lol, why dont you read my answer again and really,really think about it. Hint >> the new position of the balls :grin:
Last edited:
Cte
- Thread starter jamesroberts
- Start date
lol, why dont you read my answer again and really,really think about it. Hint >> the new position of the balls :grin:
I know you won't get this, champ - it's for other readers who might understand:
If two shots have the same "visuals" but a different cut angle, the only way for the shooter to make the cut angle adjustment is by feel. The system only gives the visuals.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
I new you wouldnt get this as usual
your body is offset at around a 45 degrees, your not directly behind the cueball. So what do you think happens when you move along the axis or the balls move along that axis? Its done and your wrong as usual this 10 year old mystery has been solved PJ
Last edited:
Wherever your body is in relation to the balls, it's there because the "system visuals" for this shot put it there. If the system visuals for the next shot are the same, then they'll put your body in exactly the same position in relation to the balls.
This isn't an "or" question. If the balls move, the body also moves exactly the same amount and direction - to the new position dictated by the unchanged system visuals, which puts it in the same position relative to the balls (do you understand this phrase?), which produces the same cut angle.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
ok well i just explained if the cue ball stays stationary and you move the object ball along the axis but not enough to change the alignments. what you are talking about most likely will be an 1/8 adjustment needed to pocket the ball. Now dont forget this, you are placing balls on the table with this scenario and really this situation does not come up in a game. Just killed two birds with one stone!
Last edited:
You posted this question several minutes ago:
If you can't keep track of the questions that you ask, how can we have a conversation?
pj
chgo
That point needs no further proof (since we're being cute and all).Pat, I'm going to go out on a limb here for a moment, and actually assume that you are being serious here. And, that you really do want to understand it. And, yes, I realize that just might prove your points in the past that I am an idiot.
Imagine you could levitate the balls an inch (so they'll stay in the same position relative to your body) while somebody moved the table away from you 4 1/2", and then lowered the balls carefully back onto the table without moving their positions. Now you and the balls are in exactly the new table position you described, except it's more clear (or should be) that your position relative to the balls has not changed.
So why is "your alignment not on"?
This is utter nonsense. If you don't change your position relative to the balls, then you don't change what you see when you look at the balls, I don't care if you're standing on your head.
This is the clueless fiction that enables you to believe this.
You should re-read that.
pj
chgo
I have explained both of these situations, just admit it Pj lol
Last edited:
Your random bullshit doesn't interest me. Follow the current conversation or be ignored.[snip 4 wei tables]I have explained both of these situations, just admit it Pj lol
pj
chgo
Reposted with ACAD study.
Put the OB touching the CB at CTE and the secondary aiming at the center of the OB “B” and the visual is obvious. Move the OB away from the CB and it appears smaller, so starting at the CTE line (CTEL) and the center of the OB will also appear to be a smaller distance from the CTEL. Although the distance from the CTEL to the secondary aim point “B” (1/2 ball) when the CB and OB are touching is 1.125 inches, it will be ½ of that at 3 feet or .625 in. and ¼ of that at 6 feet or .3125 in.
If one wants to keep one’s bridge at his normal distance behind the CB, say 12 in., then one must adjust the side shift of the cue from the center of the CB to achieve the same cut angle of say 60 degrees for the secondary aim point ½ or “B”. If the separation between the CB and OB is 2 feet, with the ½ cue tip offset from the center of the CB pre-pivot, then the1/2 cue tip offset will be a bit less than that if the separation is 4 feet and greater if the separation is one foot – to achieve the same cut angle (60 degrees).
Tip offsets:
1 foot 1.5
2 feet ½
3 feet .20 (1/5)
4 feet .10 (1/10)
The side shift of the cue pre-pivot for separations from 3 feet to 6 feet is so small that it is in the noise of incremental slight errors of the perception of the secondary aim point due to errors attributed to parallax views.
I hold that CTE aiming and its derivatives are exponential at close separations between the CB and OB, similar to how double distance and 90-90 aiming are affected.
Put the OB touching the CB at CTE and the secondary aiming at the center of the OB “B” and the visual is obvious. Move the OB away from the CB and it appears smaller, so starting at the CTE line (CTEL) and the center of the OB will also appear to be a smaller distance from the CTEL. Although the distance from the CTEL to the secondary aim point “B” (1/2 ball) when the CB and OB are touching is 1.125 inches, it will be ½ of that at 3 feet or .625 in. and ¼ of that at 6 feet or .3125 in.
If one wants to keep one’s bridge at his normal distance behind the CB, say 12 in., then one must adjust the side shift of the cue from the center of the CB to achieve the same cut angle of say 60 degrees for the secondary aim point ½ or “B”. If the separation between the CB and OB is 2 feet, with the ½ cue tip offset from the center of the CB pre-pivot, then the1/2 cue tip offset will be a bit less than that if the separation is 4 feet and greater if the separation is one foot – to achieve the same cut angle (60 degrees).
Tip offsets:
1 foot 1.5
2 feet ½
3 feet .20 (1/5)
4 feet .10 (1/10)
The side shift of the cue pre-pivot for separations from 3 feet to 6 feet is so small that it is in the noise of incremental slight errors of the perception of the secondary aim point due to errors attributed to parallax views.
I hold that CTE aiming and its derivatives are exponential at close separations between the CB and OB, similar to how double distance and 90-90 aiming are affected.
That's not the reason. The reason is that you (once again) refuse to address my specific and carefully described objections to your "explanation" and try to pretend that I'm the one being unresponsive. That's what makes you an idiot.O.K. Pat, you proved me an idiot for assuming that you just might really want to know.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
Can anyone believe this guy??????????????????? I answered your question and im current lol can anyone tell me i was wrong?
Check mate Mr Johnson! and as Stan say's "The eyes lead and the body naturally follows to the new alignment"
Last edited:
just ignore him pal.if i was you id follow jb's lead and not post anything cte related.....its only patrick whos consistently replying and he has no intention of ever learning the system.
if people need to learn the system its all in Stan's DVD.people just think its going to work over night......it takes time and practice.....it isnt a miracle cure
just ignore him pal.if i was you id follow jb's lead and not post anything cte related.....its only patrick whos consistently replying and he has no intention of ever learning the system.
if people need to learn the system its all in Stan's DVD.people just think its going to work over night......it takes time and practice.....it isnt a miracle cure
Its over he no longer he can say anything, he knows this now
I endorse this idea. Please ignore me. Both of you.
I endorse this idea too (but don't hold out much hope).
pj
chgo
Why would you want me on ignore? i will admit you put up a good fight by questioning the unknown and using to your advantage but you knew it was only a mater of time until the facts started coming out.
Last edited:
LOL. Name a "fact" that has "come out".
And it's "knew".
pj
chgo
Thanks for the correction i will change that now for you.