Quote:
Originally Posted by csu87
Read the links i posted, then re-evaluate where you stand in the science. I know you will dismiss those reports, but the evidence in them is hard to deny.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by csu87
Im not sure you really countered anything I said, but rather took the Wells approach of, you say one thing, but Im going to just say something else and take that as the gospel.
As to the science, which is the biggest and key thing here that the report basically says science proves that the balls wouldnt have deflated, here are 2 articles to read. And if you say " Well the 4 balls from the Colts that were tested tested at higher psi than the Pats (albeit, 3 still below the 12.5 limit, but no one cares about that right?)," keep in mind that these balls were tested at the end of halftime, after the balls had a chance to warm up in the equipment room.
Discusses the differences temperatures make on ball psi
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/cul...y-over-science
Discusses why the method used by the Wells Scientist was flawed
http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/n...d=441003075768 |
You need to use the "trust but verify" approach a bit more. Rachel Ehrenberg is either outright lying or just never read the Wells report and used the PUMA approach to expressing an opinion. How do I know this has to be so? Read on....
You claim to have read the Wells report. Why are you citing some third party's commentary? Having read the report you should be able to see as plainly as I can that the people you are relying upon have not, could not have read the report. Read the Wells report content I've copied and pasted below. After you've done so you too will realize that these writers on whose opinions you've based your have quite simply been misrepresenting facts to you. I can't say why they are doing so, but I can with no trouble at all see that they have. You will too if you just take the time to read what I've shared below.
[PUMA = PUlled it outta My Ass; or in other words, she's gonna be loud and strong, and it don't matter if she's wrong.]
Re: the Science News article:
- The Wells report very clearly does not fail to "[acknowledge] that game day conditions could have accounted for the psi changes." Moreover, Ms Ehrenberg's use of the Wells report statement (found on found on PDF page 16) "there’s an 'absence of a credible scientific explanation for the Patriots halftime measurements' is taken completely out of context.
Contrary to Ms. Ehrenberg's patently ill informed, non-contextually valid claims, the fact is that, among other things, what the Wells report says, and I quote, is:- According to basic thermodynamics, it is completely expected that the temperature and pressure inside a football drop when it is brought from a warmer environment into a colder environment and rise when brought back into a warmer environment. It is important to note, however, that these variations in temperature and pressure are time-dependent (in the time ranges at issue in the present investigation).
- As a result of being exposed to relatively colder temperatures when brought outside to the field for the first half, the pressure inside the footballs for both teams was lower at halftime when compared with the reported pre-game levels. This is consistent with the Ideal Gas Law, which predicts, among other things, the change in pressure that is caused by a change in temperature. Based on information regarding actual conditions on the day of the AFC Championship Game, however, the application of the Ideal Gas Law (assuming equilibrium conditions) cannot account entirely for the pressure drops observed in the Patriots halftime measurements. Most of the individual Patriots measurements recorded at halftime were lower than the range predicted by the Ideal Gas Law. Indeed, all but three of the footballs, as measured by both gauges, registered pressure levels lower than the range predicted by the Ideal Gas Law, assuming an initial pressure of 12.5 psig and temperature conditions that we understand were present on Game Day. In addition, applying the Ideal Gas Law while assuming equilibrium conditions fails to account for the transient nature of the halftime testing, as described in detail herein.
It also appears that the Patriots game balls exhibited a greater average pressure drop than did the Colts game balls. This difference in the magnitude of the decrease in average pressure between the Patriots and the Colts footballs, as measured at halftime, was determined to be statistically significant, regardless of which gauges were used pre-game and at halftime. Therefore, the reasons for this difference were an appropriate subject for further investigation.
- A series of environmental factors were evaluated for their potential contribution(s) to the difference in the observed pressure drops at halftime. These included:
- a. The effect of external temperature on the pressure inside the football:
- i. The likely temperature of the room when the pressures of the footballs were measured prior to the game (67–71°F).
- ii. The likely temperatures on the field during the first half (48–50°F).
- b. The impact of timing on the halftime measurements (i.e., when and in which sequence the measurements were made during the period of time in which the balls were inside the Officials Locker Room at halftime (the “Locker Room Period”), which we have been told by Paul, Weiss was approximately 13.5 minutes).
- c. The effect of ball surface conditions on the pressure of the footballs (i.e., wet vs. dry ball).
- d. The impact of which gauge was used prior to the game (Non-Logo or Logo).
The ranges listed above were based either on weather reports, measurements made by Exponent, or information provided by Paul, Weiss, and represent the lower and upper bounds for the realistic ranges of these factors.
All of these factors were found to contribute in varying degrees to changes in the internal pressure of footballs. However, given the magnitude of the temperature change that would have affected the footballs at halftime when they were brought from the field to the locker room, a key factor in explaining the difference in measurements between the Patriots and Colts footballs is timing; that is, the change in pressure with time as the footballs were brought from a colder environment (the field) to a warmer environment (the Officials Locker Room) at halftime.
- A series of transient experiments were run to quantify the time-dependent pressure behavior of footballs and to understand how such behavior might help explain the difference in the magnitude of the pressure drops measured at halftime.
