Proofs of the EXACTNESS of Pivot Systems

jsp

jsp

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Many posters here have claimed that these pivot systems are "exact" or "perfect" or that they require absolutely no subconscious adjustments if systematically followed.

Well, I created a the thread for these posters to PROVE these claims. If a particular system is EXACT as claimed/advertised, then it can formally be proven mathematically.

So let's start seeing these proofs! Otherwise, the exactness/perfectness of these systems will continue to be considered as unsubstantiated claims by the "detractors".
 
who said there existed any form of mathematical proof that pivot systems work. There are a hell of a lot of bank shots that go, though mathemaically they don't.

Some things just work, because they do. for some people.
 
The only way I could imagine a pivot system being mathmatically correct without using intuition or adjustment is if A) you used the edge of the shaft to aim at the CTE line, and B) you mark (or memorize) specific bridge lengths for specific angles.
 
jsp said:
Many posters here have claimed that these pivot systems are "exact" or "perfect" or that they require absolutely no subconscious adjustments if systematically followed.

Well, I created a the thread for these posters to PROVE these claims. If a particular system is EXACT as claimed/advertised, then it can formally be proven mathematically.

So let's start seeing these proofs! Otherwise, the exactness/perfectness of these systems will continue to be considered as unsubstantiated claims by the "detractors".
Click to expand...

Good question---but why do you ask????
 
Renegade_56 said:
who said there existed any form of mathematical proof that pivot systems work. There are a hell of a lot of bank shots that go, though mathemaically they don't.

Some things just work, because they do. for some people.
Click to expand...

The system would not work if it did not have a mathematical basis behind it. Also there really aren't any bank shots that don't go mathematically that can be made without adding throw or spin. When they go, it is because speed, spin, or throw changed the mathematical angle. Math simply does not lie.

I believe this will be a hard question to answer as the math to CTE is very complicated, and changes with the distance from the cb to the ob. I believe it will eventually be ascertained though.

Human error is a part of all things we do. I believe the system is mathematically exact, however, we will certainly make some errors with our sight lines, movement into those lines, and maybe even the pivot (although it is much simpler to do a fairly precise pivot than some are making it out to be). Because you will still end up fairly close to the correct shot line with occasional error, we will probably make some small adjustments naturally to get back on the correct line when we are already systematically so close. It is much easier to do this when you are already placed close to the line to begin with. None the less, I think the subconscious or conscious adjustment for that matter will come due to human error more than system error.
 
I liken alot of aiming systems to the master aimers of black powder cannons.
Some can do it and some can't.
The good ones will consistanly hit a target 400-800 yards away.They have an instinct that they use and trust it.
The bad ones miss.
Aiming in pool is really no different. Some can do it really amazingly well,and then there is everyone else.
Sure you can use maths for a cannon ball trajectory, but the subtle things are much greater, like how much powder to use, how tight is it packed, is there a head or tail wind,is this the second or third round, all effect the result.
For pool, are the balls clean and round, is the table flat, cloth tight, humid, really dry,
all effect the result.
Can the shooter actually cue straight.?,and be consistant one day to the next.
 
Though it's within your right to ask this...and I happen to agree. We all know how this will end.

1635898-flame_on_super.jpg
 
mantis99:
The system would not work if it did not have a mathematical basis behind it.
Click to expand...
It could work by feel without a mathematical basis. In fact, I think it does. That's much simpler and more believable than "we're positive it's mathematically exact even though nobody can prove it and even though the instructions for pivoting are vague and inexact".

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
It could work by feel without a mathematical basis. In fact, I think it does. That's much simpler and more believable than "we're positive it's mathematically exact even though nobody can prove it and even though the instructions for pivoting are vague and inexact".

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

You forgot "and anybody questioning CTE just doesn't and wont ever get it even if their questions are completely reasonable."
 
mantis99 said:
The system would not work if it did not have a mathematical basis behind it. Also there really aren't any bank shots that don't go mathematically that can be made without adding throw or spin. When they go, it is because speed, spin, or throw changed the mathematical angle. Math simply does not lie.

