Squirt. End Mass and Cue Flexibility.

[Corwyn_8]

Is religion right or are scientists right when it comes to the creation of the universe. Prove either one. Pick a side. I can find an equal number opposing whichever side you pick.

As though truth depended on how many people believe it.

People who want you to believe lies eventually will be forced to try to get you to question the fundamental nature of truth. Since any given truth is connected to all other truths somehow. Any given lie will need eventually to be defended against all of the (known) truths.

Thank you kindly.

 

[HawaiianEye]

As though truth depended on how many people believe it.

People who want you to believe lies eventually will be forced to try to get you to question the fundamental nature of truth. Since any given truth is connected to all other truths somehow. Any given lie will need to be defended against all of the (known) truths.

Thank you kindly.

Do YOU believe in aliens?

I KNOW there are people who are PAID by the US GOVERNMENT to sit down with headsets on listening for them around the clock. And before you say this is BS, I'll tell you that I have spent MANY hours listening for them (never heard an ET yet). Do you know what an alien sounds like? Neither do I! That is why it is so hard to find them.

If there are NO ALIENS, why are you allowing your government to spend your hard-earned tax dollars listening for them? Maybe some of the broke-ass pool players who can't find a game or win should look for such a job instead of trying to play pool.

You don't know what you don't know.

Look up SETI.

 

[john coloccia]

So Corwyn, to formalize the question into something you can test, a good start would be whether you can feel a 1kHz vibration. If the answer is yes, then the next question is can you tell the difference between a 1kHz vibration and a 2kHz vibration. If the answer to the first question is yes, I would bet the answer to the second question is yes also. I don't know the answer to the first question. At least that formalizes the basic question of what's actually detectable through your fingers, as an example.

And again, if I had to guess, I would guess it's in the kHz for reasonable amplitudes just based on experience.

 

[Corwyn_8]

Heavens, Corwyn. The point is that your body is capable of picking up things which happen on the order of <1ms

And my point is that you haven't shown that yet.

you claimed:

You have different receptors in your eye that are sensitive to different wavelengths. Your brain doesn't get raw frequency information about individual photons.

I claim EXACTLY the same thing about your ear:
You have different receptors in your ear (along the cochlea) that are sensitive to different wavelengths. Your brain doesn't get raw frequency information about individual sound waves.

Therefore my analogy with light holds. Since we both agree that the brain is not processing at terahertz levels, and that an analogous method is used to Fourier transform light waves as to transform sound waves. We can not use sound waves to determine that the brain is processing at kilohertz levels.

So you need to make your point with another argument.

We're all free to "know" whatever it is we wish to know, I suppose.

Not for any rational definition of 'know'; no we can't. We aren't even able to believe what we want to believe.

We are, of course, free to deny what we know (or believe) that we find unpalatable. But we shouldn't expect any sympathy from a cold reality which disagrees. Nor from a cold internet.

 

[Corwyn_8]

So Corwyn, to formalize the question into something you can test, a good start would be whether you can feel a 1kHz vibration.

Nope, that wouldn't show what you want to show. The test would need to be can you detect a SINGLE WAVE of a one kilohertz signal, and differentiate that from a SINGLE WAVE of a two kilohertz signal.

Thank you kindly.

 

[Corwyn_8]

Do YOU believe in aliens?

My confidence level in the idea of aliens is pretty high. My confidence level in the idea of intelligent, technological, nearby, aliens, is much lower. If you want confidence levels in Decibans, please ask a more specific question.

I KNOW there are people who are PAID by the US GOVERNMENT to sit down with headsets on listening for them around the clock.

I call BS. "Current SETI searches are funded by donations, mostly from individuals among the public and a few foundations and corporations. Major donors have included William Hewlett, David Packard, Gordon Moore, Paul Allen, Nathan Myhrvold, Arthur C. Clarke, Barney Oliver, and Franklin Antonio." -SETI website

If there are NO ALIENS, why are you allowing your government to spend your hard-earned tax dollars listening for them?

I also apparently 'allow' my government to blow up people.

You don't know what you don't know.

Are you under the impression that SETI is some big secret that only you know about?

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - Mark Twain


Thank you kindly.

