You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter tonythetiger583
- Start date

The fact that CTE cannot even be simply explained, explains it all

...which is understandable if it doesn't make sense in the first place.

Or maybe we're just too skeered to learn gibberish...

pj

chgo

Actually, CTE is easily explained if you have the mathematical aptitude to understand it. It is a fractional ball perception, or initial ballpark positioning of the vision relative to the cue ball and object ball orientation to the pocket, and then adjusting that vision in the 3rd plane (height and distance from the cue ball to the eyes) to those relative positions. This 3rd angle projection (which is really a very complex compound angle relative to cue ball and object ball centers) can be mathematically explained with the implementing of a few kinematic equations. But that may confuse people since the variables for those equations would always differ on every shot, so Stan, with his level of dedication, has over the years contrived no less than 4 different ways of explaining to people how to get their vision adjusted close enough to make most shots without adjusting their aim after addressing the object ball. Without that adjustment to vision after the perception and before cue ball address, all 1/2 ball hits would cut at 29 degrees. Simplified, with 2d fractional ball aiming the only variable is the diameter of the balls, since nothing else changes the angle. But with the addition of the 3rd or 3d perspective applied, then many more variables apply, even now the distance between the balls, and distance from the balls to the pocket matter as variables which can perfectly define exactly where the vision center needs to be placed relative to every shot with the application of kinematic formulas, which are used in pretty much anything engineered to achieve and objective relative to motion. These variable are why a 1/2 ball hit on 1 pair of balls cuts say 26 degrees and yet the same 1/2 ball hit on 2 other balls positioned differently on the table would be cut maybe 34 degrees, and so on. It's just math, but it's not just simple math as used to define basic fractional aiming. But, again, to simplify things, Stan explained at least 4 other ways to do it close enough. I think he did good.View attachment 622869

...which is understandable if it doesn't make sense in the first place.

pj

chgo

Or anyone elseNot that you know of.

pj

chgo

I’m glad that you admit to being skeered, whatever the hell that might mean in PJ’S worldView attachment 622869

...which is understandable if it doesn't make sense in the first place.

Or maybe we're just too skeered to learn gibberish...

pj

chgo

Did you ever learn and master the original half ball pivot taught by Hal?View attachment 622869

...which is understandable if it doesn't make sense in the first place.

Or maybe we're just too skeered to learn gibberish...

pj

chgo

lolActually, CTE is easily explained if you have the mathematical aptitude to understand it. It is a fractional ball perception, or initial ballpark positioning of the vision relative to the cue ball and object ball orientation to the pocket, and then adjusting that vision in the 3rd plane (height and distance from the cue ball to the eyes) to those relative positions. This 3rd angle projection (which is really a very complex compound angle relative to cue ball and object ball centers) can be mathematically explained with the implementing of a few kinematic equations. But that may confuse people since the variables for those equations would always differ on every shot, so Stan, with his level of dedication, has over the years contrived no less than 4 different ways of explaining to people how to get their vision adjusted close enough to make most shots without adjusting their aim after addressing the object ball. Without that adjustment to vision after the perception and before cue ball address, all 1/2 ball hits would cut at 29 degrees. Simplified, with 2d fractional ball aiming the only variable is the diameter of the balls, since nothing else changes the angle. But with the addition of the 3rd or 3d perspective applied, then many more variables apply, even now the distance between the balls, and distance from the balls to the pocket matter as variables which can perfectly define exactly where the vision center needs to be placed relative to every shot with the application of kinematic formulas, which are used in pretty much anything engineered to achieve and objective relative to motion. These variable are why a 1/2 ball hit on 1 pair of balls cuts say 26 degrees and yet the same 1/2 ball hit on 2 other balls positioned differently on the table would be cut maybe 34 degrees, and so on. It's just math, but it's not just simple math as used to define basic fractional aiming. But, again, to simplify things, Stan explained at least 4 other ways to do it close enough. I think he did good.

Great example.

pj

chgo

A half ball hit is always a half ball hit, regardless of how far apart they are to begin with out where they are at on the tableActually, CTE is easily explained if you have the mathematical aptitude to understand it. It is a fractional ball perception, or initial ballpark positioning of the vision relative to the cue ball and object ball orientation to the pocket, and then adjusting that vision in the 3rd plane (height and distance from the cue ball to the eyes) to those relative positions. This 3rd angle projection (which is really a very complex compound angle relative to cue ball and object ball centers) can be mathematically explained with the implementing of a few kinematic equations. But that may confuse people since the variables for those equations would always differ on every shot, so Stan, with his level of dedication, has over the years contrived no less than 4 different ways of explaining to people how to get their vision adjusted close enough to make most shots without adjusting their aim after addressing the object ball. Without that adjustment to vision after the perception and before cue ball address, all 1/2 ball hits would cut at 29 degrees. Simplified, with 2d fractional ball aiming the only variable is the diameter of the balls, since nothing else changes the angle. But with the addition of the 3rd or 3d perspective applied, then many more variables apply, even now the distance between the balls, and distance from the balls to the pocket matter as variables which can perfectly define exactly where the vision center needs to be placed relative to every shot with the application of kinematic formulas, which are used in pretty much anything engineered to achieve and objective relative to motion. These variable are why a 1/2 ball hit on 1 pair of balls cuts say 26 degrees and yet the same 1/2 ball hit on 2 other balls positioned differently on the table would be cut maybe 34 degrees, and so on. It's just math, but it's not just simple math as used to define basic fractional aiming. But, again, to simplify things, Stan explained at least 4 other ways to do it close enough. I think he did good.

