY: IanMichaelSmith (1266384246)
I love the fact that this forum never deletes posts. Things written two years ago can be resurrected...
Yes, I agree, only in an idealistic world are atoms directionless, not in the real world.
But I don't think there is anyway around making theory outside an ideal world. They are after all ideas... and in my opinion our ideas can never fully grasp what is really going on, poi is too complex. Our theory can only orient us enough to not tangle and allow us to see things before we actually do them.
What I find interesting about atomics is that in theory I should be able to hold the concept of spinning in at least two different timing/directions equally well. In reality I always tend towards one which tells me I'm not balanced yet.
I've started writing an update in my thoughts about this. I've had lots of new ideas about this in the last two years. I'm excited to see what everyone thinks.
I'm actually having a bit of trouble finding the current theories in 3-D spinning... Can anyone help me out to find posts?
EDITED_BY: IanMichaelSmith (1266384246)
SILVER Member
Unofficial Chairperson of Squirrel Defense League
4,061 posts
Location: South Africa
Unofficial Chairperson of Squirrel Defense League
4,061 posts
Location: South Africa
Posted:
Not sure there are any.
The techpoi thing on Tribe.net might have some stuff? Otherwise, I think a lot of development stuff is getting buried on Youtube now, which is a bit annoying to find at times.
I know Drex has been playing with atomic flowers and CAPs. Am sure that he is not alone either.
Not sure there are any.
The techpoi thing on Tribe.net might have some stuff? Otherwise, I think a lot of development stuff is getting buried on Youtube now, which is a bit annoying to find at times.
I know Drex has been playing with atomic flowers and CAPs. Am sure that he is not alone either.
'We're all mad here. I'm mad, you're mad." [said the Cat.]
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "Or you wouldn't have come here."
- Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures In Wonderland
SILVER Member
Poi explorer
108 posts
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Poi explorer
108 posts
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posted:
As far as I know there hasn't been much development in 3D concepts in the last year except that more people are finding out about it, so basically you've got:
Atomic weaves either horizontal/vertical or in trinity plane.
Zero point stalls with plane change in various configurations and timings.
Atomic flowers which is just doing wallplane flowers with one poi and wheelplane flowers with the other (or floorplane) or using the diagonal planes in front of you (haven't seen anyone use the ones on top)
And then you have 3D flowers in which your arm is spinning in one plane and the poi is spinning in another (this in turn can also be atomic).
It really helps with 3D spinning to get the muscle memory for all the atomic weave configurations then you can plane bend easily between each one quickly so that it doesn't look like any kind of spinning at all.
As far as I know there hasn't been much development in 3D concepts in the last year except that more people are finding out about it, so basically you've got:
Atomic weaves either horizontal/vertical or in trinity plane.
Zero point stalls with plane change in various configurations and timings.
Atomic flowers which is just doing wallplane flowers with one poi and wheelplane flowers with the other (or floorplane) or using the diagonal planes in front of you (haven't seen anyone use the ones on top)
And then you have 3D flowers in which your arm is spinning in one plane and the poi is spinning in another (this in turn can also be atomic).
It really helps with 3D spinning to get the muscle memory for all the atomic weave configurations then you can plane bend easily between each one quickly so that it doesn't look like any kind of spinning at all.
BRONZE Member
pant crafting
97 posts
Location: Ireland
pant crafting
97 posts
Location: Ireland
Posted:
you can also do atomic flowers with one poi in wheel plane and one in horizontal, and atomic buzzsaws vertical vs. horizontal too.
as for a "theory", i dont know if there will ever be one. siteswap works for juggling, but doesnt describe body movement, which in poi is a lot more integral to describing whats going on. there are other notations that describe movement, but they seem a bit clumsy; none are as elegant as siteswap.
a single poi can be spun, and depending on what the arm is doing, we get a different pattern. the poi doesnt change, but the arm changes what we see as the poi pattern. so we can get a different result by putting the poi anywhere we are willing to train ourselves to (inc. throws
), in any pattern. and then theres the other poi and all the combinations of patterns they can do then.
the siteswap equivalent, i think, would just be the relative timing and direction of the poi. i think you could notate stalls and timing changes for a pattern, but that wouldnt describe all the ways that pattern could be achieved, e.g. as crossers, extensions, antispin, doing turns...inevitably, it will be easier to achieve some patterns by adding a certain body movement - which would be very difficult to make a theory for...
theres no theory of juggling, or other object manipulation as far as im aware. there is on technique, but thats not exactly the same.
doesnt mean we cant document what we discover, but i dont think it can be boiled down to a theory - and if we did, it would be long and complex and noone would ever read it!
you can also do atomic flowers with one poi in wheel plane and one in horizontal, and atomic buzzsaws vertical vs. horizontal too.
as for a "theory", i dont know if there will ever be one. siteswap works for juggling, but doesnt describe body movement, which in poi is a lot more integral to describing whats going on. there are other notations that describe movement, but they seem a bit clumsy; none are as elegant as siteswap.
a single poi can be spun, and depending on what the arm is doing, we get a different pattern. the poi doesnt change, but the arm changes what we see as the poi pattern. so we can get a different result by putting the poi anywhere we are willing to train ourselves to (inc. throws
), in any pattern. and then theres the other poi and all the combinations of patterns they can do then.the siteswap equivalent, i think, would just be the relative timing and direction of the poi. i think you could notate stalls and timing changes for a pattern, but that wouldnt describe all the ways that pattern could be achieved, e.g. as crossers, extensions, antispin, doing turns...inevitably, it will be easier to achieve some patterns by adding a certain body movement - which would be very difficult to make a theory for...
theres no theory of juggling, or other object manipulation as far as im aware. there is on technique, but thats not exactly the same.
doesnt mean we cant document what we discover, but i dont think it can be boiled down to a theory - and if we did, it would be long and complex and noone would ever read it!
No air drumming - Bruford could change the timing up so fast you could snap your wrist!
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [thought * plane bending] we found the following existing topics.
- Forums > My thoughts on Plane Bending [7 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com