This is a perfect example of the misunderstandings I mean. The diagrams don't show that the systems "don't work". This has been said over and over.
You're not listening, cookie.
pj
chgo
diagrams pertaining to pivot-based aiming systems
- Thread starter dr_dave
- Start date
This is a perfect example of the misunderstandings I mean. The diagrams don't show that the systems "don't work". This has been said over and over.
You're not listening, cookie.
pj
chgo
we don't know these things
Jim,
We don't know that these are the only ways that can work. At some point approximations are good enough. The pocket is typically over twice as wide as the object ball.
Years ago I was told a heavier than air object could fly with no moving parts, only using electricity. I had been interested in flying since I was a child and knew this was impossible. I could imagine a handful of tricks, magnets and such, but I knew actual flight was impossible. A few days later I saw it fly and a few months later I built my own version that flew. Turned out what I had known for over thirty years was wrong. I'm not nearly as quick to say something isn't possible anymore. Incidentally, after flying a model using this propulsion system off of a conference table in front of fourteen of the top brass of Goodyear Aerospace their technical folks convinced them it was impossible, they didn't see what they thought they saw, and Goodyear would be a laughingstock if they spent money pursuing the idea. It was all in the heads of the fourteen executives. That ol' "all in the head" thing again.
The only way we understand to build the lines is with a traditional approach. That doesn't rule out that there are other ways. One thing we read over and over is that people when first starting to use a system feel like their final alignment is wrong but they are pocketing balls when they trust it. Perspective and parallax have to come into play when building the lines and such that the system users use but I can't say how. I do know that these things are real and inescapable anytime we look at two objects that aren't the same distance from our eyes. It would seem that these things could be why some of the systems work.
When aiming a gun how can I put a 1/8" wide front sight inside a 1/10" wide gap in a back sight and still have a little space on either side of the front sight? Diagram the two sights at true size and it is impossible regardless of the distance between them. With perspective it works quite well on the firing line. This illustration of perspective is why I don't trust an overhead view to indicate what we see from the side without the size of the objects in the overhead view being adjusted to the size that they appear to be when we are at the pool table.
As I say over and over, I don't endorse any system. However making any assumptions based on our beliefs causes blind spots in our efforts to understand how something new to us works. Drawing diagrams that don't represent what we see at the tables only further muddies the waters because humans are visually oriented. We tend to trust what we can see, true or false.
Hu
Jal said:
Jim,
We don't know that these are the only ways that can work. At some point approximations are good enough. The pocket is typically over twice as wide as the object ball.
Years ago I was told a heavier than air object could fly with no moving parts, only using electricity. I had been interested in flying since I was a child and knew this was impossible. I could imagine a handful of tricks, magnets and such, but I knew actual flight was impossible. A few days later I saw it fly and a few months later I built my own version that flew. Turned out what I had known for over thirty years was wrong. I'm not nearly as quick to say something isn't possible anymore. Incidentally, after flying a model using this propulsion system off of a conference table in front of fourteen of the top brass of Goodyear Aerospace their technical folks convinced them it was impossible, they didn't see what they thought they saw, and Goodyear would be a laughingstock if they spent money pursuing the idea. It was all in the heads of the fourteen executives. That ol' "all in the head" thing again.
The only way we understand to build the lines is with a traditional approach. That doesn't rule out that there are other ways. One thing we read over and over is that people when first starting to use a system feel like their final alignment is wrong but they are pocketing balls when they trust it. Perspective and parallax have to come into play when building the lines and such that the system users use but I can't say how. I do know that these things are real and inescapable anytime we look at two objects that aren't the same distance from our eyes. It would seem that these things could be why some of the systems work.
When aiming a gun how can I put a 1/8" wide front sight inside a 1/10" wide gap in a back sight and still have a little space on either side of the front sight? Diagram the two sights at true size and it is impossible regardless of the distance between them. With perspective it works quite well on the firing line. This illustration of perspective is why I don't trust an overhead view to indicate what we see from the side without the size of the objects in the overhead view being adjusted to the size that they appear to be when we are at the pool table.
As I say over and over, I don't endorse any system. However making any assumptions based on our beliefs causes blind spots in our efforts to understand how something new to us works. Drawing diagrams that don't represent what we see at the tables only further muddies the waters because humans are visually oriented. We tend to trust what we can see, true or false.
Hu
From all accounts, pivot system users sight along one line at a time: the line their stick is on before and after pivoting. Sighting along a single line is the same for 2D and 3D views. If you know of an exception to this please describe it.
