What do people think of Roy Chisholm's Snooker Secrets?

[blahblah01]

You can definitely do some crazy s##t with it once you get the hang of it

Yep. I spent an afternoon potting with side ie full ball contact and using side to create the angle..... Nearly as good as Mushrooms :wink:

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

I don't remember seeing a Wilson video so what post # is it in? I saw the Selby video and he definitely hit BOB after curving the CB.

Terry davidson: demands video evidence.
Terry davidson: doesn't even watch video evidence.

Terry davidson - hopeless case!

[blahblah01]

Isn't this just the natural consequence of colliding spinning balls? Whenever we see a super slow motion vid of ball contact, they always seem to be jumping around all over the place, we just don't see it in real time, no?

-

Well if thuis thread is about to die: this is one reason why I can't watch Snooker on BBC with DT. The way he screams kick as if he has spunked his pants and shouts "see the CB\OB jump": when Super Slo Mo seems to show the balls going airborne to some extent on "non-kick" shots.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

You are hard work Terry. The time is 3:06 as posted above

Hard work? I'll say. If he's not trolling this is getting surreal.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

So to sum up:

1. Kick is a result of incidental increased friction between 2 balls
2. Wilson shot is kick - no way he played this
3. Selby shot is swerve
4. On an occasion due to increased friction(kick) there is a magnified throw effect on the object ball that is caused by side on cue ball
5. All other times due to really small contact point between balls and very little friction side induced throw can be discarded as negligible even if it means everything for some really funny guys
6. Pool players are a bit scruffy so their balls are usually dirty and are not polished properly so they throw a bit more
7. Experiments are being carried out by snooker experts to put this to bed but the methodology is a joke so we need more time
8. Some people have zero understanding of what they read which makes the discussions lively and enjoyable to read

9. Sealer is almost as clueless as vmax and terry.
10. Gaspard-Gustave de Coriolis had this all figured out in 1835, and must be spinning furiously in his grave.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasp...ve_de_Coriolis

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

but what happens when balls collide?

Snooker players close their eyes, clearly.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Terry davidson, vmax, sealer and any other non believers out there: read this.

1. A spinning CB alters the path of the OB slightly. The evidence for this is overwhelming, both in terms of testimony from millions of players, and from the scientific community. You may consider the earth is flat if you wish - it is a free country. But it is real, as real as screw back or top spin.
2. A spinning CB does create some spin transfer, but only an ignoramus of the highest order would think this makes the OB swerve. Just banish this from your mind and pretend it never happened.
3. Everything you ever wanted to know about EVERYTHING that happens when balls collide is on Dr Dave's website. There are 750 shots on there, many with glorious slo mo video. The experiments are set up in meticulous detail and peer reviewed to the nth degree. EVERYTHING YOU WILL EVER NEED TO KNOW IS ON THERE.
4. It is really helpful to use established terminology. If nothing else, this thread has taught us the importance of using clearly defined terminology and using it consistently. So, stop saying spin transfer when you mean spin induced throw, and stop saying kick as well.

[itsnoteasy]

Terry davidson, vmax, sealer and any other non believers out there: read this.

1. A spinning CB alters the path of the OB slightly. The evidence for this is overwhelming, both in terms of testimony from millions of players, and from the scientific community. You may consider the earth is flat if you wish - it is a free country. But it is real, as real as screw back or top spin.
2. A spinning CB does create some spin transfer, but only an ignoramus of the highest order would think this makes the OB swerve. Just banish this from your mind and pretend it never happened.
3. Everything you ever wanted to know about EVERYTHING that happens when balls collide is on Dr Dave's website. There are 750 shots on there, many with glorious slo mo video. The experiments are set up in meticulous detail and peer reviewed to the nth degree. EVERYTHING YOU WILL EVER NEED TO KNOW IS ON THERE.
4. It is really helpful to use established terminology. If nothing else, this thread has taught us the importance of using clearly defined terminology and using it consistently. So, stop saying spin transfer when you mean spin induced throw, and stop saying kick as well.

