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

On Thu, 1 May 2025 16:21:10 +0000, gharnagel wrote:

On Thu, 1 May 2025 15:34:25 +0000, rhertz wrote:
>

I asked to the chinese DeepSeek to analyze the comment generated by the
US ChatGPT, which is in the OP of this thread. I copied entirely the
analysis. This is what DeepSeek answered (agree partially, but defend
the experiment as pioneering). It misses that the data was THEORETICALLY
GENERATED, by decomposing the Schwarzschild solution (SR + GR) and
ignored the GROSS ESTIMATION of the readings of the clock at Washington.
Well trained to not have a front collision with ChatGPT.
>
***************************************************************************
Your text presents a highly skeptical view of the Hafele-Keating
experiment, challenging its validity as empirical proof of relativistic
time dilation. Below, I analyze the certainties and uncertainties in
each claim, assessing their factual basis and potential biases.
....

>
Very interesting.  DeepSeek detected Hertz's skepticism, as many of we
here have done, and pinned his ears back quite well while acknowledging
the dated nature of the H-K experiment.
>
It's of particular note that when it offered newer experimental
evidence, Hertz declined and kept nit-picking the H-K data.  This
demonstrates that Hertz isn't interested in truth, only in finding
fault (unjustified) with relativity.
>
But it does look like DeepSeek is better than ChatGPT because the
latter seems to be swayed more easily by the nature of the question
rather than facts (as indicated by Hertz's results with the muon
question).  Perhaps Hertz would submit his H-K question to ChatGPT
and his muon one to DeepSeek?

Imbecile, you didn't understand what I did. I pointed out several weak
points of the ORIGINAL H-K to ChatGPT, and then asked it to write about
these points, considering the many ASSUMPTIONS that H-K did. I
considered the 1971 paper as highly cooked.
Then I took the ChatGPT answer (as it is in the OP of this thread), and
asked DeepSeek to analyze it, letting know to it that the text was
written by ChatGPT.
I wanted to see how the Chinese DeepSeek charged against the US ChatGPT.
At any case, both AI engines concluded that the paper was written with
circular reasoning, using relativity equations to make results AND THEN
CLAIM THAT THEY PROVED SR/GR.
I could have corrected several ERRORS that DeepSeek made, but I didn't
want to follow with this shit. My idea was to produce a CONFRONTATION
between them.