Proofs of the EXACTNESS of Pivot Systems

[SpiderWebComm]

What you claim to be doing is logically impossible. You don't have to know the first thing about math or geometry to see instantly that you simply can't line up only four different ways, as you described, and yet get 12 different cut angles.

Without at least that much understanding, I don't see how you can talk sensibly about this. In fact, you don't.

pj
chgo

It puts you to the center of the ghost ball each time, per that drill. That's a stone cold fact. If I wanted to smash a nail hole through my table and pivot my cue to show there is no adjustment, I could.

It's time you pull that cruddy keyboard of your lap and figure this out on the table. You're obviously missing something.

Anyone wanna figure this out in real-time? PM me if you wanna join me in my basement.

 

[jsp]

It puts you to the center of the ghost ball each time, per that drill. That's a stone cold fact. If I wanted to smash a nail hole through my table and pivot my cue to show there is no adjustment, I could.

Dave, let's simply focus on your first two shots (5 and 7 balls). How do you get two different post-pivot aim lines if you supposedly have the same initial alignment ("edge to the eighth") and pivot lengths? It's an impossibility unless either your pivot length is different or your initial alignment is different. Please reconcile.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Dave, let's simply focus on your first two shots (5 and 7 balls). How do you get two different post-pivot aim lines if you supposedly have the same initial alignment ("edge to the eighth") and pivot lengths? It's an impossibility unless either your pivot length is different or your initial alignment is different. Please reconcile.

You have a table in your basement, wireless and a laptop?

 

[jsp]

You have a table in your basement, wireless and a laptop?

Pool table upstairs, desktop downstairs, and wife has the laptop.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Pool table upstairs, desktop downstairs, and wife has the laptop.

Don't you run your household? Get control of your equipment!!

.
.
.

PM sent
Dave

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I think you want to win this argument about CTE/Pro One not being an accurate aiming system and want to prove that it is not EXACT

There is no argument. It's obviously and demonstrably inexact.

and I would not object to you proving that to me.

Could have fooled me.

How about you learning to play equally well with CTE/Pro One?

Not interested.

I went back and did some research on the posts that you have made and others about aiming systems including the old CTE discussions and you and others have argued FOR YEARS that it is not an exact aiming system.

It hasn't gotten any more exact over the years.

I cannot have faith in what you say until I know that you can play at the same level using CTE/Pro One.

I hope you can learn to live with that.

Just what is it that you're risking by not putting in the time to learn how to use CTE/Pro One?

Time away from working on my own aiming methods.

You've wasted years of your life arguing, writing and discussing CTE.

Sez you.

Why not get to the bottom of this?

I've been at the bottom of it.

If you became just as proficient with using CTE/Pro One as you are with whatever you are using now, and you still said that it wasn't exact, that you made adjustments to make the shots, I would believe you.

Guess I'll have to learn to live without that.

pj
chgo

 

[AtLarge]

Dr. Dave---

Did you try my little drill on your home table yet?

Dave

I did, Dave. And my analysis is in post #369. I imagine you will think I am wrong. If you do, please explain the how's and why's of the errors of my analysis.

 

[BRKNRUN]

EXACT, PJ.
You will see one day.

Could you elaborate on this word "exact"????

If it is exact...does that mean that the method uses "exact" pivot points for each shot?

Please correct me if I am wrong....but as I understand the method of "pro one" it uses a "air pivot" or a "falling into the line" method of pivot.....Does this method still incorporate an "exact" pivot point?

From my experimentation....(no math).....IF I set up any random shot and use a 1" pivot fulcrum and then shoot the same exact shot using a 29" pivot fulcrum....it yields two very different results.........(I challenge anyone to show me a shot where they can manually pivot to center using a 1" pivot point and then a 29" pivot point and make both shots)

There is a pivot fulcrum point "somewhere in between" that makes the OB....but how does a human (without a ruler) identify what that "somewhere in between" would be?????.......seems to me it would be akin to the difficulty some have in identifying where the actual "ghost ball" would need to be to make the ball???

With all that being said....I would say (with my limited math skills) that it should be possible to identify an exact formula to make a shot with CTE......but in my "no math" opinion.....it would need to be something based on static aim points (CTE)...but would also include a "moving" number in that formula for the pivot point required to make the shot.

So...in the end...I agree with you that the method could be written out in math to be "exact".....(if someone were to precisely measure out the pivot point for every conceivable shot).....However...I think it would be near impossible for the method to be carried out "exactly" by a human being...I think "human error" must be factored in to any method.....and the only way a person is going to overcome human error....is.....wait for it......"feel"

And that of course is assuming that the person has a straight stroke to begin with...:wink:

How's that for staying on the fence.....:wink:

 

[Masayoshi]

naysayer! i dont think i have used that term yet in these discussions ever, but i could be wrong. How are you using that term in relation to CTE/PRO1 and i will then answer your question. I can hear foot steps, the fat lady is about to sing on you guys

Naysayers: CTE uses feel to get into line, therefore, it is not exact.

Yeasayers: CTE does not use feel to get into line. It is exact.

The fat lady will sing if someone demonstrates how simple and basic geometry is wrong. Which is literally impossible.

