Keep up the spamming job of the thread ....but there is a guy who is angered at people doing that in this thread so be careful...just a heads up :thumbup:
Im out, i gots some shit to do now
Last edited:
hard to aim ivisible object ball
- Thread starter westlife
- Start date
Keep up the spamming job of the thread ....but there is a guy who is angered at people doing that in this thread so be careful...just a heads up :thumbup:
Im out, i gots some shit to do now
Like I said, this thread is done with. Now I'm doing what you like to do Timmy, I'm passing time and having a little play. I've offered the op my advice, and if he wishes we can communicate via pm.Keep up the spamming job of the thread ....but there is a guy who is angered at people doing that in this thread so be careful...just a heads up :thumbup:
Im out, i gots some shit to do now
Yeah, those cases won't make themselves. Bye for now
First let me ask.
If you only read the part that you put in bold of my rather long post & stated earlier that you did not want to got into the 5 shots thing right now, then why did you make that post?
But to save time, let me also ask, what inclines one to do that rotation?
Please remember, I do not want to just pass time in discussion. I want some concrete logical & rational answers & not to rehash the same old unspecified stuff.
I understand what would be required to pocket the balls just as almost anyone with any playing experience would.
The question is what makes CTE 100% totally objective or Why is it so.
The answer to my question of what inclines one to do those rotations IS...
It is one's subjective input as to where the pocket is & their playing experience that tells one that the line derived from the CTE & ETA from those visuals of shot #1 will not pocket shot#5.
That is subjectivity &/or subconscious knowledge derived from past playing experience.
That would make the system NOT 100% totally objective for it to work without holes.
Please give me a truthful & acceptable answer to my first question.
We would not want to get off on bad start to this newly formed truce, would we.
And... in fairness to westlife, which should have been done long ago, another thread for this discussion should be opened for this purpose & since it is you that wants to be so involved in the discussions & pass time doing so it would probably be better if were your thread.
Last edited:
Pulled back in?? YOU started the derail with post #11. And still haven't stopped despite repeatedly saying you would.
You are so hung up on one word, that you totally dismiss something that could be of great benefit to you. Despite having it explained to you numerous times. And now, you are repeatedly going out of your way to make sure no one else benefits from the system.
Can't help but wonder why you don't attack CJ like you do Stan and others. He has said many words that are misleading and flat out wrong. Yet, you tout his system, and even claim that you can't use it like he says, but it benefits you. Talk about hypocritical!
One would think that you learned your lesson with the pendulum debates. Where you were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you were wrong. Guess some are just slow learners. There is only one reason you can't learn CTE. It has nothing to do with the wording, the lack of wording, or anything else except the simple fact that you don't want to learn it. Fine, don't learn it. But stop trying to prevent others from learning it. You only come off as ignorant when you do, because you have nothing to back up your statements. Just like in the pendulum debate.No matter what answer you get, it won't be enough for you. You will continue to spam against CTE. And thereby continue to look like the southbound end of a northbound horse.
Neil, you are making assumptions that he has some skill, apparently because he has been playing for half a century. I've heard from a couple of people who know him that he can't pot three balls in a row on a good day along with some other less than complimentary comments. That makes sense. When would he ever play? He spends more time than most people posting female images on here as if that will somehow get him noticed and make him popular. Wonder if his wife and kids know that he spends hours and hours per week posting images of scantily clad females on a pool forum. Wonder if his buddy Fran still loves him since she has seen all of that?
Child: Dad, did you play pool today?
English: Well, I didn't actually play, but I talked about it.
Child: Kewl. Who did you talk about it with?
English: Well, I didn't actually talk to anyone, I posted on a pool website.
Child: You spent 5 hours chatting on a pool website?
English: Well, I didn't spend all that time chatting. I was posting.
Child: Did you contribute any of your 47 years of knowledge while posting?
English: Most definitely.
Child: Kewl. What knowledge did you contribute?
English: Well, it wasn't exactly knowledge. I spent time disputing this aiming system called CTE.
