Deflate-Gate Calculations & Bill Nye

[lincourtl]

Trouble is that we tend to overinflate the importance of sports while ridiculing or downplaying interests in STEM fields.

You might have a point if it weren't a bunch of geeks discussing this in the science subforum on a board for a highly realistic (for some bounded definition of realism) spaceflight simulator game. Clearly the people discussing it were interested.

Look, I'm not going to debate you on this because I don't want to divert the discussion even more, but you might want to check your assumption in the quoted passage. I think you might find it hasn't really been true since sometime in the late 1980s. In short, it's one of those zombie ideas that isn't really right, but it sounds so good people won't let it die.

[arkie87]

I have no comment other than using the ideal gas law is pointless for real world conditions...

Edit: Here's what I wanted to post

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRMNbt5h7MEBj2H2YyUdEzefuC0Oy3NJDr2zbM5GKxSXlpTt-LScA

ideal gas law != real life in the slightest. Go stick the ball in your fridge and get real data.

I'd bet you are a physicist and not an engineer

The ideal gas law is perfectly fine for the conditions we are discussing.

To globally dismiss the ideal gas law for all conditions, just because it's wrong at high pressures, is lazy, ignorant, and anti-science.

[Sirrobert]

You don't think the most attended and most watched sport in the world is an important part of American culture? What exactly is your definition of culture?

Go ahead. Do some google search comparing the World Cup to your Superbowl. There are some very interesting numbers. (in case you're lazy: The 2010 world cup final had some 900million views, and 2014 superbowl 110million

[EdFred]

Go ahead. Do some google search comparing the World Cup to your Superbowl. There are some very interesting numbers. (in case you're lazy: The 2010 world cup final had some 900million views, and 2014 superbowl 110million

That was ONLY in the US. Unfortunately worldwide rating numbers vary between 2million, and 2billion. The NFL claims 2Billion, and the NYT says it's closer to 2Million.

[Kryten]

That was ONLY in the US.

In what countries do you think there'll be another 800 million viewers?

[EdFred]

In what countries do you think there'll be another 800 million viewers?

It's broadcast in 200+ countries. I don't know. A little here, a little there. It all adds up. All I'm saying is the NFL claims 2billion viewers worldwide. I'm not saying it's true. Plus, they wouldn't be broadcasting it if no one was watching. So it obviously is being watched outside the US by more than 0 people.

[PakledHostage]

You might have a point if it weren't a bunch of geeks discussing this in the science subforum on a board for a highly realistic (for some bounded definition of realism) spaceflight simulator game. Clearly the people discussing it were interested.

True, but you were responding to a post in which Skyler4856 was lamenting that we don't have "anything more important to deal with as a nation, or as a culture for that matter". Please note the words "nation" and "culture", and the absence of the phrase " this forum".

[Sirrobert]

That was ONLY in the US. Unfortunately worldwide rating numbers vary between 2million, and 2billion. The NFL claims 2Billion, and the NYT says it's closer to 2Million.

Right, so only in the US, a country that doesn't even care that much for actual Football, football gets 9 times the views as Handegg. How do you think it'll be in countries where football IS the biggest thing ever, and noone even plays Handegg

[EdFred]

Right, so only in the US, a country that doesn't even care that much for actual Football, football gets 9 times the views as Handegg. How do you think it'll be in countries where football IS the biggest thing ever, and noone even plays Handegg

How can the US have more people watching the World Cup than people that live in the country?

Methinks your math is off.

[Sirrobert]

How can the US have more people watching the World Cup than people that live in the country?

Methinks your math is off.

You're the one claiming those numbers came from the US

[EdFred]

You're the one claiming those numbers came from the US

I never said there was 900,000,000 people in the US watching the World Cup.

I said the 110,000,000 number you quoted watching the Super Bowl were only the US numbers, and did not include the international numbers. Although I saw one source claim 167,000,000 in the US alone watched it.

As for your claim that 9x the people in the US watch Soccer vs American Football.....not even close

The highest rated match in the US was USA v Portugal - 18.2 million....a far far far cry from 110,000,000 which is at the low end of the estimate for the Super Bowl.

Edited February 1, 2015 by EdFred

[Sirrobert]

You're trying to compare a sport that is watched over the ENTIRE WORLD to a sport that is very big in a single country. It's cute.

And you need to practice your google skills. Even the numbers you do claim are wrong

EDIT:

I did some more googling for you, because I am bored

1 billion viewers world wide for the World Cup finale

A RECORD BREAKING 111million viewers for the Superbowl in the same year

Interestinglly enough, it seems that the Superbowl makes some outrageous claims about viewer numbership. Now FIFA does the same thing, but to a much smaller degree. In 2006, they aparently both claimed 750million+, but the actual numbers were estimated at 260million vs 98million

Edited February 1, 2015 by Sirrobert

[EdFred]

You're trying to compare a sport that is watched over the ENTIRE WORLD to a sport that is very big in a single country. It's cute.

And you need to practice your google skills. Even the numbers you do claim are wrong

Also, maybe you should read the articles you link to:

While it wasn't the most-watched game in ESPN/ABC history (that still belongs to the US with their second game against Portugal), the network had more than 17 million viewers tune in.

So which is it? 26.5 or 17?

