For me personally...the pause (at the CB) helps the "quiet eye" part.....It allows a specific point in my routine to allow my eyes to catch up and focus on my visualization of the shot before pulling the trigger....so I would call it physical.
set and Pause
- Thread starter irock
- Start date
For me personally...the pause (at the CB) helps the "quiet eye" part.....It allows a specific point in my routine to allow my eyes to catch up and focus on my visualization of the shot before pulling the trigger....so I would call it physical.
Not particularly. Why would I want to be friends with somebody who threatens me over internet disagreements (that you had a hand in)? I think you should buy me something to apologize. Flowers would be nice.
pj
chgo
Edit: P.S. But in fact I agree with you - I am being more confrontational than I should, probably because I'm spending too much time on here again. Time for other things.
Last edited:
Mike...I'll offer my reasoning, and you can take it for whatever it's worth. Most of us have a 'free flow stroke' that comes when we're relaxed and playing well (some people call it 'deadstroke', being 'in the zone', or playing 'fast and loose'). Most of us also experience a 'clutch' stroke, that seems to appear out of nowhere, when we put our stroke under stress (which usually means we're hitting the extreme edges of the CB, or shooting hard). This is almost always a poor substitute for our normal good stroke. We call it default, which means we revert to our most common habit...usually something less than perfect, for most of us.
The answer to your queston is both for some players, and either one for others. Many players, particularly when playing under pressure, tend to 'rush' the shot, or tense up, which often results in small errors. There are several variables that contribute to the outcome. This can range from missing the shot to missing position on the next shot (and no doubt others). Stopping the cuestick at the CB, prior to the final backswing, allows the subconscious mind to 'finalize' whether or not to go. Stopping the cuestick at the end of the backswing facilitates a smooth transition to what really counts...an accurate delivery of the tip to the CB. There are, of course, other variables that can contribute to, or be the detriment to, that same accurate delivery.
What we SPF instructors teach is the ability to be able to measure those results (by having baseline functions and ranges of motion), and correct errors more easily. Since most of the argument seems to be about the stop at the end of the backswing, that's probably the most intelligent thing open to debate. I happen to believe (regardless of what a physics terminologist might say) that any stop, for any length of time (even fractions of a second) is still a stop. They say that tossing a ball into the air doesn't stop before it descends. Most laypersons will say it does. Does that make their belief particularly wrong? Not in my opinion. If someone can relate to something that helps them achieve a better result, that's all that's really important to me. The SPF methodology works to train the forearm to work independently of the shoulder, creating a very accurate and repeatable way to deliver the cue. Certainly grip pressure enters into that equation as well. Using slow motion video (sometimes frame by frame) we can help students to see exactly what they are doing, and help them teach themselves to train these errors out of their stroke process.
As I have said many times before, this is certainly not the only way you can learn to play at a high level...and regardless, there is a certain amount of disciplined practice necessary (but it need not be 1000's of hours). We see eccentric movements in many top pros and amateur players. SPF is, however, a way that works for many who have struggled with inconsistency, or reached a plateau that they can't seem to break through. I hope this adequately answers your question.
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
The answer to your queston is both for some players, and either one for others. Many players, particularly when playing under pressure, tend to 'rush' the shot, or tense up, which often results in small errors. There are several variables that contribute to the outcome. This can range from missing the shot to missing position on the next shot (and no doubt others). Stopping the cuestick at the CB, prior to the final backswing, allows the subconscious mind to 'finalize' whether or not to go. Stopping the cuestick at the end of the backswing facilitates a smooth transition to what really counts...an accurate delivery of the tip to the CB. There are, of course, other variables that can contribute to, or be the detriment to, that same accurate delivery.
What we SPF instructors teach is the ability to be able to measure those results (by having baseline functions and ranges of motion), and correct errors more easily. Since most of the argument seems to be about the stop at the end of the backswing, that's probably the most intelligent thing open to debate. I happen to believe (regardless of what a physics terminologist might say) that any stop, for any length of time (even fractions of a second) is still a stop. They say that tossing a ball into the air doesn't stop before it descends. Most laypersons will say it does. Does that make their belief particularly wrong? Not in my opinion. If someone can relate to something that helps them achieve a better result, that's all that's really important to me. The SPF methodology works to train the forearm to work independently of the shoulder, creating a very accurate and repeatable way to deliver the cue. Certainly grip pressure enters into that equation as well. Using slow motion video (sometimes frame by frame) we can help students to see exactly what they are doing, and help them teach themselves to train these errors out of their stroke process.
As I have said many times before, this is certainly not the only way you can learn to play at a high level...and regardless, there is a certain amount of disciplined practice necessary (but it need not be 1000's of hours). We see eccentric movements in many top pros and amateur players. SPF is, however, a way that works for many who have struggled with inconsistency, or reached a plateau that they can't seem to break through. I hope this adequately answers your question.
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Last edited:
I agree that it is physical. I would add that it transitions into a mental function with a connection to your subconscious mind. Not voodoo, but instead a natural resting period for the conscious mind. Like an established time slot where automatic perceptions are allowed to take over the work.
I addressed a similar way in Joey A.'s, "Secrets", thread where laying your cue stick on the table and perceiving a shot line was part of a PSR. I was fishing for the realization of a subconscious link and a possible discussion, but got few takers.
Set and pause is a clever manipulation of a suggestion to allow the inner mind to surface and take control under the guise of a physical movement, IMO. I like this idea and would like to hear more thoughts on this, no matter how opinionated or crazy they may sound.
Best,
Mike
http://onpar.blogs.nytimes.com/2011...behind-the-choke/?scp=12&sq=pennington&st=cse
From the above article:
¶ A one-, two- or three-word mantra helps. Like the word “smooth” while putting, or a three-word timing device during your swing. Something like, “back, and, through.”
Other good stuff in there as well
FYI, lots of reasons for pausing can be found here:
Here's a partial quote:
The pause at the set position allows your eyes to focus and verify both the tip contact point on the cue ball and the target aiming line (see quiet eyes for more info). For the "pause" at the end of the backstroke, see item 4 in the stroke "best practices" document. Adding a "distinct pause" helps some people prevent themselves from rushing the final back stroke and from rushing the transition to the final forward stroke. Jerking this transition can cause stroking errors.
Regards,
Dave
Last edited:
No matter how much I read about this, I still think taking a deliberate pause at the backstroke KILLS the momentum of the swing and would require the player to hit harder than a regular stroke without a pause in it a to obtain the same "mustard" on the cueball which would result sometimes in a hit harder then pocket speed.
that being said, I'm all for taking a pause AT THE CUEBALL in your last practice stroke to zero-in into the shot better.
that being said, I'm all for taking a pause AT THE CUEBALL in your last practice stroke to zero-in into the shot better.
Olive branch offer to Scott Lee
Hi Scott:
First, let me start out by apologizing to you. Apologizing to you for aiming that previous post squarely at you, and apologies to you for referring to you in the third person. Normally, if I have a "beef" with what I believe to be misinformation, I confront the person directly, and in the second person (i.e. "you"). No qualms, no tiffs, no animosity, just "your information is wrong, and here's why..." done in a respectful, tactful, and scholarly manner. I guess the issue was the build-up of seeing the "'physics says' all things in motion that come to a stop, implement a pause, no matter how small" repeated in posts by you, and not saying anything (trying to do the "water on a duck's back" thing) that built up to a point where I *had* to say something. Looking back, it was an unfortunate release; it could've been done a heck of a lot better. Mea culpa, and apologize.
This is one of the things I love about SPF -- i.e. the recognition of common bad habits, and the reasoning why. Being a fan of root cause analysis, I think one of the reasons why students who go through SPF (including my friend, Doug, that you'll remember I steered to you) is they find out not just that they "are" doing things, but why. The results from the lessons learned are longer-lasting than "you need to do this because it's the accepted way."
