Pneumonic

Perhaps, these statistical blips can be explained by the other factors I posted above ..... ie not taken into consideration are other relevant factors (wetness, timing, ball compression, leaks, etc) as well as the fact that they didn't perform a R&R nor did they employ a capable gauge system that ensured the tolerance isn't consumed by the variability of the measurement itself. At any rate, even Exponent says their science was suspect, so not sure why this is even an issue at this stage of the game. The "timing" refers not to Brady but to the officials time sequence in measuring the balls at halftime.

The other variables (timing of measurements and wetness most certainly) not accounted for by the officials. I also firmly hold in place the very strong possibility that Wells flipped the chronology of the events to better serve his purposes, But that's as presumptuous of me as it is of those who do the same with the circumstantial evidence surrounding Brady in this fiasco.

I guess I wasn't clear but, temp isn't the only issue that prevents repeatability here. You also have non documented conditions relating to ball wetness, timing, gauges, leaks, etc. The science described in the Wells report is seriously flawed so cannot be used to predict the ball deflation because they rely on making gross assumptions. Science can explain if the ball deflated naturally (ie without being tampered) but only if certain conditions (some of which I have basically explained) are met.

Let me answer this way: All it needed to be was around a 20-23 delta T to see a weather induced psi drop that was suitable to cause the under-inflated ball condition. Here's a quick example. ASSUME (since the NFL didn't record this most useful data): Outdoor temp during game: 45F=280.4K=Tout Indoor temp when measuring balls: 72F=295.4K=Tin Knowns: Pb (ball psig) = 14.56 psi (atmosphere) Pi = Pb+12.5 (min psi of ball at time of weighing) = 27.06 psi Doing the maths: PV=nRT -> Pi/Tin = Po/Tout 27.06/295.4 = Po/280.4 Po=25.69 dP= dP=Pi-Po=27.06-25.69=1.37 P=12.5-1.37=11.13psi Not taken into consideration are other relevant factors (wetness, timing, ball compression, leaks, etc) as well as the fact that they didn;t perform a R&R nor did they employ a capable gauge system that ensured the tolerance isn;t consumed by the variability of the measurement itself. This is true. Still the science referenced to draw such conclusion is seriously faulty. But, this isn't about science. It's all about law. That's the important thing moving forward, unless this goes to the next legal level (defamation).

Yes, thus my referencing the hypothesis condition previously. But, without the ability to repeat your deductions (ie ensure all your i's and t's are dotted and crossed), you can never prove said hypothesis.

Most excellent.

While it's true that courts allow assumption, laws of science do not. That's why they are laws and not theories or principles. I'm guessing you would have fit right in with the "the world is flat" people.

There is no need to sling insults. I presume you disagree with my beliefs? Can you explain why?

But, if the radar system used wasn't properly calibrated and gave false speed results, does it matter?

It doesn't even require crunching the #'s (which I have done elsewhere in here). The science is very easily refutable simply by applying the fact that, without confirmed start and end points, the ideal gas law is not solvable, without making assumptions. Further, there were not any documented notes on R&R/calibrated gauges, wet/dry conditions, timing of measurements, etc) to properly conclude if the drops were caused by environmental or illegal tampering. Basically, the fundamental tenets of scientific discovery are non existent in any test that was conducted. Without these, there can be no support of a hypothesis and, since the results are not objectively measurable, no other person can conduct the test in a repeatable way to see if they can attain similar results by following the test conditions eactly. But, this is all about labour law and CBA; not the science.

I agree and, if the science wasn't so poor in this case, I personally would convict.

There were no protocols in place to ensure that the conditions were the same. Someone presuming that they were doesn't mean they were.

I don't make it a habit of talking about urinals or toilets with others so wouldn't have a valid reference to use as a comparable for analysis.

But, it's all circumstantial and also presumptuous when considering all of the factors together. Meanwhile, "proper" application of the science, can account for the PSI drop in one fell swoop. Not that it matters anyhow, at least not as far as this arbitration hearing goes.

Except the science shown in this report is easily refutable by anyone who analyzes the data in an unbiased manner.

Not that it matters but, what you call evading was simply me not noticing your posted question. Once we were engaged, and you asked me directly, I responded. Maybe the dude doesn't know the difference between a urinal and a toilet? Or, he simply refers to both the same? Sure, there is a difference which most people should know but, then again, most people should also know that air pressure naturally drops when going from hot to cold conditions.

What are you questioning? That it is illegal to deflate balls? My defn of the application of Occam's principle or that the guy who Occam's Principle is named after hails from Ockham England? Or, all of them?

Yes, that would make sense. But, it's not illegal to deflate things. So, your example isn't the simplest means of arriving at a valid conclusion. You need additional evidence, which further complicates matters and brings you further away from Occam's Razor principle ..... which, BTW, is actually named after a person .... who lived in Ockham England.

That would fall into a "more evidence" situation which, if validated, could change the simplest philosophy. Absent, fact based evidence, the application of Occam's Razor principle still rests on the basis that the fewest assumption model is most likely the correct one. If something is flawed to start, it's a basic and fundamental as one can get. Good grief

it is a principle that suggests a KISS application but you misnamed it .... thus my reply. As for application of Occam's Razor in this case. I would say the very basic of simplest explanation's would fall directly on the fact that .... since there was no established protocol for taking accurate ball measurements (nor properly documented ones at that) ..... from the get go ..... then any, and everything, afterwards is ...... scientific junk!

Is he related to Occam's razor

I believed, from the time I first crunched the deflate #'s, that the science and protocols taken to ensure sound science, were terribly flawed and nowhere near satisfactory to me to find fault. If that makes me pro Patriots on this then .... guilty as charged.

While perhaps late for your timeline, I did answered you (earlier today) after I read your query.

Pre or post, OJ?

My opinion on the science was not at all influenced by anyone actually. I am a scientist and have been engineering around scientific principles for decades. In fact, my Pneumonic screen is a nickname that stuck with me as a result of my involvement in the development of “pneumonic” ventilator systems for use in the medical industry. Believe me when I say I have a extensive understanding of how gauges work ; people’s lives were at stake if the gauges used in my equipment failed to meet design spec. So, yeah, I'm going to strongly favour science based evidence over the speculation and guesswork the NFL has put forth. I would have loved to browse through the science in the OJ case but, alas, I was unable.