Allowing for side

[vmax4steve]

And as for that video...lol! The guy's completely clueless. If that is your evidence then good luck to you, but at least it clears up why you think what you do - You've confused spin transference with CIT. You thought i was saying the object ball picked up spin and was bending into the pocket! LMAO!

The guy's completely clueless you say, it's not my evidence as I haven't seen that video before itsnoteasy posted it, yet there is no transfer of side to the object ball. And I've confused nothing, I know you weren't saying that the object ball picked up spin and bent into the pocket (I think Alabadi said that) you're saying that the cue ball contacts the object ball at a different point than the correct one for the plain ball pot and that the spin on the cue ball throws it onto the correct line into the pocket.
What I've always said is that the cue ball swerves and contacts the object ball at the correct point to make the pot as it would with a plain ball shot.

If you want to see this proven then play a few shots along a cushion and see how the object ball reacts on contact with both balls touching the cushion with the cue ball loaded with side. If you're right the object ball should leave the cushion every time as one side will throw it into the cushion and the other will throw it away from the cushion.

[itsnoteasy]

My quote was pretty accurate. There was no substantive difference. He said "I'm going to put the ten ball here. It's a 9 ball, basically". How does that differ to what i said? If you're going criticise people for getting quotes wrong you'll look an idiot when they don't, there's a good lad.

So would you trust the opinion of someone who starts a video saying "this is the green ball. It's the brown ball, basically"? Probably a good indication that what follows is going to be nonsense.

As for Dr Dave, what on earth would he care what you think? Son, this ain't new. This ain't revolutionary. Dave didn't invent any of this. Millions of players have known all this for decades.

Asking dr dave to prove SIT to you personally would be akin to me writing to Stephen Hendry and asking him to show me the screw back shot because i don't think it exists.

He's probably not going to, huh?

Sorry i didn't know English wasn't your first language, I take it back that you look like an idiot and will settle for you just being ignorant, if you don't see the vast difference in what you quoted and what he said there really is no hope for you, maybe a basic English course at a night school near you would help, I doubt it but who knows.
Just to let you see it side by side, you roughly quoted him as saying here's the ten ball, it's the nine ball basically,When in fact he said here's the ten ball it's a nine ball basically, one is a nonsense quote made up by you to try to belittle the man , the other is a perfect explanation that he's using a nine ball ball, the number ten to be precise. I hope this basic English isn't beyond you

[itsnoteasy]

Please believe me that Dr. Dave is a fantastic guy. I don't know him personally but I have had a small correspondence and I have followed the work he has done to a certain degree. I am not at all an "apostle" of his. I suspect he would not want to touch this thing with a ten foot pole. He is not argumentative; he simply is looking to find the answers to things. He doesn't claim absolutes; he is simply saying that this is what the evidence supports and I (Dr. Dave) am open to anyone who can present evidence to the contrary. If you were to email him, phone him, simply bump into him on the street and say politely, "Hi Dave. I don't believe what you are saying. Please prove it to me." Well, to be honest, why should he? He simply makes his best evidence for things pool related available to people. He has specifically stated that he has not done any snooker specific related studies to date. Wonderful guy; don't get the wrong idea based on how the evidence has been presented to you thus far.

Even if you want to gather your evidence into a package and put together a fancy video and you send it to him in a respectful way, he would look at it in a respectful way and consider it. But think about it logically....how do you scientifically PROVE a negative? PROVE to me that there is no God! PROVE to me that there are no aliens living at the center of the earth running every country's puppet government? PROVE to me that spin is not induced on the object ball and the evidence that Dave presents is just an illusion? I totally support Dr. Dave and I believe what he says, but something that I also know is that Pool equipment and Snooker equipment are two very different things and while they are quite obviously similar, the reactions that occur will not necessarily be identical. Personally, I believe that the effect which is quite prominent on a pool table also does exist on a snooker table but is much more subtle and in fact, I do believe it to be negligible or in fact negative (opposite of what it is supposed to be) on the snooker table in some cases due to the directional nature of napped cloth. In fact, it is so subtle that it can for all practical purposes be considered to be negligible and you can be a very good player and never be convinced that this very subtle characteristic even exists and that is fine, your game can still be awesome. I believe it exists, you do not have to; neither of us will have our games negatively impacted by either of our beliefs.

