Understanding Casting

Status
Not open for further replies.

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
50,485
Alan, Jame's view on the physics of casting is his informed opinion. Other equally qualified people disagree with him and present different arguments. The plain fact is that the physics involved in casting is heavily disputed and don't look even close to being resolved.

It's not possible yet to accept any current position on this, but it's great that the art teacher knows which of the various mathematical models are correct. I'm betting on a complex mix of several. I'd mention the Gatti-Bono paper but James would hyperventilate again.

I can give you plenty of reading if you want it, but I'd recommend just doing casting, not trying to understand it because as yet, it's not understood by anyone, far from it.

You don't understand enough to accept any position on anything, you have made that abundantly clear, stop pretending to yourself that any of this is going to help anyone, you have fooled no one.

My apologies but someone needs to snap you out of this distorted frame of mind.
 

karlsson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
399
Location
Denmark mostly..
Who are those equally qualified people who disagree with James?

And where is the heavy dispute on the physics, when we ask people qualified to adress that question?

Cheers
Lasse
 

LukeNZ

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 28, 2017
Messages
3,892
Location
Hawke’s Bay, NZ
Fantastic, explain it to me!

Alan, Jame's view on the physics of casting is his informed opinion. Other equally qualified people disagree with him and present different arguments. The plain fact is that the physics involved in casting is heavily disputed and don't look even close to being resolved.

It's not possible yet to accept any current position on this, but it's great that the art teacher knows which of the various mathematical models are correct. I'm betting on a complex mix of several. I'd mention the Gatti-Bono paper but James would hyperventilate again.

I can give you plenty of reading if you want it, but I'd recommend just doing casting, not trying to understand it because as yet, it's not understood by anyone, far from it.
It is well underdtood by those that can do it well, surely?

What you seem to be saying, is that you have not yet discovered a definitive statement that YOU can agree with.

Your agreement is not required - people can cast well without it, and despite it.

Therefore: probably, so could you?

🙃
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
7,533
You don't understand enough to accept any position on anything,
I haven't accepted any position on anything; for the reasons I've given (that was the point I was making). But you just did. How do you think you came to your conclusion?
you have made that abundantly clear, stop pretending to yourself that any of this is going to help anyone, you have fooled no one.
Well let's see eh?
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
50,485
The problem here is very clear, I see it every day in class, the effort to learn a thing is too great and an arrogant brain thinks it knows better, resulting in far more effort in denial and making a mash of it than it would be just listening.

The best way to learn anything is find the best at it you can and ask them to show you, learn all you can and then communicate with others that are better then yourself, sitting in a cupboard arguing with experts before you are ready will just shred you.
 
Last edited:

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
7,533
Who are those equally qualified people who disagree with James?

And where is the heavy dispute on the physics, when we ask people qualified to adress that question?

Cheers
Lasse
You are in the physics threads on Sexyloops, where do you see agreement and resolution? I certainly don't. Is it necessary for me to quote from them?
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
7,533
The problem here is very clear, I see it every day in class, the effort to learn a thing is too great and an arrogant brain thinks it knows better,
But you're the one that thinks they know better! You've preferred one source over another. How have you done that? Have you actually read any of the physics threads on Sexyloops? Be honest.
resulting in far more effort in denial and making a mash of it than it would be just listening.
I'm listening to more than one opinion; are you?
 

karlsson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
399
Location
Denmark mostly..
You are in the physics threads on Sexyloops, where do you see agreement and resolution? I certainly don't. Is it necessary for me to quote from them?
So, I can post in the physics threads, does that suddenly make me as qualified as James in physics?

I asked a very simple question, I would expect a simple list of qualified people that highly disagree with James, instead I get look at the forum your friend runs, some people there disagree... no **** sherlock, I have been telling the owner he is wrong for the better part of 20 years 🤣

Again, who are the equally qualified people that disagree with James?

Grunde Løwoll? Noel Perkins? Daniel Lebreton?

Cheers
Lasse
 

Whinging pom

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2021
Messages
1,222
Location
Northants
You are in the physics threads on Sexyloops, where do you see agreement and resolution? I certainly don't. Is it necessary for me to quote from them?
No!
I read that thread and find it fascinating and it is done with respect and consideration, you can feel people considering and growing and its going somewhere I enjoy seeing obviously knowledgeable and experienced casters discussing they're experience and theories.
Whereas here it feels like this has been dragging anchor for hundreds of posts while people hurl abuse, Blindly deny the bleeding obvious, or mistake genuine enquiry for mischief. and spiiting the dummy!

The discussion on Sexy loops is like sitting in on a heated Solvay conference, fascinating!
Understanding Casting in comparison is like the bun fight at the OKay Corral,ultimately pointless it seems.
 
Last edited:

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
50,485
But you're the one that thinks they know better! You've preferred one source over another. How have you done that? Have you actually read any of the physics threads on Sexyloops? Be honest.

I'm listening to more than one opinion; are you?

I spent a year(and some) reading everything you have found(and more) and put it into practice 2 nights a week and half of every Sunday over that year casting with instructors, by that point I could follow discussion on Sexyloops etc, and learn from those with more experience than me.

This gets you to the level of tea boy among instructors, there are no silver bullets, no short cuts.
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
7,533
I spent a year(and some) reading everything you have found(and more) and put it into practice 2 nights a week and half of every Sunday over that year casting with instructors, by that point I could follow discussion on Sexyloops etc, and learn from those with more experience than me.

This gets you to the level of tea boy among instructors, there are no silver bullets, no short cuts.
Physics is not casting Alan. Please don't pretend you have the first clue about what James or anyone else is saying about it.
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
7,533
No!
I read that thread and find it fascinating and it is done with respect and consideration, you can feel people considering and growing and its going somewhere I enjoy seeing obviously knowledgeable and experienced casters discussing they're experience and theories.
Me too.
Whereas here it feels like this has been dragging anchor for hundreds of posts while people hurl abuse, Blindly deny the bleeding obvious, or mistake genuine enquiry for mischief. and spiiting the dummy!
Couldn't agree more
The discussion on Sexy loops is like sitting in on a heated Solvay conference, fascinating!
Understanding Casting in comparison is like the bun fight at the OKay Corral,ultimately pointless it seems.
Yup, just like very other thread here from COVID to sheds to Brext and back. There are a group of highly toxic people here. I'm not quite sure how Paul does it but he does seem to be able to keep the seething resentment just bubbling under rather than erupting endlessly like here.
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
50,485
Physics is not casting Alan. Please don't pretend you have the first clue about what James or anyone else is saying about it.

I learned to cast without physics, and what James describes relates to what I see very clearly, this is far from complicated.
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
50,485
I'm not quite sure how Paul does it but he does seem to be able to keep the seething resentment just bubbling under rather than erupting endlessly like here.

If Paul told you the same things others have here would you respond differently?
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
7,533
So, I can post in the physics threads, does that suddenly make me as qualified as James in physics?
Obviously not, and equally obviously your knowledge is in casting rather than physics. (That's not a criticism.) I was pointing out that having read the treads you'd see the disagreements.
I asked a very simple question, I would expect a simple list of qualified people that highly disagree with James,
The reason the thread exists at all is because there isn't agreement.
instead I get look at the forum your friend runs, some people there disagree... no **** sherlock, I have been telling the owner he is wrong for the better part of 20 years 🤣
I'm afraid I have no idea what you're talking about. "My friend that runs the forum?" Have you bought into Jame's paranoia? I dunno, this place is the weirdest forum I've ever been on.
Again, who are the equally qualified people that disagree with James?
OK, remember, you made me do this.

Here's one that James obviously has a very high regard for

"As I've said many times the Gatti-Bono paper is one of the typical unvalidated piles of cack that gets reeled out time and again as being the final word on fly casting. It's not, I doubt she can fly cast to save her life"

He goes on to say that she does the same job as him but in the US and say something pretty nasty about her.

Gordon Judd says

"I expect that Gatti-Bono's equations governing the dynamics of loop generation are quite complete. The problem is they are so complicated (six equations six unknowns that earned her a PhD while developing a technique to solve them) that no one on this forum is going to be able to apply them."

Now, neither you, nor I, nor even Alan our art teacher, can decide whether her PhD is a "pile of cack", but what we can recognise is a disagreement amongst equally qualified scientists can't we?

And just for fun, here's you disagreeing with James and accepting that there are various models available and that we haven't yet agreed on them but that some are useful

"Hi James
Aren't all models flawed, but some are useful?
Still having a hard time getting my dumb head around this,"


No shame there, that's the fact of it. There are several hypotheses, lots of empirical messing about, lots to learn, nothing settled. If I was a betting man I'd put my money on James cracking it before anyone but I'm guessing he's not even close to producing something he would think he could publish.

And just so you are aware, I've published in scientific journals; but sadly not in physics.

Re-read just that one thread from last year, tell me there's universal agreement. I can show you more if you like.

But you know, why???? How stupid is this bickering?
 

LukeNZ

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 28, 2017
Messages
3,892
Location
Hawke’s Bay, NZ
But you're the one that thinks they know better! You've preferred one source over another. How have you done that? Have you actually read any of the physics threads on Sexyloops? Be honest.

I'm listening to more than one opinion; are you?
You are not listening; you are comparing, the views of others to your own, that are incorrectly weighted with the bias you have gathered from Google university.

It seems that your perception of your grandiose stature in understanding certsin things, is being let down by a simple lack of experience and doing of those things..

🙃
 

Tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
7,533
You are not listening; you are comparing, the views of others to your own, that are incorrectly weighted with the bias you have gathered from Google university.
So tell me Luke, which of the several physical models available have I got a bias for? And can you even name any of them?
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
50,485
Physical models?? where are we going with this? Tangled you said you know diddly shiz about physics, and I think you would admit it's not entirely necessary in learning to cast, so what is the thrust here? you want to discuss physics or casting?
 

aenoon

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
13,646
Location
Linlithgow, Scotland and anywhere i can wet a line
Obviously not, and equally obviously your knowledge is in casting rather than physics. (That's not a criticism.) I was pointing out that having read the treads you'd see the disagreements.

The reason the thread exists at all is because there isn't agreement.

I'm afraid I have no idea what you're talking about. "My friend that runs the forum?" Have you bought into Jame's paranoia? I dunno, this place is the weirdest forum I've ever been on.

OK, remember, you made me do this.

Here's one that James obviously has a very high regard for

"As I've said many times the Gatti-Bono paper is one of the typical unvalidated piles of cack that gets reeled out time and again as being the final word on fly casting. It's not, I doubt she can fly cast to save her life"

He goes on to say that she does the same job as him but in the US and say something pretty nasty about her.

Gordon Judd says

"I expect that Gatti-Bono's equations governing the dynamics of loop generation are quite complete. The problem is they are so complicated (six equations six unknowns that earned her a PhD while developing a technique to solve them) that no one on this forum is going to be able to apply them."

Now, neither you, nor I, nor even Alan our art teacher, can decide whether her PhD is a "pile of cack", but what we can recognise is a disagreement amongst equally qualified scientists can't we?

And just for fun, here's you disagreeing with James and accepting that there are various models available and that we haven't yet agreed on them but that some are useful

"Hi James
Aren't all models flawed, but some are useful?
Still having a hard time getting my dumb head around this,"


No shame there, that's the fact of it. There are several hypotheses, lots of empirical messing about, lots to learn, nothing settled. If I was a betting man I'd put my money on James cracking it before anyone but I'm guessing he's not even close to producing something he would think he could publish.

And just so you are aware, I've published in scientific journals; but sadly not in physics.

Re-read just that one thread from last year, tell me there's universal agreement. I can show you more if you like.

But you know, why???? How stupid is this bickering?
W.T.F.?
Tangled you are the one encouraging the bickering, give it a rest please.
Admin, time to end this bullshit, please
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top