Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

[DeanH]

Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

PP has been back in other guises

[throtts]

PP has been back in other guises

Shock and horror, Dean..

[DeanH]

PP has been back in other guises

Shock and horror, Dean..

I know! Who'd a thought it?! :wink:

[Used to be a pub near us many years ago called that ]

[PatBlock]

.. I might have to have a little play with this over the next day or two and put it to bed with a video...

What is really needed, is an overhead high speed high definition video of this, then we could draw clear lines of aim, so we could see if, just before the point of contact, the balls are lined up to the pocket or not. If, just as the balls meet, they are not in line with the pocket, but the pot ends up being made, we would then be able to see the direction of the object ball deviate quite clearly from the natural line where they meet. And if filmed at high speed, any transferred spin effect on the object ball would also be visible.

-

[pottr]

All I'd do is set up a pot that slightly didn't go and then explain what I think could happen to the OB if I hit it at the right point after imparting enough side on the white.

I'd go right behind the line of the pot with the ipad to show whether or not it potted. Then play the shot and see if I can pot the ball...

If it goes in, then it's a thing... if I can't make it pot around the other ball... then it's not.

[PatBlock]

All I'd do is set up a pot that slightly didn't go and then explain what I think could happen to the OB if I hit it at the right point after imparting enough side on the white.

I'd go right behind the line of the pot with the ipad to show whether or not it potted. Then play the shot and see if I can pot the ball...

If it goes in, then it's a thing... if I can't make it pot around the other ball... then it's not.

I think overhead HS-HD is the way to go, no ambiguity of angles then. But I look forward to your video, I'm sure it will give this thread a much needed boost.

-

[throtts]

All I'd do is set up a pot that slightly didn't go and then explain what I think could happen to the OB if I hit it at the right point after imparting enough side on the white.

I'd go right behind the line of the pot with the ipad to show whether or not it potted. Then play the shot and see if I can pot the ball...

If it goes in, then it's a thing... if I can't make it pot around the other ball... then it's not.

Could we have some added eff that and eff this please. The threads need a reality check, buddy . Hahaha..

[itsnoteasy]

Honestly if the physics is correct there is no argument, it doesn't matter what you think or what you believe or what you can and can't play. Do you doubt, gravity, laws of motion, the Big Bang, the Higgs boson, if not ,it's the same physics that states this exists. Again I will tell you this is taught in a university, not something like this but this exact thing, are you seriously saying there is some conspiracy between all the mechanics and physics professors who have looked at this ,add to that every student who has ever taken this course, are they all just having a laugh and making this up, are they handing out degrees to pupils who are hiding the truth just to confuse snooker players? Please take a minute and think about what you are claiming.

[pottr]

Yes, physics dictates it exist... The friction of the cloth should emphasise this... scientifically speaking

I can't create an overhead view... I'm a fat bloke with an ipad, not Sky sports

I don't mean to swear ever, Throtts... But I have the moment in my head, especially in that stance video where I think to myself "I can't believe I've had to stop to this level of nonsense thinking to get my point across"

... then a few slip out

[throtts]

Hahaha. Let one slip !

Has to be Eurosport quality then bud, hawk eye and all that ..

No, really, whatever is good enough. Guys that do the vids are really appreciated..

[PatBlock]

Honestly if the physics is correct there is no argument, it doesn't matter what you think or what you believe or what you can and can't play. Do you doubt, gravity, laws of motion, the Big Bang, the Higgs boson, if not ,it's the same physics that states this exists. Again I will tell you this is taught in a university, not something like this but this exact thing, are you seriously saying there is some conspiracy between all the mechanics and physics professors who have looked at this ,add to that every student who has ever taken this course, are they all just having a laugh and making this up, are they handing out degrees to pupils who are hiding the truth just to confuse snooker players? Please take a minute and think about what you are claiming.

Was that for me teasy? If so, I'm not claiming anything, I just want to see it for myself, in the real world, with my own eyes, which is entirely doable, unlike the Higgs boson, unfortunately.

-

[itsnoteasy]

Yes, physics dictates it exist... The friction of the cloth should emphasise this... scientifically speaking

I can't create an overhead view... I'm a fat bloke with an ipad, not Sky sports

I don't mean to swear ever, Throtts... But I have the moment in my head, especially in that stance video where I think to myself "I can't believe I've had to stop to this level of nonsense thinking to get my point across"

... then a few slip out

If it exists, it exists, if you play a shot a thousand times and can't do it, does that mean it doesn't exist and we are back to the conspiracy theory again, or is it more than likely you aren't doing it right, this is what makes me laugh, here's a video of me not hitting where I think I am , that's enough to wipe out the whole scientific community, i have proved lots of physics laws , that have been studied and poured over for centuries, wrong ,come on fellas, let's get a grip.
Just to add, it's also funny that we jump all over someone who doubts Stephen Hendrys call on a single shot, but a physics professor? Nah what does he know about his speciality, feck all obviously.