Child: Kewl. How does this system work?
English: I really have no idea but I don't understand it so it must not work.
Child: Wow, that sounds rather strange. So you spent 5 hours posting about something you don't understand?
English: Well, no. I posted pictures as well.
Child: Kewl. Pictures of you playing pool?
English: No, not exactly?
Child: Pictures of someone else playing pool?
English: Well, no.
Child: What pictures did you post then?
English: I, well, a, you know ... I posted pictures of people.
Child: What people?
English: Just people.
Child: Sounds like you're too embarrassed to tell me the truth.
English: Okay, okay. Pictures of scantily clad females.
Child: You're a perv. I'm telling Mom.
Rick, no one is baiting you. Simply telling it like it is. YOU are the one that baited in the first place. The only reason I even responded is so that others know the truth.
Neil,
As you are prone to do.... you forget or you conveniently forget...or you occasionally seem to sometimes make up your own 'facts'.
There were two threads regarding the pendulum stroke & I was NOT proved wrong. On the contrary the evidence other than people's opinions supports my contention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldschool1478 View Post
English.
The green line is the cue at address.
When the tip is pulled back 10" it is exactly on the start (bridge pivot) of the S curve.
When the stroke swings forward it immediately starts downward to it's lowest point (0.075" below the center-line of the cue at address. It then swings upward crossing that line to it's highest point (0.015), and then back down to contact at the equator of the cue ball.
This is plotted in a cad program that allows me to fix the end points of certain lines,
and pivot on other's, dynamically.
Obviously, no human can swing a cue in a perfect pendulum fashion, or piston like either for that matter. With fewer moving parts, the pendulum will most likely produce the most consistent results, for us humans.
oldschool,
http://forums.azbilliards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=291229&stc=1&d=1377553300
Me to oldschool>
Please forgive me.
But are you saying, that the tip travels on a series of arcs for a fixed elbow pendulum stroke?
Thanks,
Rick
oldschool1478 >Actually an "S" shaped spline. The drawing shows it very clearly.
My point was to show how nearly straight it actually is.
As you are prone to do.... you forget or you conveniently forget...or you occasionally seem to sometimes make up your own 'facts'.
There were two threads regarding the pendulum stroke & I was NOT proved wrong. On the contrary the evidence other than people's opinions supports my contention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldschool1478 View Post
English.
The green line is the cue at address.
When the tip is pulled back 10" it is exactly on the start (bridge pivot) of the S curve.
When the stroke swings forward it immediately starts downward to it's lowest point (0.075" below the center-line of the cue at address. It then swings upward crossing that line to it's highest point (0.015), and then back down to contact at the equator of the cue ball.
This is plotted in a cad program that allows me to fix the end points of certain lines,
and pivot on other's, dynamically.
Obviously, no human can swing a cue in a perfect pendulum fashion, or piston like either for that matter. With fewer moving parts, the pendulum will most likely produce the most consistent results, for us humans.
oldschool,
http://forums.azbilliards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=291229&stc=1&d=1377553300
Me to oldschool>
Please forgive me.
But are you saying, that the tip travels on a series of arcs for a fixed elbow pendulum stroke?
Thanks,
Rick
oldschool1478 >Actually an "S" shaped spline. The drawing shows it very clearly.
My point was to show how nearly straight it actually is.
Last edited:
I consciously missed this but I guess my subconscious brought me back to it.
Neil, is the bolded portion of your post a veiled admission or a slip up that CTE is actually not 100% totally objective?
If so & Stan agrees with you, then I think most all of the apprehension regarding CTE by myself & others can be put to bed.
PS I have never 'attacked' Stan, the only negative thing, if one can really call it such, was in response when he was rather 'ugly' to me & basically what I said was that I had always thought that he was a very nice man but perhaps I was wrong as he showed me a different persona that day.
Last edited:
RICK! Do you see yourself??? You are now arguing that a stroke isn't level if it is off by a few thousands of an inch! My word, man, get a grip on reality!!! Statements like that are WAY beyond reasonableness. They border on insanity! If you are willing to stretch that far to be right, fine, you are right. Now put your keyboard down and go sit in your glory for a year or two. PLEASE!!
