CTE PRO ONE Contrast with Quarters System

[ENGLISH!]

Its a terrible picture and you said so earlier. You can't paint a dot on a ball and expect it to always be in the same place. As the balls move you get new CTEL and reference lines.

As the balls move you get new CTEL and reference lines. Get away from the keyboard and start understanding

Glue balls to a stick and paint dots, HAHAHAHAHAHA

Where did I say that Patrick's representation was a terrible picture?

That's exactly the correct relationship between the balls unless you rotate the balls & then the dots to mark the perimeter of the balls perpendicular to the line between the balls do move but only if you rotate the balls but... the relationship of the perimeters of the two balls perpendicular to the line between the balls does remain the same relative to each other on that horizontal plane just as the line from center cue ball to one of those perimeter points.

If positions one's self to look down the CTE line & then moves, one would then see that line from a different perspective of that line. But if one stands such that one can see the CTE line AND another line simultaneously that fixes one in that spot AND to move from that spot one can no longer see both lines simultaneously except from a different perspective such as sitting at the bar. One is no longer looking down those lines but instead is looking at them from the side, that is if one can still see the perimeter point on the OB.

Best 2 You & All,
Rick

 

[stan shuffett]

I think you're trying to help but that makes absolutely NO logical sense.

Yes as the CB & OB are moved on the table you have NEW lines relative to the table BUT... the CTE line relative to the balls themselves is OBJECTIVELY CONSTANT.

Are you playing games to divert? I'm just asking because of the absurdity of saying that 'if we move the balls we have a NEW & DIFFERENT visual CTE.

I don't care if the balls are sitting on the surface of the moon the visual line goes from the visual 'center' of the cue ball to the visual 'edge' of the object ball.

Move them to Mars & that line is visually the same. It's in a different location the Moon to Mars BUT it is visually the same from ball to ball.

It seems we need to go into lessons of Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgH9KXEQ0YU

Best 2 You & All,
Rick

My recent 3D 2D video on YouTube clearly demonstrates the CTE perception that is in question.

I take my work to a table and explain and share with everyone. You, on the other hand, refuse to put up video work concerning the topic. All you have are words...empty useless words.

Why are you still on this topic? You were asked to move along. I hope the moderators will take note of your defiance.

Stan Shuffett

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I think you're trying to help but that makes absolutely NO logical sense.

Yes as the CB & OB are moved on the table you have NEW lines relative to the table BUT... the CTE line relative to the balls themselves is OBJECTIVELY CONSTANT.

Are you playing games to divert? I'm just asking because of the absurdity of saying that 'if we move the balls we have a NEW & DIFFERENT visual CTE.

I don't care if the balls are sitting on the surface of the moon the visual line goes from the visual 'center' of the cue ball to the visual 'edge' of the object ball.

Move them to Mars & that line is visually the same. It's in a different location the Moon to Mars BUT it is visually the same from ball to ball.

It seems we need to go into lessons of Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgH9KXEQ0YU

Best 2 You & All,
Rick

Thr ctel is an objective variable, not constant, in regards to how you perceive it. As distance increases, your eyes must move to maintain a certain look due to the perceived perspective illusion (OB appearing smaller).

Have fun debating stuff you clearly don't get.

 

[stan shuffett]

Concerning my 3D 2D video, the best practice for the outcome of same angles is to see CCB to outside edge as a direct line. Or to see the CBE to the OB aim point as a direct line. In that manner same angle outcomes can occur.

And THAT KIND OF 2D SEEING is what ENGLISH is doing on the table. He refuses to perceive the lines as I teach and demonstrate. Anyone can experience this CTE phenomenon if they so choose.

Of course, English chooses to see one of the single lines from a 2d direct perspective.

I can take a group of interested students or just those that are curious and perhaps as many as 100% will see and experience what it is that I am saying actually occurs.

English will not see it......and with no question he will forever remain in the lower 1 percentile of demonstrated visual intelligence at a pool table.

Stan Shuffett

 

[Colin Colenso]

Thr ctel is an objective variable, not constant, in regards to how you perceive it. As distance increases, your eyes must move to maintain a certain look due to the perceived perspective illusion (OB appearing smaller).

So the distance perspective is only relative to the distance between the CB and OB, not the distance the eyes are from the CB or OB when getting that perspective Dave?

 

[ENGLISH!]

Wrong as usual with regards to CTE, buddy :grin-square:

The visuals are obtained by first having the correct perception. The perception is based on where you stand behind the shot. This will generally be where you would stand to just naturally get down into your stance.