 

[HawaiianEye]

I call BS. "Current SETI searches are funded by donations, mostly from individuals among the public and a few foundations and corporations. Major donors have included William Hewlett, David Packard, Gordon Moore, Paul Allen, Nathan Myhrvold, Arthur C. Clarke, Barney Oliver, and Franklin Antonio." -SETI website

Thank you kindly.

I call BS on your BS! Are you POSITIVE that the ONLY people listening for "aliens" are not funded by the government?

Are YOU privy to what goes on behind CLOSED doors in government facilities?

 

[john coloccia]

And my point is that you haven't shown that yet.

you claimed:


I claim EXACTLY the same thing about your ear:
You have different receptors in your ear (along the cochlea) that are sensitive to different wavelengths. Your brain doesn't get raw frequency information about individual sound waves.

Therefore my analogy with light holds. Since we both agree that the brain is not processing at terahertz levels, and that an analogous method is used to Fourier transform light waves as to transform sound waves. We can not use sound waves to determine that the brain is processing at kilohertz levels.

So you need to make your point with another argument.



Not for any rational definition of 'know'; no we can't. We aren't even able to believe what we want to believe.

We are, of course, free to deny what we know (or believe) that we find unpalatable. But we shouldn't expect any sympathy from a cold reality which disagrees. Nor from a cold internet.

https://books.google.com/books?id=j...human vibration sensitivity threshold&f=false

Note that even at several kHz, the thresholds are on the order of 1/10,000 of an inch. That would seem to line up with my guess that we're sensitive out to the kHz, and numerous other sources seem to agree that our PEAK sensitivity is somewhere around 250 - 500Hz. The more I read about it, the more I'm starting to lean towards at least some people being able to discriminate a difference between contact times that can be several milliseconds apart. Again, I don't know, but I have no reason to believe otherwise, and ample reason to keep an open mind about it.

And with that, I'm not spending anymore time on this because apparently it's all figured out and there's no reason for anymore pesky data.

 

[Corwyn_8]

I call BS on your BS!

You know there is no harm in admitting that you are wrong, right? You realize that it is the ONLY way to learn new things, correct?

So the question is 'how much should I adjust my confidence levels given that HawaiianEye claims he KNOWs something?' The answer would seem to be 'not much at all.' Because he states that he KNOWs things which are determined to be false by a simple website search, that he could easily have performed before he made his claim.

Thank you kindly.

 

[HawaiianEye]

And with that, I'm not spending a... and there are more than ONE of THEM on here.

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

We are bio-mechanical beings & not robotic machines.

Yes there is physics involved but there is also the human side that use that physics & that is where the art of playing the game comes.

It seems that some want to say that there is no art or athleticism involved. It's all just book science.

I don't think any of the engineers commenting here think that pool is just "book science", or that playing the game itself is science at all. Alciatore, Page, Jewett, Agnir, et al are all fine "A" players, or even better. As players, they know all about the art and athleticism in the game, trust me.

The misunderstandings come when folks like yourself - who have little or no knowledge of the science - come on here with claims that violate the basic laws of classical Newtonian physics (book science, as you call it) and seem closer to the occult than they do to physics. Sorry, they're gonna call you on that kind of BS, and they're gonna win... because they are right.

Instead of wasting your time playing "Stump Dr. Dave", you should actually work through some of his technical proofs yourself. If you can find any specific errors, bring them to his attention. Trust me, a good scientist knows they may be proven incorrect at any time and welcomes it, because that is how science advances. But if you do, please show your work (i.e. your equations). It does no good to argue physics and engineering from a experiential viewpoint.

 

[Corwyn_8]

And with that, I'm not spending anymore time on this because apparently it's all figured out and there's no reason for anymore pesky data.

Good way to reverse the burden of proof.

You seem to be missing that all I am waiting for is 'pesky data'. I made NO claim, on either side. I have just been dubious, and demanding of good evidence. This is too often mistaken for arguing the other side.

Thank you kindly.

 

[Corwyn_8]

I don't think any of the engineers commenting here think that pool is just "book science"

Depends on how big your book is. :smile:

Trust me, a good scientist knows they may be proven incorrect at any time and welcomes it, because that is how science advances.

Which, in fact, DrDave has done (twice I think) in this very thread.

Thank you kindly.

 

[john coloccia]

I'll think I'll join you. I'll let the scientists debate it amongst themselves.

When any of them want to play pool, I'll be happy to play any of them. Not saying I can beat all of them, but if we could go back in a time tunnel I'd bet quite a bit I could beat Einstein. Maybe not, but I could be trying to decipher E=mc2 while he was racking.

You can't argue with people who KNOW it ALL and there are more than ONE of THEM on here.

Well, I'm sort of one of those scientists types myself. I've learned it's counterproductive to accept or dismiss ideas for no good reason. If you don't constantly doubt what you believe, your thinking becomes rigid and you stagnate.

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

The more I read about it, the more I'm starting to lean towards at least some people being able to discriminate a difference between contact times that can be several milliseconds apart. Again, I don't know, but I have no reason to believe otherwise, and ample reason to keep an open mind about it.

I found this when looking for info on the matter.

Using a habituation/test procedure, the author investigated adults' and infants' perception of auditory–visual temporal synchrony. Participants were familiarized with a bouncing green disk and a sound that occurred each time the disk bounced. Then, they were given a series of asynchrony test trials where the sound occurred either before or after the disk bounced. The magnitude of the auditory visual temporal asynchrony threshold differed markedly in adults and infants. The threshold for the detection of asynchrony created by a sound preceding a visible event was 65 ms in adults and 350 ms in infants and for the detection of asynchrony created by a sound following a visible event was 112 ms in adults and 450 ms in infants. Also, infants did not respond to asynchronies that exceeded intervals that yielded reliable discrimination. Infants' perception of auditory–visual temporal unity is guided by a synchrony and an asynchrony window, both of which become narrower in development. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved)

It's not exactly about the phenomenon you are alluding to, but if the threshold of human ability to separate a sound from the visual event that follows is about 65ms, I doubt that the ability to detect the difference in two tactile sensations separated by a few ms apart will be interpreted by the brain as anything but a synchronous thump.

 

[Mr. Bond]

Originally Posted by LAMas
-" The tip compresses before the CB moves


Its an interesting theory/question...

Bob or Dave - how much "force", expressed as say, ounces or grams, does it take to "move" an average pool ball (at all) in any direction (on average cloth)?

If the amount of force it takes to compress a given tip (at all) is less than the force it would take to move a stationary ball, the tip could compress "first", before ball the ball moves?

But if the amount of force required to move a stationary ball is less than would be required to compress a given tip, the ball movement would happen "first" - or simultaneously with compression....?

 

[Bob Jewett]

Originally Posted by LAMas
-" The tip compresses before the CB moves


Its an interesting theory/question...

Bob or Dave - how much "force", expressed as say, ounces or grams, does it take to "move" an average pool ball (at all) in any direction (on average cloth)?

If the amount of force it takes to compress a given tip (at all) is less than the force it would take to move a stationary ball, the tip could compress "first", before ball the ball moves?

But if the amount of force required to move a stationary ball is less than would be required to compress a given tip, the ball movement would happen "first" - or simultaneously with compression....?

Take just the shaft of your cue and bring it up to the cue ball. Slowly, very slowly and gently. Just barely touch the cue ball without moving it. Gradually press harder against the stationary ball. Watch how much compression you get of the tip before the ball moves. Estimate how many pounds of force you had to apply before the cue ball budged. Report your results.

 

[LAMas]

Did you say 1 ounce?
Who shoots that slow? We are talking about shooting pool where we have the speed of the cue in play and not push shots.

Be well and be real

What's real?

 

[Corwyn_8]

If the amount of force it takes to compress a given tip (at all) is less than the force it would take to move a stationary ball, the tip could compress "first", before ball the ball moves?

How about thinking of Force as a Force PAIR, two forces equal and in opposite directions. As soon as there is a pair of forces, each is doing something. If there is a force moving the tip, there is a force moving the cue ball. In either case, that movement could be small movements of components (even component atoms) rather than gross movements of the whole object. Either might be hard to detect.

Thank you kindly.

 

[Corwyn_8]

but if the threshold of human ability to separate a sound from the visual event that follows is about 65ms

This got me thinking, is the ability to detect millisecond differences in time duration analogous to determining distance by the difference between the flash of lightning and the thunder to within a foot?

Thank you kindly.