Re: I asked ChatGPT to prove that Hafele-Keating 1971 experiment was A HOAX.

On 04/30/2025 06:41 AM, gharnagel wrote:

On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 3:42:29 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

>
On 04/29/2025 05:55 PM, rhertz wrote:

>
An incredible hoax, with the complicity of academia, publishing
houses and establishment.

>
Not a hoax.  Although ChatGPT suggested alternative explanations
for muon lifetime extension, it admitted that it was consistent
with the time dilation explanation.
>

To hype the figure of Einstein and his theories was a very well
rewarded job in the '50s, '60s and '70s for opportunist scums like
Pound, Shapiro, Hafele and many others.
>
And this has been happening since 1919, with Eddington.
>
ChatGPT offered to me to debunk any major paper or experiment
"proving" relativity up to these days.

>
I find the AI discourse rather shallow.  There were no mentions of
more recent experiments which support relativity not at all dependent
on muons:
>
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale
>
>
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5253894/
>
"Relativity in the Global Positioning System"
>
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature01997
>
"A test of general relativity using radio links with the Cassini
spacecraft"
>

It seems that the AI entity find it amusing, so his proposals
were endless, like to disprove LIGO, Compton, Eddington,
Hawking's radiation on black holes, the very existence of
black holes, etc.
>
I could write a book with the material that ChatGPT provided
to me. It imposed only one condition: not to call them HOAX,
but to present conflicting facts that disproved famous "sacred
cows" of relativity. You only had to explain what was your
intentions and which were the starting points that made me a
non-believer. Then, it cooperated.

>
Gravitational singularities rather exist, even if as regards to
the "cosmic censorship" or "raw singularities", the wobbles as
they may be result an unboundedly large concentration even if
with a vanishingly small extent or duration.

>
Singularities only appear in theories, not in reality.  Their
presence indicates that the theory has exceeded its domain of
applicability.
>

Gravitational waves like LIGO and others like Weber bars
do detect gravitational waves, or rather, the tail end
of them, with regards to the instantaneous formation of
gravitational waves.

>
I thought Weber never detected them.  Ah, he claimed to have
detected them but no one else was able to reproduce them.
>
https://www.science.org/content/article/remembering-joseph-weber-controversial-pioneer-gravitational-waves
>
>

There are a variety of Compton effects, that Eddington
isn't saying much. Hawking is all over the place.
>
Higgs boson is outside the standard model of course.
>
Hafaele-Keating picked a careful circuit in terms of
that the configuration and energy of experiment of
the day wasn't just an oscillator they could strap
into a passenger flight seat, yet also quite the
many regularly scheduled flights they could pick from
to go around the right way.
>
Eotvos really did spin freely, after it lined up right,
much like Michelson-Morley, after it came to rest,
as according to what Foucault says, and a bit of Allais.
>
Pound-Rebka and the rubidium laser bit, has those are pumped.
>
The trick of these experiments is to actually validate usual
GR and QM in very contrived configurations and energies of
experiment, because there are lots of configurations and
at least something has to result, the, "classical limit".
>
Then that most people have no idea about the difference of
these is because they're not figuring it out for themselves.
>
Most have never even heard of that NIST CODATA measures the
theoretical particle every few years, and it gets smaller,
and the age of the universe, and it gets larger.

Mathematics _owes_ physics better mathematics of infinities
and singularities, because infinitesimals and multiplicities
are in effect in dynamics of continuous change.
Singularity theories are just half-accounts of multiplicity theories.
When they asked Einstein "is the universe infinite" he said
something along the lines of "it isn't not".
It's pretty well agreed we're looking at a field theory
and a gauge theory and over a continuous manifold, and
an inertial system about a differential system, about
the energy and entelechy, then with regards to the
symmetries and invariance about conservation, or,
symmetry-flex and quasi-invariance about continuities.
Mathematics also _owes_ physics more and better mathematics
of convergence and emergence, and about law(s), plural, of
large numbers, since higher mathematics about what results
a theory where the _potential_ fields are the real fields,
makes for that Lagrange long ago established that, while
yet the dynamis and dunamis in concept long ago established that,
that the potential fields are the real fields, then that
unification is at least three different ways about at least
four different things, all one thing.
So, the "domain of applicability" here is "a physics", so,
it's rather inclusive. The other day Francis Bacon said
something, along the lines of, "reflect on inverses",
about "inductive science", and Aristotleanism and whether
it's half-Aristotleanism or full-Aristotleanism, about
cause and these sorts things.
There's that physics actually has a "0 meters per second",
or it doesn't, and whether that's "infinity seconds per meter",
when it is.
So, one over infinity and zero, the regular singular points
of the hypergeometric, and higher geometry, and, for what
makes super-standard analysis, these are objects of mathematics
that a mathematical universe hypothesis gets for free.
Again though, that the potential fields are the real fields,
and the classical fields and "what's in the classical limit"
are merely least projections of the ends of potential fields,
is sort of known since antiquity as dynamic and dunamis, and
very well established since Lagrange.
Then that "three different things like electrostatics,
electrodynamics, and light define what's represented as c"
has that SI is just a system of units and it's incomplete
with regards to physical units.