open forum discussion. Please stop with the pm stuff
My Thread… Regarding The Truth about so called ‘Objective Aiming Systems’ such as CTE
- Thread starter ENGLISH!
- Start date
- Status
open forum discussion. Please stop with the pm stuff
So, someone ask you how to aim....you start with "Using the edge of the ball"...they go what edge?
So here are two people one see edges on balls that don't have a edge and another doesn't see edges at all.
Which one is right?
Isn't it totally subjective that one see edges and one doesn't? The surface is not a edge.
Do the same thing with a cube. Course it can't roll, but there are edges .....formed by two planes meeting at a angle. Does a ball have this?
I'm not into just accepting conventions like most on here do...ie balls have edges. That points imagined in the head are objective points in the real world.
Teaching that same person......how can you show them lines that don't exist to points that don't exist? You can explain it with words, but the visualization of such is in the person mind and you have do idea what's going on in there meaning if they are imginaing the same lines, same point locations as you do.
Subjective.
Actually this is a good example of long term conventions never being challenged. Just being accepted without thought. I don't follow the crowd.
If being correct is being a stickler......so be it.
So here are two people one see edges on balls that don't have a edge and another doesn't see edges at all.
Which one is right?
Isn't it totally subjective that one see edges and one doesn't? The surface is not a edge.
Do the same thing with a cube. Course it can't roll, but there are edges .....formed by two planes meeting at a angle. Does a ball have this?
I'm not into just accepting conventions like most on here do...ie balls have edges. That points imagined in the head are objective points in the real world.
Teaching that same person......how can you show them lines that don't exist to points that don't exist? You can explain it with words, but the visualization of such is in the person mind and you have do idea what's going on in there meaning if they are imginaing the same lines, same point locations as you do.
Subjective.
Actually this is a good example of long term conventions never being challenged. Just being accepted without thought. I don't follow the crowd.
If being correct is being a stickler......so be it.
John,
We were having a polite & civil PM conversation that you willingly participated in on other matters until you initiated a different topic & interjected the word 'exasperating' regarding me...
& when I returned in kind you went all, shall we say, bezar, with your imposed restrictions & possible consequences for failure to comply with your demands.
You seem to be being hypocritical here when you are one of the most vocal that has railed against 'negativity' in 'CTE' threads & how it is inappropriate when others are trying to discuss & learn about CTE.
Well the intention of this thread is for those of us that know that an objective aiming system can not & does not exist to have a place to comment on such & discuss the why so regarding such with out all of the dissension & distraction of all of the arguments by those that believe otherwise.
I respectfully & politely ask you to refrain from making arguments contrary to the purpose of THIS, MY THREAD, & would also politely ask that you edit out your previous posts that are like that.
Best Wishes.
Last edited:
If you are going to post anything about cte please include the amount of your training and the quality of the instructor teaching you. Otherwise how could anyone take you seriously?
A ball has an outer edge that is very visible. Unless of course, one only believes in ghost balls.
And each of these "keys" is only closer to the actual shot, not right on it - and in fact, no closer than you are when you've estimated the ghost ball position - in fact, probably not as close. Then the final estimating begins for both methods.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
So you go, "Oh, you don't know what a figure of speech is. Never mind. I'll go talk with somebody who speaks my language."
pj
chgo
Banks
Banned
For the love of all that is pool.. just quit it with this half ball thing. If you can't grasp.. which is obvious.. the fact that it's where the cb overlaps the ob by half a ball, then go learn how to play. You and Rick should have a forum where you just argue about whatever comes up, no facts needed.
It's been explained to you literally dozens of times - here it is again:
"Defined" means the system gives specific, unambiguous instructions that can be followed by a robot to get on the shot line (but are simple enough for a human player to use at the table).
pj
chgo
Sorry I never saw that definition.
However if you built a robot that could see like a person then I believe CTE covers it.
The instructions for CTE work seamlessly from player to player ASSUMING that the player is familiar enough with the system to understand the lingo and apply the "key".
So for example one CTE user could show a shot that he has practiced and knows the key for. By telling everyone what the visual solution is every other CTE user can then go straight to the shot line for that shot.
So in that sense it's objective because the accurate solution can be transmitted verbally. This could even be tested easily where shots are done on one end and shot lines verified to be correct and then ONLY the aiming visuals are transmitted to another person in a remote location and if that person then sets up on the exact shot line it should be enough to show the objectivity and accuracy of the system.
i thought this thread is about like minded people agreeing there is no such thing as a 100% objective aiming system????
not trying to prove cte is objective?????
You mean a robot that understands "acquire the visual" better than all the people who bought the DVD and didn't? Remember, the robot doesn't get to "practice until he gets it" - that's aiming by "learned visualization", i.e. feel.
pj
chgo
If you are going to post anything about cte please include the amount of your training and the quality of the instructor teaching you. Otherwise how could anyone take you seriously?
Nope, just talking about a robot that follows objective instructions.
Pro-One does this
We already know that you and John don't know what these words mean. Give other CTE users a chance to show that they don't either.
pj <- same old same old
chgo
If CTE's instructions can be followed by a robot, why do I need training and instruction?
pj
chgo
Because the robots are pool PLAYING robots that love being at the table unlike you who plays with words and drawings on a computer keyboard. They're made for pool and you aren't.
So you can't answer the question either. What good is all that CTE training if you guys can't answer - or even understand - simple questions about it like this?
pj
chgo
Every system is subjective if humans are involved.
Even computers have problems when not everything is programmed into the computer. By everything, I mean every little POSSIBLE detail.
If you program a computer to shoot a ball at a certain point, at a certain speed, and use X amount of spin, even the computer will make mistakes if squirt, swerve, etc. aren't programmed into the equation. If you change the cloth, rails, cues, etc. that has to be programmed as well to account for humidity, dirty cloth, etc., etc., etc..
Humans can not do what computers do and sometimes computers can not do what humans do.
If anyone has to go through all this to play pool, they will NEVER play pool at the highest level. They may know how it is done in the "theory" world, but they will never be able to display it on the table.
I think everyone sees pretty much the same thing when aiming; however, their brains do not process the information exactly the same because their interpretations aren't exactly the same.
Even if everything processed the same, you have different individuals who are "unable" to provide the proper input "speed, angle, spin, alignment, stroke, etc." to achieve the proper output (desired result).
GIGO.
Even computers have problems when not everything is programmed into the computer. By everything, I mean every little POSSIBLE detail.
If you program a computer to shoot a ball at a certain point, at a certain speed, and use X amount of spin, even the computer will make mistakes if squirt, swerve, etc. aren't programmed into the equation. If you change the cloth, rails, cues, etc. that has to be programmed as well to account for humidity, dirty cloth, etc., etc., etc..
Humans can not do what computers do and sometimes computers can not do what humans do.
If anyone has to go through all this to play pool, they will NEVER play pool at the highest level. They may know how it is done in the "theory" world, but they will never be able to display it on the table.
I think everyone sees pretty much the same thing when aiming; however, their brains do not process the information exactly the same because their interpretations aren't exactly the same.
Even if everything processed the same, you have different individuals who are "unable" to provide the proper input "speed, angle, spin, alignment, stroke, etc." to achieve the proper output (desired result).
GIGO.
- Status