This is one of my most common errors that I'm working on that, you, Scott, pointed out for me. Often, I don't spend enough time in the "set" position. In my pursuit to "feel" the pendulum, to feel the weight of the cue, and to ensure an accurate cue delivery by letting the cue do the work, I often neglect this very important step. And although my delivery may be straight, if I'd taken more time in the "set" position, I would've seen where I'm aiming the cue to be a wee bit off, that no amount of straight cue delivery is going to correct. It's almost like taking the aim of the shot for granted, and that word -- "assume" -- bites me in the rear end.
Scott, humbly, you're still getting it wrong what we're trying to say. And I believe this is where the confusion is coming from. I promise, this is my last time responding to this. Cross my heart.
Final explanation (I promise):
And with that, I promise that's the last time I'll speak to that topic. Scout's honor. (Or, in "Scott's honor"?
)
Scott, again, I'm a firm believer in the SPF methodology; its effectiveness in identifying (through root-cause analysis) and resolving stroke issues, for the long term -- perhaps permanently. I think you know that. In the spirit of being a true student of this sport, I myself, when I get the funds and schedule freed-up (that work thing that all us working types have to endure
), will get to a class. Noone's beyond reproach of knowledge.
Hoping that you accept my apology,
-Sean
Hi Scott:
First, let me start out by apologizing to you. Apologizing to you for aiming that previous post squarely at you, and apologies to you for referring to you in the third person. Normally, if I have a "beef" with what I believe to be misinformation, I confront the person directly, and in the second person (i.e. "you"). No qualms, no tiffs, no animosity, just "your information is wrong, and here's why..." done in a respectful, tactful, and scholarly manner. I guess the issue was the build-up of seeing the "'physics says' all things in motion that come to a stop, implement a pause, no matter how small" repeated in posts by you, and not saying anything (trying to do the "water on a duck's back" thing) that built up to a point where I *had* to say something. Looking back, it was an unfortunate release; it could've been done a heck of a lot better. Mea culpa, and apologize.
This is one of the things I love about SPF -- i.e. the recognition of common bad habits, and the reasoning why. Being a fan of root cause analysis, I think one of the reasons why students who go through SPF (including my friend, Doug, that you'll remember I steered to you) is they find out not just that they "are" doing things, but why. The results from the lessons learned are longer-lasting than "you need to do this because it's the accepted way."
This is one of my most common errors that I'm working on that, you, Scott, pointed out for me. Often, I don't spend enough time in the "set" position. In my pursuit to "feel" the pendulum, to feel the weight of the cue, and to ensure an accurate cue delivery by letting the cue do the work, I often neglect this very important step. And although my delivery may be straight, if I'd taken more time in the "set" position, I would've seen where I'm aiming the cue to be a wee bit off, that no amount of straight cue delivery is going to correct. It's almost like taking the aim of the shot for granted, and that word -- "assume" -- bites me in the rear end.
Scott, humbly, you're still getting it wrong what we're trying to say. And I believe this is where the confusion is coming from. I promise, this is my last time responding to this. Cross my heart.
Final explanation (I promise):
We've never said a stop is not a stop. We've never said that a ball tossed into the air doesn't stop. What we're saying is that a stop is not a pause. "Stop" and "pause" are not synonyms for each other. They do not mean the same thing. A ball tossed into the air does indeed come to a stop! A child's swing does indeed come to a stop -- at each interval. A sine wave does indeed come to a stop at its highest positive and negative peaks. A pendulum does indeed come to a stop at each end of its swing.
What we're saying is that these events do not have a pause. Let's take an example, and use time itself to show us there is no pause. Let's say we were to throw a ball into the air, and be able to divide that action into the tiniest fractions of time -- nanoseconds, picoseconds, or as small as you want to go. At that very instant in time where the ball's upward motion has stopped, we stop the clock. The ball is at its highest height, and can go no more. Let's now have the clock advance in single steps of those tiniest fractions of time. At that highest point where the ball can go no higher, let's advance the clock just one of those tiny units of time. <Click!> Result? The ball is already on its way down! Depending on how small that unit of time is, the ball has already started its descent and is accelerating to a well-known formula that involves the weight of the ball, the size/shape/weight(mass)/surface of the ball, the pull of gravity, etc.
