Re: Argument with ChatGPT about that Pound-Rebka experiment was A FRAUD.

On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 3:20:38 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 12/27/2024 04:03 PM, rhertz wrote:

The OP is my first chatGPT session where the AI engine show its weakness
to defend relativity. It didn't admit fraud, but it was close to it,
blaming the "epoch".
>
Sublime moment.

>
Hey now, wait a second, Mr. Hertz, if that is your
name and actually of a person, I could imagine that
you got this idea to approach the analysis both
"down" and "up" from my passing comment last
week.
>
Then, aren't you going to attribute me?
>
Though, your demonstrated bigotry
is quite distasteful.

I have no idea of what you're talking about.
I've been posting that the P&R experiment is a hoax for at least two
years.
I've even reposted two threads for 2023 in this one, and I had heat
discussions with Prokaryotic about this specific point by then.
I have an Excel with the data of the 14 sets of published data in 1959,
which I posted last year. I'll repost it just for you. My main complaint
was about the statistical manipulation of the data, which showed its
nonsense. Here we go:
*****************************************************************************
Table I. Data from the first four days of counting. The negative signs
mean that the y ray has a frequency lower than the frequency of maximum
absorption at the absorber.
Source at the bottom  (x 10^15): RED SHIFTING
Shift observed     Temperature correction                     Net shift
-11.5 ± 3.0              -9.2                                -20.7 ± 3.0
-16.4 ± 2.2              -5.9                                -22.3 ± 2.2
-13.8 ± 1.3              -8.3                                -19.1 ± 1.3
-11.9 ± 2.1              -8.0                                -19.9 ± 2.1
-8.7  ± 2.0             -10.5                                -19.2 ± 2.0
-10.8 ± 2.0             -10.6                                -21.0 ± 0.8
                                           Weighted average  -19.7 ± 0.8
Source at the top  (x 10^15): BLUE SHIFTING
Shift observed     Temperature correction                    Net shift
-12 ± 4.1               -8.6                                -20.6 ± 4.1
-5.7 ± 1.4              -9.6                                -15.3 ± 1.4
-7.4 ± 2.1              -7.4                                -14.8 ± 2.1
-6.5 ± 2.1              -5.8                                -12.3 ± 2.1
-13.9 ± 3.1             -7.5                                -21.4 ± 3.1
-6.6 ± 3.0              -5.7                                -12.3 ± 3.0
-6.5 ± 2.0              -8.9                                -15.4 ± 2.0
-10 ± 2.6               -7.9                                -17.9 ± 2.6
                                     Weighted average       -15.5 ± 0.8
                                     Mean shift             -17.6 ± 0.6
                                    Difference of averages   -4.2 ± 1.1
*****************************************************************************
The alleged effect ± g.h/c^2 = ± 2.51 x 10^-15 can't be rescued from the
raw observed shifts unless the temperature corrections be cooked,
fudged, after averaging the broad range of measurements and selecting
data so can be verified this:
Source at the bottom: <selected base data> - gh/c^2
Source at the top:    <selected base data> + gh/c^2
Bottom average - Top average = -2 gh/c^2
When the full set of data was included, the difference of averages gave
almost twice the EXPECTED VALUE of gh/c^2, with a 10% error (5.13 ±
0.51).
The allegation that ALL THE VALUES presented a negative shift with
respect the center frequency of the absorption of 14.4 KeV gamma rays
was that the mechanically induced Doppler shift (moving the emitter with
a sinusoidal motion of ± 0.11 mm/sec and registering data at sinusoidal
peaks only).
FISHY AS HELL, YET UNQUESTIONED. This was the basis of discussions with
ChatGPT.