- We determined that there was a small window in which it was theoretically possible to combine the factors listed in [in the bullet point that begins with the words "A series of environmental factors"] above to achieve pressure levels that matched those recorded for both the Colts and the Patriots on Game Day, regardless of which gauge was used to measure the footballs pre-game, test them at halftime, or set them prior to our experiments. However, as described below, the precise combination of factors required for the Patriots halftime measurements to fall within the range predicted by the transient experiments while also matching the Colts halftime measurements to the predicted range required setting certain parameters—particularly the timing of the halftime testing and the surface condition of the footballs—at levels believed to be unrealistic and unlikely to have been present on Game Day. In particular:
- a. I f the Non-Logo Gauge was used pre-game, the Patriots average halftime measurement from Game Day is always lower than the pressures predicted by the transient curves. If one allows for the standard error associated with the Game Day measurements, the Patriots halftime measurements will overlap with the pressures predicted by the transient curves (with the Colts halftime measurements also matching the predicted range), but only in the outer range of the error band, and only if testing of the Patriots balls began immediately once the footballs arrived in the Officials Locker Room at halftime and took no more than 4 minutes. Based on information provided by Paul, Weiss, however, we understand that testing is likely to have begun no sooner than 2 minutes after the balls were returned to the locker room and is likely to have taken approximately 4 to 5 minutes.
- b. I f the Logo Gauge was used pre-game, the Patriots average halftime measurement will match the pressures predicted by the transient curves (with the Colts halftime measurements also matching the predicted range), but only if the testing of the Patriots balls began immediately once the footballs arrived in the Officials Locker Room at halftime and took no more than 4 minutes, and only if the majority of the Patriots game balls were wet. As noted, testing of the Patriots balls is likely to have begun no sooner than 2 minutes and is likely to have taken approximately 4 to 5 minutes. Further, based on statements made to Paul, Weiss (and subsequently conveyed to Exponent) by Patriots ballboys and game officials, we understand that some of the Patriots game balls may have been damp when tested at halftime, but none were water-logged.
Accordingly, within the range of game conditions and circumstances most likely to have occurred on Game Day (based on information provided by Paul, Weiss), including the timing of various events that are understood to have occurred in the Officials Locker Room during halftime, we have identified no combination of the environmental factors listed above that could reconcile the Patriots halftime measurements with both the results predicted by our transient experiments and the measurements of the Colts balls taken at halftime on Game Day.
- Ms. Ehrengerg contacted Roderick MacKinnon of Rockefeller University and quoted him as having said, "The scientific analysis in the Wells Report was a good attempt to seek the truth, however, it was based on data that are simply insufficient. In experimental science to reach a meaningful conclusion we make measurements multiple times under well-defined physical conditions. This is how we deal with the error or ‘spread’ of measured values."
Well, I have no doubt that Dr. MacKinnon makes "measurements multiple times under well defined physical conditions." The thing is that the scientists who conducted the experiments to test the Game Day balls, pressure gauges and conditions did as well. The report even contains a section dedicated to discussing the impact over time of repeating their testing procedures. The test procedures are expressly identified in the report, not only the procedures for testing the balls, but also the ones for evaluating the pressure meters. (Wells Report Appendix I, pages 26ff and 56ff)
I haven't read the content at the other link you provided. I will and I'll reply when I can.
Other:
In the meantime, I have to ask you this. Why do you think I have any reason to lie to you or twist facts in any direction other than the direction they most easily want to go, so to speak? I've been very open about the fact that I'm not really even a football fan and that my primary interest in this matter issues from the ethics involved, not who was right or wrong. It doesn't even matter to me who the players in this situation are.
What matters to me is that the ethical nature of our culture is such that "stuff" like the alleged events of Deflate gate are even alleged to begin with. What matters to me is that people don't behave with enough integrity to simply present the facts and let them fall where they may. What matters to me, though it's only tangentially related to Deflategate, is that our so-called leaders -- be they elected or appointed, private or public sector, people of action or people who report on and opine about others' actions -- our leaders are more desirous of proving their own point of view rather than simply giving us all the facts and data they have and allowing us to arrive at our own conclusions. And what matters to me is "the public's" willingness to let those so-called leaders do their data collection, data analysis, and conclusive thinking for them rather than doing it on their own and for themselves.
That those things are what concern me is not a new theme for me here on B-post. You'll see that in topic after topic, my comments harken to one or more of those very same themes, and/or they demonstrate my faithful adherence to the values -- integrity, candor, objectivity, completeness, etc. -- that I claim just above are generally lacking. You see it in this thread. You'll see it in my "Where Do You Get Your News" thread. You'll see it in my "God and Darwin" thread and in the "Christianity" thread. You'll see it in my "Fake Watches" thread.
What you'll also see is that I stay focused. For example, in this thread, you've seen that I refuse to even discuss "Spygate." It has nothing to do with the events and facts pertaining to Deflategate.
I stay objective and I don't use the PUMA approach. I have in this thread very clearly said I don't know much about Spygate other than that it happened too far in the past to have any relevance to Deflategate. That I know nothing it is another reason I haven't written about it.
You keep harping on the science associated with the ball pressures and temperature. I honestly don't think you read the bulk of the scientific testing that Exponent conducted. I don't think so because of the claims you've made in this thread. I took science classes in school and though I don't know every fact there is in science/physics itself, I know enough to tell just how rigorous Exponent's testing process was and I, just as you could if you'd read their document, can tell whether that process was rigorous enough.
So, again I ask you, why do you think it is I who wants to advocate for a disingenuous "truth" or read and interpretation of the facts? I'm biased in some ways. I am biased, prejudiced even, in some regards, but football, Tom Brady, The Patriots, The Colts, and The Wells Report are not among them. In and of themselves, those things/people are meaningless to me. Indeed, the Wells Report's only value to me is that it contains a lot of information about the events of the 2015 AFC Championship game, enough of them that I can read the report for myself and tell whether it's authors and contributors did a fair and high quality job of assessing the situation or whether they did not do that.
I don't need a third party writer to tell me what it says, or to interpret it for me, because I've read it. It's not a "hard to read document" and it's not even a long document. Because I've read it, I also know instantly whether a third party writer/commentator is in PUMA mode or not.
All the best.