Not at all, it's your claim, not mine or anyone that uses it correctly. You still didn't answer the question you quoted.
Problem is and always has been that people like you can't open your minds and learn CTE well enough to understand that you are 100% wrong here. Same old wrong argument being put forth.
The computer stopped it's measurements prior to contact.
If one looks at the graph on the line arching downward into where it would be going through contact with the cue ball about 1/4 to 5/8 of an inch past contact, you will see a larger deviation.
A respected individual made a definitive affirmation that was incorrect. All I wanted to do was to clarify it. I think that was done for those that were reading at that time & I certainly do not think there is any need to revisit that unless other erroneous statement like that one is made.
I doubt that I would even want to do so even then, as it would probably only be said with the idea of a trap in mind.
If one looks at the graph on the line arching downward into where it would be going through contact with the cue ball about 1/4 to 5/8 of an inch past contact, you will see a larger deviation.
A respected individual made a definitive affirmation that was incorrect. All I wanted to do was to clarify it. I think that was done for those that were reading at that time & I certainly do not think there is any need to revisit that unless other erroneous statement like that one is made.
I doubt that I would even want to do so even then, as it would probably only be said with the idea of a trap in mind.
Last edited:
Okay. I thought I saw a possible association there.
What question are you referring to that you say I quoted?
I am open to any logical or rational explanation that would explain the how &/or why CTE would be 100% totally objective as claimed.
Did you see my hypothetical?
Some are so enamored that they can't even seem to understand it would take a miracle for CTE to be 100% totally objective as it now is offered & 'explained'.
Too many times in these long 'discussions' or debates things seem to be taken out context or put into the wrong context or comments are made with nothing to offer.
All you do here is call me close minded.
I've stated my conclusion that it is not totally objective without holes & I have given examples as to why I conclude that.
On the other side what is offered?
It's a phenomenon. It's visual. It's 3 dimensional. You're wrong.
If it's a phenomenon, then how can anyone say without a doubt that it is 100% totally objective? A true phenomenon can not be explained.
So... everyone that believes in CTE should simply say we don't know how or why it works, but... to do that then one could not also rationally or logically say that it is 100% totally objective.
As I stated in another post & as is in my signature line, everyone should make their own determination. I've made mine.
I had hoped that CTE would be totally objective, I simply found it not to be so from my use & analysis of it. Others have done the same thing & agree with me but they have been worn out & I am tending to agree with 8pack/Anthony.
I've now made another conclusion & will proceed accordingly.
I think most all of 'you people' will be pleased with the possible exemption of Timothy Rose.
Thanks for waking me up & no hard feelings for calling me closed minded & one of 'you people'.
Best Wishes, Merry Christmas, & Happy Holidays to You & Yours,
Rick
Last edited:
Anthony,
Believe me, the two of us are not the only two that see it.
I didn't even read that crap until you quoted it.
Best to Y'a,
Rick
Last edited:
cookie man's post & a couple of others made me realize something & I will in all likely hood not be reading nor posting in this thread any longer
I've made a few PMs.
Naturally if I'm alerted that I should return for some reason, I might do so, but as of now that is not my intention.
One of the PMs was to Timothy to advise him of my intentions along with 3 options should he wish to continue a civil debate.
To Everyone...Merry Christmas & Happy Holidays to You & Yours,
Rick
I've made a few PMs.
Naturally if I'm alerted that I should return for some reason, I might do so, but as of now that is not my intention.
One of the PMs was to Timothy to advise him of my intentions along with 3 options should he wish to continue a civil debate.
To Everyone...Merry Christmas & Happy Holidays to You & Yours,
Rick
Last edited:
Curious about how many shots exactly do you think a person using CTE can make without the adjustments you seem to think we would need.
How could he answer this question when he has no clue whatsoever how the system really works? That's obvious when he cannot grasp how the 5 shots are made with the same perception.