Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

[throtts]

Apologies, behave, not needed.

Have a good day..

[Terry Davidson]

Lol. This is great trolling, it really is. You give Reggie the 7 ball, you really do.

Just in case you're not trolling, imagine you are on an ice rink, with a brush in your hands, and are trying to use that brush to propel yourself forwards. Now do two things. Firstly. Brush the ice as quickly as possible. Secondly, use more careful, SLOWER strokes.

Which will get you moving forward more quickly?

Yes, the perfect analogy that, broom on ice. You are so full of it BS. The existence of SIT is a moot point because it just doesn't matter one iota because it has such a minimal effect. The telling point is at some point in the power scale SIT disappears as if by magic but not you nor anyone else can say what that point is because you have yet another excuse, different tables different results.

You found the perfect Troll subject and I and everyone else bit hard. I'm not trolling, I really believe SIT does not exist unless there is a very high level of friction between the 2 balls, and it doesn't exist under normal playing conditions and that's despite all that proof you go on about. Transferred side generating an alteration in the path of an object ball taking off from contact is a myth. People have been arguing this for 187 years and still have no solution except in each side's minds. Your proof doesn't move me at all.

[Terry Davidson]

You do'nt back up your statements with your identity, Terry .
Bcuz regardless of your identity , you could be wrong.

Using* the identity is the way to scape from debate bcuz* you know you're wrong and thr is no other way to back up your arguments .
Using facts and prove and logic , is the way to go.
As far as i'm concerned , you had plenty of all of it in those 2 threads .
If you like to ignore them , so be it . It's your choice.
Btw , no one said you have no* experience !!

If your identity and experience are not important then why do they demand both when you testify in court? They are important to establish the veracity of the person.

I think what proof has been offered on here is subject to different interpretations. Even Dr. Dave's videos do not prove that SIT exists. Nic Barrow's video with his board proves that a very small amount of CIT exists which I always knew anyway. I said you had little experience but I also said I have at least some.

Ramon...you are a troll who has elected himself to be the master expert on debate here in the forum but I didn't vote for you so how about you go pick on someone else?

[Terry Davidson]

Can't argue with the last bit Ramon.

About a month ago now TD said you can only move the OB a tiny amount so it would be impossible to pot a 3/4 ball...full ball. That has been proved totally wrong yet him and vmax carry on with this correct BOB nonsense!

I really don't care anymore what either has to say on the subject

Let them bounce away in their tiny little bubble

First of all, thanks for the compliment Travis. Secondly, I said if j6 was talking about holding the spot when potting a 3/4 black then the CB must have ended up directly behind the black by curving in because there is absolutely no other way all the energy can be removed from the CB unless it becomes a dead-on pot. The cueball will only stop all sideways motion on a dead-on pot so the cueball must have gotten there somehow Travis. There is no proof on that type of shot that SIT exists.

[Terry Davidson]

Following what I show in my video, I would have to agree with that.

In the shot I show to prove SIT exists, you're talking millimetres... If someone could replicate the shot I used over a greater distance then I would be happy to say otherwise...

But a 3/4 pot full ball... that's manipulating the OB inches over the course of 5/6 feet at slow speeds... My little experiment tells me that's extremely unlikely on a snooker table.

Perhaps on a pool table with no nap and much heavier balls, but still... Inches would be hard to believe in my mind following on from what I did empirically last night.

I think the most likely effect when you're talking of OB movements for more than a few millimetres is that you're swerving the white.

So I'm in a position where I sort of agree with and disagree with everyone at the same time, lol.

As soon as my missus sorts the video splitting thing out, I'll post.

Swerving or more accurately 'curving' the CB is exactly what vmax and I have been saying. The CB gets to BOB or very close to it and there is no transferred spin at the point of contact *or if there is then it is too small to matter and is of no consequence*. It appears this theory was first proposed in 1835 and it might have been valid with ivory balls and thicker cloths, but when you move to the modern era we see Dr. Dave putting up videos that don't show much at all and arguing that SIT is real (but a guy has to make a living somehow I guess or at least build a reputation as a billiards 'guru'). I don't believe it is but either way it means nothing as both sides of the argument can perform the shots.

Travis thinks he's 'throwing' the object ball into the pocket and I think he's actually curling the CB into BOB. We both accomplish the same thing and no matter what happens during contact the ball still pots. How anyone can imagine there's some magic which throws the OB on a different path but that same magic disappears at some unknown higher power. Now that's real magic isn't it.

[travisbickle]

Following what I show in my video, I would have to agree with that.

In the shot I show to prove SIT exists, you're talking millimetres... If someone could replicate the shot I used over a greater distance then I would be happy to say otherwise...

