eze said:
No. If the bridge functioned like a tripod, PJ would torture me with that bet.
Ron V aiming system video and diagrams
- Thread starter cleary
- Start date
No. If the bridge functioned like a tripod, PJ would torture me with that bet.
Colin Colenso said:
Would like to, but unfortunately I'm not ESPN in my basement--- I only have a laptop and webcam. I'll see what I can do.
Patrick Johnson said:
I'll politely rebut. And we'll shift to logic since you wanted to talk logic instead of geometry.
I can put the CB on top of the rail near the corner pocket with the OB near the pocket within the 90/90 cut range (maybe 70+ or so inches away). I can pull a string tight from the CB to the OB so the 90/90 line is perfectly clear and extend it beyond the CB so the cue position is perfect and online.
I can also mark my bridge position perfectly by outlining my hand with a marker on a piece of paper.
LOGIC: From that far away, with a 10" bridge, I'm making the ball with center english and no swoop. The CB is not only that far away, but on TOP of the rail. Why?
PKM said:
No, bridge doesn't move. Actually, everything moves but the bridge.
SpiderWebComm said:
I don't know. I don't know how you make any of these shots.
That point about how far you'd have to move your pivot was the last one I wanted to make before I give this horse's corpse a well deserved break.
Feel free to fill this thread to bursting with stories of how successful you are with this system without interrupton from me. Unless you say something new and irresistable.
pj
chgo
Patrick Johnson said:
That's why we need to meet Pat. I can turn your "don't know" into "ahhhh".
You can watch me do it.
Jen_Cen said:
Absolutely correct. Those topics should never be discussed. They should be argued about.
Nice haiku, but I don't dig your pool gods. They just don't seem very supportive. What I'm looking for in a pool god is support, for my bridge hand, and yes, for my bridge heart.
Here's a haiku inspired by yours:
Polar bears wear briefs
Constriction keeps them too sore
Pull goods, smile with glee
SpiderWebComm said:
In the end, doing actual chalk string snaps on the table and showing the shots from overhead like Colin was asking would do wonders for explanation.
People are asking for further explanations because it's not coming through on the internet in words. I would suggest to never take those questions as an attack or dismissive of the system because they aren't. And the posters have been very clear about that. But, take it however you want.
Personally, I learned a long time ago that it's impossible to explain anything to anyone on the internet.
Those that explain simple geometry will only get through to those that understand simple geometry (which surprisingly isn't a high number) and they'll get snubbed by those that want to insult the geometry/physics guys.
Those that explain the more esoteric aiming systems will only get through to those that eschew geometry in their aiming while those that need a more concise explanation will never get it (because a more concise explanation doesn't exist in words).
Fred <~~~ doesn't need any explanations
Then I guess after alll the reading, I'm confused as well. If you're saying everything moves but the bridge, then this is standard back-hand english (none of this dynamic swooping crap that got confused in a few years ago). I thought by saying that you "pivot at the hips," that the center of your hips stayed still, and everything else pivoted (including the bridge). But, apparently, that's not what you're saying.SpiderWebComm said:
I guess what I'd like to see (and please, I don't need explanations here, because obviously I'll just further confuse the thread) is where your start point is prior to your pivoting "everything but the bridge." When I say, "see," I mean, "see." So, you and I can get together whenever the next time is.
For me, the start point is everything. The pivot is everything else (depending on which system I'm using).
Fred
Cornerman said:
I'll show you next time I see you. I'm wore out in this thread hahahahaha.
It'll take me two seconds over a beer.
PKM said:
That is exactly the way I analyze it. Allowing the cue to move sideways on top of the bridge is the same thing as adding FHE, and Patrick wants to be careful about allowing that. His bet called for a stationary bridge and I believe he is flirting with disaster if he entertains any lateral cue motion in the bridge, despite his statement that the cue would have to translate approx 1/2 inch which is too much to call stationary. How much is not too much, then becomes the question, and there's no resolution to that. The only resolution in Pat's favor, I believe, is a stable bridge being synonomous with a stationary bridge pivot point, by definition. JMHO,
Hey guy's they're still at it. LOL !!!
Absolutlely amazing ! 550 posts, several threats, air barrell accusation's, terminology disputes, calls for banishment, and the physics majors of pool are still at each other's throats. Do you really believe that any aspiring young (reasonably intelligent) pool player would subscribe to the rantings that have taken place in these,and other threads, on the mathematical science of playing pool.
You guys need your own forum where you could debate, add nauseum, on the laws of nature as they apply to striking round pheonelic balls, and causing them to respond to mathematical equations.
I think you would all be happy if every player were required to carry a slide rule, to instantly determine EXACTLY why he overcut the 9 ball.
Dr. Alvin C. Thomas, BA, B.sc., Ph.D, SAE, (and pretty fair striker of round pool balls.)
Absolutlely amazing ! 550 posts, several threats, air barrell accusation's, terminology disputes, calls for banishment, and the physics majors of pool are still at each other's throats. Do you really believe that any aspiring young (reasonably intelligent) pool player would subscribe to the rantings that have taken place in these,and other threads, on the mathematical science of playing pool.