Your gun sights example isn't the same; it involves four lines: one to each edge of both sights.
pj
chgo
none so blind as those that will not see
pj,
There are none so blind as those that will not see.
My sincere apologies to all small children for comparing trying to explain something to pj to be like trying to explain it to a small child. I stand corrected by the evidence before me.
Hu
Patrick Johnson said:
pj,
There are none so blind as those that will not see.
My sincere apologies to all small children for comparing trying to explain something to pj to be like trying to explain it to a small child. I stand corrected by the evidence before me.
Hu
JoeW said:
Don't want to get into a rant here, but isn't Joe is saying EXACTLY what I've been saying about aiming systems all along ??? The only difference is he says it in a less argumentative, much more eloquent manner.
His statement "In this sense, systems ARE NOT reducable to formulas. The brains ability to program itself based on vague requests, is the determiner." That says it all for me. Good post Joe.
Dick
Last edited:
"I agree with Spidey and others that the diagrams are "wrong" if people think they illustrate how the systems work. They obviously don't."Patrick Johnson said:
A direct quote from DR.Dave. Admit your diagram does not pertain to the system PJ and move on. This is getting ridiculous.
cookie man said:
One more post you misunderstand. Dave is agreeing with me.
This was ridiculous from the beginning.
pj
chgo
ShootingArts said:
That's cute, Hu, and your audience is well chosen. Small children might not notice that you haven't actually responded to anything I said. I gave a specific reason that your vague objection concerning the difference between 2D and 3D is baseless. Do you have any specific reasons it isn't? For that matter, do you even have any specific claims to make about it? "2D and 3D are different" is all you've said so far.
Indeed.
pj
chgo
I think we've beat this subject to death this past year and always end each thread at the same exact spot.
I think the testimonials speak for themselves. If those who wish to TRULY learn why these systems work won't even play with the systems for a short period of time, you're doing everyone a disservice. Trying something new for a few hours and reporting back is a joke.
Anyways... my feeling is.... don't wanna use the system? No skin off anyone's back. Wanna use one of these systems? I'm sure Ron/Stan would love to talk to you.
I love to hear the others posting in this thread are "really happy" in their ball making abilities and yet no one posted Colin's potting challenge except for me. Go figure.
I'm NEVER content with my ball pocketing ability....ever. That's the difference - and why, for me, these threads are frustrating.
I think the testimonials speak for themselves. If those who wish to TRULY learn why these systems work won't even play with the systems for a short period of time, you're doing everyone a disservice. Trying something new for a few hours and reporting back is a joke.
Anyways... my feeling is.... don't wanna use the system? No skin off anyone's back. Wanna use one of these systems? I'm sure Ron/Stan would love to talk to you.
I love to hear the others posting in this thread are "really happy" in their ball making abilities and yet no one posted Colin's potting challenge except for me. Go figure.
I'm NEVER content with my ball pocketing ability....ever. That's the difference - and why, for me, these threads are frustrating.
SpiderWebComm said:
What the testimonials do for me is at best perhaps get my attention.
Anyone who has TRULY LEARNED how these systems/whatever systems work, if indeed they work, should be able to explain exactly what they do and where the judgment come in.
[...]
People posting videos of their ball-making ability is truly the Hitler point for an aiming thread
Doctor Spider:
I have reviewed your various videos (thanks for posting them) and reached the conclusion that the critical factor is how much "shift" off center is done before pivoting.
Can you describe your process for determining this shift distance?
From my (admittedly cursory) analysis, errors in this shift of 2mm would often be fatal.
I have reviewed your various videos (thanks for posting them) and reached the conclusion that the critical factor is how much "shift" off center is done before pivoting.
Can you describe your process for determining this shift distance?
From my (admittedly cursory) analysis, errors in this shift of 2mm would often be fatal.
mikepage said:
Agreed with the testimonials. That was my point. Meaning, it'll either entice someone to try or not.
Totally disagree with the truly learned paragraph. Many of us, me included, are not as analytic as you. We're likely doing something we're not aware of or the system works in a way we don't realize. We would all communicate better if the analytic people tried the systems for a month or two so they knew what was happening as well. If you don't swing a golf club, how can we post about swinging it straight? It's crazy to me that you, Dave or PJ are against that concept. Makes no sense, but to each their own
Not sure about the Hitler comment. I stand by every comment I've made about other people's videos. I think it's all fair game. You guys won't legitimately learn by playing with the systems and no one knows how you guys pocket to begin with. That's all fair game. I just question (not arguing) a person's ability to say what certain advantages/disadvantages are if they can run out. How someone can argue that is crazy to me personally, but as many of you know.... I'm pretty nuts myself.