Either way, you can't use numbers from around the world for one, and then leave them out for the other. You hate American sports, I get it. But at least I'm not being disingenuous like you, when you state that 9x the number of Americans watch the WC vs the SB,

Right, so only in the US, a country that doesn't even care that much for actual Football, football gets 9 times the views as Handegg

As I will state again....the NFL CLAIMS that 2 billion people watch the Super Bowl Worldwide, however I can't find what the international numbers actually are. I've seen as low as 2 million, and as high as 2 billion. That's American billion, with 9 zeros.

Edited February 1, 2015 by EdFred

[Sirrobert]

So which is it? 26.5 or 17?

Either way, you can't use numbers from around the world for one, and then leave them out for the other. You hate American sports, I get it. But at least I'm not being disingenuous like you, when you state that 9x the number of Americans watch the WC vs the SB,

THE NETWORK had more than 17 millions. The very next sentence goes "Combined with a massive number for Television (9.2 million) and a total of 26.5 million people in the States watched Mario Gotze give Germany its first Cup in 24 years"

I would love to give you numbers for worldwide handegg numbers. Unfortunatly, I have been unable to find any. Perhaps this is where you can provide some numbers of your own, since this is the point you are trying to make.

I am however comparing a sport that is practiced around the world, to one that is practiced in a single country. So there is some sense in comparing world wide, vs a single country. Logic states that the majority of the numbers for the sport practiced in a single country are going to come from that country.

And I don't care what the NFL claims. Both FIFA and NFL are clearly blowing up the numbers. So I'm looking at different sources for both.

However, I did find a statement on Wikipedia potentially explaining the 1 billion number "This figure refers to the number of people able to watch the game, not the number of people actually watching. However the statements have been frequently misinterpreted in various media as referring to the latter figure, leading to a common misperception about the game's actual global audience." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl#Television_coverage_and_ratings)

Source with that sentence: http://web.archive.org/web/20090924184703/http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-02/2006-02-03-voa5.cfm

Quote from this source: "The coverage is expected to reach up to one billion viewers around the world." Emphasis on coverage, implying the ability to watch, not actually people watching.

I'd also like to adress your claim about me hating American sports. I understand why you feel this, seeing as I argue against your points. I am however, simply uninterested in American sports. Additionally, I'm not really interested in footbal either.

However, I am interested in disputing false claims. Which is what I am doing here, and why I spent a little time digging up these numbers

[EdFred]

THE NETWORK had more than 17 millions. The very next sentence goes "Combined with a massive number for Television (9.2 million) and a total of 26.5 million people in the States watched Mario Gotze give Germany its first Cup in 24 years"

I would love to give you numbers for worldwide handegg numbers. Unfortunatly, I have been unable to find any. Perhaps this is where you can provide some numbers of your own, since this is the point you are trying to make.

I am however comparing a sport that is practiced around the world, to one that is practiced in a single country. So there is some sense in comparing world wide, vs a single country. Logic states that the majority of the numbers for the sport practiced in a single country are going to come from that country.

And I don't care what the NFL claims. Both FIFA and NFL are clearly blowing up the numbers. So I'm looking at different sources for both.

However, I did find a statement on Wikipedia potentially explaining the 1 billion number "This figure refers to the number of people able to watch the game, not the number of people actually watching. However the statements have been frequently misinterpreted in various media as referring to the latter figure, leading to a common misperception about the game's actual global audience." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl#Television_coverage_and_ratings)

Source with that sentence: http://web.archive.org/web/20090924184703/http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-02/2006-02-03-voa5.cfm

Quote from this source: "The coverage is expected to reach up to one billion viewers around the world." Emphasis on coverage, implying the ability to watch, not actually people watching.

I'd also like to adress your claim about me hating American sports. I understand why you feel this, seeing as I argue against your points. I am however, simply uninterested in American sports. Additionally, I'm not really interested in footbal either.

However, I am interested in disputing false claims. Which is what I am doing here, and why I spent a little time digging up these numbers

It wasn't the arguing against my points. That's fine. It was the deliberate number manipulation, and the attempts to claim that 9 times more Americans watch Poofball than Handegg, which was a blatant distortion of facts. And Univision is pretty much only watched by non-US citizens that just happen to be living here. So I wouldn't say that those additional 9 million viewers were American (as in US citizen American).

However, this year, the Super Bowl will probably be the single most watched sporting event in the world. And next year, and in 2017, since the WC only comes about every 4 years.

Edited February 1, 2015 by EdFred

[Sirrobert]

It wasn't the arguing against my points. That's fine. It was the deliberate number manipulation, and the attempts to claim that 9 times more Americans watch Poofball than Handegg, which was a blatant distortion of facts. And Univision is pretty much only watched by non-US citizens that just happen to be living here. So I wouldn't say that those additional 9 million viewers were American (as in US citizen American).

I never claimed that those numbers were indictive to any one region.

Based on the numbers that I found, 110million people watched American football, and 900million people watched regular football.

I understand now that the numbers were flawed, because off lack of information. But the point remains that more people watch football than american football. The first is an international sport, the second is a regional sport

[Kryten]

That's American billion, with 9 zeros.

Do you honestly not realise how ridiculously and blatantly fabricated this number is? If you took the entire population of the planet and assumed they watched it in the same proportion as the US population, you would get about 2 billion. If we remove the proportion of people who can't physically watch it because they don't have internet access/TV/electricity, it's going to be lower than that.