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

On Thu, 1 May 2025 21:28:00 +0000, rhertz wrote:

>
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,

Pot, kettle,black :-))

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.

Of COURSE you do.  It's obvious that what you really did was
cook ChatGPT.  A GOOD rebuttal would have included comparison
with more recent H-K type experiments as well as experiments
that confirm (and deny) the relativity model.  As it is, it
is unconvincing.
And ChatGPT admitted that H-Kt was consistent with the time
dilation explanation.

Then I took the ChatGPT answer (as it is in the OP of this
thread),

Really?  I seem to remember more than what is available now.

and asked DeepSeek to analyze it,

Which is nowhere to be found.

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,

I don't recall that at all.

using relativity equations to make results AND THEN CLAIM
THAT THEY PROVED SR/GR.

Baloney!  H-K compared experimental results with relativity
theory.  Only ADHD autistic engineers would think that meant
"using relativity equations to make results."