This same thing can be applied to a pendulum, a child's swing, etc. -- just about anything in motion that is acted upon by gravity. "To pause" means to hesitate there -- to stay in one spot for a measurable period of time. At that point above where we stopped the camera at the ball's highest point (or the pendulum's furthest point), once we advance to the next click of the clock, the ball (or the pendulum) has already started its descent -- no matter how small we divide that clock. Therefore, the ball (pendulum) has indeed stopped, but for a fixed point in time. An instantaneous point in time. A zero-length fixed point in time, of no duration whatsoever. You use the phrase, "...for any length of time (even fractions of a second)..." -- but as you can see here, there is no length of time. It's a stop, yes, but it's instantaneous. It can't be measured using time. In fact, you have to stop time itself to see it.
So our argument about the stop is not about the stop itself. It's about the [mis]use of the term "pause" applied to that stop. And I think some of the dictionary definitions of the word "pause" are being misinterpreted, when a phrase like, e.g. "temporary cessation" is being misinterpreted. "Temporary" means a period of time, and is the key word that is being missed.
What we're saying is that these events do not have a pause. Let's take an example, and use time itself to show us there is no pause. Let's say we were to throw a ball into the air, and be able to divide that action into the tiniest fractions of time -- nanoseconds, picoseconds, or as small as you want to go. At that very instant in time where the ball's upward motion has stopped, we stop the clock. The ball is at its highest height, and can go no more. Let's now have the clock advance in single steps of those tiniest fractions of time. At that highest point where the ball can go no higher, let's advance the clock just one of those tiny units of time. <Click!> Result? The ball is already on its way down! Depending on how small that unit of time is, the ball has already started its descent and is accelerating to a well-known formula that involves the weight of the ball, the size/shape/weight(mass)/surface of the ball, the pull of gravity, etc.
This same thing can be applied to a pendulum, a child's swing, etc. -- just about anything in motion that is acted upon by gravity. "To pause" means to hesitate there -- to stay in one spot for a measurable period of time. At that point above where we stopped the camera at the ball's highest point (or the pendulum's furthest point), once we advance to the next click of the clock, the ball (or the pendulum) has already started its descent -- no matter how small we divide that clock. Therefore, the ball (pendulum) has indeed stopped, but for a fixed point in time. An instantaneous point in time. A zero-length fixed point in time, of no duration whatsoever. You use the phrase, "...for any length of time (even fractions of a second)..." -- but as you can see here, there is no length of time. It's a stop, yes, but it's instantaneous. It can't be measured using time. In fact, you have to stop time itself to see it.
So our argument about the stop is not about the stop itself. It's about the [mis]use of the term "pause" applied to that stop. And I think some of the dictionary definitions of the word "pause" are being misinterpreted, when a phrase like, e.g. "temporary cessation" is being misinterpreted. "Temporary" means a period of time, and is the key word that is being missed.
And with that, I promise that's the last time I'll speak to that topic. Scout's honor. (Or, in "Scott's honor"?
)Scott, again, I'm a firm believer in the SPF methodology; its effectiveness in identifying (through root-cause analysis) and resolving stroke issues, for the long term -- perhaps permanently. I think you know that. In the spirit of being a true student of this sport, I myself, when I get the funds and schedule freed-up (that work thing that all us working types have to endure
), will get to a class. Noone's beyond reproach of knowledge.Hoping that you accept my apology,
-Sean
I was going to say that, for me at least, the time when all conscious thought stops etc is during the pause at the cb, before the final backswing; and that the pause at the end of the backswing is to allow the eyes to refocus (and perhaps some other vision / perception adjustments to occur).
But on second thoughts, the consciousness part of this description is not quite right. Certainly I do 'still' the mind at the Set pause. But I find that consciousness also 'sinks' another level during the pause at the end of the final backswing (Among other benefits, I have found this final sink essential for fine speed control.)