The cueball is a sphere, and thus does not have a static center. So looking at the 5 parallel shots example...

On the thickest shot, you are only offset slightly.
On the thinnest shot, you are offset even more.

While you're still looking at the center of the cueball for each shot, the center you are looking at is different, because your perception (where you are standing in relation to the CB/OB relationship) is different.

Jon,

No offense intended as this is not an easy subject but...

That's ridiculous. The balls are static & the centers are positioned. There is only one line from the center of one ball to the 'edge' of one side of the other ball. You either look down that line or you look at it from the side. Since the vision center is higher you actually look at it on the vertical plane of that line or you look at it from askew to that line.

If one moves off of the vertical plane of that line a new sight line is established but it is no longer on the CTE line. If one moves far enough one could establish a new line of center cue ball to the center or edge of the ghost ball or nearly any part of the ghost ball. If one moves in the other direction that new sight line would to the OB from the 'edge' inward toward center until it cross over to the other side of the ball.

How many times has it been said that the edge to x line fixes one in the only position to see both lines simultaneously?

The only way one can move & see a different CTE line would be to also see a new & different ETX line & that is only possible if X, the A, B, & C are not points or lines but instead are a group of multiple points or lines.

If that is the case then they must be selected subjectively as to which one to use.

Again, no offense intended with the ridiculous comment. But it seems that every advocate only repeats what they have been told & what they think that they are doing but with no real critical thinking as to what is actually possible & what is impossible.

Best,
Rick

 

[stan shuffett]

The optimal place for fixing a CB, especially for study, is at ball address where we can all agree that major aiming occurs.

Stan Shuffett

 

[SpiderWebComm]

So the distance perspective is only relative to the distance between the CB and OB, not the distance the eyes are from the CB or OB when getting that perspective Dave?

Perspective illusion is a constant, so of course the space between your eyes and the cb matter. They're all related. That doesn't mean it's not objective. Otherwise, we're picking fly shit out of pepper.

 

[Colin Colenso]

While you're still looking at the center of the cueball for each shot, the center you are looking at is different, because your perception (where you are standing in relation to the CB/OB relationship) is different.

To help clarify, I assume you mean the surface center of CB from where you are looking. This changes according to viewing position.

 

[nobcitypool]

I think you're trying to help but that makes absolutely NO logical sense.


It seems we need to go into lessons of Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgH9KXEQ0YU

Best 2 You & All,
Rick

You did so well with center of gravity and sweet spot, it makes LOGICAL SENSE to move onto relativity. LOL

 

[Colin Colenso]

Perspective illusion is a constant, so of course the space between your eyes and the cb matter. They're all related. That doesn't mean it's not objective. Otherwise, we're picking fly shit out of pepper.

Stan recently said that he can get the visual after getting down on the shot, at which point one would have halved the distance between the eyes and the CB I'd estimate.

Not saying this is a contradiction, but curious how this effects the perspective and/or how easy it is to compensate for changes in visual perspective.

 

[nobcitypool]

But it seems that every advocate only repeats what they have been told & what they think that they are doing but with no real critical thinking as to what is actually possible & what is impossible.

Best,
Rick

No, as usual with your words, WRONG!!! Every advocate repeats what THEY'VE EXPERIENCED and understood at the table. Most people "get it". You obviously don't. Not surprised since I heard from people who know you that you can't pocket 3 balls in a row. Crooked stroke, crooked perspective, it obviously isn't for you. Go back to your "48 Years of experience using side spin". LMAO

 

[nobcitypool]

Stan recently said that he can get the visual after getting down on the shot, at which point one would have halved the distance between the eyes and the CB I'd estimate.

Not saying this is a contradiction, but curious how this effects the perspective and/or how easy it is to compensate for changes in visual perspective.

If you're curious, spend some time at the table. What Stan is referring to when seeing the visual when down on the shot is rather advanced. You obviously haven't made it past the first chapter of CTE 101.

I'm not sure why you and a few of your cronies keep harping on CTE. Nobody cares if you're not interested in it. But why do you spend so much time attempting to knock it? If it truly is of interest, then invest some reasonable time in learning it. Since the foundation of CTE is visual, there's no way to offer descriptions that you will be able to understand without some fundamental understanding of the system. I don't think you're stupid, not sure why you don't get that. Well, actually, I think I do get it. At one point, I thought you might have a sincere interest in learning. It's becoming clearer you're of the same ilk as English, Patrick Johnson, Lou and a few others.

