Re: Curving An Object Ball(Part VI-Letting it All Hang Out))

On Jan 10, 9:51 am, Jack Stein <jbste...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Bambu wrote:
http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=ccb&Nu...

So, I brought my silly idea about object ball curve to Dr. Dave.
Interestingly enough, nobody at the billiards digest forum thought I
was a crack head. Not Dr. Dave, not Bob Jewett(though Bob did try
throwing the same exact $200.00 shot at me)! Even though I was a
first timer, nobody insulted me. And lets be frank, RSB is a fucking
ghost town compared to billiards digest. They didn't attempt to
degrade me, insult my profession, call me a blind man, a troll or a
liar. There was no aura of laughter, or omnipotent superiority abound.
I was even welcomed without a major interrogation. Over 1000 views and
nobody said ***, regardless of what they really thought. All that and
no faggoty fast larry cat fights, can you believe that?

Well, it appears that after only one week of your babble, Dr. Dave was
beginning to complain about repeating himself to you. Seems to me Dr.
Dave os MUCH LESS patient with you than Ron has been.

Anyway, I have to admit this. I walked in to BD much better
prepared, with specific shots to prove my point. My experience on rsb
taught me a lot about what to expect to hear from other physics
experts.

They pretty much said exactly the same things to you, but for only one
week instead of several months.

I also knew better than to even try to reason it out with

them, thanks to ron and rsb. Still, everyone seems to think that after
impact, the ball travels straight. That really blew my mind, because I
knew it was simply not true. I just needed to prove it. If anything,
it made me realize that rsb was not alone in thinking the throw angle
is determined upon impact.

Yes, and if you watched Dr. Dave's video, you would see what 1000's of
posts and detailed explanations to you on RSB by a number of VERY
patient people said was exactly correct.

During that moment, I thought I had the golden grail. A shot that
could not be disputed sat right in my pocket. Anyone who cares to is
of course free to read that dialogue, but it all amounts to one thing
in my book. Every cut shot you guys ever made in your lives went in
that hole in a different way than you thought it did. Just like I
said, it curved but not enough for you to notice.

Nope, I read through the whole thread and it seems everything Ron had
talked about was correct. Exactly correct. In fact, after only a week
of your ignoring what Dr. Dave had been saying to you (little does he
know how much you can actually ignore what is being said) he said this
to you, which is exactly what was said you you by Ron in the first day.
This is a direct quote from Dr. Dave:
****
Actually, side spin does not cause OB swerve. Only masse spin created by
a downward or upward hit on the OB can cause "OB swerve."
****

There is no denial about a small amount of object ball curve
achieved through spin transfer at billiards digest, although Dr. Dave
and Bob seemed to have had different answers on this.

I think they were in total agreement.

Bob Jewett is

talking about a quarter inch difference over 9 feet,

No, that is not what he said. Once he said what if it is a 1/4 inch,
what if it is 1/1000th of an inch, something to that effect. He didn't
say it was a 1/4 inch. Dr. Dave said a number of times the amount of
curve was to small to measure or have any meaningful effect.

but that is more

than enough to satisfy me. Why? Something is better than nothing. A
quarter inch can be enough to make a baby, and sink a ball too. (And
the specific shot is there too, the variation of bobs shot.)

Yes, I liked that. That shot seemed OK to me, you should have posted it
here since we are the ones that were totally patient with you for about
2 months and 6 million posts... I haven't tried the shot yet, but
really, I don't like trying this stuff that requires perfect cloth,
perfect setup, perfect everything to test. I'll wait and see what other
"perfectionists" get out of it.

Also

because once in a blue moon, I can finish off a rack with that extra
tiny bit. Other times, just the right spin alone will do it. I'm not
saying I'm the greatest by any means, but just maybe the cheapest.
Sometimes I want that extra quarter or eighth of an inch if I can get
it, dammit. It can be "just enough." I cant imagine anyone who if
they could, wouldn't want to split a hair or two in a borderline
situation.

No one would ignore an extra 1/4 inch. If you could get a 1/4 inch OB
curve, DR. Dave, Bob Jewett, Ron Shepard and all the rest of us would
not be arguing with you.

Perhaps the most interesting point about this(ok, not for me)
is the physics explanation for this effect. Regarding that, I was
lucky enough to get an explanation from Jal on Billiards Digest. All
of you will probably understand that far better than anything I have
said about object ball curve. I wont paste the entire explanation
here, but according to Jal, "Several centuries of physics may need to
be revised if these calculations aren't confirmed." Another thing Jal
said, which I have been repeating over and over in my own
way(exceptions occurring at low speeds): "A very slow moving ball is
different, ie, it should follow more of a spiral path, like a charged
particle in a magnetic field."

JAL said the same thing here, indicating something about the ball
curving due to the pile building up in front of the ball, causing
unequal pressure from the front of the ball than the back, and this
could cause some extremely small amount of OB curve. I'm pretty sure he
changed his mind on that, but even if not, and true, the amount is
insignificant and can be safely ignored, unless you don your space suit
and play pool in outer space, you know, like you bitch at Ron about all
the time...

In sum, let me state that I do not debate object ball curve to
spite rsb, nor for the sake of argument, or self righteousness. It is
not my intention to ridicule anyone, Ron Shepard in particular.

Who cares? I'd love to ridicule Ron Shepard, but how can you ridicule
someone that is right as rain, and proves you wrong for months on end?

I have

nothing but respect for Ron and his hard work, despite some things
which we both shouldn't have said.

MOst everyone respects the guy that wrote the book on cue sports and
physics. He could still be wrong on stuff, but unlikely. Your
arguments were fine for several weeks (twice as long as tolerated on BD)
but after several months and you twisting in the breeze at every
detailed point Ron made, it started getting a bit odd.

I only wish to prove the way throw

and spin transfer curves balls, that's all.

Did you look at the test YOU gave DR Dave to show THROW causes curve?
His video using YOUR test shows you are wrong on that, so how do you
wish to prove something that doesn't occur?

My only regret, is that

this thread got ugly at times, and perhaps much of that is my fault.
For allowing anger to get the best of me at times, again my
apologies. Dr. Dave was also under a similar notion about sidespin
and object ball curve, so this isn't something that is thoroughly
understood my many....myself included.

So far, it seems you are the only one that thinks OB curve has much of
anything to do with shooting pool, and it can be safely ignored. That's
what I got out of 2 months of Ron Shepard posts to you, and One week of
posts from Dr. Dave and Bob Jewett. Pretty sure JAL agrees with them as
well.

As an aside, it is nice to know that RSB seems to be far more patient
than the forums as far as hearing you out. If you did to Dr. Dave what
you were doing to Ron and the rest of us, he would have hung up on you
right quick I would guess.

--
Jackhttp://jbstein.com

All you had to do was save reading a thousand posts from ding dongs
and ask FL the question, you would have received the correct answer
and saved a week of your life. When you want to know, do not ask a
ding dong, ask a Zen grand master instead.
.