A challenge to English

sixpack · Jun 13, 2019

duckie said:
The question was to use science to disprove the CTE can work as described. Geometry is a part of science. In geometry, balls don’t have edges, therefore you cannot use something that does not exist.

Oh yeah, you really proved that in real life balls have edges.

Balls having edges is all in your mind, good grief, how hard is it to accept this?

Geometry is necessary to prove anything graphically or spatially. But there is a lot more to geometry than most people realize. Have you ever built video games? Or written software to do 3d modeling and visualization? What about 3-d geometry?

If you are trying to map a system into two dimensions that exists in three, you cannot do it properly.

Perspective and the way things line up in 3 dimensions can produce completely different results than you could come up with on paper, in 2d.

I have done all those things and I have spent a lot of time on a pool table looking at how to 'see' things differently than most people. CTE is one of those things. Poolology is a good translation from 3 dimensions to 2. CTE doesn't lend itself to that. Not because it's incorrect or wrong, but because it simply can't be described in 2 dimensions in a way that will lead you to the same results.

Just because your perspective changes and that changes how things look and line up doesn't make a system subjective. Perspective is an objective part of geometry just like tangent lines are. It's just not terribly useful in 2d for this type of discussion.

Computer simulations like virtual pool as it is does not work for CTE because it is a 2d representation. No matter where your eyes are, the aim points look the same. You can shift the perspective in the game, but you can't really simulate 3d.

When I'm playing my best pool I am seeing the CB and OB as spheres, not discs. I believe that most, if not all, pro level players do the same. Even if they are aiming in 2d, they are still seeing in 3d.

I spent a lot of time (8-10 hours) aiming like Busty as an experiment. With the tip of the cue offset and low. And you know what? I shot GREAT! I couldn't believe how well that made me play. Even though I have no idea what he's looking at. Something about placing the tip there helped me visualize the CB and path to the OB in a way that was incredible. Great depth perception. Great spatial visualization.

I don't have any formal training in CTE so I'm not the best to answer questions about it but what I know if it works well. It's amazing to have the shots snap into place visually and just be able to stroke and watch the balls go in the hole.

Because of my 3d modeling experience I know the value of perspective and I know how CTE can work and how it can be objective. Claims that "Science" says it's impossible don't hold water with me. Especially when the 'science' is a 2d drawing with compass and protractor.

There are other things going on when you start using pivots. BC21 did a good job of summarizing these in a post about a year ago IIRC. For one thing, the amount of pivot changes depending on the length of the shot and the amount of offset between the initial point and the final point. So longer shots result in smaller pivots. When balls are close, there can be very large pivots.

When you pivot, if you leave your head position the same instead of re-aligning your eyes with the new cue position, that gives you a different perspective and a different vision of the shot. I've experimented with this a lot. If you align your eyes to the new line before you pivot that gives you a different perspective and vision of the shot.

And balls do most definitely have edges. On one side of the edge is ball. On the other side of the edge is not ball. That's the definition of an edge.

ENGLISH! · Jun 13, 2019

sixpack said:
… BC21 did a good job of summarizing these in a post about a year ago IIRC. For one thing, the amount of pivot changes depending on the length of the shot and the amount of offset between the initial point and the final point. So longer shots result in smaller pivots. When balls are close, there can be very large pivots.
...

I have a couple of questions that I would like you to answer, but I will not take your answer as gospel if it can not be sufficiently explained.

Let's take a CB & an OB at a set distance apart, say 3 ft.. Now let's use thin stiff rods & connect them from CB center to the right OB edge & from the OB left edge to the position A(the left 1/4 division line) with all connections made at the equator points.

Now... we stand as near to looking down each of them them but NOT actually looking down either one where we can see them both equally & simultaneously.

So... by doing that we have established a fixed center ball relative to our view position.

Now... we lock ALL of that into place including our position of view.

If we move that model onto any golf green in the world has anything changed?

If we move that model onto anywhere on any pool table in the world has anything changed?

Thanks in advance if you are so inclined to reply.

sfleinen · Jun 13, 2019

Dan White said:
Sean - I don't know you and have never really interacted with you but I often like what you write. Hopefully this comment won't make me an enemy. Anyway, I came across a discussion you were having with Stan a long time ago. I searched because I was curious what your position on CTE was. You seemed to be slapping your own head instead of Dave's :wink: and were going through the same frustrating discussions that happen every day here.