 

[stan shuffett]

Stan recently said that he can get the visual after getting down on the shot, at which point one would have halved the distance between the eyes and the CB I'd estimate.

Not saying this is a contradiction, but curious how this effects the perspective and/or how easy it is to compensate for changes in visual perspective.

It is like Dave mentioned previously......the perspective can change but the objectivity, the fixed CB, can remain.....

New players to CTE must learn the perceptions and how to properly fix the CB at ball address. That is a critical first principle.

Stan Shuffett

 

[Colin Colenso]

If you're curious, spend some time at the table. What Stan is referring to when seeing the visual when down on the shot is rather advanced. You obviously haven't made it past the first chapter of CTE 101.

I'm not sure why you and a few of your cronies keep harping on CTE. Nobody cares if you're not interested in it. But why do you spend so much time attempting to knock it? If it truly is of interest, then invest some reasonable time in learning it. Since the foundation of CTE is visual, there's no way to offer descriptions that you will be able to understand without some fundamental understanding of the system. I don't think you're stupid, not sure why you don't get that. Well, actually, I think I do get it. At one point, I thought you might have a sincere interest in learning. It's becoming clearer you're of the same ilk as English, Patrick Johnson, Lou and a few others.

1. I didn't knock anyone or anything in this thread and
2. I now know that getting visuals from down in the stance is advanced.

The rest is pretty much inflammatory, so I'd rather ignore it than add fuel to it.

 

[Colin Colenso]

It is like Dave mentioned previously......the perspective can change but the objectivity, the fixed CB, can remain.....

New players to CTE must learn the perceptions and how to properly fix the CB at ball address. That is a critical first principle.

Stan Shuffett

Thanks Stan.
Won't say it's crystal clear to me, but food for thought.

 

[ENGLISH!]

My recent 3D 2D video on YouTube clearly demonstrates the CTE perception that is in question.

I take my work to a table and explain and share with everyone. You, on the other hand, refuse to put up video work concerning the topic. All you have are words...empty useless words.

Why are you still on this topic? You were asked to move along. I hope the moderators will take note of your defiance.

Stan Shuffett

I'm not defying any AZB personnel. If so, I've misunderstood & I invite a clarification. I do not wish to get the boot. Who here does.

In context, I was told that I had stated my conclusion that CTE is not totally objective enough times in that thread.

I'm trying to find something that would get me to possibly see it your way or to find a common language to make it clear one way or the other.

Simply speaking, I'm looking for answers as to why some see it one way & others see it another way.

It is one way or the other, or is it somewhere in between? I see others having rather great success with it & I wonder what are they doing that allows that success that I can't seem to do & have similar success with it.

If there is a piece that I am missing that is keeping me from pocketing balls when totally objectively implementing the method then I would like to know what that is.

As of now I don't see a totally objective implementation working without shots that won't work for the objective visuals. Yet others are pocketing balls.

There are TOM, the 30 that have PM'd him, the ones that PMd me & have told me in person, & that means that there are others that are not having any complete success with it.

I'd think you'd like to find out why as much as we do.

If it takes 6 months to a year to get it & have that Ahhh Ah moment, I'll be honest, then I'm not interested.

To me, if it's totally objective then it should be see it, do it, pocket the ball. But when I do that, there are times that the ball does not go anywhere near the pocket if I implement it objectively.

I'll PM Mr. Howerton for a clarification to see if I'm forbidden to discuss the topic at all.

I respect your work. I respect the time, effort, & money that you have spent to try to bring a better method to the general playing public & those that will come along new to the game.

I just don't agree with your assessment of it's nature at this time.

Sincerely,
Rick

 

[stan shuffett]

There are some that think the EYES are only a mere window to the world. It is as if the only function of one's eyes are to view and then one's math mind and language mind will take over and make sense of the view.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Our vision is an intelligence and I must add that on a pool table VISUAL INTELLIGENCE rules.

CTE is actually a phenomenon that visual intelligence itself has not been able to put forth in words or math.....but thankfully Real CTE represents the explanation of a natural phenomenon that math and words were NEVER suppose to have.

Thanks to Hal Houle the peeling of the onion began decades ago.

Stan Shuffett

 

[ENGLISH!]

PM sent to Mr. Howerton

 

[Patrick Johnson]

While you're still looking at the center of the cueball for each shot, the center you are looking at is different, because your perception (where you are standing in relation to the CB/OB relationship) is different.

What CTE instruction tells you where to stand relative to the CB/OB relationship?

pj
chgo