 

[cookie man]

Could you elaborate on this word "exact"????

If it is exact...does that mean that the method uses "exact" pivot points for each shot?

Please correct me if I am wrong....but as I understand the method of "pro one" it uses a "air pivot" or a "falling into the line" method of pivot.....Does this method still incorporate an "exact" pivot point?

From my experimentation....(no math).....IF I set up any random shot and use a 1" pivot fulcrum and then shoot the same exact shot using a 29" pivot fulcrum....it yields two very different results.........(I challenge anyone to show me a shot where they can manually pivot to center using a 1" pivot point and then a 29" pivot point and make both shots)

There is a pivot fulcrum point "somewhere in between" that makes the OB....but how does a human (without a ruler) identify what that "somewhere in between" would be?????.......seems to me it would be akin to the difficulty some have in identifying where the actual "ghost ball" would need to be to make the ball???

With all that being said....I would say (with my limited math skills) that it should be possible to identify an exact formula to make a shot with CTE......but in my "no math" opinion.....it would need to be something based on static aim points (CTE)...but would also include a "moving" number in that formula for the pivot point required to make the shot.

So...in the end...I agree with you that the method could be written out in math to be "exact".....(if someone were to precisely measure out the pivot point for every conceivable shot).....However...I think it would be near impossible for the method to be carried out "exactly" by a human being...I think "human error" must be factored in to any method.....and the only way a person is going to overcome human error....is.....wait for it......"feel"

And that of course is assuming that the person has a straight stroke to begin with...:wink:

How's that for staying on the fence.....:wink:

So there is no human error in "feel"? Spidey has explained the pivot and how to do it so it is exact.

 

[jwpretd]

The fat lady will sing if someone demonstrates how simple and basic geometry is wrong. Which is literally impossible.

I assume that by "simple and basic geometry" you mean the geometry of the Euclidean plane. There is nothing "wrong" with Euclidean plane geometry [note 1].

However [2], Euclidean plane geometry has nothing to do with the actual geometry of CTE/ProOne. CTE/ProOne is defined to take place in the three dimensional perspective space of the observer (i.e., the player). This is the realm of projective geometry (specifically, perspective geometry), not Euclidean geometry. You cannot meaningfully analyze it with the tools of Euclidean geometry [3] nor with any techniques that depend on it. [4] It's not very reasonable to expect the mechanical procedures designed for one system to work in a completely different system. And it's even less reasonable to complain when they don't. Personally, I don't expect the front door key for my house to turn on the ignition for my car. [5]

My thanks to Jal for mentioning Google SketchUp; I wasn't previously aware of it. That makes it relatively easy to draw a CTE/ProOne setup in perspective, to position one's point of view as per the CTE/ProOne instructions, and draw in the sight lines. While I had already worked out what had to be going on, being able to draw it easily and then look at the scene from various angles was quite gratifying.

Note, by the way, that I have said nothing about the "exactness" of the CTE/ProOne
methodology. That's not the issue I'm addressing here. What I'm addressing is the fact that criticisms or plaudits of that methodology cannot be based on Euclidean geometry.

-- jwp
-------------------------------------------------------
1. For completeness, I suppose I should note that that statement depends to a degree on your feelings about the parallel postulate. Assuming we all agree to accept it, then there's nothing "wrong" with with Euclidean geometry. Personally, I find it rather fun.

2. C'mon, now - you knew there was going to be a "however" after that last statement.

3. While it's probably possible to project the perspective space onto Euclidean space, it is not clear to me that doing so would provide useful information. I could be wrong about that; I am certainly not a projective geometer nor do I play one on TV.

4. Among other things, this means that Jal's geometry and math efforts don't show us anything useful with respect to CTE/ProOne. And that really is unfortunate, because it's nice work.

5. Nor do I complain when it doesn't work. Mostly I just stare at it stupidly for a few seconds, mutter "Dumb shit", and select the correct key.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

cookie man:
Spidey has explained the pivot and how to do it so it is exact.

Yes, he produced exactly four cut angles. Unfortunately, there were 12 different cuts.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

jwpretd:
Euclidean plane geometry has nothing to do with the actual geometry of CTE/ProOne. CTE/ProOne is defined to take place in the three dimensional perspective space of the observer (i.e., the player).

Nonsense. Pool and aiming take place on the 2-dimensional surface of the pool table and CTE's visuals are also completely 2-dimensional, even with the "smaller" distant OB. Perspective is not a third dimension and doesn't correct or explain away CTE's geometric errors.

pj
chgo

 

[Masayoshi]

I assume that by "simple and basic geometry" you mean the geometry of the Euclidean plane. There is nothing "wrong" with Euclidean plane geometry [note 1].