But a 3/4 pot full ball... that's manipulating the OB inches over the course of 5/6 feet at slow speeds... My little experiment tells me that's extremely unlikely on a snooker table.

Perhaps on a pool table with no nap and much heavier balls, but still... Inches would be hard to believe in my mind following on from what I did empirically last night.

I think the most likely effect when you're talking of OB movements for more than a few millimetres is that you're swerving the white.

So I'm in a position where I sort of agree with and disagree with everyone at the same time, lol.

As soon as my missus sorts the video splitting thing out, I'll post.

Have you not seen the slow motion vid that I put up?
You can clearly see the OB moves inches to the left after a full ball contact.
A couple of old geezers with the combined age of 140 will tell you otherwise though!

[pottr]

Have you not seen the slow motion vid that I put up?

No, I haven't... Can you send me the link please? If it's the DR Dave one, I have seen that.

You can clearly see the OB moves inches to the left after a full ball contact.

Having made the video and carried out my own research on it, I honestly cannot see how that's possible. Yes it's possible as a result of the white swerving (result of deflection) into a different part of the OB... But as imparting spin... I find it very hard to agree with.

The shot I set up is the only shot that can 100% prove or deny that SIT exists. The OB which doesn't pot... made to pot by turning it over and I am genuinely talking millimetres... I don't see how inches could be possible. Following my minutes spent making the video last night, I am now pretty much resolute in that.

It was an interesting debate, but now I don't feel like there is any grey area. Even if half the forum tells me I'm wrong.

A couple of old geezers with the combined age of 140 will tell you otherwise though!

I understand your frustration that they don't agree with your point... but this isn't really constructive this late in the day.

[pottr]

and guess what... looks like we're gonna have to wait til tonight for the video... She hasn't split the video for me and my office pc won't recognise the older generation ipad for some reason.

We're gonna have to break the video up into chunks for icloud and then upload each chunk... sorry again.

[travisbickle]

and guess what... looks like we're gonna have to wait til tonight for the video... She hasn't split the video for me and my office pc won't recognise the older generation ipad for some reason.

We're gonna have to break the video up into chunks for icloud and then upload each chunk... sorry again.

https://youtu.be/EidPecrMULI

[Terry Davidson]

Have you not seen the slow motion vid that I put up?
You can clearly see the OB moves inches to the left after a full ball contact.
A couple of old geezers with the combined age of 140 will tell you otherwise though!

Yes Travis, I did see your video and I agree the OB did move to the left but only as a result of the curving cueball.

There is no need to resort to insults with age discrimination. Where is the UN Human Rights Commission when you need them'

If you can pot a 3/4-black off its spot and stop the cueball immediately on contact then you have curved the CB. If you can pot that black and have the cueball carry on as if it was a 3/4 hit then you have SIT. Line up a straight-in pot with no intervening ball, like the pink so you have the open pocket and pot it the same as if there was an intervening ball (as you did) and your CB will go slightly right if you pot the pink centre pocket. This means the CB approached the pink at a very slight angle.

To get exactly the same result with the CB you could cheat the pocket to the left which is what most good players would do. But I realize you like to play using side whenever you can so each to their own.

[pottr]

That video, I'm 10 seconds in... seems pretty clear cut that it's a swerve to me?

[travisbickle]

Yes Travis, I did see your video and I agree the OB did move to the left but only as a result of the curving cueball.

There is no need to resort to insults with age discrimination. Where is the UN Human Rights Commission when you need them'

If you can pot a 3/4-black off its spot and stop the cueball immediately on contact then you have curved the CB. If you can pot that black and have the cueball carry on as if it was a 3/4 hit then you have SIT. Line up a straight-in pot with no intervening ball, like the pink so you have the open pocket and pot it the same as if there was an intervening ball (as you did) and your CB will go slightly right if you pot the pink centre pocket. This means the CB approached the pink at a very slight angle.

To get exactly the same result with the CB you could cheat the pocket to the left which is what most good players would do. But I realize you like to play using side whenever you can so each to their own.

Yes it does curve slightly but not onto BOB, not in a million years.
BTW for the full ball pot on the red the CB needs to be 3 ins to the right in line with the pink.

[pottr]

Yeah, it's a slow drag shot with a touch of side to miss the pink...

That doesn't prove or disprove anything?

You need the red to be on the CB side of the pink to prove it... which is what I did.

[pottr]

Yes Travis, I did see your video and I agree the OB did move to the left but only as a result of the curving cueball.

I agree with this...

Good video though, at least it was innovative in it's approach.

[travisbickle]

That video, I'm 10 seconds in... seems pretty clear cut that it's a swerve to me?

If you are saying it's hitting the correct BOB then I'm shocked! You can see the way the red reacts to tell you it's not a natural contact