Thanks Bob and all for starting the post and all discussions. Truly it is not fair to either camp, mainly because it is hard to put proof to things and measure everything. I am working on a project where when done, you will be able to look on a monitor and see everything, your own stroke-cue line-vectors (not machine), arm line vectors, amount of spin% on CB and OB (side, top and bottom), how fast CB & OB, status of cue ball before and after it hit OB slide/role/rolling backward/forward, exact speed and direction of every ball on table live data. This is not a wish list, this is what we are missing to evaluate pool, i am working on it, got the basic methods,software, sensors, and biggest of all the knowledge of pool and software, motivation and the love to do it. All i need is to find lots of time from my real job, honey dues stuff and off course hardest of all stop going to pool halls; I am sure one day it will be done, if not me someone else will.-i hope.
Experience or science?
- Thread starter Bob Callahan
- Start date
Thanks Bob and all for starting the post and all discussions. Truly it is not fair to either camp, mainly because it is hard to put proof to things and measure everything. I am working on a project where when done, you will be able to look on a monitor and see everything, your own stroke-cue line-vectors (not machine), arm line vectors, amount of spin% on CB and OB (side, top and bottom), how fast CB & OB, status of cue ball before and after it hit OB slide/role/rolling backward/forward, exact speed and direction of every ball on table live data. This is not a wish list, this is what we are missing to evaluate pool, i am working on it, got the basic methods,software, sensors, and biggest of all the knowledge of pool and software, motivation and the love to do it. All i need is to find lots of time from my real job, honey dues stuff and off course hardest of all stop going to pool halls; I am sure one day it will be done, if not me someone else will.-i hope.
naji,
I do hope you finish your project. I've been wishing for years that someone would develop a good software program like this. It could be one of the greatest billiard instructional tools ever. I would definitely be interested in purchasing your program when finished. Please keep us posted.
Roger
Thanks i agree a lot, and many people would like to know specifics about their shots just like golf. My goal is as follows if all works well:
In six months 1st phase DVD and kit (do not worry) only thing you will need is good HD video camera of which everyone has, computer/laptop, large screen if you are at home, few cheap sensors, and miscellaneous hardware. In this phase you will be able to learn your CB speed and calibrate your stroke for perfect speed execution, plus CB rotation x and y axis only (top, bottom, left, or right), know speed and direction of every ball on table instantly after shots are made and few more goodies
2nd phase three months after 1st for combined rotational rpm measurements (X-Y-Z) plan
3rd phase (not sure yet) 3D real display of jump shots and more.
Wish me luck.
Those interested in technical analysis software might like to have a look at http://www.terrygriffithssnooker.com/snooker-lab.aspx
I voted science, becaus numbers don't lie when applied correctly. The applied correctly part though is the important thing. I must say that CTE is an issue that challenges this for me. No one has been able to mathematically explain it yet, and I personally don't believe it is personal subconscious adjustments that make it work, but after playing with it for a number of months now, it definitely works, even though I can't fully explain it. Thus, while I would lean towards science, I wouldn't let it completely close my mind.
limitations
Nothing wrong with science and the scientific method but people have to be aware of the limitations. Having made a living in R&D I am more aware than most what can be done, . . . . and what can't be done. Also just how easy it is for scientific method to go astray.
Then we have the deliberate missuse of the scientific method like we see in much of the global warming documentation now. By selecting the baseline and the data accepted and left out the scientific method can "prove" almost anything. The scientific method is only as good as the people applying it, just like experience!
Hu
Nothing wrong with science and the scientific method but people have to be aware of the limitations. Having made a living in R&D I am more aware than most what can be done, . . . . and what can't be done. Also just how easy it is for scientific method to go astray.
Then we have the deliberate missuse of the scientific method like we see in much of the global warming documentation now. By selecting the baseline and the data accepted and left out the scientific method can "prove" almost anything. The scientific method is only as good as the people applying it, just like experience!
Hu
I concur that what you proffer is more parsimonious, but I have a problem with parallax when lining up the CP to CP with my eyes alone and find stick aiming that line to be more accurate for me.
Thanks.:wink::thumbup:
Correct.
The paper geometry is but a concept that requires proof by scientific evaluation of the accuracy of the concept - if the balls hit the intended targets, it is proven by science.