I believe this will be a hard question to answer as the math to CTE is very complicated, and changes with the distance from the cb to the ob. I believe it will eventually be ascertained though.

Human error is a part of all things we do. I believe the system is mathematically exact, however, we will certainly make some errors with our sight lines, movement into those lines, and maybe even the pivot (although it is much simpler to do a fairly precise pivot than some are making it out to be). Because you will still end up fairly close to the correct shot line with occasional error, we will probably make some small adjustments naturally to get back on the correct line when we are already systematically so close. It is much easier to do this when you are already placed close to the line to begin with. None the less, I think the subconscious or conscious adjustment for that matter will come due to human error more than system error.
Click to expand...

Well, mathematics is a very broad field, my point was more in terms of geometric, sorry.
 
Methods/Systems

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Johnson
It could work by feel without a mathematical basis. In fact, I think it does. That's much simpler and more believable than "we're positive it's mathematically exact even though nobody can prove it and even though the instructions for pivoting are vague and inexact".

pj
chgo

You forgot "and anybody questioning CTE just doesn't and wont ever get it even if their questions are completely reasonable
-----------------------------------------------------------

I dont see cte as a system but more as a method because of the very facts in Patricks post.

What strikes me about the system and Patricks post is that one would summize that now we have this all boiled down to the fact that after the systematic pivots, adjustments etc we are back to visual system after all.

There is just a whole lot easier way to be visual than all this twisting and turning. I was showed this system at a strictly introductory level but what struck me in the head was I felt out of square or alignment with correct delivery position while Im pivoting and I personally cant deal with not being lined up correctly on center ball. All of my alignments were out which put my head spinning because the human gyroscope seemed to be on its side. Why would someone put themselves through that? Was beyond me but I went along.

How about we create a system to understand why proper alignment works and give ourselves a way to know we are doing right.

More importantly Patrick, what the heck is that on that fish? Yuck!!

336Robin :thumbup:

aimisthegameinpool@yahoo.com
 
Patrick Johnson said:
It could work by feel without a mathematical basis. In fact, I think it does. That's much simpler and more believable than "we're positive it's mathematically exact even though nobody can prove it and even though the instructions for pivoting are vague and inexact".

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Even to work by feel, it would have to mathematically get you close to the line of the shot.

I don't see the instructions for pivoting as vague at all. If someone can't place the edge of the tip on the center of the cb, then pivot the tip to the center of the cb with reasonable repeatability, then they are going to have trouble being good at pool with any system or feel basis. I imagine that it would hard to call the pivot exact, but I think you could say that a person with some level of experience can perform it repeatedly within the necessary tolerances to make the ball, thus making it a viable part of the CTE system. I do think that some feel may come in after the pivot as yo ulook up and say, " oh I'm off a little", thenmake a small adjustment. However, I'd tell you that in the past few days, I have made many balls without looking up at the OB after the pivot to see if focusing on the CB or OB is more effective. This limits my ability to make the shot using feel, and gives more suggestion of a correct mathematical system.
 
jsp said:
Many posters here have claimed that these pivot systems are "exact" or "perfect" or that they require absolutely no subconscious adjustments if systematically followed.

Well, I created a the thread for these posters to PROVE these claims. If a particular system is EXACT as claimed/advertised, then it can formally be proven mathematically.

So let's start seeing these proofs! Otherwise, the exactness/perfectness of these systems will continue to be considered as unsubstantiated claims by the "detractors".
Click to expand...

There is a geometric proof for the aim and pivot process. It is very simple and has probably been known to a few people for a long time. I posted the proof on this forum and was "shouted down" by the detractors in typical fashion. The problem with my former post was that there was no illustration. I now have one that can be e mailed but I don't want to put my e mail address on one of these forums.

any ideas?
 
“The method employed I would gladly explain,
While I have it so clear in my head,
If I had but the time and you had but the brain —
But much yet remains to be said."

