Proofs of the EXACTNESS of Pivot Systems
- Thread starter jsp
- Start date
He has stated many times why it works, you and others like you just won't accept it because you have some odd desire to hold CTE as a mathematically accurate system when ALL evidence presented thus far show that it is in fact, not mathematically accurate.
It works by giving you easy to visualize reference points to base your aim off of. From those easy to visualize reference points, you have to make small adjustments through feel to your pivot length to get to the actual aim line.
As many have stated before, nobody actually has a problem with CTE being used by other people. The problems we have are with the zealots who use false advertising to prop it up higher than it actually is. This false advertising includes "CTE is exact and requires no feel", "CTE is used by all top pros, they just don't know it", etc.
Last edited:
No, I don't.
Um...honestly...because I started this thread. For a specific purpose.
Neil -- Let's assume for the moment that you are absolutely correct about there being no feel in Stan's CTE prescription for determining the final cue-stick alignment -- everything is done with robotic perfection. For any given CB/OB separation, that still yields only six possible cut angles. The desired pocket (plus an allowance for slop) may not be on any of those cut angles. If you are making most shots, you are undoubtedly introducing feel somewhere in the process.
If you don't believe what I have just said, which is the same thing Dr. Dave said nearly 2 weeks ago, please explain exactly how Dr. Dave is incorrect, and how Stan's CTE prescription is actually arriving at the much higher number of cut angles needed to pocket all shots.
Are you saying the system can make a 15 degree cut but not a 21 degree cut?
On what, this is my post responding to someone else.
Banks
Banned
You know.. I don't need to buy a bible to know that god doesn't exist.
This whole topic is f'in retarded.
Yoshi sums it up well with, "The problems we have are with the zealots who use false advertising to prop it up higher than it actually is."
It helps some people.. la-dee-f*(@in-da.
Stop trying to come off like it's the work of Da Vinci or something.
I could give a flying f@#$ less whether anyone uses it or not or whether I ever hear anyone's explanation on how they aim.. ever again.
The fact was, and remains, that nobody can explain how every individual can make the same sightings while having different mechanics and end up with the same pocketed shot(which, of course, is center pocket) every time. And hitting different speeds with different english affects the shot greatly.. oh, but this is all explained mathematically, of course. Next time I see some F@#$ with a scrap pad figuring out the difference that the extra 3.5 degrees with low left makes, I'll say, "ok, it really is math", but until then it will still be feel.
I thought I was done with this stupid s$%^, but there's only so much crap I can read without calling someone on it..
Maybe if the sighting process entailed getting even with the center of the ball, lining up one edge with the other, etc.. but try telling me that a 5'0" person and 6'6" person lining up the same shot are going to see the same angles from where they stand. Again.. unless you're doing the exact same routine and verifying the facts, you're doing nothing but going by feel.
Take a professional cook.. many can just eyeball a cup.. they'll be pretty damn close.. but they won't swear up and down and throw a f'in hissy fit claiming that they are absolutely exact.
Great post guy, you made a lot of sense :thumbup:
Neil, that last sentence is not true. For instance, in the case of edge to A on a left cut, that line is converging with the CTE line. The point where they converge is behind your head. In order to align your eyes with both of them, your left eye will be in the vertical plane containing the edge to A line, while your right eye while be in the vertical plane containing the CTE line. Since the distance between your eyes is larger than the distance between those planes (which is continuously varying because they are converging), your head has to be rotated such that you're not facing them square on. Thus, the position of your head is arbitrary, depending on how much it is rotated from the square orientation.
But even if that were clearly prescribed, you still have options as to how you "slide into the shot" (i.e., what direction the cue is pointing). One obvious choice is to spit the difference between those planes/lines (bisect the angle between them). Alternately, you can align the cue with the edge to A line or CTE line.
There are then three clear options, and in the case of edge to B alignments, all three are the same since all three run parallel. Contrary to your statement in an earlier post, the math has been done and a graph generated for this case. It shows that the correct pivot points vary all over the place. If you feel the math is wrong, we can go over it step by step.
You may not give a hoot about the geometry, and none of us do any calculations while we're shooting (well, there are rare exceptions), but you can't violate its constraints by ignoring it.
Jim
Last edited:
Banks
Banned
The reality is that you can be making shots even if you have to add "feel" to the system's instructions in order to make it "work". So making shots doesn't mean it's "working" the way you think.
I know how it can't work. What you don't understand is how that's possible, even though it's pretty simple and obvious (at least for me and a few others here).
pj
chgo
Obviously not. Your only argument so far is that it must work because you make shots. That's not an argument for how or why.
pj
chgo