duckie, I'm not saying ghost ball doesn't work. It does. What I AM saying is that it also has no "scientific" approach to it. It doesn't, because you are still estimating where that ghost ball is supposed to be. Can that be done? Sure it can. But, that method also does not pass the test that GTM is requiring of CTE. As, does NO aiming method.
Why CTE is silly
- Thread starter GetMeThere
- Start date
- Status
duckie, I'm not saying ghost ball doesn't work. It does. What I AM saying is that it also has no "scientific" approach to it. It doesn't, because you are still estimating where that ghost ball is supposed to be. Can that be done? Sure it can. But, that method also does not pass the test that GTM is requiring of CTE. As, does NO aiming method.
The best information I've been able to find about what CTE MIGHT BE is from Dr. Dave.
My conclusion is this: The information available describes something that is NOT an "aiming system," i.e., it fails to provide objective assistance in aiming a shot. For further evidence I've sometimes watched videos, like this one from JB--that look and sound as if they were shot in an insane asylum, i.e., there is no sense, explanation, or observable information contained in them.
I've offered the chance (and MANY OTHERS have offered the chance MANY TIMES over the last decade) to any CTE user to explain the exact method by which a "shot solution" is found for a particular shot. So far, I've not heard any sensible response that demonstrates that a correct aiming solution can be found from using "CTE."
Perhaps you'd like to step up and offer a precise shot solution example from CTE, by which it can be shown that the correct aim is produced, within the tolerances calculated by my OP.
My character? Am I the first to suggest there's nothing to CTE? I got the impression that this argument has been going on, heatedly, ever since Hal Houle first showed up.
Tell us about your character.
The science of ghost ball aiming couldn't possibly be simpler: Ignoring friction, CB-OB interactions can impart only a SINGLE force in a SINGLE direction to the OB. That force can ONLY BE along a line through the pocket, the center of the OB, and the point of contact (in order to apply force that would pocket the ball--ignoring for the moment, frictional complications). Physics doesn't get any easier than that.
Last edited:
It is very true that math, especially statistics, can be manipulated to make it appear the way the user wants it to. Math is supposed to be an exact science, but it can be manipulated to make things look different than they are.
So, "scientifically" as long as you leave out the parts that make it NOT work as diagrammed (CIT,friction) then it works scientifically. So the physics works as long as you leave out part of the actual equation. OoooooKaaaayyyy.
Statistics can be MIS-APPLIED or misunderstood. But the mathematics of the physics of pool don't utilize statistics at all.
Hey mantis99, I have a simple math problem for you. The planet Neptune has a diameter of 24764 kilometers. If I ordered a rope made that would go completely around it on the equator, the rope would have to be (pi * 24764) = 77,799 kilometers long. If I changed my mind at the last minute, and said to the manufacturer "Hey, I want to be able to walk under this equatorial rope (supposing it would be possible to walk on the surface of Neptune, which it wouldn't). I want the rope to go around the equator, but be long enough so I could suspend it 6 feet above the surface all the way around."
How much more rope, in feet, would be necessary to add to the 77,799 kilometers? Btw, I can figure this out to within a foot, in my head, in less than a second.
Note: This is a ridiculously easy problem, but the answer takes many people by surprise--even people who understand geometry and basic math very well.
Last edited:
You're being stupid, Neil. Now try not to be stupid, OK?
Absolutely. The problem is that we are not talking about science here, but basic geometry which has been understood for thousands of years. The only "science" involved is the everyday observation that the cueball must contact the object ball at a point opposite the pocket - the ghostball position (ignoring throw). As such, the ghostball position cannot be derived by pure geometry alone, which has, by itself, zero to say about where to aim. The starting point, the premise upon which any aiming has to begin with, has to be based on that everyday "scientific" observation. From there, you can derive various geometrically equivalent ways to locate the ghostball, instead of visualizing it in its entire glory, such as edge overlap, matching contact points, double the distance, etc.
The problem then that the "math people" have with any of these offset-and-pivot systems, is that the advocates claim to be able to locate the ghostball using only the obvious features of the cueball and object ball (and maybe pocket). In other words, they claim to be able to derive the ghostball position via pure geometry, without any direct reference to the ghostball, without the "scientifically established" starting point mentioned above. That's a non-starter and why it's not worth investigating to see whether it actually works in practice, as opposed to theory. It can't, and in that we're about as far from a scientific mystery as you can get.
The opposition hasn't tried to deny that any of these procedures might indirectly aid and abet the true aiming process - ghostball or one of its direct offshoots. But as long as the proponents keep insisting that the stand alone offset-and-pivot methods are sufficient unto themselves, we'll forever be locked in this debate.
Maybe the only resolution will be to have the advocates learn some geometry. These guys are not dumb, and for anyone with the iconoclastic fortitude to argue against the unarguable for all these years, that shouldn't be too much of a challenge.
Jim
^^ Thanks for your input, Jal. Where have you been!!!???
WHY ARE people still posting on this disrespectful and personal slamming of
Hal? The guy that started this thread is a joke. CTE is not the joke.
This a$$hole has nothing better to do and is getting his kicks.
The kicks need to be located on his a$$ whenever his heads not up
it. Yeah this sounds like trash talk behind a computer screen but
that seems to be his calling. Good luck chump. Oh I meant champ lol
:bash: :bash:
Hal? The guy that started this thread is a joke. CTE is not the joke.
This a$$hole has nothing better to do and is getting his kicks.
The kicks need to be located on his a$$ whenever his heads not up
it. Yeah this sounds like trash talk behind a computer screen but
that seems to be his calling. Good luck chump. Oh I meant champ lol
:bash: :bash:
Since the diameter is 12 feet greater, the circumference is 12pi feet greater, or about 37.7 feet.
What's the relevance of this to this thread, other than yet another way to brag about your intelligence?
Hi,
I tried CTE but found a different way to aim only at the OB, shift and pivot.
From dr.daves library:
There are many possible variations to the CTE approach. For example, LAMas has suggested a center-to-contact-point alignment with a shift to the OB center (instead of the CB edge) and pivot back to the CB center. This method seems to get close to the right target for a collection of shots, with a fairly consistent pivot length. However, all CTE variations, including PRO ONE and 90/90, require changes in alignment and/or effective pivot length as the cut angle and shot distance change.
dr.dave
I, LAMas posted months ago:
What is at the core of these diagrams is that it adjust for the OB appearing to be smaller at farther/longer shots an thus reducing the included angle to deliver the CB to the same point of contact with the OB (ghostball) - rather than angling away from the OB as in “classic” CTE as your diagrams clearly show.
The 30 degree cut doesn't require a shift for it is one of the two shots that I would revert to aiming the center of the CB to the edge of the OB without shift or pivot - the other is the straight in shot where I would aim the center of the CB to the center of the OB - this is, to me, academic.
In diagramming the examples in Acad, I realize why a 2D picture doesn't tell the whole story because of foreshortening (perspective) - as you get down, the CB appears larger than the OB. When I drew the different angular cut examples as a top view, when they are close together, the CB and OB were the same size.
On the left of my diagrams, I have attempted to show the relative appearance of the OB @ .65" diameter when viewed behind the CB which appears @2.25" diameter.
In my study, I have drawn diagrams for a few shots that start with aiming the center of the CB to the contact point on the OB (that sends it to the target/pocket) and then a lateral, parallel shifting of the cue to the center of the OB which is a tiny shift like when the OB is 4 feet (48 inches in the example) away. I don’t consider where the tip is at on the CB – not a ½ tip or a full tip etc. as has been described by some CTE users.
By doing this, the bridge shifts ohhh so slightly, especially on far shots, and after the pivot to the center of the CB, the CB is directed to the correct ghost ball location and contact point on the OB.
I have edited this dialog and description and have made the bridge the same for all shots depicted to show how slight the error can be.
I tried CTE but found a different way to aim only at the OB, shift and pivot.
From dr.daves library:
There are many possible variations to the CTE approach. For example, LAMas has suggested a center-to-contact-point alignment with a shift to the OB center (instead of the CB edge) and pivot back to the CB center. This method seems to get close to the right target for a collection of shots, with a fairly consistent pivot length. However, all CTE variations, including PRO ONE and 90/90, require changes in alignment and/or effective pivot length as the cut angle and shot distance change.
dr.dave
I, LAMas posted months ago:
What is at the core of these diagrams is that it adjust for the OB appearing to be smaller at farther/longer shots an thus reducing the included angle to deliver the CB to the same point of contact with the OB (ghostball) - rather than angling away from the OB as in “classic” CTE as your diagrams clearly show.
The 30 degree cut doesn't require a shift for it is one of the two shots that I would revert to aiming the center of the CB to the edge of the OB without shift or pivot - the other is the straight in shot where I would aim the center of the CB to the center of the OB - this is, to me, academic.
In diagramming the examples in Acad, I realize why a 2D picture doesn't tell the whole story because of foreshortening (perspective) - as you get down, the CB appears larger than the OB. When I drew the different angular cut examples as a top view, when they are close together, the CB and OB were the same size.
On the left of my diagrams, I have attempted to show the relative appearance of the OB @ .65" diameter when viewed behind the CB which appears @2.25" diameter.
In my study, I have drawn diagrams for a few shots that start with aiming the center of the CB to the contact point on the OB (that sends it to the target/pocket) and then a lateral, parallel shifting of the cue to the center of the OB which is a tiny shift like when the OB is 4 feet (48 inches in the example) away. I don’t consider where the tip is at on the CB – not a ½ tip or a full tip etc. as has been described by some CTE users.
By doing this, the bridge shifts ohhh so slightly, especially on far shots, and after the pivot to the center of the CB, the CB is directed to the correct ghost ball location and contact point on the OB.
I have edited this dialog and description and have made the bridge the same for all shots depicted to show how slight the error can be.
Oh, please. You mean like the harm that's done to the 99% of players that you're convinced use only a "vague psychological fudge" - i.e., players who use no formal system?
I (obviously) agree that CTE isn't the purely systematic system that its users want to believe it is, but that doesn't make it poison. Being so utterly negative about every possible aspect of it needlessly polarizes people and makes productive conversation impossible.
pj
chgo
The relevance was to the claim in the post it was responding to: that mathematics can be used to CONFUSE an issue. In fact, mathematics is eminently useful to CLARIFY issues--even ones that are counter-intuitive, such as the example I gave.
First, you may be confused. The 99% of players (IMO) who learn to "estimate how much to cut" are not using a vague psychological fudge--did you think I meant to imply they were? They are using the fantastic brain power of humans to correlate the visual with the proprioceptive, in order to aim and use the body to hit the aim point. It's the "natural" way to learn shotmaking, that doesn't require any technique at all except "practice."
And I fully stand by my assessment that CTE would be harmful to one's game. There are only two ways to enable shotmaking: 1) natural practice, that I mentioned above, or 2) Some method to help the player geometrically determine where to aim.
CTE obviously fails option 2 completely--so trying to use it with TRUE FIDELITY will actually CAUSE YOU to miss most shots, shots that you will NEVER be able to make by honestly using the method of CTE.
And CTE will hamper your ability to learn by option 1, because it would (it should) cause you to IGNORE your eye's ability to connect "cut amount" with pocketing angle.
Either one of those confusions is harmful to improved pocketing, in my view. I don't know how it can be seen any other way.
Or wait....did you think I meant it would cause brain cancer or something??
EDIT: Are you saying, btw, that if you were to take up using CTE today, that you think it WOULDN'T harm your game?
Last edited:
Thanks for asking. I guess you may grate on some people :wink:, but, imo, you are a great addition to the cast of characters here. Frankly, although I know a little math and physics, refurbished by Dr. Dave, Ron Shepard, et al, I'm not anywhere as facile with the language and ideas as many of you (on both sides), and admire the give and take offered up by you and others, but you in particular lately. I know when I'm getting into a dog fight without a big enough dog.
Jim...except, obviously, I can't help myself at times.
I hope some of y'all have #2 ("some method") because as much as y'all stay on this thread, you're not getting any #1 ("natural practice").
Maniac
Yet again I think you are missing the point. I do believe that MIS-APPLIED and manipulated would be the same thing in this case, so you are really just agreeing with me. The real point though is that you are trying to use math as a definitive reason why CTE can't work, yet you are basing your math off parameters you really don't know to be true. That sounds quite a bit like a mis-application of math to me.
Obviously statistics are not relevant to pool, although they may be if you were to try and create a real scientific test for CTE and account for human error and compare to a control group. I fully understand that pool is all about geometry, but again, that really wasn't the point.
BTW, you would add 37.7 ft.
Which is exactly what system users do once they've used their system to get themselves more or less approximately aligned for the shot.
Using loaded terms like "natural" is prejudicial.
...or 3) Some combination of the two, or 4) something else you haven't thought of. I think using systems is a combination of the two: the system guides you to an approximation of the required aim (more or less roughly depending on the system) and you complete the aiming process "by feel" which you learn "naturally".
As I said above, this isn't obvious at all.
You don't think CTE is fully defined, but you think there's a way to use it "with true fidelity"? I think you're contradicting yourself again.
This is just silly.
I think you're irrationally polarized on this topic.
It wouldn't be the best method for me. That's not the same as saying it's not the best method for some. Do you think everybody should aim the way you do?
pj
chgo
Last edited:
That post is the definition of closed minded. Someone who says that a system he has never tried definately does not work, and will in fact certainly hurt your game.
You seem to know an awful lot about CTE discussions on this forum for someone who has only been here since september. Somehow, I highly doubt it all came from the search button. You seem more like someone that has been here for quite a while, been banned, and created a new screen name to rile things up again. I have very little other explanation for how you could be so against a system you have not even tried, or been given the necessary info to be able to fully understand.
- Status