Of course consciousness in the sense of verbal thought stops at a much earlier stage.
Perhaps in a billiards context consciousness is a relative concept?
Consider the debate about elbow drop. There are those that do and those that don't when they stroke.
If you do not drop the elbow, this means you are using shoulder muscles to prevent the drop and this is a part of the stroke. If you do drop the elbow, this means you are moving shoulders muscles and this is part of the stroke. Thus more then "just using two muscles" are in a stroke.
Some believe that a wrist snap is needed to get great draw and this takes muscles in the wrist and hand and are part of the stroke. Once again, this is more than "just using two muscles" to stroke.
Bruce Lees 1 inch punch did not come from just moving his arm forward but his whole body from his toes to head. It is the same in making a shot in pool. It is the whole and not a part that matters.
If you truly believe only two muscles are used for a stroke, well, good luck. Someday the light bulb might go on. Try a hour of hitting nothing but pocket speed shots. These are shots where the OB barely makes it to the pocket. Might be enlightening.
If you do not drop the elbow, this means you are using shoulder muscles to prevent the drop and this is a part of the stroke. If you do drop the elbow, this means you are moving shoulders muscles and this is part of the stroke. Thus more then "just using two muscles" are in a stroke.
Some believe that a wrist snap is needed to get great draw and this takes muscles in the wrist and hand and are part of the stroke. Once again, this is more than "just using two muscles" to stroke.
Bruce Lees 1 inch punch did not come from just moving his arm forward but his whole body from his toes to head. It is the same in making a shot in pool. It is the whole and not a part that matters.
If you truly believe only two muscles are used for a stroke, well, good luck. Someday the light bulb might go on. Try a hour of hitting nothing but pocket speed shots. These are shots where the OB barely makes it to the pocket. Might be enlightening.
Sean - nice explanation. But I think we need to clarify that started its descent doesn't mean it's moved. It means it's velocity is no longer zero.
That its position stays the same after an infinitely small duration [(dx/dt)=0] is what me mean by "stopped." That its velocity does not stay the same even after an infinitely small duration [(dV/dt = not zero)] is what we mean by no pause.
This is probably correct. But when trying to develop a quality stroke, it can be very helpful to think in terms of using the biceps only (even if in reality you are employing many other muscles & groups).
I may be wrong, but think it was O'Sullivan who said 'hit with your elbow'.
Last edited:
It's all good Sean. You and I are friends, and friends can still disagree without emotional outburts, even if they STILL don't see eye to eye! Thanks for the explainations, which seem to center on the technical difference between a "stop" and a "pause". The only thing I can say is that the word pause is defined in the dictionary as a temporary cessation of activity. It doesn't address how long the cessation has to be. I also have indicated that in our teaching, the word "pause" is merely a label that we use to describe one of the three stops in SPF, and is, for me, a substitute for the word 'stop'. I can live with the fact that in physics textbooks a "pause" is a well-defined period of time. I still believe that what matters most to the student is a commonsense approach to information that will be of benefit to them individually. Neither Randy nor I have yet encountered a student who wished to debate the sematics of what is or isn't a pause (not saying that couldn't happen, but in 25+ years it hasn't yet! ). This includes students of all abilities...even pro players. Thanks for the apology, and it's extended back to you. As passionate as I am about what I teach, I get carried away sometimes as well! :thumbup:
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
). This includes students of all abilities...even pro players. Thanks for the apology, and it's extended back to you. As passionate as I am about what I teach, I get carried away sometimes as well! :thumbup:Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Hi Scott:
First, let me start out by apologizing to you. Apologizing to you for aiming that previous post squarely at you, and apologies to you for referring to you in the third person. Normally, if I have a "beef" with what I believe to be misinformation, I confront the person directly, and in the second person (i.e. "you"). No qualms, no tiffs, no animosity, just "your information is wrong, and here's why..." done in a respectful, tactful, and scholarly manner. I guess the issue was the build-up of seeing the "'physics says' all things in motion that come to a stop, implement a pause, no matter how small" repeated in posts by you, and not saying anything (trying to do the "water on a duck's back" thing) that built up to a point where I *had* to say something. Looking back, it was an unfortunate release; it could've been done a heck of a lot better. Mea culpa, and apologize.
