Oddly enough, what you find not supported and flying in the face of science I find just the opposite, and I made a living using that science as a mechanical designer. I had typed up a long response I choose not to post. What you find silly I find to be fact. If we go much further at least one of us is going to get irritated.
Believing something to be fact is not what make things facts. Facts don't care what you believe. Evidence (and its indisputability and preponderance) is what makes things facts.
You claimed that slippage between the cue tip and cue ball must occur with any offset hit (as quoted below).
There is slippage with any off center hit to the cue ball. How much is just one of the unknowns we deal with.
When asked for the evidence you are using to claim this as being a fact, you claim that there will be slippage when any stationary object is hit at an angle with a moving object and that this is a scientific law and as sure as gravity (quoted below) yet you don't give any evidence for this either.
As for some slippage when hitting a stationary object at an angle with a moving object, that is a basic mechanical property. Trying to claim that there will be absolutely zero slippage during contact between a cue tip and cue ball when using side is much like arguing gravity doesn't exist.
Attempting to back up one unsubstantiated claim with another another unsubstantiated claim isn't really what would be considered reliable evidence either, it is just you continuing to make unsubstantiated claims. Evidence would be linking us to the applicable scientific laws or principles that you say you are relying on for your conclusions of "fact", and explaining why they govern tip/ball interactions and necessitate that slippage must occur.
When you were again asked to present some evidence, any evidence whatsoever, you essentially said "you just have to trust me because I know about these things". (quoted below).
I could trot out my background to justify my beliefs but I find people that don't believe these things more surprising than my knowing they are basic mechanical principles. I move between a chuckle and wanting to bang my head against the wall when people insist that the pursuit being discussed is outside the realm of physics and mechanical properties that govern the rest of the world.
Well surely you understand why "trust me, I know about these things" can't be considered proof or even really evidence for that matter, particularly when we have no reason to believe you to be an expert in the field of physics. Even more so when no less than Bob Jewett, widely regarded as the most knowledgeable person on earth regarding the physics of pool, has said he disagrees with your slippage must occur assertion (post 74, linked below).
https://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=6582735&postcount=74
On a side note, I would also be very interested in hearing what evidence leads you to the conclusions you state in the quote below:
Slippage and/or tip distortion create different results when we hit out towards the edges of miscue limits with hard and soft tips. There are other variables too. Some cancel each other out to some degree, some are additive.
And for shots that are not extremely soft, I am still interested to hear what evidence leads you to suspect that upwards of 50% slippage (or even 33% slippage if you like) could even be a remote possibility (per the quote below).
If all tips we play with all grab with less than ten percent slippage at some point in the stroke, then most of the things we are discussing don't matter a whole lot, we learn how to play with our favorite tip. Now suppose that the slip factor is more like fifty percent at the minimum rate of slippage for a tip. Now quality of hit and the time a tip stays on a cue ball matters a great deal more.