Lewis Carroll---"The Hunting of the Snark"


ew
 
richard s said:
There is a geometric proof for the aim and pivot process. It is very simple and has probably been known to a few people for a long time. I posted the proof on this forum and was "shouted down" by the detractors in typical fashion. The problem with my former post was that there was no illustration. I now have one that can be e mailed but I don't want to put my e mail address on one of these forums.

any ideas?
Click to expand...
Re-post your proof here and we'll take a look at it again. Mathematics isn't biased one way or another. Either it's right or wrong.
 
Geometric Proof

A GEOMETRIC PROOF
Aim at the object ball contact point from an offset position on the cue ball in the direction of the cut.

Pivot the cue to the center of the cue ball for a center ball hit.

These two steps move an inscribed angle inside the ghost ball which forms a right triangle with the 90 degree angle at the contact point.

This is the hard proof and it is nothing more. There will be success and failure, much of which will be the subject of conjecture, but most of the systemic performance problems will probably be with the fact that we are working with a blunt 12 to 13 mm. thick aiming device.

Confirmation of Proof: Thales Theorem


Simple, provable, AND, terrible news for some people.

Remember, the process delivers a transcendental* function to the ghost ball to effect workability.

*An engineer and mathematician on AZ described the characteristics of a transcendental function for me when I made the proof post some time back.

This thing is so simple that I doubt if anyone could build a saleable product upon it.

The fact that Hal, Sailor Barge, et al were able to keep this genie in the bottle so long is truly amazing.

This is NOT CTE, it is aim and pivot and it works to strike any contact point, not just those that pocket balls. I have been having success with a half tip offset and have learned that straight and almost straight shots need a different application. One must also imagine a line through the center of the cue for precision.
 
jsp said:
Many posters here have claimed that these pivot systems are "exact" or "perfect" or that they require absolutely no subconscious adjustments if systematically followed.

Well, I created a the thread for these posters to PROVE these claims. If a particular system is EXACT as claimed/advertised, then it can formally be proven mathematically.

So let's start seeing these proofs! Otherwise, the exactness/perfectness of these systems will continue to be considered as unsubstantiated claims by the "detractors".
Click to expand...

It's almost absurd to me. People believe that it's mathematically exact (I wouldn't even say that GB is exact), and that there is mathmatical proof. Yet they can't show the proof. They haven't even seen the proof. But they believe it's there, only because they can pocket balls using the system. But it gets worse. The mathematical problems of these systems have been presented many times, they are obvious. Everybody understands them. But the magic is in the pivot, therefore, math.
The missing variable is the pivotlength. And the only way to get that is to determine the contact point on the objectball or something similar. But that's exactly what the system isn't supposed to do in the first place.
 
richard s said:
A GEOMETRIC PROOF
Aim at the object ball contact point from an offset position on the cue ball in the direction of the cut.

Pivot the cue to the center of the cue ball for a center ball hit.
Click to expand...
But pivot where?

I still don't understand why people keep saying "pivot to center ball" without first defining a unique pivot point. There are an infinite number of lines that go through the center of the CB. It takes a second point to define a unique aim line that goes through CB, and that's the pivot point.

Once these pivot systems systematically tell us EXACTLY where this pivot point should be for EVERY conceivable shot, then maybe they're on to something.
 
ThePoliteSniper said:
It's almost absurd to me. People believe that it's mathematically exact (I wouldn't even say that GB is exact), and that there is mathmatical proof. Yet they can't show the proof. They haven't even seen the proof. But they believe it's there, only because they can pocket balls using the system. But it gets worse. The mathematical problems of these systems have been presented many times, they are obvious. Everybody understands them. But the magic is in the pivot, therefore, math.
The missing variable is the pivotlength. And the only way to get that is to determine the contact point on the objectball or something similar. But that's exactly what the system isn't supposed to do in the first place.
Click to expand...
Well said.

I contend that it's practically impossible to develop an EXACT aiming system that doesn't include the contact point of the OB in one way or another.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top