Re: XhatGPT; How many physicists accept GR?

On 11/16/2024 12:01 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Samstag000016, 16.11.2024 um 02:52 schrieb rhertz:
...

>
Is it clear now? ChatGPT endorses relativity, even when fail to present
facts that led to acceptance on each field. In particular, cosmology and
quantum physics.
>
It refuses to explain the role of relativity in fields like solid state
physics, biophysics, industrial physics, medical physics, etc.
>

>
My own appraoch was this:
>
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
>
>
The main concept is based on very few assumption like e.g.:
>
a system is something identitifiable and what you regard as such.
But there are no natural closed systems.
>
A system has imaginary borders, which are infinitely thin.
>
>
another assumption:
matter is 'relative', hence particles are not real lasting entities, but
are 'observer dependent'.
>
>
Gravitation was not covered by my own appraoch, because it could be left
within GR.
>
Also QM was not a part from this method, which was meant to conncet GR
and QM, but didn't aim to replace them.
>
  ...
>
>
TH

A usual complement to "set" theory,
a theory with a sole relation "elt", "element-of"
is a theory primarily "ordering",
a theory with a sole relation "l.t.", "less-than",
while another complement is "part" theory,
a theory with a sole relation "p.i.", "parts-into",
while another is a theory of classes",
a theory with a sole relation "contains",
that these are various and set theory is often
built as "counting" while ordering closer to
"numbering", then that "sets and parts" differ
quite altogether being reverse, while "sets and classes"
are mostly because set theory runs out left-right and
class theory is the upper-side of that.
So, part theory and the study of boundaries,
is also called mereology, then that there's
"Brentano boundaries" as usually being a reference,
then with regards to things like Lutwej Brouwer's
"intuitive" vis-a-vis "constructive", where the
"intuitionism" and "constructivism" rotate each
few decades with regards to things like "idealism"
and "empiricism" or "idealism" and "the analytic",
then that these days these each above "fundamental
theories: of one relation" represent a sort of
heno-theory where in the universe of mathematical
and logical objects, they are as of matters of
prospective and perspective, projective.
Then a "sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials
least-action vanishing-gradient", is a usual
sort of theory today, physics-wise.
The "descriptive set theory" after "axiomatic
set theory" is often stood up as the language
of the logic these days, while, usually again
there's "geometry" for "numbers", what's fundamental.
So, "Foundations" then includes logic, mathematics,
physics, science, according to philosophy and metaphysics.
The "Brentano boundaries", though, that you might enjoy.