Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?

[LAMas]

You may know this, but you can do the same thing for cuts over 30 degrees by measuring with the CB/OB edges instead of their centers.

Here's a pic I've posted before showing that.

pj
chgo

View attachment 54162

pj,

Those are and have been very useful cogent examples of DD aiming that is a parsimonious method of aiming without a tip offset and pivot that adds complexity.

I have always wished that you would add another pic with the CB edge aimed at the right 1/4 OB and another at the right edge of the OB (90 degrees) to continue the useful lesson.

With time at the table or HAMB one can fill in all of the rest of the cut angles that the shooter achieves that may be a bit different from shooter to shooter depending on his perception of the edge of the CB to the OB and how precise he can hit the center of the CB parallel to that aim line established by the edge of the CB.

Thanks again and be well.

 

[cookie man]

Well E,

I think we all know that... & would hope that very many if not all know that the shots in between are subjective based on one's individual file bank built over time.

Stay Well & Best Wishes.

True if you are playing strictly by feel. Statement however has nothing to do with CTE.

 

[cookie man]

If one can aim the edge of the CB like left edge of the CB to the left edge of the OB and shoot center CB parallel to that line, he would make a straight in shot.

If one can aim the edge of the CB like left edge of the CB to the center of the OB and shoot center CB parallel to that line, he would make a 30 degree cut shot or a bit less due to CIT.

If one can aim the left edge of the CB at the right edge of the OB it follows that he would make a 90 degree cut.

So all of the cut angles can be derived by aiming the edge of the CB at memorized facets using HAMB across the face of the OB from edge to edge.

But, we all know that.:wink:

Be well.

True if you are playing strictly by feel. Statement however has nothing to do with CTE.

 

[ENGLISH!]

I did not know that CTE has 89 or 90 individual objective visual markers. One for each angle required to play the game.

Please note the green text used for the statement above.

Best Wishes to All.

Please click on the link below.

http://thefederalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/meme2.jpg

 

[duckie]

OWhere's the question.....does CTE work without requiring a person?

Does double the distance work without requiring person?

Does fractional work without requiring a person?

When a system requires the input of a person to work, that persons input influences the working of the system. The system would not work without a person.

In order to see if these work without a person is problem, since how the system works depends on how well the user does inputs.

Since there is a wide range of users and users inputs, a testing device must eliminate the user in order to fully understand the workings of a system.

Ghost ball is the only system not influenced by the user. A machine can be built to show where the ghost ball position is and also then roll the CB to the Ghost ball position.

The only time a user influences ghost ball is in execution, just like other systems, but ghost ball can be tested standalone, ie without a user doing the executing but the others can not. The bases for the ghost ball machine is using ghost ball contact patch, which is also how software pool games are based on.

Build a machine that is capable of doing the double the distance aiming or even CTE. First, the system has to be able to be put on paper in order to build any machine. Ghost ball contact patch meets this requirement. Does CTE? Double the distance has been as have fractional, but since these are vision based, building a machine to see these visual is impossible.

Since I'm on it......spheres do not have edges......this is a accepted convention in geometry yet there are so many that claim to be technical experts in pool that still refer to edges on something where edges do not exits and those same people claim to use 1/2 ball hits when it is impossible to do so.

In other words, they are half assed techincal experts.

You are using a spot on the surface of a sphere and not a spot on a edge of a sphere.

Oh......I was a QA test engineer for many years testing hardware, firmware, software for a wide range of systems and products.

In every case........there was paperwork, design documents, operational requirement to be made, goals of the system and so on. Every idea that came along was put on paper to aid in design and devolpment.

Test cases were built in order that anyone can do the testing in order that a persons input did not influence the test results. In other words, test cases eliminated the user influence in test results.

CTE can not work without a user, therefore any output from the system is subjective based on the users inputs.

Take the double the distance drawing done in 2d. Does the double the distance lines on the object ball curve like the surface to the ball in real life? Can double the distance as describe work when put on paper like ghost ball contact patch? Meaning from a overhead view, will the double the distance prove that it puts the cb in the correct ghost ball position. Should be a easy drawing to do.

