Re: Argument with ChatGPT about that Pound-Rebka experiment was A FRAUD.

On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 2:15:30 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:

On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 0:33:25 +0000, rhertz wrote:

On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 16:28:45 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:

>

You clearly have been priming ChatGPT with misleading "facts" outside
of its range of knowledge. Chatbots generally assume good faith on the
part of their users. I know from observation that ChatGPT has only a
rather superficial knowledge of the details of Pound & Rebka. ChatGPT
assumed good faith on your part, that you would provide it with
accurate and fairly stated facts to fill in the gaps in its knowledge.
Instead, you deliberately fed it false information.

>
>
As usual, you are a know-it-all relativist, always prone to downplay or
dismiss any opinion contrary to yours.
>
Now, YOU ACCUSE ME OF CHEATING CHATGPT BY MISGUIDING THE AI ENGINE.

Absolutely true. You fed it the following nonsense, and then
questioned ChatGPT why the numbers didn't work out:

| Net shift (source at the bottom, red shifting) = (-17.6 - 2.1) x
10^-15.
| Netshift (source at the top, blue shifting) = (-15.5 + 2.1) x 10^-15.
>

ChatGPT assumed that your numbers were correct and bullshitted its
answer as best as it could.

<snip rest of the post>
What are you? Some kind of idiot?
The above numbers reflect EXACTLY what Pound and Rebka published.
This is the published table:
********************************************************************
Source at the bottom  (x 10^15)
Shift observed     Temperature correction       Net shift
-11.5 ± 3.0             -9.2                    -20.7 ± 3.0
-16.4 ± 2.2             -5.9                    -22.3 ± 2.2
-13.8 ± 1.3             -8.3                    -19.1 ± 1.3
-11.9 ± 2.1             -8.0                    -19.9 ± 2.1
-8.7 ± 2.0             -10.5                    -19.2 ± 2.0
-10.8 ± 2.0            -10.6                    -21 ± 0.8
Weighted average                                -19.7 ± 0.8
Source at the top  (x 10^15)
Shift observed     Temperature correction       Net shift
-12 ± 4.1               -8.6                    -20.6 ± 4.1
-5.7 ± 1.4              -9.6                    -15.3 ± 1.4
-7.4 ± 2.1              -7.4                    -14.8 ± 2.1
-6.5 ± 2.1              -5.8                    -12.3 ± 2.1
-13.9 ± 3.1             -7.5                    -21.4 ± 3.1
-6.6 ± 3.0              -5.7                    -12.3 ± 3.0
-6.5 ± 2.0              -8.9                    -15.4 ± 2.0
-10 ± 2.6               -7.9                    -17.9 ± 2.6
Weighted average                                -15.5 ± 0.8
Mean shift                                      -17.6 ± 0.6
Difference of averages                           -4.2 ± 1.1
****************************************************************
AS ANY WHO IS NOT A RETARDED OR BLIND RELATIVIST CAN SEE, THE NUMBERS
THAT
I POSTED REFLECT THE RESULTS OF THE ABOVE TABLE.
Mean shift = -17.6
Net shift (source at the bottom, red shifting) = -19.7 = Mean Shift -
2.1
Net shift (source at the top, blue shifting)   = -15.5 = Mean shift +
2.1
Even when I made one mistake in the blue shifting (using -15.5 instead
of -17.6), this error IS EASY TO SPOT and, in any case, contradict my
comment about that of the baseline (the mean shift of -17.6).
What I questioned, since ever, that the DESIRED GR shift (close to ±
2.1) is HIDDEN within a noisy background of Doppler inductions PLUS many
other sources of error.
All the statistical manipulation of SELECTED DATA is directed to verify
this:
    WEIGHTED AVERAGES = Mean Shift ± 2.1
And ± 2.1 x 10^-15 is pretty close to the desired result given by ±
gh/c^2.
Considering that the table reflects only a FEW SETS of measurements,
when Pound uses the entire set of measurements, HE NARROWED THE ERROR TO
A 10% of gh/c^2.
Fishy, cooked results, celebrated by the audience to whom he lectured
the published paper (incomplete) one week after he finished the 1959
experiment.
I bet he was more than pressured to show partial results that he had
COOKED. The experiment was published only in 1960, where he FINISHED
COOKING the rest of the datasets, in order to claim an error of 10%.
One of many problems is that THERE ARE, DOCUMENTED, NO LESS THAN 8
DIFFERENT SOURCES OF ERROR that he, conveniently, forgot to mention
(except a small comment about other hyperfine transitions.
But the main source of cooking (the temperature correction) remain as a
shameful example of crooked physics.
Not to mention the photons with recoil that were also counted (40%) and,
later, conveniently DISCARDED. But which was the criteria to filter the
data of the counters, eliminating sources of noise? HE NEVER SAID A WORD
ABOUT IT.
******************************************************
EXTRACTED FROM THE ORIGINAL 1959 PAPER:
The temperature coefficient of frequency which we have used to correct
the data, was calculated from the specific heat of a lattice having a
Debye temperature of 420 K. Although at room temperature this
coefficient is but weakly dependent on the Debye temperature, residual
error in the correction for, or control of, the temperature difference
limits the ability to measure frequency shifts and favors the use of a
large height difference for the gravitational experiment.
........................
The average for the two directions of travel should measure an effective
shift of other origin, and this is about four times the difference
between the shifts. We confirmed that this shift was an inherent
property of the particular combination of source and absorber by
measuring the shift for each absorber unit in turn, with temperature
correction, when it was six inches from the source. Although this test
was not exact because only about half the area of each absorber was
involved, the weighted mean shift from this test for the combination of
all absorber units agreed well with that observed in the main
experiment.
..........................
Although this test was not exact because only about half the area of
each absorber was involved, the weighted mean shift from this test for
the combination of all absorber units agreed well with that observed in
the main experiment. The individual fractional frequency shifts found
for these, for the monitor absorber, as well as for a 11.7-mg/cm2 Armco
iron foil, are displayed in Table II. The considerable variation among
them is as striking as the size of the weighted mean shift. Such shifts
could result from differences in a range of about 11% in effective Debye
temperature through producing differences in net second order Doppler
effect. Other explanations based on hyperfine structure including
electric quadrupole interactions are also plausible.
.........................
******************************************************
By 1959, the know-how about SOURCES OF ERROR was poor, as the
Mossbauer's spectroscopy was just one year old.
Today, after 65 years, the knowledge about the Mossbauer discovery
increased thousand of times.
I insist that you read this 300 pages document:
Mössbauer Spectroscopy –
Principles and Applications
Institut für Anorganische Chemie und Analytische Chemie
Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz
https://www.blogs.uni-mainz.de/fb09akguetlich/files/2017/11/Moessbauer_Lectures.pdf