Kinematic equations are used to describe objects only under constant acceleration. These equations relate the variables of time, position, velocity and acceleration of a moving object, allowing any of these variables to be solved for if the others are known.

If you are saying Stan is solving Kinematic equations by "poking your head out". Then I have a bridge to sell you.

If you want to use math to find where to hit a ball, start with Poolology.

My first exposure to Hal was his nonsensical numerological description of his "3-angle" fractional system posted on RSB back in the day. It was pretty easy to tell that he had nothing to teach that I wanted to learn. He never changed my mind, even though he was nice enough to call me a time or two to try.Did you ever learn and master the original half ball pivot taught by Hal?

pj

chgo

So you don’t want to learn. That makes you being here posting for 20 plus years pretty darn silly now doesn’t itMy first exposure to Hal was his nonsensical numerological description of his "3-angle" fractional system posted on RSB back in the day. It was pretty easy to tell that he had nothing to teach that I wanted to learn. He never changed my mind, even though he was nice enough to call me a time or two to try.

pj

chgo

Is somebody teaching something here?So you don’t want to learn. That makes you being here posting for 20 plus years pretty darn silly now doesn’t it

pj

chgo

he has nothing to teach that you want to learn huh,,,,,,,,,, I got news for you PJ, Stan has been living in your head rent free for many many years.My first exposure to Hal was his nonsensical numerological description of his "3-angle" fractional system posted on RSB back in the day. It was pretty easy to tell that he had nothing to teach that I wanted to learn. He never changed my mind, even though he was nice enough to call me a time or two to try.

pj

chgo

and there you go, a half ball hit is always a half ball hit huh?,,,,,, but a half ball hit is almost never the final aim with CTE, so you admit you have no clue how it actually works. I explained it, and so you get a definition of a new word, but what you don't know is there are many many ways to use kinematic equations, well beyond what you quoted from the dictionary. Tell you what, I can actually prove CTE works with CAD, can you prove it doesn't?A half ball hit is always a half ball hit, regardless of how far apart they are to begin with out where they are at on the table

Kinematic equations are used to describe objects only under constant acceleration. These equations relate the variables of time, position, velocity and acceleration of a moving object, allowing any of these variables to be solved for if the others are known.

If you are saying Stan is solving Kinematic equations by "poking your head out". Then I have a bridge to sell you.

If you want to use math to find where to hit a ball, start with Poolology.

and there you go, a half ball hit is always a half ball hit huh?,,,,,, but a half ball hit is almost never the final aim with CTE, so you admit you have no clue how it actually works. I explained it, and so you get a definition of a new word, but what you don't know is there are many many ways to use kinematic equations, well beyond what you quoted from the dictionary. Tell you what, I can actually prove CTE works with CAD, can you prove it doesn't?

No, a half ball hit, is always, exactly, a half ball hit. If you want to talk about cut induced throw, spin, etc. That's another topic.

Last edited:

Prove it works with CAD. You would be the first.and there you go, a half ball hit is always a half ball hit huh?,,,,,, but a half ball hit is almost never the final aim with CTE, so you admit you have no clue how it actually works. I explained it, and so you get a definition of a new word, but what you don't know is there are many many ways to use kinematic equations, well beyond what you quoted from the dictionary. Tell you what, I can actually prove CTE works with CAD, can you prove it doesn't?

I would like to know how a constant acceleration is used to know where to look in your equations as well.

Also, please learn to use paragraphs.

Last edited:

I really don't, because none of that is necessary. The half ball hit, in CTE use, is nothing more than a starting point when the initial angle seems to look like closer to a 30 degree angle than say a 15 or 45.No, a half ball hit, is always, exactly, a half ball hit. If you want to talk about cut induced throw, spin, etc. That's another topic.

well it's like this, I worked with kinematics for many years, actually dealing primarily with 5 axis motion of machinery and robotics. I didn't just look it up because it sounded good. Anyone who knows anything about it would know that the motion does not have to be the objective. The result can be the the end point as well, as long as the correct variables are used, in this case in basically 3 axis'. Proving why the CTE method by applying a visual reference from a third angle projection to a 2 dimensional angle is really not that difficult.Prove it works with CAD. You would be the first.

I would like to know how a constant acceleration is used to know where to look in your equations as well.

Also, please learn to use paragraphs.

It's just math and pretty much anything can be proven to either work or not with math. CTE is a method for people who for whatever reason find other methods less accurate. Nothing is more accurate than the simple ghost ball method but some people find that hard to see accurately and repeatedly. I used it for years and years until I developed a problem with parallax 15 or so years ago, which means at a certain distance away I start seeing the object ball overlapping itself, like double vision. CTE helps in that I don't have to aim at the object ball if I don't want to, at any distance.

Last edited:

So… fractions with a side of mumbo jumbo.The half ball hit, in CTE use, is nothing more than a starting point when the initial angle seems to look like closer to a 30 degree angle than say a 15 or 45.

pj

chgo

I can actually prove CTE works with CAD

Prove it works with CAD. You would be the first..

lolwell it's like this…

pj

chgo