I like you videos, btw, Mike. I've spent some time on your youtube channel. All very informative compared to other videos I see. If I had a son and he wanted to play pool, I'd show him your channel and tell him to study every single one but the aiming video
hahaha
Dead Crab said:
Sure, would love to. Here we go....
It doesn't matter. 2mm, 10mm, whatever. I just make sure my cue is either NOT on the CTE line (for CTE) or the cue is on the sight line for RonV. That's it.
Everyone focuses on this like it's the secret to the thread. I'll make a shot from different bridge offsets and the same bridge length by pivoting to center. 2mm isn't fatal. Specifically with CTE, I can offset 1 tip or 5 and make the ball with the same length.
The cuetable will show otherwise; however, you have a fixed pivot point on your computer screen. Nothing is ever fixed in real life.
Or, to put it another way, "No, I can't."
pj
chgo
further proof
pj,
You must truly wake up to a world of wonder and magic every morning if your memory and comprehension are really as poor as you make them out to be in your posts to me. If you go back and read my post concerning 2D and 3D you will find I said they are the same for our purposes in the same view. The difference is that the diagrams are created in the top view where both balls are the same distance from our viewpoint and in the side view as we see the balls in the real world they are different distances from our eyes so we perceive them as different sizes. I think this is the fifth or sixth time I have said this so it is the time for you to either say this is what you have been saying all along or deny that perspective exists.
As for the gun sight comparison, you find four lines where there is only one, no shift, no pivot, one centerline. However when discussing aiming systems involving a shift you can only comprehend one line.
Any discussion involving you always gets dumbed down to your level. To make matters worse, your level seems to be lower in every new discussion. Primitive people often considered what they couldn't understand to be magic. I believe the best answer to your future inane questions and retorts might be "magic!"
Hu
Patrick Johnson said:
pj,
You must truly wake up to a world of wonder and magic every morning if your memory and comprehension are really as poor as you make them out to be in your posts to me. If you go back and read my post concerning 2D and 3D you will find I said they are the same for our purposes in the same view. The difference is that the diagrams are created in the top view where both balls are the same distance from our viewpoint and in the side view as we see the balls in the real world they are different distances from our eyes so we perceive them as different sizes. I think this is the fifth or sixth time I have said this so it is the time for you to either say this is what you have been saying all along or deny that perspective exists.
As for the gun sight comparison, you find four lines where there is only one, no shift, no pivot, one centerline. However when discussing aiming systems involving a shift you can only comprehend one line.
Any discussion involving you always gets dumbed down to your level. To make matters worse, your level seems to be lower in every new discussion. Primitive people often considered what they couldn't understand to be magic. I believe the best answer to your future inane questions and retorts might be "magic!"
Hu
Please enlighten us with what is wrong with this description PJ, since you have never even tried the systems!!!!Patrick Johnson said:
Really, he clearly states they are wrong, he agrees you posted problems with the system, which you know nothing about, so you really don't know if these problems exist except for the fact you've been told a thousand times they don't!!!Patrick Johnson said:
Hu,ShootingArts said:
Fair enough. But let me repeat the question I put to Dave. With a fixed offset (90/90, edge-to-edge), you have the problem of determining where to pivot. The aim line is only as good as your determination of where this point is located along the length of the cue (or beyond the butt end, out in space somewhere). How do you find this?
Or, as DeadCrab indicated, if you use a fixed pivot point (more or less), the problem is now how to determine how much offset to use before pivoting.
If no systematic method is followed for establishing either one, then they must be determined by feel/judgement, by definition. (They can be calculated easy enough, but you have to know the cut angle, which begs the question.)
Obviously, we agree that the width of the pocket gives you a little bit of latitude; you don't have to arrive at mathematically exact values. But as DeadCrab also mentioned, you don't have a great deal of latitude either.
Jim
Don't forget the distance between balls.Jal said:
Just to point out the degree of complexity of systematizing an offset and/or bridge length adjustment method which might attempt to deal with these variables.
It's much easier to just take a peek, out of the corner of your eye, at about where the CB needs to go and start pivoting toward that line, parts bending and shifting minutely, as they must, along the way. That's how I do it anyway
Colin