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

On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 4:47:21 +0000, rhertz wrote:

On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 2:15:30 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
>

On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 0:33:25 +0000, rhertz wrote:

On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 16:28:45 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:

>

You clearly have been priming ChatGPT with misleading "facts" outside
of its range of knowledge. Chatbots generally assume good faith on the
part of their users. I know from observation that ChatGPT has only a
rather superficial knowledge of the details of Pound & Rebka. ChatGPT
assumed good faith on your part, that you would provide it with
accurate and fairly stated facts to fill in the gaps in its knowledge.
Instead, you deliberately fed it false information.

>
>
As usual, you are a know-it-all relativist, always prone to downplay or
dismiss any opinion contrary to yours.
>
Now, YOU ACCUSE ME OF CHEATING CHATGPT BY MISGUIDING THE AI ENGINE.

>
>

Absolutely true. You fed it the following nonsense, and then
questioned ChatGPT why the numbers didn't work out:

>

| Net shift (source at the bottom, red shifting) = (-17.6 - 2.1) x
10^-15.
| Netshift (source at the top, blue shifting) = (-15.5 + 2.1) x 10^-15.
>

>

ChatGPT assumed that your numbers were correct and bullshitted its
answer as best as it could.

>
>
<snip rest of the post>
>
>
>
What are you? Some kind of idiot?
>
The above numbers reflect EXACTLY what Pound and Rebka published.
>
This is the published table:
>
>
********************************************************************
Source at the bottom  (x 10^15)
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 ± 0.8
>
Weighted average                                -19.7 ± 0.8
>
Source at the top  (x 10^15)
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
>
****************************************************************
AS ANY WHO IS NOT A RETARDED OR BLIND RELATIVIST CAN SEE, THE NUMBERS
THAT
I POSTED REFLECT THE RESULTS OF THE ABOVE TABLE.

Sorry, no. You either made a massive goof, or you were deliberately
trying to befuddle ChatGPT with inconsistent numbers.
If you were being honest, you would have written something like
Net Shift (x 10^15):
source at bottom, red shift = (-17.6 - 2.1) = -19.7 (weighted avg)
source at top,   blue shift = (-17.6 + 2.1) = -15.5 (weighted avg)
Instead, your numbers were
Net Shift (x 10^15):
source at bottom, red shift = (-17.6 - 2.1) = -19.7 (weighted avg)
source at top,   blue shift = (-15.5 + 2.1) = -13.4 WHAATTT????