- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Bill Nye The Science Guy says Bill Belichick didnt make any sense
Posted on 1/25/15 at 3:10 pm to Lou Pai
Posted on 1/25/15 at 3:10 pm to Lou Pai
quote:There will always be tools regardless of the generation; however, I think it is a positive that science is seen as "cool" even if it is sometimes misrepresented.
Lots of tool millennials out there who sit on reddit all day and think science can be summed up through some memes and AMAs with Tyson. That is why Nye is still "relevant."
0
Posted on 1/25/15 at 3:40 pm to Byron Bojangles III
quote:
He doesn't even have a doctorate. Just a BS
He has a mechanical engineering degree from Cornell.
But I'm sure you have a way better degree...
Posted on 1/25/15 at 3:52 pm to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
Except the Colts' balls were legal and one of the Pats* balls stayed compliant, even though all 24 were subject to the same conditions.
We have no idea if they were subject to the same conditions.
What was the starting PSI of the colts balls?
What was the final PSI of the colts balls?
What was the temp in the room where the Colts inflated/tested their balls?
What was the temp in the room where the Pats inflated/tested their balls?
Did the Colts rub their footballs like the Pats do and possibly warm them up beyond the temp inside the room?
quote:
The fixed balls also didn't deflate during the second half.
If they were re-inflated on the sideline in the cold weather, they would not deflate like they did in the first half.
Posted on 1/25/15 at 4:42 pm to ashy larry
We really have no idea of all the things that you listed about either teams' balls.
Couldn't help but notice that Bellichick didn't give a chronological explanation of the situation, and when/where the balls were rubbed, inflated, checked, etc.
It was just a mishmash of theory. Some of it making sense, some not, but in no order.
Couldn't help but notice that Bellichick didn't give a chronological explanation of the situation, and when/where the balls were rubbed, inflated, checked, etc.
It was just a mishmash of theory. Some of it making sense, some not, but in no order.
Posted on 1/25/15 at 4:48 pm to ashy larry
quote:
Did the Colts rub their footballs like the Pats do and possibly warm them up beyond the temp inside the room?
They'd have to be doing some serious rubbing to get all the air inside the ball to warm up that much. Pretty sure one of the science guys said that the rubbing would have very minimal effect
Posted on 1/25/15 at 4:56 pm to jg8623
Bill got all huffy when Tom the reporter asked how vigorously they were rubbing their balls.
When it doesn't make sense, just get huffy and make a joke about how they weren't buffing fine china.
When it doesn't make sense, just get huffy and make a joke about how they weren't buffing fine china.
Posted on 1/25/15 at 5:56 pm to DrVinnyBoombatz
quote:
Posted by DrVinnyBoombatz
quote:
He doesn't even have a doctorate. Just a BS
He has a mechanical engineering degree from Cornell.
But I'm sure you have a way better degree...
Meh, please don't "appeal to authority." I have several friends with STEM PHDs from Stanford. It doesn't mean that they're fully qualified to comment on this matter. Scientists have biases just like the rest of us. Unless they self fund their studies, there's never true objectivity. You can find plenty of scientists in the same field who have conpletely opposing views on any given subject.
This post was edited on 1/25/15 at 5:58 pm
Posted on 1/25/15 at 6:08 pm to OFWHAP
Bill Nye the Science Guy is a Seahawks fan according to ABC News. 
They also said the Boston College physics professor is a Bills fan.
They also said the Boston College physics professor is a Bills fan.
This post was edited on 1/25/15 at 6:12 pm
Posted on 1/25/15 at 7:32 pm to PrimeTime Money
quote:
Then when they are taken outside, the cold air causes them to deflate over the next hour or two.
11 out of 12 of them were the exact same PSI
Posted on 1/25/15 at 7:50 pm to monsterballads
quote:
11 out of 12 of them were the exact same PSI
False.
Posted on 1/25/15 at 8:29 pm to monsterballads
You are a dumbass
Posted on 1/25/15 at 8:39 pm to jg8623
quote:
Pretty sure one of the science guys said that the rubbing would have very minimal effect
When you have a few things with 'minimal effect' like room temp, rubbing, etc they can add up to a measure able amount.
Posted on 1/25/15 at 8:42 pm to Jcorye1
quote:
as long as he can keep an image of a-political
Science isn't a-political though.
Posted on 1/25/15 at 8:47 pm to Draconian Sanctions
Yes it is. Science is a process, not an ideology.
Some today worship it like a god though, sadly.
Some today worship it like a god though, sadly.