What I see from you in this thread is the frustration at dealing with non-answers and "because I said so" mentality. Your discussion starts on page 5 into page 6 starting with post 63 on the following page.

I'm interested 5 years down the road (and no further enlightenment from Stan on the issue AFAIK) what your position on this discussion is today, if you don't mind me asking.

https://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=359091&highlight=stan&page=5

Dan:

No problem. The link you show above doesn't work, in that I think my AzB profile definition of a "page" is different from yours. (I have my page settings to maximum, so that I have a huge scrollbar.) EDIT: I think I found the section you're referring to, it's on page 2 for me, and yes, there was a little consternation there about making assumptions about snooker players, which is in my wheelhouse. Anyway, I'm well over that.

Anyway, I think I can speak to what happened. Mainly, it's that I had some onsite discussion with Spider (Dave) as well as Ron Vitello at SBE one year about 90/90. I saw the teaching in action, and I "got it." Later, I took it to the table, and got it to work, but found it wasn't for me, because it was training me to discard what already comes naturally to me -- the ghostball position, which I can't help but visualize. It comes so naturally to me, that it would take years to untrain my eyes to see it.

But here's the deal -- I have no problem with people learning systems to help them aim. I am aware of several friends who have certain vision disabilities -- everything ranging from color blindness, to depth perception issues, to astigmatism -- as well as just an inability to visualize something "that's not actually there" (i.e. ghostball).

Systems are harmless -- and actually helpful -- in the grand scheme of things, so I'm not sure why all this "tilting at windmills" ensues. The folks who created and use these systems are not scientists or mathematicians, so the ask may be too great.

Anyway, I changed my stance on this from a "hey, wait a minute -- what in the heck do you mean by that?!?" -- to a, "ok, maybe it's not explainable in scientific/math terms because the knowledgebase just isn't there" and I've now freed myself from those chains. I now enjoy playing to the best of my ability, matching up, winning, losing in some cases, but always walking away with something new enjoyment-wise for the game. When you have a 24/7 career, you have to prioritize your time in this game, and I prefer to prioritize it being *at* the table, not from an armchair.

-Sean

Patrick Johnson · Jun 13, 2019

cookie man said:
Each different ball placements(shot) create a new unique visual perspective in which the CTEL hits a different part of the object ball.

SpiderWebComm said:
We do it with by way of a parallax view with the changing positions of the balls, our body and eyes. It's still an edge and center, but different.

And of course the system tells you where to stand and where to look to get the specific "different CTE line" that "takes you to" the exact "different visual perspective" needed to make the new shot center pocket (with a slight overcut for throw).

You guys are a laugh riot.

pj
chgo

sixpack · Jun 13, 2019

ENGLISH! said:
I have a couple of questions that I would like you to answer, but I will not take your answer as gospel if it can not be sufficiently explained.

Let's take a CB & an OB at a set distance apart, say 3 ft.. Now let's use thin stiff rods & connect them from CB center to the right OB edge & from the OB left edge to the position A(the left 1/4 division line) with all connections made at the equator points.

Now... we stand as near to looking down each of them them but NOT actually looking down either one where we can see them both equally & simultaneously.

So... by doing that we have established a fixed center ball relative to our view position.

Now... we lock ALL of that into place including our position of view.

If we move that model onto any golf green in the world has anything changed?

If we move that model onto anywhere on any pool table in the world has anything changed?

Thanks in advance if you are so inclined to reply.

I think the difference is in the way you pivot. This is where I’m least clear on CTE so I can’t speak for the CTE pivot. When I do it I pivot to the center of the CB as it is in line with the shot. This gives me good results.

If you force the pivot to be X distance or pivot around a spot on the cue X inches from the tip no matter what the shot line is I think you can make The pivot produce some weird results.

cookie man · Jun 13, 2019

Patrick Johnson said:
lol

Incredible.

For those with normal spatial visualization (and reasoning) ability: no the laws of geometry/physics haven't changed - what he said is still physically impossible, just like it's always been.

pj <- for the umpteenth time
chgo

Yet i do it all the time

cookie man · Jun 13, 2019

ENGLISH! said:
PJ,

Simple common sense. How did they lose it?

How does that John Payne quote go regarding one who has relinquished Reason?

What that other member PMd me is absolutely correct.

They want to abandon the TWO LINES thing when it suits them but cling to it as what makes Shuffett's CTE different than Fractional. Which is it?

Does the "simultaneous" viewing of the Two Lines lock in the CB Center or are they
free to wonder all over the place to get a different OB 'edge' while LOSING the Edge to ABC line?

Do they think that the General Readership is ignorant?

All Rhetorical Questions unless you want to elaborate on something.

It's absolutely incorrect and i've proven that.
No one and no where did i say to give up on the TWO LINES.
We still use TWO LINES and no you don't have to wander all over the place.
YOU HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT ANYTHING CONCERNING CTE.

cookie man · Jun 13, 2019

ENGLISH! said:
I have a couple of questions that I would like you to answer, but I will not take your answer as gospel if it can not be sufficiently explained.

Let's take a CB & an OB at a set distance apart, say 3 ft.. Now let's use thin stiff rods & connect them from CB center to the right OB edge & from the OB left edge to the position A(the left 1/4 division line) with all connections made at the equator points.

Now... we stand as near to looking down each of them them but NOT actually looking down either one where we can see them both equally & simultaneously.

So... by doing that we have established a fixed center ball relative to our view position.

Now... we lock ALL of that into place including our position of view.

If we move that model onto any golf green in the world has anything changed?

If we move that model onto anywhere on any pool table in the world has anything changed?

Thanks in advance if you are so inclined to reply.

Move to a GOLF GREEN. Really searching now LMAO.
It's been clearly defined that CTE is a visual system for only 2 by 1 surfaces. A golf green does not qualify. You are toast!!!!!

cookie man · Jun 13, 2019

Patrick Johnson said:
And of course the system tells you where to stand and where to look to get the specific "different CTE line" that "takes you to" the exact "different visual perspective" needed to make the new shot center pocket (with a slight overcut for throw).

You guys are a laugh riot.

pj
chgo

Laughing at you with egg all over your face.

cookie man · Jun 13, 2019

ENGLISH! said:
I have a couple of questions that I would like you to answer, but I will not take your answer as gospel if it can not be sufficiently explained.

Let's take a CB & an OB at a set distance apart, say 3 ft.. Now let's use thin stiff rods & connect them from CB center to the right OB edge & from the OB left edge to the position A(the left 1/4 division line) with all connections made at the equator points.

Now... we stand as near to looking down each of them them but NOT actually looking down either one where we can see them both equally & simultaneously.

So... by doing that we have established a fixed center ball relative to our view position.

Now... we lock ALL of that into place including our position of view.

If we move that model onto any golf green in the world has anything changed?

If we move that model onto anywhere on any pool table in the world has anything changed?

Thanks in advance if you are so inclined to reply.

GOLF GREEN LMAO
CTE pro one connects to a 2x1 table and NO other table. Even if you change the pockets just slightly on a 2x1 table the system will not work.
That is easily shown.
CTE PRO ONE is the Only system that connects to the right angles of a 2x1 table.
It is what it is.

SpiderWebComm · Jun 13, 2019

Patrick Johnson said:
And of course the system tells you where to stand and where to look to get the specific "different CTE line" that "takes you to" the exact "different visual perspective" needed to make the new shot center pocket (with a slight overcut for throw).

You guys are a laugh riot.

pj
chgo

You're getting closer and making progress.

It's only right that you teach us the proper technique and nuances of the lizard head move.

That will really be a laugh riot.

cookie man · Jun 13, 2019

SpiderWebComm said:
You're getting closer and making progress.

It's only right that you teach us the proper technique and nuances of the lizard head move.

That will really be a laugh riot.

Did you hear that he has incorporated a pivot into that lizard head technique he uses.

ENGLISH! · Jun 13, 2019

sixpack said:
I think the difference is in the way you pivot. This is where I’m least clear on CTE so I can’t speak for the CTE pivot. When I do it I pivot to the center of the CB as it is in line with the shot. This gives me good results.

If you force the pivot to be X distance or pivot around a spot on the cue X inches from the tip no matter what the shot line is I think you can make The pivot produce some weird results.

WOW!

I had hoped for an honest answer.

I did not ask you a single thing about a pivot. Oh, perhaps the quote confused you. I just did that to get your attention.

Or you just do not want to answer the questions as asked.

You could have just said so, if that is the case.