My first "snooker book" was Cliff Thorburn's Snooker Skills and in it, he confesses that he was playing the game for ten years or something before he finally actually accepted that the nap of the cloth does have a significant and noticeable effect that must be accounted for on certain shots in order to play your best game. I think he was a pretty darn good player even for those previous ten years though.

But my main point is that I doubt very much that Dr. Dave is interested in being involved in this particular conversation.

Some of what he says there is no doubt about him being correct, but in the two videos posted there are so many variables that he either ignores or just doesn't take into account, that what he's claiming just can't be counted as proof.
I have a physics a level and an applied mechanics o level, from so many years ago I don't care to think about it, but I can remember enough, I hope, not to get lost if he would like to spend ten minutes having a chat. I have never said he is not a nice person, just some of his claims are questionable( not wrong , just needs clarification, then I can make up my own mind if I think he's right or wrong) let's face it if he's right he's right, he must have down pat so it shouldn't be hard for him to explain why the variables don't matter. Is that too much to ask?
As for proof, the burden of proof lies on the person making the claims, so it's Dr Dave that has to prove himself right, just as any god claims or alien claims, it's the people making the claims that must prove it to be true.
I think there may be something in the difference between pool and snooker, I said as much earlier on, the difference in cloths may just play a big enough part to alter the findings, but I don't know, does he?

[jonny66]

There's no 10 ball in 9 ball, he meant he was using a pool ball and everyone understood what he meant.

Back on topic I believe side is caused by fairies.

[itsnoteasy]

There's no 10 ball in 9 ball, he meant he was using a pool ball and everyone understood what he meant.

Back on topic I believe side is caused by fairies.

But an American pool ball not an English one. That's what he was clearly explaining.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Sorry i didn't know English wasn't your first language, I take it back that you look like an idiot and will settle for you just being ignorant, if you don't see the vast difference in what you quoted and what he said there really is no hope for you, maybe a basic English course at a night school near you would help, I doubt it but who knows.
Just to let you see it side by side, you roughly quoted him as saying here's the ten ball, it's the nine ball basically,When in fact he said here's the ten ball it's a nine ball basically, one is a nonsense quote made up by you to try to belittle the man , the other is a perfect explanation that he's using a nine ball ball, the number ten to be precise. I hope this basic English isn't beyond you

Lol. Oh dear!

Ps if he/you don't know the difference between a nine and a ten, isn't it maths not English that needs looking at?

But let's examine the evidence. One the one hand, testimony from millions of players, thousands of articles and hundreds of experiments, all using state of the art equipment and thoroughly tested through peer review. Millions of YouTube viewings. Universal praise for methodology and scientific rigour.

On the other, some bloke so numerically challenged he thinks a ten ball is 9 ball and can't seem to see the shot he plays with left hand side goes into the right of the pocket, and vice versa. Plays one shot, badly, goes on to make nonsense conclusions and it's case closed. Has almost as many dislikes as likes on YouTube page. Ignores criticism by inventing some rubbish about cushions.

So, choose your poison.

[itsnoteasy]

Lol. Oh dear!

Ps if he/you don't know the difference between a nine and a ten, isn't it maths not English that needs looking at?

But let's examine the evidence. One the one hand, testimony from millions of players, thousands of articles and hundreds of experiments, all using state of the art equipment and thoroughly tested through peer review. Millions of YouTube viewings. Universal praise for methodology and scientific rigour.

On the other, some bloke so numerically challenged he thinks a ten ball is 9 ball and can't seem to see the shot he plays with left hand side goes into the right of the pocket, and vice versa. Plays one shot, badly, goes on to make nonsense conclusions and it's case closed. Has almost as many dislikes as likes on YouTube page. Ignores criticism by inventing some rubbish about cushions.

So, choose your poison.

Lol you are at it again you gonk, like usual you end up stating your own lies as the truth, lol.

[jonny66]

But an American pool ball not an English one. That's what he was clearly explaining.

I know what he meant, there was really no need to say it though and it just gave BS ammo by saying a 9 is a 10, it's unimportant.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Some of what he says there is no doubt about him being correct, but in the two videos posted there are so many variables that he either ignores or just doesn't take into account, that what he's claiming just can't be counted as proof.
I have a physics a level and an applied mechanics o level, from so many years ago I don't care to think about it, but I can remember enough, I hope, not to get lost if he would like to spend ten minutes having a chat. I have never said he is not a nice person, just some of his claims are questionable( not wrong , just needs clarification, then I can make up my own mind if I think he's right or wrong) let's face it if he's right he's right, he must have down pat so it shouldn't be hard for him to explain why the variables don't matter. Is that too much to ask?
As for proof, the burden of proof lies on the person making the claims, so it's Dr Dave that has to prove himself right, just as any god claims or alien claims, it's the people making the claims that must prove it to be true.
I think there may be something in the difference between pool and snooker, I said as much earlier on, the difference in cloths may just play a big enough part to alter the findings, but I don't know, does he?

Yes, of course. He's a proper scientist, a professor of mechanical engineering iirc. The methodology is rigorous. All your variables are accounted for - everyone who has been arguing about this for years understands that cloth, cushions, nap, humidity, ball size/cleanliness et al makes a difference. Everybody agrees CIT, for example, is lessened on a snooker table, but the laws of physics do not break down the second you get on a snooker table.

As for onus of proof, that is up to you. As has been stated repeatedly, he asks everyone to test his experiments and to let him know where he has gone wrong. This ain't new. It may be new to you but this had been going on for decades, so unless your questions for him are really, really leftfield, you're going to be very disappointed if you think you can add something to the mix. And really, get rid of this 'he's pulling a fast one' mentality, it's pathetic. The world of pocket billiards owes a huge debt of gratitude to dr dave, Bob jewett and the rest. You listen to the fat bloke down the Dog n Duck if you want, but I'll take the scientific approach instead.

So, if you think some of his claims are questionable, go ahead and disprove them. He'll thank you for it. We all will.

[itsnoteasy]

I know what he meant, there was really no need to say it though and it just gave BS ammo by saying a 9 is a 10, it's unimportant.

He called the man a bozo, when what he said was clearly understandable, no need for it.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Lol you are at it again you gonk, like usual you end up stating your own lies as the truth, lol.

Lies? List them or retract.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

He called the man a bozo, when what he said was clearly understandable, no need for it.

I'd call it him again. He is one.

And hardly the world's biggest insult: "b-b-but he (sob) called me a (sniff) a a a bozo! (wail)".

[itsnoteasy]

Yes, of course. He's a proper scientist, a professor of mechanical engineering iirc. The methodology is rigorous. All your variables are accounted for - everyone who has been arguing about this for years understands that cloth, cushions, nap, humidity, ball size/cleanliness et al makes a difference. Everybody agrees CIT, for example, is lessened on a snooker table, but the laws of physics do not break down the second you get on a snooker table.

As for onus of proof, that is up to you. As has been stated repeatedly, he asks everyone to test his experiments and to let him know where he has gone wrong. This ain't new. It may be new to you but this had been going on for decades, so unless your questions for him are really, really leftfield, you're going to be very disappointed if you think you can add something to the mix. And really, get rid of this 'he's pulling a fast one' mentality, it's pathetic. The world of pocket billiards owes a huge debt of gratitude to dr dave, Bob jewett and the rest. You listen to the fat bloke down the Dog n Duck if you want, but I'll take the scientific approach instead.

So, if you think some of his claims are questionable, go ahead and disprove them. He'll thank you for it. We all will.

I wouldn't and never have claimed hes pulling a fast one, all I said was he doesn't take all the variables into account on those two videos, but if he has and just doesn't bother to mention his methods or findings that fine, but it doesn't do anything to make his conclusions clear does it, although I appreciate it's just a quick video.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

But an American pool ball not an English one. That's what he was clearly explaining.

Clearly? lol.

So, what would you think if Dr Dave did an experiment on a snooker table, and started out by saying "this is the brown ball. It's a yellow, basically.

Would you a) nod in agreement and listen intently to what he had to say, or b) laugh and call him a bozo.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

I wouldn't and never have claimed hes pulling a fast one, all I said was he doesn't take all the variables into account on those two videos, but if he has and just doesn't bother to mention his methods or findings that fine, but it doesn't do anything to make his conclusions clear does it, although I appreciate it's just a quick video.

You said some of his claims were questionable, and that the onus is on him to prove then. The tone of the entire post was accusatory.

Unlike these aliens or gods you speak of, his entire body of work is available and free to anyone who wants to find it. I'm sure he'd appreciate someone with a CSE grade 4 in technical drawing giving it the once over.

But which variables do you have in mind?