Posted on 1/25/15 at 9:30 pm to Tiguar
quote:
Tiguar
Bill Nye The Science Guy says Bill Belichick didnt make any sense
Yes it is. Science is a process, not an ideology.
Some today worship it like a god though, sadly.
If Big Oil sponsors a study, then the data will say one thing. If Green Energy sponsors a study, then it will say another thing. Keynesians and Monetarists look at the same data and come to differing conclusions. You can probably still find scientists who still find in the favor of Big Tobacco.
Posted on 1/25/15 at 9:38 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:Unless the field is Political Science, which should still be driven by empirical evidence (i.e., not itself political), the scientific methodology and process is decidedly a-political.
Science isn't a-political though.
Posted on 1/25/15 at 9:43 pm to OFWHAP
quote:Keynisians vs. Monetarists, empiricists vs. constructivists, or any other differing methodologies/ideologies/theories doesn't make it political though. As long as the process isn't compromised (e.g. , maybe the Big Tobacco example) then it is still scientific.
Keynesians and Monetarists look at the same data and come to differing conclusions. You can probably still find scientists who still find in the favor of Big Tobacco.
Posted on 1/25/15 at 9:53 pm to OFWHAP
quote:Except people are questioning Nye's qualification to state basic science concepts just because he doesn't have a PhD. But the distrust in this thread seems to stem from his position on global warming, which is a 'political' topic.
Meh, please don't "appeal to authority." I have several friends with STEM PHDs from Stanford. It doesn't mean that they're fully qualified to comment on this matter.
Posted on 1/26/15 at 12:37 am to Tiguar
Not political? I'm sure this was all about the science of a selfie. Not NDT's shameless push for that full penny for NASA or Bill Nye's need for public attention...
Guess I should probably add that this is in jest
Guess I should probably add that this is in jest
This post was edited on 1/26/15 at 12:41 am
Posted on 1/26/15 at 8:44 am to eightynine
1. Bill Nye is a Seahawks fan.
2. I, for one, have grown tired of making this argument but I'll rally one more time: Temperature is directly related to the pressure of gases - PV = nRT. I realize we aren't all scientists but this is accepted fact for nearly 200 years: Really Old Science. If you wanted a primer: Basic Lesson. If that doesn't work for you, try this one: will water boil faster with or without a lid on the pot? The answer is with the lid. Why? because greater pressure = greater heat - anyone ever use a pressure cooker? If you can't or won't try to understand this simple concept, fine. That may make you obstinate or a dumb arse, or both.
3. Facts are things that can be empirically proven - they truly exist. Just saying that something is a fact (x number of balls all had the exact same pressure, for example) does not make it a fact. Just like ESPN or whomever quoting 'sources' does not create a set of facts.
4. The NFL is not the Underwriters Laboratory, for heaven's sake. Does anyone really think they have some sort of scientifically established protocol that would include everything from certification of measuring instruments to licensing of testing personnel? We already know their own rules on the subject of game ball inspection/approval contain many generalities and don't even address the fundamentals of atmospheric conditions (temperature, etc.). NFL'S RULES.
5. Finally, variables, variables, variables. If you can't see how variables affect this entire argument, you may be operating according to your own confirmation bias. So, either produce evidence of facts (recorded video or communications) or go home.
2. I, for one, have grown tired of making this argument but I'll rally one more time: Temperature is directly related to the pressure of gases - PV = nRT. I realize we aren't all scientists but this is accepted fact for nearly 200 years: Really Old Science. If you wanted a primer: Basic Lesson. If that doesn't work for you, try this one: will water boil faster with or without a lid on the pot? The answer is with the lid. Why? because greater pressure = greater heat - anyone ever use a pressure cooker? If you can't or won't try to understand this simple concept, fine. That may make you obstinate or a dumb arse, or both.
3. Facts are things that can be empirically proven - they truly exist. Just saying that something is a fact (x number of balls all had the exact same pressure, for example) does not make it a fact. Just like ESPN or whomever quoting 'sources' does not create a set of facts.
4. The NFL is not the Underwriters Laboratory, for heaven's sake. Does anyone really think they have some sort of scientifically established protocol that would include everything from certification of measuring instruments to licensing of testing personnel? We already know their own rules on the subject of game ball inspection/approval contain many generalities and don't even address the fundamentals of atmospheric conditions (temperature, etc.). NFL'S RULES.
5. Finally, variables, variables, variables. If you can't see how variables affect this entire argument, you may be operating according to your own confirmation bias. So, either produce evidence of facts (recorded video or communications) or go home.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News