This is one of the things I love about SPF -- i.e. the recognition of common bad habits, and the reasoning why. Being a fan of root cause analysis, I think one of the reasons why students who go through SPF (including my friend, Doug, that you'll remember I steered to you) is they find out not just that they "are" doing things, but why. The results from the lessons learned are longer-lasting than "you need to do this because it's the accepted way."
This is one of my most common errors that I'm working on that, you, Scott, pointed out for me. Often, I don't spend enough time in the "set" position. In my pursuit to "feel" the pendulum, to feel the weight of the cue, and to ensure an accurate cue delivery by letting the cue do the work, I often neglect this very important step. And although my delivery may be straight, if I'd taken more time in the "set" position, I would've seen where I'm aiming the cue to be a wee bit off, that no amount of straight cue delivery is going to correct. It's almost like taking the aim of the shot for granted, and that word -- "assume" -- bites me in the rear end.
Scott, humbly, you're still getting it wrong what we're trying to say. And I believe this is where the confusion is coming from. I promise, this is my last time responding to this. Cross my heart.
Final explanation (I promise):
We've never said a stop is not a stop. We've never said that a ball tossed into the air doesn't stop. What we're saying is that a stop is not a pause. "Stop" and "pause" are not synonyms for each other. They do not mean the same thing. A ball tossed into the air does indeed come to a stop! A child's swing does indeed come to a stop -- at each interval. A sine wave does indeed come to a stop at its highest positive and negative peaks. A pendulum does indeed come to a stop at each end of its swing.
What we're saying is that these events do not have a pause. Let's take an example, and use time itself to show us there is no pause. Let's say we were to throw a ball into the air, and be able to divide that action into the tiniest fractions of time -- nanoseconds, picoseconds, or as small as you want to go. At that very instant in time where the ball's upward motion has stopped, we stop the clock. The ball is at its highest height, and can go no more. Let's now have the clock advance in single steps of those tiniest fractions of time. At that highest point where the ball can go no higher, let's advance the clock just one of those tiny units of time. <Click!> Result? The ball is already on its way down! Depending on how small that unit of time is, the ball has already started its descent and is accelerating to a well-known formula that involves the weight of the ball, the size/shape/weight(mass)/surface of the ball, the pull of gravity, etc.
This same thing can be applied to a pendulum, a child's swing, etc. -- just about anything in motion that is acted upon by gravity. "To pause" means to hesitate there -- to stay in one spot for a measurable period of time. At that point above where we stopped the camera at the ball's highest point (or the pendulum's furthest point), once we advance to the next click of the clock, the ball (or the pendulum) has already started its descent -- no matter how small we divide that clock. Therefore, the ball (pendulum) has indeed stopped, but for a fixed point in time. An instantaneous point in time. A zero-length fixed point in time, of no duration whatsoever. You use the phrase, "...for any length of time (even fractions of a second)..." -- but as you can see here, there is no length of time. It's a stop, yes, but it's instantaneous. It can't be measured using time. In fact, you have to stop time itself to see it.
So our argument about the stop is not about the stop itself. It's about the [mis]use of the term "pause" applied to that stop. And I think some of the dictionary definitions of the word "pause" are being misinterpreted, when a phrase like, e.g. "temporary cessation" is being misinterpreted. "Temporary" means a period of time, and is the key word that is being missed.
And with that, I promise that's the last time I'll speak to that topic. Scout's honor. (Or, in "Scott's honor"?
Scott, again, I'm a firm believer in the SPF methodology; its effectiveness in identifying (through root-cause analysis) and resolving stroke issues, for the long term -- perhaps permanently. I think you know that. In the spirit of being a true student of this sport, I myself, when I get the funds and schedule freed-up (that work thing that all us working types have to endure
Hoping that you accept my apology,
-Sean
It's all good Sean. You and I are friends, and friends can still disagree without emotional outburts, even if they STILL don't see eye to eye! Thanks for the explainations, which seem to center on the technical difference between a "stop" and a "pause". The only thing I can say is that the word pause is defined in the dictionary as a temporary cessation of activity. It doesn't address how long the cessation has to be. I also have indicated that in our teaching, the word "pause" is merely a label that we use to describe one of the three stops in SPF, and is, for me, a substitute for the word 'stop'. I can live with the fact that in physics textbooks a "pause" is a well-defined period of time. I still believe that what matters most to the student is a commonsense approach to information that will be of benefit to them individually. Neither Randy nor I have yet encountered a student who wished to debate the sematics of what is or isn't a pause (not saying that couldn't happen, but in 25+ years it hasn't yet!
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
I cannot fathom an instructor who will not make correct a factual error in their teaching.
Are you also teaching that the balls engage as gears as one cuts across the other? I mean, I doubt your students would question that one either. (And thats what counts, isn't it?)
Lou Figueroa
Or open up the hand more at the end?
...
Final explanation (I promise):
We've never said a stop is not a stop. We've never said that a ball tossed into the air doesn't stop. What we're saying is that a stop is not a pause. "Stop" and "pause" are not synonyms for each other. They do not mean the same thing. A ball tossed into the air does indeed come to a stop! A child's swing does indeed come to a stop -- at each interval. A sine wave does indeed come to a stop at its highest positive and negative peaks. A pendulum does indeed come to a stop at each end of its swing.
What we're saying is that these events do not have a pause. Let's take an example, and use time itself to show us there is no pause. Let's say we were to throw a ball into the air, and be able to divide that action into the tiniest fractions of time -- nanoseconds, picoseconds, or as small as you want to go. At that very instant in time where the ball's upward motion has stopped, we stop the clock. The ball is at its highest height, and can go no more. Let's now have the clock advance in single steps of those tiniest fractions of time. At that highest point where the ball can go no higher, let's advance the clock just one of those tiny units of time. <Click!> Result? The ball is already on its way down! Depending on how small that unit of time is, the ball has already started its descent and is accelerating to a well-known formula that involves the weight of the ball, the size/shape/weight(mass)/surface of the ball, the pull of gravity, etc.
This same thing can be applied to a pendulum, a child's swing, etc. -- just about anything in motion that is acted upon by gravity. "To pause" means to hesitate there -- to stay in one spot for a measurable period of time. At that point above where we stopped the camera at the ball's highest point (or the pendulum's furthest point), once we advance to the next click of the clock, the ball (or the pendulum) has already started its descent -- no matter how small we divide that clock. Therefore, the ball (pendulum) has indeed stopped, but for a fixed point in time. An instantaneous point in time. A zero-length fixed point in time, of no duration whatsoever. You use the phrase, "...for any length of time (even fractions of a second)..." -- but as you can see here, there is no length of time. It's a stop, yes, but it's instantaneous. It can't be measured using time. In fact, you have to stop time itself to see it.
So our argument about the stop is not about the stop itself. It's about the [mis]use of the term "pause" applied to that stop. And I think some of the dictionary definitions of the word "pause" are being misinterpreted, when a phrase like, e.g. "temporary cessation" is being misinterpreted. "Temporary" means a period of time, and is the key word that is being missed.
And with that, I promise that's the last time I'll speak to that topic. Scout's honor. (Or, in "Scott's honor"?
-Sean
Sean, good points and a well thought out presentation. We need you in the Pentagon. :grin: I was reviewing this thread and putting some graphing together and noticed something unusual about your treatise on sinusoidal waveforms. For several periods, I've seemed to come up with a small spike and some clipping on some of the waveforms. Granted, they are only about 100 milliseconds or so, but this could be the pause we may have overlooked.
I will need to look into this further, as it might just be a spasm in my stroke and not an intentional pause. Carry on.
Best,
Mike