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

On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 6:30:23 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:

On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 4:47:21 +0000, rhertz wrote:
>

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

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

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.

>
Sorry, no. You either made a massive goof, or you were deliberately
trying to befuddle ChatGPT with inconsistent numbers.
>
If you were being honest, you would have written something like
Net Shift (x 10^15):
source at bottom, red shift = (-17.6 - 2.1) = -19.7 (weighted avg)
source at top,   blue shift = (-17.6 + 2.1) = -15.5 (weighted avg)
>
Instead, your numbers were
Net Shift (x 10^15):
source at bottom, red shift = (-17.6 - 2.1) = -19.7 (weighted avg)
source at top,   blue shift = (-15.5 + 2.1) = -13.4 WHAATTT????

Well, which was it, Richard? Did you innocently blunder, or did you
intentionally misrepresent Pound & Rebka's results?