ENGLISH! · Jun 13, 2019

… because they are scientically ignorant. Somehow they think they can get two slightly different perceptions from an identical set of visuals. For example, if the cb is 24" from the ob, the ETA and CTE visuals will give you a unique perspective of ccb, and from this perspective is where you do the offset pivot or sweep. No deying that.

However, ANYTIME the distance between the balls is 24", and you use the exact same visuals (ETA and CTE) you will get the exact same ccb perspective. They actually believe the placement of the balls on the table will allow for some variance in this perspective, but it's simply not possible. The only variables used in getting a particular ccb perception are as follows: Two visual lines between cb and ob. The only thing that can alter this perception (when using the same visuals each time) is the distance between the balls. When the distance changes, the resulting perception changes. When the distance remains the same, the resulting perception remains the same. It's impossible to prove anything to someone who does not understand this.

The above was sent to me in PM by another member. It is absolutely correct.

cookie man · Jun 13, 2019

ENGLISH! said:
… because they are scientically ignorant. Somehow they think they can get two slightly different perceptions from an identical set of visuals. For example, if the cb is 24" from the ob, the ETA and CTE visuals will give you a unique perspective of ccb, and from this perspective is where you do the offset pivot or sweep. No deying that.

However, ANYTIME the distance between the balls is 24", and you use the exact same visuals (ETA and CTE) you will get the exact same ccb perspective. They actually believe the placement of the balls on the table will allow for some variance in this perspective, but it's simply not possible. The only variables used in getting a particular ccb perception are as follows: Two visual lines between cb and ob. The only thing that can alter this perception (when using the same visuals each time) is the distance between the balls. When the distance changes, the resulting perception changes. When the distance remains the same, the resulting perception remains the same. It's impossible to prove anything to someone who does not understand this.

The above was sent to me in PM by another member. It is absolutely correct.

You mean incorrect in your own words:
"& since the ball is a sphere that point is extremely perspective sensitive. If it was indeed a circle we would view that same point no matter from where we view it. That is not the case with the sphere. As we move while looking at the sphere that "edge" point is changing."

cookie man · Jun 13, 2019

ENGLISH! said:
… because they are scientically ignorant. .

This is so funny considering you did not come up with one thing all by yourself to answer my science challenge.
YOU HAD NOTHING
YOU STILL HAVE NOTHING

ENGLISH! · Jun 13, 2019

Patrick Johnson said:
lol

Incredible.

For those with normal spatial visualization (and reasoning) ability: no the laws of geometry/physics haven't changed - what he said is still physically impossible, just like it's always been.

pj <- for the umpteenth time
chgo

PJ,

Do you know of any scientific explanation why some have such poor reading comprehension skills?

Do you think there is a scientific correlation between such & a general lack of common sense?

cookie man · Jun 13, 2019

sixpack said:
I think the difference is in the way you pivot. This is where I’m least clear on CTE so I can’t speak for the CTE pivot. When I do it I pivot to the center of the CB as it is in line with the shot. This gives me good results.

If you force the pivot to be X distance or pivot around a spot on the cue X inches from the tip no matter what the shot line is I think you can make The pivot produce some weird results.

ENGLISH! said:
WOW!

I had hoped for an honest answer.

I did not ask you a single thing about a pivot. Oh, perhaps the quote confused you. I just did that to get your attention.

Or you just do not want to answer the questions as asked.

You could have just said so, if that is the case.

SIXPACK, i think he really expects you to take the metal rods out on the putting green and give him an opinion on your observations. He won't except your opinions but still expects you to give them lol.

cookie man · Jun 13, 2019

ENGLISH! said:
PJ,

Do you know of any scientific explanation why some have such poor reading comprehension skills?

Do you think there is a scientific correlation between such & a general lack of common sense?

Yes PJ, can you help the new leader of the anti cte club out. He has no idea what science is and certainly has no common sense. Sounds like his problems are right up your alley.

ENGLISH! · Jun 13, 2019

Patrick Johnson said:
lol

Incredible.

For those with normal spatial visualization (and reasoning) ability: no the laws of geometry/physics haven't changed - what he said is still physically impossible, just like it's always been.

pj <- for the umpteenth time
chgo

:thumbup2: :thumbup2: :thumbup2:

A challenge to English

AzB Silver Member

Banned

14.1 & One Pocket Addict

Fish of the Day

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

HelpImBeingOppressed

AzB Silver Member

Banned

Banned

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

Banned

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

Banned