Sujet : Re: Argument with ChatGPT about that Pound-Rebka experiment was A FRAUD.
De : tomyee3 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog)
Groupes : sci.physics.relativityDate : 05. Jan 2025, 21:28:57
Autres entêtes
Organisation : novaBBS
Message-ID : <e5e4d568bc03fdc16a75b6ab22a2a001@www.novabbs.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
User-Agent : Rocksolid Light
On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 17:52:29 +0000, rhertz wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jan 2025 11:45:07 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
>
On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 6:30:23 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
>
On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 4:47:21 +0000, rhertz wrote:
>
>
<snip>
>
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????
>
Well, which was it, Richard? Did you innocently blunder, or did you
intentionally misrepresent Pound & Rebka's results?
>
>
>
**************************************************************************
>
I'll finish this discussion right here and right now. You have to
answer the following question, which is ESSENTIAL to determine if the
1959 experiment WAS AN HOAX OR NOT.
>
QUESTION: If the emitter sent composite photons 22 meters up or down to
the detector, at a rate of about 1.48 x 10^9 disintegrations per second
(recoil-less 14.4 KeV photons are 2/3 of this value) OVER A SPECTRUM
THAT HAS (at half value) A WIDTH OF ± 1.43E-12 from the center
frequency, HOW COME a scintillator+counter managed to count pulses
during 1 msec IN A REGION THAT IS ± 20E-15 APART from the center
frequency of resonance, IF SUCH REGIONS BARELY HAVE A BANDWIDTH OF ±
4E-15?
Totally fallacious argument. Following your logic, since the cesium
hyperfine line used for atomic standards has a bandwidth of approx.
1 Hz, it should not be possible for cesium atomic clocks to maintain
time to better than about 1 part in 10^10.
The best cesium atomic fountain clocks, however, maintain time to
about 3 parts in 10^16.
Is the reported stability and accuracy of the best cesium atomic
clocks all a lie?
It is all a matter of how much data you collect and the skill with
which you analyze the data.
<snipped invective- and innuendo-filled rant>
Argument with ChatGPT about that Pound-Rebka experiment was A FRAUD.
Re: Argument with ChatGPT about that Pound-Rebka experiment was A FRAUD.