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

On 05/01/2025 06:20 AM, gharnagel wrote:

On Thu, 1 May 2025 3:26:30 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

>
On 04/30/2025 12:44 PM, gharnagel wrote:

>
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 14:18:34 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

>
Mathematics _owes_ physics better mathematics of infinities
and singularities, because infinitesimals and multiplicities
are in effect in dynamics of continuous change.

>
There has been considerable interplay between mathematicians and
physicists.  Mathematicians invented complex analysis and Laplace
transforms. which are used by physicists and engineers.  The Euler
function had no practical use until physicists noticed that it
seemed to predict baryon masses, which then led to string theory
and brane theory.
>

Singularity theories are just half-accounts of multiplicity

theories.

>
“as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are
not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer
to reality” -- Albert Einstein
>

When they asked Einstein "is the universe infinite" he said
something along the lines of "it isn't not".

>
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,
and I'm not sure about the former."  -- Albert Einstein
>

It's pretty well agreed we're looking at a field theory
and a gauge theory and over a continuous manifold,

>
I'm not sure about that.  Those are mathematical models
of reality (see the first Einstein quote above).
>

.....
So, the "domain of applicability" here is "a physics",

>
Actually, it's a limit on a model.  If you want a larger
domain, get a new model.

>
Well, there are a lot of empirical models.

>
I sort of think that's ALL we have.
>

[Irrelevance deleted]
>
So, before even getting into mathematical models and physical
models, and the mathematical interpretation and the physical
interpretation, and what's "real" as it's in the physical
interpretation, there's all of mathematical model theory
to figure out, or at least as with regards to continuity,
and here, infinity.

>
Data is real.  Everything else is modeling (invention).
>

[More irrelevance deleted]

>

There are a lot of empirical models: there's only one data.

>
Amen.  The useful models are, well, used.  The others are dumped.

Today we have a fundamental physics that's a bit more than
a grab-bag assortment of empirical models, to the point where
the very notion of the "instrumentalist" position is what
are observables at all, and that "statistical mechanics"
arrives at the "statistical ensemble", vis-a-vis mechanics
of statics and dynamics.
Then, there are many empirical models that have been ignored,
and when I mentioned "there are lots of empirical models" that's
because all the many sub-fields of physics, in the constraints
of their configurations and energies of experiment, for example
about the near-field and far-field or high-energy and low-energy,
have lots of "effects" that accumulate in the sub-fields, dis-agreeing
with the other sub-fields, for example the "QM and GR disagree about
120 orders of decimal magnitude".
As a realist then there are lots of abandoned theories that were
abandoned because the great fundamental ensemble says nothing about
them, yet all their empirical units remain in their sub-fields,
because, System Internationale our great and familiar system of
standard units, doesn't say quantitatively and qualitatively
what are the fuller effects, what "is" so, in each these sub-fields,
or sectors, say, about electron-physics, which of course is how
the statistical mechanics the statistical ensemble is largely put
together at all: and muon and hadron and neutrino physics,
which break from it.
Then, plenty abandoned theories have the reasonings why their
causal notions and explanatory factors are still good, then
there's a lot going on to result the "more fundamental" theory,
that though, is less simple than "electron-physics statistical
ensemble", or as with regards to thermo 2'nd law in kinetics
and electron-physics put together about e/m of the electron.
So, I think what you're talking about are "ad-hoc" models,
vis-a-vis, "empirical sub-fields" or sectors of physics.
That's empirical, and, inductive, yet, there still very
much is a "realist" position in physics, a theory of it.
This is where a, "more fundamental" theory,
may require more, "fundamental elements",
than a, "simplest fundamental", theory.
https://www.google.com/search?q="near-field"+"far-field"+"high-energy"+"low-energy"