[Little Reggie]

I only read the last bit but, sadly, you've proven nothing. It would take something fairly seismic to disprove spin induced throw - you would be in line for a Nobel prize, at a minimum. It would be pocket billiards 2.0. We'd have to tear up everything we know about the game.

That you yourself cannot do something is evidence of only one thing: you cannot do something.

Ironically, you are getting throw - your eyes can't see it and your brain won't let you see it, but it's there. And I'll await your expansion on why CB ends up where it does with interest.

Whackers and stabbers need to avoid experiments and concentrate on knocking 30s in consistently. We'd say that to a novice and the same applies to those of decades of 'experience' but little talent and little wisdom. Concentrate on the basics such as a smooth cue action with no stabbing, a proper BtB that can't catch a sea trout on a line, no snatching like you're shoplifting in Harrods. The same folk have no cue power, no spin, no control, constantly out of position and playing a shot they didn't intend. Watching them is painful to my eyes, it's an insult to the baize; those who will never learn and apply. But hey, they deem themselves good enough to run side xfer and spin experiments and have good reason to ignore experts like Dr Dave, Mr Stark and really good players on here! BCWs. Arrogance out of control.

[Byrom]

Honestly if the physics is correct there is no argument, it doesn't matter what you think or what you believe or what you can and can't play. Do you doubt, gravity, laws of motion, the Big Bang, the Higgs boson, if not ,it's the same physics that states this exists. Again I will tell you this is taught in a university, not something like this but this exact thing, are you seriously saying there is some conspiracy between all the mechanics and physics professors who have looked at this ,add to that every student who has ever taken this course, are they all just having a laugh and making this up, are they handing out degrees to pupils who are hiding the truth just to confuse snooker players? Please take a minute and think about what you are claiming.

Exactly - it does exist - so it exists on a snooker table. To argue against it is futile

As we breath air to survive and take another step so we use the laws of physics on a snooker table to keep a break going - Do we need to know why? - well maybe it might help explain things if you are a coach and some people clearly are interested in this as a cue lover likes talking about wood and that is fine too - but as a player I have to say its not really necessary as you can show/learn the shots and demonstrate do them without going into the science of it.

So for me yep obviously physics exists...

Is it important to know as a player? ...not really important...Players can learn the shots without knowing the science behind it.

Can it be useful to know? .... Yes all knowledge can be useful and not everyone is the same so there is a clear contradiction to what I wrote above because there is a value in it that may help some people gain a better understanding - people are not all just sole kinesthetic learners - some people do Iike to learn/understand things better from books, video's, discussions and other means. Thats why there is this forum ...they see or read something gain an understanding and then go try it out.

Is it interesting to know?... To some people clearly yes and others no ....each is fine - such is life.

Now - that's cleared up can I ask ... Does anyone want to talk/explain about the science/physics behind my favourite sport please?

[itsnoteasy]

Exactly - it does exist - so it exists on a snooker table. To argue against it is futile

As we breath air to survive and take another step so we use the laws of physics on a snooker table to keep a break going - Do we need to know why? - well maybe it might help explain things if you are a coach and some people clearly are interested in this as a cue lover likes talking about wood and that is fine too - but as a player I have to say its not really necessary as you can show/learn the shots and demonstrate do them without going into the science of it.

So for me yep obviously physics exists...

Is it important to know as a player? ...not really important...Players can learn the shots without knowing the science behind it.

Can it be useful to know? .... Yes all knowledge can be useful and not everyone is the same so there is a clear contradiction to what I wrote above because there is a value in it that may help some people gain a better understanding - people are not all just sole kinesthetic learners - some people do Iike to learn/understand things better from books, video's, discussions and other means. Thats why there is this forum ...they see or read something gain an understanding and then go try it out.

Is it interesting to know?... To some people clearly yes and others no ....each is fine - such is life.

Now - that's cleared up can I ask ... Does anyone want to talk/explain about the science/physics behind my favourite sport please?

Exactly how I feel about it Byrom, I have my own theory that might just be agreeable to everyone, I will post it up after tea, as I'm starving