xX-Wizard-Xx
Well-known member
I can't find the edge
CTE Stepping Cue Ball.
- Thread starter tonythetiger583
- Start date
Duckie, is that you?
I haven't been on the forums in a Loooong time. Glad to see that CTE still supplies fodder for discussion, and that you still provide measured doses of reality for those who will listen.
How's Stan doing? Book published? Documentary produced? Just curious.
Cheers!
- s.west
edit: Dang! I saw these recent posts (from April 2024) and just read your posting date as 2024, and not 2022... So, you (Patrick Johnson) may not still be around...
Last edited:
You can go to YT for the latest service packs..
You have to pivot your nose now .
Two of the most vocal CTE proponents have been banned from the aiming forum so there's much less to see here now.
Gear the parallax line, then either shoot straight or rotate slightly to see the line straight from a 2nd perspective
In parallax, using both eyes look at the appropriate CB edge (there are 2, ya know....). 90 degrees from this edge is the location of the CB center to pocket the ball. It's really hard to just jump in at this point. There's a lot of background info to study. This just clarifies what "stepping" is.
snookered_again
Well-known member
90 degrees from center on a straight shot, but if you cut the ball into a pocket, then there is throw to compensate for either in aim or by using spin or gearing to try send the object ball to the pocket without spin.
that's where I think things get a lot more complicated. how hard you shoot affects the amount of throw and that's very complicated from a standpoint of computing by way math and vector diagrams.
in reality the player is often also using spin and speed variations to place his cue ball so the spin is being varied as well as the speed, so then the throw is not so simple.
throw top and bottom spin into the equation as well as sidespin and you have some very complex math indeed..
I think that's where these aiming conventions loose practicality and practice and experience need to come into play. the understanding of the basic physics is a part of it.
You don't have to know how a car works to drive one but if you wanted to become a racer, then understanding how a car works is helpful.
that's where I think things get a lot more complicated. how hard you shoot affects the amount of throw and that's very complicated from a standpoint of computing by way math and vector diagrams.
in reality the player is often also using spin and speed variations to place his cue ball so the spin is being varied as well as the speed, so then the throw is not so simple.
throw top and bottom spin into the equation as well as sidespin and you have some very complex math indeed..
I think that's where these aiming conventions loose practicality and practice and experience need to come into play. the understanding of the basic physics is a part of it.
You don't have to know how a car works to drive one but if you wanted to become a racer, then understanding how a car works is helpful.
Last edited:
Yes, it’s that simple……stepping that is.
I don't care for the righteous indignation, suggesting that...."true knowledge comes from experience".
Marcus Aurelius:
"What is it in of itself?"
"What is its nature?"
Experience ....is merely TELLING.
A break down of knowledge should therefore argue that what Marcus prescribes as a solution, could not possibly contain a "?".
Why?
Because I say so....for how can I possibly VERIFY this truth without the experience of being there?
Simple:
"For what is a SOLUTION containing a question mark, other than....a trap".
Verification itself is truth and therefore what is the experience of knowledge when mileage or results may vary, when verifying that particular truth in of itself, THEREFORE demands IT WILL VARY.
I can quote history to prove true knowledge comes from experience and therefore....just ain't so.
I would rather break down the equation by proving in of itself, that verification doesn't require experience, nor does this...
"If a tree falls in the middle of a forest and nobody is around, does it still make a sound?"
....require a "?" at the end of it.
Of course I can verify it will make a sound, there is no question about it.
I don't need experience either.
It's a simple truth and anything more or less is a trap and or perceived....
Is it one that makes moves, the same as one that moves?
Marcus Aurelius:
"What is it in of itself?"
"What is its nature?"
Experience ....is merely TELLING.
A break down of knowledge should therefore argue that what Marcus prescribes as a solution, could not possibly contain a "?".
Why?
Because I say so....for how can I possibly VERIFY this truth without the experience of being there?
Simple:
"For what is a SOLUTION containing a question mark, other than....a trap".
Verification itself is truth and therefore what is the experience of knowledge when mileage or results may vary, when verifying that particular truth in of itself, THEREFORE demands IT WILL VARY.
I can quote history to prove true knowledge comes from experience and therefore....just ain't so.
I would rather break down the equation by proving in of itself, that verification doesn't require experience, nor does this...
"If a tree falls in the middle of a forest and nobody is around, does it still make a sound?"
....require a "?" at the end of it.
Of course I can verify it will make a sound, there is no question about it.
I don't need experience either.
It's a simple truth and anything more or less is a trap and or perceived....
Is it one that makes moves, the same as one that moves?
