Wow, moving up in the technology world. Memes = the loser.
PS with 12,400 posts and probably 6,000 pm's in under 3 yrs, do you ever play pool?lol.
★ Aiming Systems ★ Techniques ★ Etc.
- Thread starter JoeyA
- Start date
Wow, moving up in the technology world. Memes = the loser.
PS with 12,400 posts and probably 6,000 pm's in under 3 yrs, do you ever play pool?lol.
Two physical objects used to orient the body in a specific manner which is repeatable from shot to shot.
Repeatable results obtained from using this method much faster than by trial and error.
Last edited:
How so, John?
How differently than fractional aiming or other methods that use the two objects (balls)?
Best Wishes.
Last edited:
Any method that uses the physically existing balls without any need to estimate using non-existing objects is objective. CTE is the most objective of those methods in my experience.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
So John...
Are you now saying that the other systems or methods like fractional, or Joe Tucker's matching number method,etc. are like CTE in their nature?
You seem to now be using objective in a different manner.
Just because an object is involved does not mean that a vision, system, method, point of view, perspective, perception, etc. is objective.
You said earlier that it was 100% objective in your opinion. By that, do you just mean that it is not ghost ball?
Best Wishes.
Last edited:
Yes any method which relies on only the cue ball and object ball to align to the shot is objective. Only methods that are derived from perception of connecting lines are similar to cte. Cte however is the most accurate of these methods because of its higher level of objectivity.
100% objectivity in my opinion.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
John,
It seems that you do not understand what objectivity is.
That seems to be a common thread for those arguing that CTE is an objective system.
How, in your opinion, does CTE have a higher level of objectivity over say Joe Tuckers matching numbers method or the fractional method or the equal & opposite overlap method?
Best Wishes.
Although logically impossible, that perception is apparently an important part of CTE's value to its users.
I get that and even do it myself in other ways. A perception that works for you may be more useful than a fact that doesn't.
pj
chgo
John,
Please see the portion of your words that I put into blue text.
Do you realize that perception is subjective?
http://www.wisegeekhealth.com/what-is-subjective-perception.htm
Best Wishes.
Only because you intentionally searched for "subjective perception" on google doesn't make it subjective as you're trying to make it, obviously intentionally, and we all know the reason for it.
When you google only perception this is one of the pages that comes up:
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/vi...277.001.0001/acprof-9780199597277-chapter-005
Here is an excerpt from the text:
"Objective and Subjective Sides of Perception
Alan Gilchrist
DOI:10.1093/acprof
so/9780199597277.003.0006Every perceptual experience has an objective and a subjective side. We see object size, independent of distance, but we also see that distant objects project smaller images. Early modern conceptions focused on local stimulation and thus on the subjective aspect. Helmholtz and Hering emphasized the objective aspect. Helmholtz split visual experience into two stages, with sensation representing the subjective side and perception, through cognitive processes, the objective side."
But of course you wouldn't put this link and this text here?
I wonder why? I just hope the mods will also.
And no, I don't care about your response and I don't want a PM.
And my name is MIRZA, not MIZRA, I'm starting to think you write that wrong on purpose too.
Yes, I can perceive .499999990 and you can perceive .5100000" when we both look at the same ruler. Using the ruler however to measure distance increases your accuracy tremendously making the act of measuring practically 100% objective.
So I will again change my statement for you, in my opinion CTE is 99.99% objective as a way to aim.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
Do the aforementioned perceptions account for throw and distance for the same apparent angles perceived?
......................
Only because you intentionally searched for "subjective perception" on google doesn't make it subjective as you're trying to make it, obviously intentionally, and we all know the reason for it.
When you google only perception this is one of the pages that comes up:
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/vi...277.001.0001/acprof-9780199597277-chapter-005
Here is an excerpt from the text:
"Objective and Subjective Sides of Perception
Alan Gilchrist
DOI:10.1093/acprof
Every perceptual experience has an objective and a subjective side. We see object size, independent of distance, but we also see that distant objects project smaller images. Early modern conceptions focused on local stimulation and thus on the subjective aspect. Helmholtz and Hering emphasized the objective aspect. Helmholtz split visual experience into two stages, with sensation representing the subjective side and perception, through cognitive processes, the objective side."
But of course you wouldn't put this link and this text here?
I wonder why? I just hope the mods will also.
And no, I don't care about your response and I don't want a PM.
And my name is MIRZA, not MIZRA, I'm starting to think you write that wrong on purpose too.
You just proved 8,000 of his posts are wrong,lol.
John,
You seem to have missed the point that I have been making but also what the real issue has been for what I think is most all of the dispute.
It's not a numbers thing & objectivity is not measured by a percentage.
Something is either objective or it is not. Something can have objective components in it & still be subjective in it's nature.
It is very much an either or type of thing. It is either one or the other in it's nature.
This may be why the aiming 'wars' have been going on for so long. There is not even an agreement on what objective & objectivity & subjective & subjectivity even mean.
Many have conceded for the sake of the 'discussion' that their are physical components like the 'ruler' that are 'objective'. Yet if one is using a 12 inch ruler to measure things that are larger than 12 inches than one is making subjective decisions in their determinations of the final measurement.
Some understand that & some seem to not be able to come to that rational, logical, reasonable, cognitive, non science bending, common sense realization...
for whatever reason or purpose.
Best Wishes.
Last edited:
Not really...it's only a portion of a quote and not the whole chapter so you have no idea what's the whole chapter is about.
Google subjective and objective and see what pops up.
CTE is subjective as is all aiming systems.
To believe other wise is just to be stupid.
Joey, I do find it funny the amount of time people spend on here posting/arguing against aiming systems. If someone says they have success using X system the same few people pounce on that post saying X system doesn't work or hold merit. It's a broken record. If that system doesn't work for you, congratulations. Who cares? If it works for someone else, that's awesome. Be happy for them. Several people dedicate a lot of their time and effort to try to teach others to improve their games. That is a good thing. Why in the world would people go out of their way to bash these people over and over and over regardless if they don't believe in the system that is being taught? If I don't believe in a system that I tried out that didn't work for me, so be it. That doesn't mean I should go out of my way to try to destroy the system for others looking to learn the game as that system may work for them. Aren't we trying to grow this game vs destroying it at the end of the day?
Same thing over and over. You give this argument to every supporter of CTE. YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT CTE. IT IS AN OBJECTIVE SYSTEM. Nothing you say or any words you twist isn't going to change that. MOVE ALONG LIKE THE MODS HAVE TOLD YOU TO DO.
Stupidity is shown in many posts, mostly yours, as you have been told.
It's also the reason that you could never understand CTE, but here you are giving an opinion about it.
How about at least trying to learn it before making stupid comments about it.
And what gives you the right to make a totally sensible post this early in the morning, lol.
You've hit the nail on the head. Thanks.