And to top it all off, we lazy morons are infected with the bizarre notion that 1 never equals 7 (or 5 or 6 or whatever). I'm referring, of course, to the number of "objective" alignments defined as compared to the actual number of cut angles. Even worse, we believe that 1 is always equal to 1, and nothing else.
Where do we get these ideas? I don't know, perhaps it's the corrupting influence of the educational system. I guess we should strive to rid ourselves of this baggage and understand the transcendental logic which CTE is based on. But, morons are morons and nothing can be done about that!
Jim
Lord Kelvin, one of the celebrity scientists of his day said in 1895 that heavier than air flying machines were impossible.
"Another example of his hubris is provided by his 1895 statement "heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible" (Australian Institute of Physics), followed by his 1896 statement, "I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning...I would not care to be a member of the Aeronautical Society."
You are right, 1+1 = 2
What you are not right about is how the human being perceives angles from above the pool table. The human does not measure them from a top down perspective with a protractor's precision. The human takes many factors into account and tries to be as objective as possible.
So in this case perception probably makes it 1+1.2 equals 2.2 and if you move the balls to another location then 1+1.3 equals 2.3 where for both shots the acceptable range to make the shot every time is 2.1-2.4 thus the range of visual cues that CTE gives you covers all shots in that span. The reduction from the infinite to the finite helps the shooter to get to the shot line without any guessing. Because when the approach involves either precise measurement with tools or estimation with limited tools, i.e. the cue and the pocket then finding the shot line becomes either a laborious process or a guessing game.
Having a method that reduces the guessing to zero but yet produces the shot line inside of seconds without any tool use is certainly a welcome improvement. Scientifically it is a phenomena that can be observed to work but for which there is known scientifically tested reason as of yet.
The question I have for you is can you reproduce Stan's results with other methods? Can you pocket the balls he does with other methods?
Can you bank balls using ghost ball? Can you make three rail shots using Ghost Ball? Can you make double banks using Ghost Ball? Can you make shots directly to the pocket without seeing the pocket using ghost ball? For sure you can infer where the pockets are if you have references like the rail to go on. But could you be as consistent with pocketing the balls if a curtain were in your way?
Because this is the fundamental argument as I see it.
Does CTE provide a way for one to align to the balls to insure that the object ball is going to an intended pocket when that pocket is not used in any way as part of the aiming process?
We think that the answer is yes and has been proven with numerous demonstrations.