You guys need your own forum where you could debate, add nauseum, on the laws of nature as they apply to striking round pheonelic balls, and causing them to respond to mathematical equations.
I think you would all be happy if every player were required to carry a slide rule, to instantly determine EXACTLY why he overcut the 9 ball.
Dr. Alvin C. Thomas, BA, B.sc., Ph.D, SAE, (and pretty fair striker of round pool balls.)
The bridge hand does not move, the cue rotates in it.
SJDinPHX said:Absolutlely amazing ! 550 posts, several threats, air barrell accusation's, terminology disputes, calls for banishment, and the physics majors of pool are still at each other's throats. Do you really believe that any aspiring young (reasonably intelligent) pool player would subscribe to the rantings that have taken place in these,and other threads, on the mathematical science of playing pool.
You guys need your own forum where you could debate, add nauseum, on the laws of nature as they apply to striking round pheonelic balls, and causing them to respond to mathematical equations.
I think you would all be happy if every player were required to carry a slide rule, to instantly determine EXACTLY why he overcut the 9 ball.
Dr. Alvin C. Thomas, BA, B.sc., Ph.D, SAE, (and pretty fair striker of round pool balls.)
It is the $1,000 bet which primarily intrigues me, and the maneuverings of the two sides to justify their win. I believe it's just definitions, but quite dramatic. You sure sound pompous, IMO.
"Pompous works for me !
Pompous would be taken as a compliment to most of these self proclaimed mathematical geniuses.
So, thank you, I guess,
Dick
As PJ states, "Maybe I should use a more flattering term than "approximation systems". I have one that everyone should like. Lets just call it a "mathematically exact, indisputable, scientific fact"
That should satisfy all the number crunchers and cad artists.
shankster8 said:
Pompous would be taken as a compliment to most of these self proclaimed mathematical geniuses.
So, thank you, I guess,
Dick
As PJ states, "Maybe I should use a more flattering term than "approximation systems". I have one that everyone should like. Lets just call it a "mathematically exact, indisputable, scientific fact"
That should satisfy all the number crunchers and cad artists.
Last edited:
Colin Colenso said:Hu,
To be honest I'm not really sure how you are imagining threads to develop. Should I have not posted evidence (e.g. the close ups from the animation) to show it wasn't a correct explanation?
Should Patrick not have posted his line diagrams based on a fixed bridge pivot point, which was how the original video explained the 'how' of the system?
I've been fishing for a better explanation of HOW since the beginning of the thread, tip-toeing around the flames all the way.
If not for a few posters persistently questioning the recommended HOWS in this thread, I think there would be another 200 readers of this forum thinking that the 90/90 and similar pivot systems can pivot at somewhere other than the bridge point, even if the bridge point doesn't move. And that such a system had been proved in this thread.
Letting that go would be like letting people post that 1+1=3 in a math forum without rebuttal.
Colin
Colin,
1+1 isn't equal to three but 1+1+1 is equal to three. Had we gotten the whole story the other 1 might have been there. Communication ends when flames begin. When you ask questions in a manner designed to extract further information it can be beneficial. When we challenge someone then they respond to the challenge and the question is lost. Had you not been so busy tiptoeing around flames and dodging large piles of poop you might have your answers by now.
Hu
It isn't really important what would be "in my favor" - that's just about betting and egos.
It's in everybody's favor to learn something about how these systems work, and if moving the bridge/pivotpoint is the answer, then that's what I want to learn.
We've strayed from the central question: If the bridge moves then the system has a significant "feel factor" - otherwise how does the system automatically move the bridge exactly the right amount? I propose that it can't, and that the player himself makes the necessary adjustment by feel, using the pivot as his "refined estimate".
I propose that this is how all these "approximation" systems work, and I still wonder why it should upset anybody if it's true. It wouldn't make them "bad" systems.
I think maybe I just need to use a more flattering term than "approximation systems". How about "calibration systems"?
Calibrate:
1. Make fine adjustments or divide into marked intervals for optimal measuring.
2. Mark (the scale of a measuring instrument) so that it can be read in the desired units.
These systems give the shooter a "measuring instrument" with "marks" that can be easily found. Once the closest "calibration mark" is found the shooter makes final aiming refinements based on his acquired skill and experience.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
PJ, I agree with your belief that the "feel factor" is important in this system. Do you believe that for you to have won this bet requires a fixed bridge pivot point (you know the definition of that term - i.e. no lateral cue motion and thus no FHE can be applied? That is the basis of your adversary's argument - that the bet contemplated a real (supple) hand be used for the bridge, not a mechanical bridge. As I see it, even with a stationary bridge base, you can move the upper bridge around enough to impart satisfactory FHE (combined with the BHE resulting from the "hip pivot") to make practically any shot. And if you line up initially appropriately, the upper bridge motion is not very noticeable. This upper bridge hand motion is where the feel factor comes in, IMO.
Last edited: