Why CTE/Pro One Works

[nobcitypool]

A geometrically correct post for those that understand geometry.:wink:

Correct. However, attempting to relate it to CTE/Pro One is a totally incorrect post for those that understand the system correctly. CTE/Pro One is a lot more similar to a differential equation than it is to geometry. Being an Engineer like myself LaMas, if you have much of an understanding of CTE/Pro One, I believe you'll appreciate that analogy.

 

[Jal]

Yes, it is. But, what has any of that got to do with CTE, CTE/Pro1??

I'm glad you agree thus far. It may take a while to continue the argument as some diagrams will be necessary. CTE should enter the picture in a few more steps.

Jim

 

[8pack]

I want to make it VERY clear that his points are exactly what I DO NOT present as principles of CTE PRO ONE.

Stan Shuffett

He wasnt saying it was.Look at the bottom of his post.


Note that I'm not saying that any of the above describe CTE/Pro 1.

 

[stan shuffett]

He wasnt saying it was.Look at the bottom of his post.


Note that I'm not saying that any of the above describe CTE/Pro 1.

Please, 8pack, explain to me why he used those particular points.

Explain why some of his points refer to Pro1 and Stan.

Explain to me why the math folks have advanced these points before as being part of Pro1.

And do you really think that he is not trying his best to evaluate Pro1 on those points?

AGAIN, his points are his and have NOTHING to do with PRO1. And is it okay if I make that DOUBLE CLEAR? His points are irrelevant to anything I do with Pro1 other than his points could serve as a GREAT LIST FOR MY STUDENTS OF WHAT NOT TO DO.


Stan Shuffett

 

[8pack]

Please, 8pack, explain to me why he used those particular points.

Explain why some of his points refer to Pro1 and Stan.

Explain to me why the math folks have advanced these points before as being part of Pro1.

And do you really think that he is not trying his best to evaluate Pro1 on those points?

AGAIN, his points are his and have NOTHING to do with PRO1. And is it okay if I make that DOUBLE CLEAR? His points are irrelevant to anything I do with Pro1 other than his points could serve as a GREAT LIST FOR MY STUDENTS OF WHAT NOT TO DO.

Plus, if you want to be technical, please review the last line of my original reply and please note the word MIGHT. I know what he wrote.....

Stan Shuffett

Not sure where he's going with it.BTW we all have the rite to are opinion so take it easy. Good things tend to sureface through the back in forth.


Anthony

 

[(((Satori)))]

Please, 8pack, explain to me why he used those particular points.

Explain why some of his points refer to Pro1 and Stan.

Explain to me why the math folks have advanced these points before as being part of Pro1.

And do you really think that he is not trying his best to evaluate Pro1 on those points?

AGAIN, his points are his and have NOTHING to do with PRO1. And is it okay if I make that DOUBLE CLEAR? His points are irrelevant to anything I do with Pro1 other than his points could serve as a GREAT LIST FOR MY STUDENTS OF WHAT NOT TO DO.


Stan Shuffett

Many have asked for "doubters" to prove why cte does not work. Why don't you let the guy make his complete point before your rebuttal?

 

[stan shuffett]

Many have asked for "doubters" to prove why cte does not work. Why don't you let the guy make his complete point before your rebuttal?

CTE does work. His points have nothing to do with Pro1. He referenced my system and me and I responded. If you do not like it, too bad.

Stan Shuffett

 

[LAMas]

Correct. However, attempting to relate it to CTE/Pro One is a totally incorrect post for those that understand the system correctly. CTE/Pro One is a lot more similar to a differential equation than it is to geometry. Being an Engineer like myself LaMas, if you have much of an understanding of CTE/Pro One, I believe you'll appreciate that analogy.

And just as difficult.:smile:

 

[stan shuffett]

And just as difficult.:smile:

There may not be a math solution of any kind. CTE is visual. Pool is visual driven in a HUGE way when CTE is used. CTE simply does not lend itself for math solutions. That may happen one day but I am not counting on it.

Stan Shuffett

 

[Jal]

Please, 8pack, explain to me why he used those particular points.

Explain why some of his points refer to Pro1 and Stan.

Explain to me why the math folks have advanced these points before as being part of Pro1.

And do you really think that he is not trying his best to evaluate Pro1 on those points?

AGAIN, his points are his and have NOTHING to do with PRO1. And is it okay if I make that DOUBLE CLEAR? His points are irrelevant to anything I do with Pro1 other than his points could serve as a GREAT LIST FOR MY STUDENTS OF WHAT NOT TO DO.


Stan Shuffett

Stan, I think you know where I stand and I'm not going to try to hide my purpose, which is to convince anyone willing to follow the argument that Pro 1 relies on "feel" based adjustments (i.e., vary your aim until it looks right based on prior experience). You've all but conceded that in describing it as "beyond mathematics," but seem reluctant to use those words. I was struck by what Neil said earlier regarding the edge of the OB changing when you alter the CB's position. Well, yes and no, depending on what is meant by the OB's "edge." Part of the problem might be with language then.

So I'm trying to go back to where there is common agreement and then, step by step, inch up to the point where the "logic" of CTE/Pro 1 breaks down. The argument won't be mathematical but a variation of what Patrick Johnson, Dr. Dave, and others have been saying over these many years, but dressed up a little differently and perhaps with a few more details.

I'm not sure I'll have the time, energy or patience for it...we shall see.

Jim

 

[stan shuffett]

Stan, I think you know where I stand and I'm not going to try to hide my purpose, which is to convince anyone willing to follow the argument that Pro 1 relies on "feel" based adjustments (i.e., vary your aim until it looks right based on prior experience). You've all but conceded that in describing it as "beyond mathematics," but seem reluctant to use those words. I was struck by what Neil said earlier regarding the edge of the OB changing when you alter the CB's position. Well, yes and no, depending on what is meant by the OB's "edge." Part of the problem might be with language then.

So I'm trying to go back to where there is common agreement and then, step by step, inch up to the point where the "logic" of CTE/Pro 1 breaks down. The argument won't be mathematical but a variation of what Patrick Johnson, Dr. Dave, and others have been saying over these many years, but dressed up a little differently and perhaps with a few more details.

I'm not sure I'll have the time, energy or patience for it...we shall see.

Jim

You are as wrong as wrong can be! CTE is not based on feel adjustments to cover the angles.

Stan Shuffett

 

[nobcitypool]

And just as difficult.:smile:

It's been over 30 years since the second differential equations class I took. However, I can tell you for fact I find it infinitely easier to pocket pool balls with Pro One than solve a differential equation AND one whole heckuva lot more fun. LOL

 

[Neil]

Stan, I think you know where I stand and I'm not going to try to hide my purpose, which is to convince anyone willing to follow the argument that Pro 1 relies on "feel" based adjustments (i.e., vary your aim until it looks right based on prior experience). You've all but conceded that in describing it as "beyond mathematics," but seem reluctant to use those words. I was struck by what Neil said earlier regarding the edge of the OB changing when you alter the CB's position. Well, yes and no, depending on what is meant by the OB's "edge." Part of the problem might be with language then.

So I'm trying to go back to where there is common agreement and then, step by step, inch up to the point where the "logic" of CTE/Pro 1 breaks down. The argument won't be mathematical but a variation of what Patrick Johnson, Dr. Dave, and others have been saying over these many years, but dressed up a little differently and perhaps with a few more details.

I'm not sure I'll have the time, energy or patience for it...we shall see.

Jim

Jim, it's just the same arguments worded differently. And, once again, you are trying to put math and 2D graphics to something that is visual. As far as I know, no one has EVER been able to describe human vision mathematically.

You and others are approaching this from the wrong direction. Not very scientific, actually. Here we have an aiming system that works as described. That is a known from example and testimony. For science, pretty much forget the testimony, but we have the testing of the system to show that it does work as described. Now, knowing that, we go backward and try and put it on paper or explain the actual results using math.

So far, no one can. So, does that mean that the system now does not work? NO! It means that your math doesn't work, because we already know the system DOES work, and have proved it in blind tests. So, what can we deduce from this? Only that there is a fault in your examples that so far can not be described. We do not yet know all there is to know on WHY it works, but we DO know that it DOES work. Not being able to describe why does not equate to it does not work. That's a false assumption on the part of many of you that say it can't work. Evidence shows that it does work, you just can't figure out how yet. You can't dismiss the evidence just because you don't understand how the evidence came to be.

 

[stan shuffett]

Jim, it's just the same arguments worded differently. And, once again, you are trying to put math and 2D graphics to something that is visual. As far as I know, no one has EVER been able to describe human vision mathematically.

You and others are approaching this from the wrong direction. Not very scientific, actually. Here we have an aiming system that works as described. That is a known from example and testimony. For science, pretty much forget the testimony, but we have the testing of the system to show that it does work as described. Now, knowing that, we go backward and try and put it on paper or explain the actual results using math.

So far, no one can. So, does that mean that the system now does not work? NO! It means that your math doesn't work, because we already know the system DOES work, and have proved it in blind tests. So, what can we deduce from this? Only that there is a fault in your examples that so far can not be described. We do not yet know all there is to know on WHY it works, but we DO know that it DOES work. Not being able to describe why does not equate to it does not work. That's a false assumption on the part of many of you that say it can't work. Evidence shows that it does work, you just can't figure out how yet. You can't dismiss the evidence just because you don't understand how the evidence came to be.

Neil,

Great post!

There are going to be some changes in how to fundamentally approach the game, visually and physically, and over time this will be large-scale.

This CHANGE will be as a result of an improved understandings concerning perception and how it ties into the table.

This info will be presented on DVD2 and quite clearly at that. The system is going to become stronger and stronger, not that the basic system is changing but the understanding of the system will be much, much easier to grasp.

For a long time Math has been the primary mode for advancing explanations for pool.
That will change and rightly so. Pool can now be understood in precise terms of what one's eyes do in the way of connecting with the pockets.

Math has never been able to do that except in a very limited way. Math corners the eyes to having to deal with a zillion individual shots. It's no wonder people go crazy playing this game. See the ghost ball. See the contact point. See the fractions or angles.

DVD2 will be my final chapter on the subject!

Stan Shuffett

 

[nobcitypool]

Other aiming systems deal with angles and a single aiming point. CTE/Pro One uses two points to develop the visual perception for CCB to pivot into. Not understanding that apparently leads to the incorrect beliefs regarding angles and "gaps in the system". I am certain there is math to account for it but it is far more complex than simple geometry due to the multiple variables involved. It is fruitless to attempt to debate this with people who clearly don't understand the correct process for CTE/Pro One.

Here's the only mathematical formula that really matters. Correct visual perception + correct move into CCB = OB in pocket.

 

[Jal]

Jim, it's just the same arguments worded differently. And, once again, you are trying to put math and 2D graphics to something that is visual. As far as I know, no one has EVER been able to describe human vision mathematically.

You and others are approaching this from the wrong direction. Not very scientific, actually. Here we have an aiming system that works as described. That is a known from example and testimony. For science, pretty much forget the testimony, but we have the testing of the system to show that it does work as described. Now, knowing that, we go backward and try and put it on paper or explain the actual results using math.

So far, no one can. So, does that mean that the system now does not work? NO! It means that your math doesn't work, because we already know the system DOES work, and have proved it in blind tests. So, what can we deduce from this? Only that there is a fault in your examples that so far can not be described. We do not yet know all there is to know on WHY it works, but we DO know that it DOES work. Not being able to describe why does not equate to it does not work. That's a false assumption on the part of many of you that say it can't work. Evidence shows that it does work, you just can't figure out how yet. You can't dismiss the evidence just because you don't understand how the evidence came to be.

Neil, no test can prove that which cannot be true. The controversy has as its source not anything that needs to be tested, but a logical precept that is so fundamental to any sort of coherent thought, that it can't be denied. I've thrown the word "geometry" around in these discussions quite a bit, but the problem arises before any math begins. That's why we're so certain (hard headed if you like) of our position.

Despite the snail's pace, I still hope to put a new coat of paint on the argument.

Jim

 

[Neil]

Neil, no test can prove that which cannot be true. The controversy has as its source not anything that needs to be tested, but a logical precept that is so fundamental to any sort of coherent thought, that it can't be denied. I've thrown the word "geometry" around in these discussions quite a bit, but the problem arises before any math begins. That's why we're so certain (hard headed if you like) of our position.

Despite the snail's pace, I still hope to put a new coat of paint on the argument.

Jim

There's your first problem- you ASSUME that it can't be true because it doesn't fit the equations in your mind of what must be true. You fail to even consider the fact that it just might be true, but you don't have the proper info to prove it.

Where you fail in trying to put it in 2D on paper is in discounting how vision actually works. Hold your finger up and look at an object in the distance lined up with your finger. Now close one eye. The object shifts. Now open that eye and close the other eye, the object shifted again. Now open both eyes, now the object shifted again to in the middle of where it was.

Now, put down on 2D paper what really happened. You can't. You can put what you saw, but that shifting isn't really reality, is it? The object never really moved. Now, I'm not saying that is exactly what happens with CTE, it's not. However, there are great similarities, in that you can reliably do things with your vision that "just aren't supposed to be". Yet, they happen. Something similar happens with CTE, while it's not supposed to work on paper, yet it does perfectly due to how our vision actually works.

Now, you can argue this all day long, and all it will do is ensure that your mind will never accept what it "sees" and you will therefore ensure that you will never be able to use CTE. In doing that, what have you now gained? But, on the other hand, if you just accept that you don't know exactly how it works, then your mind is free to "allow" it to work, and then you have a very reliable aiming system that works for you at all angles withing the parameters of the system.

Purely your choice on which way to go- fight it and have nothing from it, or accept it just might be possible, be open to it, and then have something that really helps your game.

 

[Jal]

There's your first problem- you ASSUME that it can't be true because it doesn't fit the equations in your mind of what must be true. You fail to even consider the fact that it just might be true, but you don't have the proper info to prove it.

Where you fail in trying to put it in 2D on paper is in discounting how vision actually works. Hold your finger up and look at an object in the distance lined up with your finger. Now close one eye. The object shifts. Now open that eye and close the other eye, the object shifted again. Now open both eyes, now the object shifted again to in the middle of where it was.

Now, put down on 2D paper what really happened. You can't. You can put what you saw, but that shifting isn't really reality, is it? The object never really moved. Now, I'm not saying that is exactly what happens with CTE, it's not. However, there are great similarities, in that you can reliably do things with your vision that "just aren't supposed to be". Yet, they happen. Something similar happens with CTE, while it's not supposed to work on paper, yet it does perfectly due to how our vision actually works.
...

You seem to be saying that the subjective sensations you experience in the real 3-D world provide information that math can't account for. While I don't believe that is true, it's sort of beside the point. The central problem we have with CTE as a standalone aiming method begin before any geometry, namely with the notion of identity: one is not two, or three or four, or anything but one. In other words, too many angles for too few alignments.

If Pro 1 described a step by step procedure to successfully cover all the angles, and different than ghostball-based ones, then it would be systematic and unique. But if it leaves that out and relegates it all to something mysterious taking place during the processing of the visuals, then how can you declare it something other than feel/judgement? As I recall from Stan's first DVD, he didn't describe where the cue should be aimed relative to the reference lines. This leaves open a large chasm where feel (e.g., prior experience from traditional aiming) can enter the picture.

Jim

 

[stan shuffett]

You seem to be saying that the subjective sensations you experience in the real 3-D world provide information that math can't account for. While I don't believe that is true, it's sort of beside the point. The central problem we have with CTE as a standalone aiming method begin before any geometry, namely with the notion of identity: one is not two, or three or four, or anything but one. In other words, too many angles for too few alignments.

If Pro 1 described a step by step procedure to successfully cover all the angles, and different than ghostball-based ones, then it would be systematic and unique. But if it leaves that out and relegates it all to something mysterious taking place during the processing of the visuals, then how can you declare it something other than feel/judgement? As I recall from Stan's first DVD, he didn't describe where the cue should be aimed relative to the reference lines. This leaves open a large chasm where feel (e.g., prior experience from traditional aiming) can enter the picture.

Jim

Your recall is not correct... The cue's aim is 1/2 tip left or right of a CB's vertical axis based on 2 fixed edges of a CB. The visuals establish the fixed CB.

Your recall statement is also very revealing! It demonstrates how poorly you actually understand the process of CTE PRO ONE.

Jim, you are simply wrong. Just reread Neil's last couple of posts a few times and start again.

Stan Shuffett

 

[Jal]

Your recall is not correct... The cue's aim is 1/2 tip left or right of a CB's vertical axis based on 2 fixed edges of a CB. The visuals establish the fixed CB.

Your recall statement is also very revealing! It demonstrates how poorly you actually understand the process of CTE PRO ONE.

Jim, you are simply wrong. Just reread Neil's last couple of posts a few times and start again.

Stan Shuffett

Thanks Stan, but I think it may demonstrate something else. At any rate, how do you define the 2 fixed edges of a CB? In other words, the 1/2 tip offset will be parallel to a plane going through the center of the cueball and which is also perpendicular to one or more of the reference lines. The visuals which you defined (CB edge to A, C or 1/8'th balls) aren't parallel to the CTE line, thus a plane can't be perpendicular to both the CTE and one of those references (CB edge to B is the exception). So which visuals are used to define it?

By the way, while this is critical to a quantitative evaluation of Pro 1, it's not at the heart of the objections we've been raising.

Jim