I agree with most of that, except number 4, folk getting all kerfuffled over what's being said is what's made this thread worth reading.
Number 3 though should be enough for anyone, except the religious who believe that maybe god did it. The fact is if anything published on this University's site( remember this isnt just some random pool player, it's a university professor conducting experiments) was not correct, there would be other scientists or groups debunking them straight away, they wouldn't even have to play the shots, they could prove it wrong on the side of a fag packet with a pencil in seconds, that's how peer review works, if they haven't been proven wrong, just like gravity and evolution, you have to accept them as correct, that's just the way it works, We can't say it doesn't happen because we can't do it, the evidence is there for it. With the super slow mo cameras these days , these findings could be filmed and posted and proved wrong in less than an hour but they haven't been, why is that? Because they are correct, it's pretty much end of story.
There are many debates that can be had around this, about how different cloths, atmospheric conditions etc etc effect how much reaction you will get but it honestly is pretty impossible to deny peer reviewed scientific data that says its happening.

[Byrom]

Anyone miss the good ol days where we argued about air dried angel ash and bog wood?.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

I agree with most of that, except number 4, folk getting all kerfuffled over what's being said is what's made this thread worth reading.
Number 3 though should be enough for anyone, except the religious who believe that maybe god did it. The fact is if anything published on this University's site( remember this isnt just some random pool player, it's a university professor conducting experiments) was not correct, there would be other scientists or groups debunking them straight away, they wouldn't even have to play the shots, they could prove it wrong on the side of a fag packet with a pencil in seconds, that's how peer review works, if they haven't been proven wrong, just like gravity and evolution, you have to accept them as correct, that's just the way it works, We can't say it doesn't happen because we can't do it, the evidence is there for it. With the super slow mo cameras these days , these findings could be filmed and posted and proved wrong in less than an hour but they haven't been, why is that? Because they are correct, it's pretty much end of story.
There are many debates that can be had around this, about how different cloths, atmospheric conditions etc etc effect how much reaction you will get but it honestly is pretty impossible to deny peer reviewed scientific data that says its happening.

And millions of players - many of which are better than the 50 break wonders around here.

Isn't it amazing Coriolis had this figured out in 1835, and players of today, with the slo mo cameras, the internet and their sister's smart phones, still don't get it?

Mind-boggling.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Anyone miss the good ol days where we argued about air dried angel ash and bog wood?.

Anyone think family guy is soooo last decade?

[Terry Davidson]

Terry davidson: demands video evidence.
Terry davidson: doesn't even watch video evidence.

Terry davidson - hopeless case!

As usual you are wrong. I reviewed the video evidence and came to the same conclusion I always have. There is no transferred spin or at least not enough to make any change to the object ball. Everything is the cause of spin on the cueball.

[Terry Davidson]

Mr. B.S. - I wish you would stop trying to correct what I'm saying. When I say transferred spin I mean EXACTLY that and NOT your 'spin induced throw' on the object ball. Your frenchman of 1835 was likely using ivory balls and different cloth and may have gotten a different effect. As for your 750 Dr. Dave videos you're like a Trump supporter, everything you agree with is right and everything and everyone you don't agree with is 'false news'.

You are an ignorant person who gets off on insulting people who don't agree with you and you belong in a place where that is accepted behaviour, like maybe try joining Trump's cabinet or as an advisor as he seems to be missing a few lately. Try to get Bannon's job.

There is only one contact point when potting an OB and that is the holy point BOB, all other potting points are the devil's handiwork and those that espouse them should be banished from snooker heaven. So there!

(vmax has put up another string with video so you should check that out to see how many times you can insult him.)

[cole46]

But you can make a plant that isn't touching the BOB

[Byrom]

But you can make a plant that isn't touching the BOB

wow that is spooky I just thought I would explain the same thing on a different thread