Even the the lines appear to use edges in the 2 d drawing, in real life they are really from a spot on the surface of the ball and not a edge since balls do not have edges.

 

[ENGLISH!]

^^^^^^^^^^^^

You've made some good points, Duckie/Greg

However, the goal of any 'aiming' method is to make the task easier for the shooter, or the person that will be involved in the execution of the shot.

Hence almost all methods are put into the perspective as seen from the shooter's shooting position.

When translating from the 3D image of a sphere to a 2 dimensional depiction, the sphere 'becomes' a circle & a circle does have an edge that differentiates the inside from the outside of the circle.

If 100 people were asked to point to the right edge of the ball, I doubt that any of them, even a scientists would not just do as asked & point to the right edge on the horizontal diameter (equator) of the 'circle' that they see depicted in a 2D form.

What some seem to fail to understand is that when looking along a given line as defined as the center of one sphere, or ball, to the edge of another sphere, or ball, that that edge point on the sphere, or ball, is definitively defined & DOES NOT CHANGE by simply placing those two spheres, or balls, somewhere else in space, or on a pool table. THAT 'OBJECTIVE' VISION OF THAT REALITY DOES NOT CHANGE.

Just as the Ghost Ball position does not change as one moves from one location to another. The relationship of the Ghost Ball to the object ball remains the same regardless of where one moves their vision of it, but the image of that relationship does change.

Some will try to twist this to say something that is NOT factual.

The CTE & 'edge to' lines remain the same relative to each other regardless of where they are positioned in space or on the table.

CTE can be put on paper & accurately so. The lines can be drawn & the bisecting line that would allow one to see them simultaneously in an equal fashion can be drawn.

BUT... what can not be on paper is the subjective perception of how far off the bisection of those 2 lines one would need to move to obtain the proper subjective perception to correctly set the cue & pocket any given shot. THAT can NOT be put on paper.

Actually... the line can be put on paper BUT there is nothing objective for an individual to (visually) that would dictate to them where that line actually is.

I think we are in agreement, Greg. We're just saying the same thing differently.

 

[cookie man]

So, CTE has 89 or 90 individual objective visual markers. I did not know that.

Please note the green text used for the statement above.

Also please note that all was rather quiet until a post inferring an outrageous & totally unsupported claim was made.

Best Wishes to All.

PS It's ALL about those that might get pulled in by those outrageous, unsupported, & unproven claims & hence waste much of their time & effort trying to obtain something that simply does not exist.

PPS If anyone understands that fact & still wishes to pursue it, then by all means they should do so & I wish them an improvement in their game for the effort as they may certainly be other advantages to the method.

Please click on the link below.

http://thefederalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/meme2.jpg

Who said CTE has 89 or 90 individual objective markers? Are you making stuff up again.

 

[cookie man]

OWhere's the question.....does CTE work without requiring a person?

Does double the distance work without requiring person?

Does fractional work without requiring a person?

When a system requires the input of a person to work, that persons input influences the working of the system. The system would not work without a person.

In order to see if these work without a person is problem, since how the system works depends on how well the user does inputs.

Since there is a wide range of users and users inputs, a testing device must eliminate the user in order to fully understand the workings of a system.

Ghost ball is the only system not influenced by the user. A machine can be built to show where the ghost ball position is and also then roll the CB to the Ghost ball position.

The only time a user influences ghost ball is in execution, just like other systems, but ghost ball can be tested standalone, ie without a user doing the executing but the others can not. The bases for the ghost ball machine is using ghost ball contact patch, which is also how software pool games are based on.

Build a machine that is capable of doing the double the distance aiming or even CTE. First, the system has to be able to be put on paper in order to build any machine. Ghost ball contact patch meets this requirement. Does CTE? Double the distance has been as have fractional, but since these are vision based, building a machine to see these visual is impossible.