However [2], Euclidean plane geometry has nothing to do with the actual geometry of CTE/ProOne. CTE/ProOne is defined to take place in the three dimensional perspective space of the observer (i.e., the player). This is the realm of projective geometry (specifically, perspective geometry), not Euclidean geometry. You cannot meaningfully analyze it with the tools of Euclidean geometry [3] nor with any techniques that depend on it. [4] It's not very reasonable to expect the mechanical procedures designed for one system to work in a completely different system. And it's even less reasonable to complain when they don't. Personally, I don't expect the front door key for my house to turn on the ignition for my car. [5]

My thanks to Jal for mentioning Google SketchUp; I wasn't previously aware of it. That makes it relatively easy to draw a CTE/ProOne setup in perspective, to position one's point of view as per the CTE/ProOne instructions, and draw in the sight lines. While I had already worked out what had to be going on, being able to draw it easily and then look at the scene from various angles was quite gratifying.

Note, by the way, that I have said nothing about the "exactness" of the CTE/ProOnemethodology. That's not the issue I'm addressing here. What I'm addressing is the fact that criticisms or plaudits of that methodology cannot be based on Euclidean geometry.

In that case, you are entirely off topic.

-- jwp
-------------------------------------------------------
1. For completeness, I suppose I should note that that statement depends to a degree on your feelings about the parallel postulate. Assuming we all agree to accept it, then there's nothing "wrong" with with Euclidean geometry. Personally, I find it rather fun.

2. C'mon, now - you knew there was going to be a "however" after that last statement.

3. While it's probably possible to project the perspective space onto Euclidean space, it is not clear to me that doing so would provide useful information. I could be wrong about that; I am certainly not a projective geometer nor do I play one on TV.

4. Among other things, this means that Jal's geometry and math efforts don't show us anything useful with respect to CTE/ProOne. And that really is unfortunate, because it's nice work.

5. Nor do I complain when it doesn't work. Mostly I just stare at it stupidly for a few seconds, mutter "Dumb shit", and select the correct key.

Its even more basic than that. No matter how much you try to over complicate the math, you will never be able to turn a limited number of discrete points into a continuous system (which would be required for it to be exact).

The problem CTE supporters are having with the math is that they are trying to find something that was never there in the first place. Its kind of like how early earth creationists are constantly on an endless search for proof that Jesus rode around on dinosaurs.

 

[jsp]

It puts you to the center of the ghost ball each time, per that drill. That's a stone cold fact. If I wanted to smash a nail hole through my table and pivot my cue to show there is no adjustment, I could.

Dave, let's simply focus on your first two shots (5 and 7 balls). How do you get two different post-pivot aim lines if you supposedly have the same initial alignment ("edge to the eighth") and pivot lengths? It's an impossibility unless either your pivot length is different or your initial alignment is different. Please reconcile.

Dave, if I simply believe your claim that your final aim lines go straight through the ghost ball centers in the first two shots (5 and 7 balls), then your bridge placement MUST be in two completely different places (in relation to the CB and OB locations). Your bridge must fall on the final aim lines since that's where you're pivoting, and you have two distinct aim lines since there are two different ghost ball locations.

Now, how do you get to two completely different bridge placements (in relation to the CB and OB) given supposedly the exact same "edge to eighth" alignment? How does the system tell you to place your bridge hand differently for those first two shots?

 

[champ2107]

Naysayers: CTE uses feel to get into line, therefore, it is not exact.

Yeasayers: CTE does not use feel to get into line. It is exact.

The fat lady will sing if someone demonstrates how simple and basic geometry is wrong. Which is literally impossible.

There are 4 exact points , 2 on the cb and 2 on the ob that get me into line. I use my eyes along with experience too find these points and they get myself into the proper positioning just like Stan has "exactly" shown me how to do on the dvd. Is that considered "feel" in your eyes? if it is, then cte uses feel to get into line, in your eyes and you may call me a naysayer if it makes you sleep better at night :grin:

 

[jwpretd]

Nonsense. Pool and aiming take place on the 2-dimensional surface of the pool table ...

Not by necessity, nor in practice. If you looked at the shot with your eye on the surface of the table, then you'd have a very hard time aiming.

... and CTE's visuals are also completely 2-dimensional, even with the "smaller" distant OB. Perspective is not a third dimension and doesn't correct or explain away CTE's geometric errors.

Have you drawn this out in 3D perspective and obtained the same results you got with a Euclidean drawing?

Once again: All of the geometry involved must be constructed from the player's perspective view of the table or you will not get an accurate model.

 

[cookie man]

Yes, he produced exactly four cut angles. Unfortunately, there were 12 different cuts.

pj
chgo

Thats not good enough for an answer. If you know so much and Dave went to GB after pivoting then you explain why and how.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Yes, he produced exactly four cut angles. Unfortunately, there were 12 different cuts.

pj
chgo

cookie man:
Thats not good enough for an answer.

LOL. Like you have a clue.

If you know so much and Dave went to GB after pivoting then you explain why and how.

Dave said he followed the steps exactly as he described them and got the exact outcome he claims. He undoubtedly believes that's true, but simple logic says it can't be. Given the choice, I'll go with simple logic.

pj
chgo

 

[cookie man]

LOL. Like you have a clue.


Dave said he followed the steps exactly as he described them and got the exact outcome he claims. He undoubtedly believes that's true, but simple logic says it can't be. Given the choice, I'll go with simple logic.

pj
chgo

Explain your simple logic, put something on the table. We know your in denial on everything, explain yourself.
P.S. if I did daves drill I would get the same results.