I think it's funny, after 2000 posts, that you haven't addressed a SINGLE CRITICISM of any of the CTE detractors. You've made COUNTLESS negative comments about PEOPLE, but none about "the particulars."
Again and again I've mentioned the KEY particular: CTE doesn't AIM at anything, therefore, it can't be an aiming system. Sadly, I have the impression that you don't even know what I MEAN by that--and, I dread to imagine, it sometimes seems that even the BIG WHEELS, like RandyG and StanS don't know what I mean by that--surely, they're completely MUM on the topic.
This is so stupid it doesn't need a response.
Maybe you would like to discuss it, so I'll spell it out a bit and see if you want to take it anywhere:
1) ALL necessary information about OB and CB can be contained in TWO pieces of information: a) A line drawn between them, indicating their separation distance and which is on which end, b) the DISTANCE and ANGULAR relationship of that line to any stationary part of the table. With that information it's possible to know EVERYTHING that's necessary (well, except if other balls are in the way of pockets, etc., you know what I mean).
You want particulars on this?
2) The heart of the game is pocketing OBs. The pockets are STATIONARY, but the balls can be ANYWHERE. So, that line "a" from item #1 can be ANY LENGTH (within the table limits) and angled ANYWHERE on the table--but the pockets are always in the SAME place.
You want particulars on this?
3) It is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to know both a and b (by one or another description) in order to hit the OB to make it go in the pocket, and it's ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to methodically and systematically make the OB go in the pocket WITHOUT knowing a and b (excepting unimportant conditions, like when both balls are frozen together, with the OB hanging in the pocket--you know what I mean).
We need to know where the pocket is, we are playing pool you know.
How do I KNOW that it's absolutely necessary to know both a and b? Because as I said, line a can be ANYWHERE, so obviously, it's necessary to know b in order to direct the OB to a pocket. Knowing that obvious fact doesn't require any geometry (other than a rough concept of what a table looks like). It's pure common sense. You're not gonna be able to drive to a destination unless you know where to go. This is JUST the same.
Thought you needed geometry for everything you do, you did say that in the course of your 15 minutes of fame here.
4) Advocates of CTE have said that it's not NECESSARY to have information b, and that ALL INFORMATION NECESSARY can be found through a series of alignments and pivots that deal only with line a (and the actual OB and CB). I've heard this from many sources; I'll just mention one: Dave Segal's latest video of pocketing balls with half the table covered. It was his direct INTENTION to demonstrate that information b IS NOT NECESSARY AND IS NOT USED with CTE. Unless he is trying to LIE or MISREPRESENT CTE, then I have to take him at his word.
Information b is used to start our initial alignment,and to catch the ball that we are shooting into it.
Spidey does not lie, his video was a direct response to PJ and pretty good I might add.
5) To say that information b isn't required to pocket balls is just like saying directions aren't necessary to go where you want to in your car--after all, the world is "stationary" like a pool table, and cars and people can go anywhere on the surface, just like balls on a pool table. CTE is like saying that if you have a set of instructions: make 2 lefts, go 1.6 miles, then make 3 rights, that you can drive to ANYWHERE YOU PLEASE. Well, that's just fu**ing stupid, now isn't it? Actually, it's more like saying that, if you draw a line from your grill to the front door of the car ahead of you, then turn left, you'll end up at the pizza parlor--OR the dentist; whichever you happen to WANT to go to at the time
The world is "stationary", do you want a mulligan on this. Not sure where your going with the rest of this stupid shit.
6) Then let's go a bit further. Some versions of CTE require or allow for an initial input for the "approximate angle" that you want the OB to go off on to make the pocket. Now that's good, because it will tell you "approximately" where to aim--how accurate that will be will depend on how accurately you can estimate the angle, and how accurately you know where on the OB to hit with the CB for that angle. THEN, nothing FURTHER from CTE can bring you any CLOSER to exactly pocketing the ball, unless MORE INFORMATION about b, the location of the pockets, is considered. But none has been alluded to by CTE advocates.
Input for the "approximate angle" is correct, then you find the CTEL, point, pivot, shoot and score. It's exact and will pocket the ball without adjustments.
It's simple: If you don't AIM at a pocket, by using DIRECT INFORMATION about the LOCATION OF THE POCKET in relation to the OB, then you do not possess the NECESSARY INFORMATION to hit the OB in such a way as to put it in the pocket.
THAT IS SIMPLE, ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LOGIC and REASONING. A child could understand it.
What grade are you in?
The bizarre fact is this: Dave Segal's video of pocketing balls without "knowing where the pockets were" serves as ABSOLUTE PROOF THAT CTE IS BUNK, because it pretends to show, and claims as necessary (for proof of CTE) that it is possible to POCKET BALLS without regard to the position of the pockets. That is not so, just as it is not possible to drive to a destination without knowing where the destination is.
You have to have a regard for the pocket, it just isn't as important as you make it out to be.
Any small child could tell you that. Sometimes, you have be an ADULT to get so confused about things.
So now your saying you are an adult?