As in product development and product testing, the results of that testing is only as good as the test equipment that may be flawed -- like my perception of the concept, my ability to incorporate perspective, my vision, stance, stroke, mastery of effecting gearing, dedication and affording the table time required to achieve accuracy.
Just saying.:wink::thumbup:
The stick aiming part is the easy part. The parallel shift is the rub.
The parallel shift is slight and easily accomplished for shots close to straight in and larger and more difficult for greater cut angles approaching 90 degrees.
Thanks for the green - tin foil hat.:wink::thumbup:
I believe what I see being done in real life. Not something that is being done on paper.
So, You believe the earth is flat and the earth is the center of the universe?
Just like you believe that you can execute a stop shot, when in fact your video examples show that you can't.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5Z9o_TfTUc&list=WL0F1BB8EB0BCDEB07&index=1&feature=plpp_video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5Z9o_TfTUc&list=WL0F1BB8EB0BCDEB07&index=1&feature=plpp_video
Last edited:
I just got done watching Immortals 3d, you gotta watch it man. I was on the edge of my seat the entire movie.
I don't think science can be argued. The scientific method is solid but it is not needed to play good pool. People try to quantify things as they see it but it is different as the person advances. Basically, what I have thought about the game a few years ago can be tossed out the window now.
Example: Beginner concludes that object ball throws and cueball squirts, therefore compensation of angle degrees......well, you get the picture. I think PJ plays this way, and although some of it is actually happening, I'm not sure if it is necessary to account for.
When does PJ get out of jail?
Not very wise to jumps to conclusion based on such a limited sample.
Your ignorance shows that way.
Trust me, I got a stop shot....but what you will or will not believe is all very little importance to me.
Not to be rude. If your going to post a video, clearly meant to display a "stop" shot, then the cue ball should not travel, correct? I mean I could be wrong or from a different planet, but a "stop" shot is intended to "stop" the cue ball right after contact with the object ball. If you can't put up better examples of your "skill", I don't believe you can call anyone ignorant.
So, on topic. Science, to me, is supposed to provide you with results to an observation/question with the data that is provided. If there is data that is not being used (discarded) or data that is unknown, then the results can only be a rough approximation, it can't be fact. And I don't believe science necessarily details fact, but details results given the data set that was presented. If you can't measure the human factor and put that in your equation then your results may very.
Science describes the results and any new data discovered or when the results don't match observations, then we get quantum mechanics, dark matter, pale ale and black holes
Science describes the results and any new data discovered or when the results don't match observations, then we get quantum mechanics, dark matter, pale ale and black holes
Your idea of a stop shot is that the ball eventually stops somewhere.
dunno
Dunno about PJ. Think he has been banned multiple times. Might be six months or a year this time or it might be the big bang, um . . . ban. That fisicks things getting me confused I guess.
Speaking of physics, just read about somebody's boson. Seems it has to exist for a few moments or a basic theory of physics goes out the window but they can't find the little bassets. Looking at a few trillion collisions that should produce them right now, no luck reported yet. The big brains aren't worried though, they say if they can't find the bosons they will just rewrite all of physics to accommodate a totally different reason why things work. Seems most peculiar and odd that the same people that rely on largely unproven physics to explain how pool shots work can totally ignore simple mechanical facts that are very easily proven to exist.
Edit: Just realized I have a new excuse for missing. Them collisions between pool balls are sending them bosons flying everywhere and I got one in my eye! Billions of them will fit on a gnat's rear but just one in the wrong place . . .
Hu
Dunno about PJ. Think he has been banned multiple times. Might be six months or a year this time or it might be the big bang, um . . . ban. That fisicks things getting me confused I guess.
Speaking of physics, just read about somebody's boson. Seems it has to exist for a few moments or a basic theory of physics goes out the window but they can't find the little bassets. Looking at a few trillion collisions that should produce them right now, no luck reported yet. The big brains aren't worried though, they say if they can't find the bosons they will just rewrite all of physics to accommodate a totally different reason why things work. Seems most peculiar and odd that the same people that rely on largely unproven physics to explain how pool shots work can totally ignore simple mechanical facts that are very easily proven to exist.
Edit: Just realized I have a new excuse for missing. Them collisions between pool balls are sending them bosons flying everywhere and I got one in my eye! Billions of them will fit on a gnat's rear but just one in the wrong place . . .
Hu
Last edited: