And as I'll repeat yet again, you're blithering nonsense. That "rotating edges" gibberish doesn't mean anything, in 2D, 3D or 11-D string theory space-time.
pj
chgo
Why CTE is silly
- Thread starter GetMeThere
- Start date
- Status
pj
chgo
It's ok PJ.
Just take a look at the picture that i posted up, and then look at eez's interpretation of the picture that i posted, and it becomes perfectly clear.
How one goes from what i posted, to what he thinks i posted, is beyond me.
I'm still laughing though.
It's ok PJ.
Just take a look at the picture that i posted up, and then look at eez's interpretation of the picture that i posted, and it becomes perfectly clear.
How one goes from what i posted, to what he thinks i posted, is beyond me.
I'm still laughing though.
ok, this is your quote...."Since all 3 shots are on the exact same line and the same distance from each other, the edge of the object ball has to be the same for all 3.
If CTE effectively pockets the 3 ball, how can CTE effectively pocket the 4 and 5 ball, instead of firing them into the rail on the same angle as the 3, as i have shown?"
Now, if you don't see that I put the balls all in "the same line".. and even spread the distances to show you how it works,then you suggest I don't understand what you are talking about. Maybe you should go back and read what you wrote.
It's ok PJ.
Just take a look at the picture that i posted up, and then look at eez's interpretation of the picture that i posted, and it becomes perfectly clear.
How one goes from what i posted, to what he thinks i posted, is beyond me.
I'm still laughing though.
Superstar,
Eezbank offered some info about your question. Have you read the entire thread? I know it's a long one, but you missed your answer at least a dozen times. It was knowingly and unknowingly posted by Cte'ers (new jargon) and non-Cte'ers. It was hotly debated and dismissed by the same as nonsensical. Patooie! But, it was your answer.
I apologize for the non-linking post. I know I risk being flamed for a typical Cte response although it is what you seek. Just ignore the peripheral BS from the infidels that sandwiches it. :grin-square:
Best,
Mike
Obviosuly, you are incapable of looking at a picture, or reading which cueball corresponds to which object ball.
If you took the time (which you didn't) you would see that each cueball/object ball pair, is the exact same distance from each other on the same line.
Please tell me again, how many cueballs and how many object balls are in my picture?
I agree. And if CTE was actually taught the way it works it would be more useful for more people - not just those who can't understand it. But of course then it would be transparent and understandable and it wouldn't be "worth" $40.
pj
chgo
Sorry, but you are wrong.
eez is NOT addressing the picture that i posted.
He is addressing something altogether different.
My picture has 3 cueballs, with equidistant shots, his picture has one cueball, and a string of shots that are not equidistant.
Forgive me if i happen to thing that those are two completely different things.
There are one-story intellects, two-story intellects, and three-story intellects with skylights. All fact collectors, who have no aim beyond their own facts are one-story men. Two-story men compare, reason, generalize, using the labors of the fact collectors as well as their own. Three-story men idealize, imagine, predict---their best illumination comes from above, through the skylight. (Oliver Wendell Holmes)
Hal Houle was and is a three-story intellect.
PJ, with all due respect, YOU are no Hal Houle!!
Stan Shuffett
I see exactly what you're saying. If you understood what I showed you all that would be left for you to do is bring your bridge hand down on either the right or left side of the cte line & pivot to center for the thick or thin hit and the ball will fall. While you may in fact have the same edge at same distances you still have to make the thick or thin determination.
Over 1,100 POST and some think the World is FLAT?
SUPERSTAR,
All is forgiven.
You are absolutely right. The diagrams are two different setups. But, Eezbank's point was to get you to look at the aiming point on the OB, not where the the CB was in relation to it. You are changing the pocket angle with each movement of the CB/OB forward, right? This change is a basic Cte principle discussed in this thread. Thick, thin, thinner ring a bell? A continuation in this line of thinking and a little research will, as I said, answer your own question.Best,
Mike
You point is moot.
I already suggested that someone would bring the pivot in as an argument, that's why i distinguished that out of the shots, SEVERAL should have the same thickness, and as such, the same exact pivot.
This is not explaining to me how all things being equal, (distance to cueball, CTE edge point on the OB, AND pivot for similar shots) cause two different angles of exit for the object ball.
THAT is the explanation i am looking for.
Not just opinion, but a scientific breakdown that proves the point.
SUPERSTAR,
All is forgiven.
Best,
Mike
I already addressed this.
So set up 3 thick shots, or 3 thin shots, or 3 extra thin shots.
If they are all the same type of shot, the same distance, on the same line, then they should all have the same exact pivot.
If they all have the same exact pivot, with everything else being equal, they should all have the same exit angle when the shot is taken.
Please explain to me why CTE makes each of these balls go in the pocket, instead of making them go all on the same angle with some missing the pocket.
OK, I will try one more time because it seems like you really want to learn this. If you have your bridge hand on one side of the cte line with a right to left pivot it will give you a different cut than if you start on the other side of the cte line with a left to right pivot.
PJ, you need to get out more. The center of the universe has shifted if you didn't get the memo. Next time I visit the the homeland we'll have to check out Lou Malnati's for dinner, shoot some at Chris' and finish the day on Rush Street. One thing though...we won't talk about pivot systems.
Best,
Mike
So set up 3 shots with the same "thickness" of the shot, so that the pivot is the same. Either all right to left, or all left to right.
And then set up everything else as i suggested.
Same line, equidistant, so that it would yield the same edge point when aiming CTE.
Explain to me if everything is the same, how can one get different results, i.e., making the balls into the hole (different exit angles), instead of each shot having the same repeated exit angle.
I thought I just did. How about instead go down to your table and at least try what I've tried to show you. If you aren't willing to give it a shot then I'm wasting my time.
How is this any different than someone using a different system to lock in the shot and commit it to memory?
I am not talking about just shooting it over and over. I mean using stick aim, ghost ball, fractional or whatever SYSTEM they use.
If you can't give me an explanation, then both our time is being wasted.
I am not looking for results.
I am looking for an explanation for the results that people claim.
This is what you said.
You are saying that there are 2 pivots. One right to left, and one left to right, that yield two different cuts.
Fine. I am not disagreeing with you on that.
I am simply saying, that in my example, PICK ONE.
Either a right to left pivot, or a left to right one, and use it for all 3 shots that are set up that have the same thickness.
You wouldn't have to switch pivots if they were all the same thickness, correct?
Now, if you are pivoting the same way on each of the same thickness shots, that are the same distance, on the same line yada yada yada, WHY DOES THE EXIT ANGLE CHANGE INSTEAD OF STAY THE SAME?!?!
Now don't get me wrong.
I have friends who swear by CTE, and they seem to have great success with it.
I just want to decipher if it is an actual system, or some aggrandized FEEL pre-shot routine mechanism that has them fooled into THINKING it's a system.
There is a big difference between the two.
- Status