This is a good example of what happens when you don't know anything about a particular subject, and then go to google to get the answers. In this case, Dave is trying to make it look like I don't know what I am talking about by copying and pasting an article that is really about the Grand Unified Theory, or more or less called the "Theory of Everything."
Of course you know what you're talking about because you're DAN WHITE! The all knowing, all intellectual for EVERYTHING.
Here's what you posted: "Newton invented the field of physics and wrote down the laws of motion, but he did not understand what caused gravity.
In your own words or the words of Einstein, what CAUSES gravity?
In your own quote above (in bold) it says right there that Einstein has explained gravity at large scales. Now you are trying to say that he didn't really do that because it doesn't work at small scales. "Small scales" is at the quantum level where pretty much everything we know about physics falls apart. If you are going to say that Einstein didn't understand gravity because he didn't discover the theory of everything (a phrase he coined) then you should say that Newton didn't understand physics because he didn't solve the theory, either. Einstein is widely credited with having answered the question of what gravity is. Is there more to learn about gravity? Sure, but that holds true for all the forces.
I'm saying there is a common sense threshold you have to apply. Newton figured out physics, Einstein figured out gravity, nobody has figured out everything 100% yet, and may never do so.
Take a 16 lb. shot put ball and hold it at eye level in line with your toes. Let it go. Then come back with all that you learned in a detailed explanation about gravity. How did gravity come to be for that to happen? What CAUSES gravity? It's there in environments with atmosphere as well as total absence of atmosphere. What "causes" it?
Btw, take Newton, Einstein, and gravity into NPR.
Getting back to the point at hand. You could make a good argument that we know more about the Theory of Everything than we do about how CTE Pro1 provides multiple shot possibilities from one perception.
No, that's your erroneous pointless point, not mine,
I'm not arguing the point because it is pointless.
But you continue to bring this pointless point up all the time. What's your point with that?
Let's wait for Stan's book, which now may or may not really explain it. It is hard to tell, frankly.
I don't know it the book will do anything for you. It's been right in front of your nose the entire time but you refuse to see it.
I'm more interested in the thread you started and then abandoned.
I already told you, you aren't invited to the innards of the thread.
However, it is your stroke and we all know there is no chance that you will submit yourself to any testing that might get to the bottom of it.
You never submitted a video of yourself explaining what and how your were aiming at when using CTE for various cut shots and we asked for it many times to clear up your misinterpretations and misrepresentations. Your tough luck, not mine.
Like the moderators say, if it works for you then it is great and we should all be happy for you. .
I don't remember any moderators saying that. Which one? However, why haven't you followed their advice by leaving CTE out of the conversation?
Are you an undercover moderator in the field now? I know they asked if anyone was interested in being a moderator a while back. So did you apply and get the job and then wipe your own ban out after 12 hours?
Last edited: