Pneumonic Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 this is freakin' classic. How pathetic There is no need to sling insults. I presume you disagree with my beliefs? Can you explain why?
Dibs Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 (edited) 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. The flaw in your argument is that you seem to think that making assumptions is somehow unacceptable. They are definitely acceptable and are presented scientifically often in the court experts system. We can assume that if the temperature difference between the coldest feasible temperature and the hottest feasible temperature is nowhere near close enough to match the temperature difference needed to naturally explain the PSI changes.....then it would be beyond any reasonable doubt that the PSI drop did not occur due to natural temperature differences. Surely you couldn't argue with that? But, if the radar system used wasn't properly calibrated and gave false speed results, does it matter? In my example there was no radar at all. Edited August 7, 2015 by Dibs
thebandit27 Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 The flaw in your argument it that you seem to think that making assumptions is somehow unacceptable. They are definitely acceptable and are presented scientifically often in the court experts system. We can assume that if the temperature difference between the coldest feasible temperature and the hottest feasible temperature is nowhere close enough to match the temperature difference needed to naturally explain the PSI changes.....then it would be beyond any reasonable doubt that the PSI drop did not occur due to natural temperature differences. Surely you couldn't argue with that? In my example there was no radar at all. Except that a scientific expert wouldn't state it that way. Instead, he'd say that the results "are not inconsistent with" tampering...which is exactly what the independent physicist in the article I linked to said.
Kirby Jackson Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 (edited) There is no need to sling insults. I presume you disagree with my beliefs? Can you explain why? I'm enjoying your beliefs. I subscribe to the "common sense law." That states, "if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck 'it is more probable than not' that it is a duck." Carry on though, it's hilarious... Edited August 7, 2015 by Kirby Jackson
Dibs Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 I'm enjoying your beliefs. I subscribe to the "common sense law." That states, "if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck 'it is more probable than not' that it is a duck." Carry on though, it's hilarious... I believe that Occum attempted to shave that duck.
Kirby Jackson Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 (edited) I believe that Occum attempted to shave that duck. I don't know Dibs it is possible that it is a waddling, quacking, horse in a duck costume. We don't know for sure. You are making as many assumptions as I am . Edited August 7, 2015 by Kirby Jackson
Dibs Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 I don't know Dibs it is possible that it is a waddling, quacking, horse in a duck costume. We don't know for sure. You are making as many assumptions as I am . I think that's why Occum was trying to shave off those feathers.....to see if it was a horse or something underneath.
Pneumonic Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 The flaw in your argument is that you seem to think that making assumptions is somehow unacceptable. They are definitely acceptable and are presented scientifically often in the court experts system. We can assume that if the temperature difference between the coldest feasible temperature and the hottest feasible temperature is nowhere near close enough to match the temperature difference needed to naturally explain the PSI changes.....then it would be beyond any reasonable doubt that the PSI drop did not occur due to natural temperature differences. Surely you couldn't argue with that? 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 enjoying your beliefs. I subscribe to the "common sense law." That states, "if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck 'it is more probable than not' that it is a duck." Carry on though, it's hilarious... I'm guessing you would have fit right in with the "the world is flat" people.
thebandit27 Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 While it's true that courts allow assumption, laws of science do not. That's why they are laws and not theories or principles. And yet nearly all endeavors to apply science begin with basic assumptions, do they not?
Pneumonic Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 I think that's why Occum was trying to shave off those feathers.....to see if it was a horse or something underneath. Most excellent.
Dibs Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 While it's true that courts allow assumption, laws of science do not. That's why they are laws and not theories or principles. ... But do you disagree with what I wrote? "We can assume that if the temperature difference between the coldest feasible temperature and the hottest feasible temperature is nowhere near close enough to match the temperature difference needed to naturally explain the PSI changes.....then it would be beyond any reasonable doubt that the PSI drop did not occur due to natural temperature differences."
Pneumonic Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 And yet nearly all endeavors to apply science begin with basic assumptions, do they not? 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.
thebandit27 Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 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. We're not really out to create scientific law or break any type of new ground here; the purpose was to establish if it was "more probable than not" that tampering occurred. The fact that the pressure drop was "not inconsistent with" tampering, combined with all of the circumstantial evidence, provides more than enough of a basis to make that conclusion.
starrymessenger Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 As a practical matter, I see that JG is now getting the majority of the first team reps in NE. I suspect that this is more Kessler's call than Bill's.
Pneumonic Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 (edited) But do you disagree with what I wrote? "We can assume that if the temperature difference between the coldest feasible temperature and the hottest feasible temperature is nowhere near close enough to match the temperature difference needed to naturally explain the PSI changes.....then it would be beyond any reasonable doubt that the PSI drop did not occur due to natural temperature differences." 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. We're not really out to create scientific law or break any type of new ground here; the purpose was to establish if it was "more probable than not" that tampering occurred. The fact that the pressure drop was "not inconsistent with" tampering, combined with all of the circumstantial evidence, provides more than enough of a basis to make that conclusion. 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). Edited August 7, 2015 by Pneumonic
Dibs Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 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. Huh? Are you being purposefully obtuse? We can prove that the outside temperature was not below a certain level.....and we can prove that the locker room was not above a certain level. Those two levels are nowhere near the amount needed for a natural change in the PSI....therefore we can prove that the difference in PSI was due to factors that are not related to temperature. Just because we cannot prove the precise temperature difference, this does not mean that we cannot prove that the temperature difference was not within the necessary range. As a scientist you should easily be able to understand this.
thebandit27 Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 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. Getting back to this point, from the Wells report (page 9), McNally initially said that he made no stops on the way to the field with the footballs. It was in later interviews that he provided "varying explanations" for the bathroom stop. 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). I believe most of the reports were that it was ~51 deg. F throughout the game, which would be predictive of ~11.43 psi (assuming 72 deg...room temperature is considered closer to 70 in my experience, 68 if we hold to the standards of 20 deg C)...8 of the 11 Pats* footballs measured at halftime fell below that number. Again, it would take a perfect storm of contributing factors to get as low as those footballs were. Combined with all of the circumstantial evidence, it just screams more probable than not.
Dan Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 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. So am I reading all this right? The balls were not deflated because of science and the ideal gas law as stated by the team, but we can't use the science or ideal gas law to prove they were deflated below normal. This has gone from interesting, to comical, to disbelief, to just stupid. And I don't use that word very often, but that's what we've devolved into.
Pneumonic Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 Huh? Are you being purposefully obtuse? We can prove that the outside temperature was not below a certain level.....and we can prove that the locker room was not above a certain level. Those two levels are nowhere near the amount needed for a natural change in the PSI....therefore we can prove that the difference in PSI was due to factors that are not related to temperature. Just because we cannot prove the precise temperature difference, this does not mean that we cannot prove that the temperature difference was not within the necessary range. As a scientist you should easily be able to understand this. 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. So am I reading all this right? The balls were not deflated because of science and the ideal gas law as stated by the team, but we can't use the science or ideal gas law to prove they were deflated below normal. This has gone from interesting, to comical, to disbelief, to just stupid. And I don't use that word very often, but that's what we've devolved into. 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.
eball Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 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. No, but since you're such a scientist you can certainly see the ridiculousness of supposing that somebody could get the two confused. It makes no sense. You learn about what a toilet is first. Then you're exposed to a urinal, which is certainly not a toilet. It's like saying perhaps some people don't know the difference between a sink and a bathtub.
Recommended Posts