Since I'm on it......spheres do not have edges......this is a accepted convention in geometry yet there are so many that claim to be technical experts in pool that still refer to edges on something where edges do not exits and those same people claim to use 1/2 ball hits when it is impossible to do so.

In other words, they are half assed techincal experts.

You are using a spot on the surface of a sphere and not a spot on a edge of a sphere.

Oh......I was a QA test engineer for many years testing hardware, firmware, software for a wide range of systems and products.

In every case........there was paperwork, design documents, operational requirement to be made, goals of the system and so on. Every idea that came along was put on paper to aid in design and devolpment.

Test cases were built in order that anyone can do the testing in order that a persons input did not influence the test results. In other words, test cases eliminated the user influence in test results.

CTE can not work without a user, therefore any output from the system is subjective based on the users inputs.

Take the double the distance drawing done in 2d. Does the double the distance lines on the object ball curve like the surface to the ball in real life? Can double the distance as describe work when put on paper like ghost ball contact patch? Meaning from a overhead view, will the double the distance prove that it puts the cb in the correct ghost ball position. Should be a easy drawing to do.

Even the the lines appear to use edges in the 2 d drawing, in real life they are really from a spot on the surface of the ball and not a edge since balls do not have edges.

^^^^^^^^^^^^

So you side with Duckie, lol.

 

[ENGLISH!]

For those interested:

http://thefederalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/meme2.jpg

 

[cookie man]

^^^^^^^^^^^^

You've made some good points, Duckie/Greg

However, the goal of any 'aiming' method is to make the task easier for the shooter, or the person that will be involved in the execution of the shot.

Hence almost all methods are put into the perspective as seen from the shooter's shooting position.

When translating from the 3D image of a sphere to a 2 dimensional depiction, the sphere 'becomes' a circle & a circle does have an edge that differentiates the inside from the outside of the circle.

If 100 people were asked to point to the right edge of the ball, I doubt that any of them, even a scientists would not just do as asked & point to the right edge on the horizontal diameter (equator) of the 'circle' that they see depicted in a 2D form.

What some seem to fail to understand is that when looking along a given line as defined as the center of one sphere, or ball, to the edge of another sphere, or ball, that that edge point on the sphere, or ball, is definitively defined & DOES NOT CHANGE by simply placing those two spheres, or balls, somewhere else in space, or on a pool table. THAT 'OBJECTIVE' VISION OF THAT REALITY DOES NOT CHANGE.

Just as the Ghost Ball position does not change as one moves from one location to another. The relationship of the Ghost Ball to the object ball remains the same regardless of where one moves their vision of it, but the image of that relationship does change.

Some will try to twist this to say something that is NOT factual.

The CTE & 'edge to' lines remain the same relative to each other regardless of where they are positioned in space or on the table.

CTE can be put on paper & accurately so. The lines can be drawn & the bisecting line that would allow one to see them simultaneously in an equal fashion can be drawn.

BUT... what can not be on paper is the subjective perception of how far off the bisection of those 2 lines one would need to move to obtain the proper subjective perception to correctly set the cue & pocket any given shot. THAT can NOT be put on paper.

Actually... the line can be put on paper BUT there is nothing objective for an individual to (visually) that would dictate to them where that line actually is.

I think we are in agreement, Greg. We're just saying the same thing differently.

And this is just a twisted opinion from someone that has
no understanding of CTE. You have no idea of what could or could not be put on paper concerning CTE. Grasshopper should learn the system before making judgments.

 

[cookie man]

For those interested:

http://thefederalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/meme2.jpg

Are you dead? Should we not give you medicine?

 

[JB Cases]

Or just ask someone with exceptional intelligence like Bob Jewett or Dr. Dave (or anyone else in the very highest tiers of intelligence). That is where you will get the actual truth and reality.

Yes because in the history of the world a scientist has never been wrong about the underlying cause of an observed phenomena.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[JB Cases]

March also claims that in the latest developments, thermal expansion of the thruster is taken into account to reduce all possible sources of error. But the anomalous thrust is still being observed, indicating a yet unexplained cause for it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk