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

On 05/01/2025 11:42 AM, gharnagel wrote:

On Thu, 1 May 2025 16:24:29 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

>
On 05/01/2025 09:16 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

>
On 05/01/2025 06:20 AM, gharnagel wrote:

>
Data is real.  Everything else is modeling (invention).
>
The useful models are, well, used.  The others are dumped.

>
Today we have a fundamental physics that's a bit more than
a grab-bag assortment of empirical models,

>
I disagree.  We have a hierarchy of models, with GR and QFT at
the top.  We may need another top-rank model for phenomena that
falls outside GR and QM.  Everything else is simplification of
the top.  We try to fit data to models in the hierarchy.
>

to the point where
the very notion of the "instrumentalist" position is what
are observables at all, and that "statistical mechanics"
arrives at the "statistical ensemble", vis-a-vis mechanics
of statics and dynamics.
>
Then, there are many empirical models that have been ignored,
and when I mentioned "there are lots of empirical models" that's
because all the many sub-fields of physics, in the constraints
of their configurations and energies of experiment, for example
about the near-field and far-field or high-energy and low-energy,
have lots of "effects" that accumulate in the sub-fields, dis-agreeing
with the other sub-fields, for example the "QM and GR disagree about
120 orders of decimal magnitude".

>
Models are maps, and the map is not the territory.  The top of the
hierarchy isn't the end.

That seems fair and we're talking about agreeable things.
What are some examples of, "outside".
It seems like the overall theory of potentials, and that
the potential fields are the real fields while "QM and GR
are classical theories", and for things like resonance theory
above particle/wave duality, and superstring theory beneath,
that these are about the "inner and outer", as in the usual
mathematical context about inner products and outer products
like scalar products and exteriors, about waves in fields,
energy and entelechy (in forms and modes), and change and all.
It's examples then of "outside", that have some are extremes,
while others, are totals, i.e. the absurd as asymptotic, or
the absurd as vanishing, and even about the word, "surd":
that surds are forms, and the word ab-surd sort of has the
both meanings of the the bizaare, yet what emerges from
the forms, that ab-duction is the course of inference about
the de-duction and in-duction, that the usual linear narrative,
and "physicists' theories", are similarly as of "mathematicians'
theories", demand themselves to have a non-inductive account,
to arrive at the total, some deductive account, since otherwise
the theory itself and the wider theory of logicist positivism
doesn't admit anything "outside", at all, even when the extrapolations
from it, result "120 orders of decimal magnitude disagreement".
Then, of course it's not like the basic inductive course (doesn't
contradict itself, it's empirical) isn't alright in _closed_
settings, yet mathematics at least has infinite settings,
and physics is an _open_ system. Then the great successes
are apparent, and that's empirical, and any application or domain
that doesn't find itself included must simply have its own,
"hidden variables". Yet, ultimately, in mathematics there's a
sort of principle of inverse instead of contradiction, which
makes for that the usual inductive accounts like delta-epsilonics
actually require a deductive account to make results in analysis,
for examples, and the Lagrangian and conservation of energy of
potentials, and the real fields actually being the potential fields,
requires this sort thinking to put it together as "a theory",
and not just, "a grab-bag assortment of ad-hoc theories".
Super-classical concepts, like motion at all, and forces,
dualities, make for what requires super-inductive inference,
more than merely inductive, adding points never makes a line
and dividing lines never results a point, yet either way
the deductive inference arrives at they complete each other.
The inductive account, while so strong, fails utterly if at all.
Then, dark energy and dark matter long ago falsified GR as
simply Newtonian up above, and, the Arago spot quite falsifies
a particle photon, for examples, and the ultraviolet catastrophe
isn't the first such crisis in physics that then saw a linear
and inductive account carry a successful way forward: yet
wave/particle duality advises the entire enterprise because
the atomic model isn't merely particles. Then, that the
actual mechanical model is "more than Galilean as less
than Galilean", about vis-motrix the Galilean and heft,
and getting that involved in Relativity Theory the mechanics
thereof, makes deconstructive accounts, that pick up concepts
what are the super-classical concepts abandoned long ago,
to put them back together again.
A, "catastrophe", is familiar as a word meaning a disaster,
yet in mathematics it's like a perestroika or opening,
discovering a multiplicity as from discovering a distinctness,
from discovering a singularity what was undiscovered a uniqueness.
So, from these branches or more particularly duals, the super-classical
according to at least one theory is all the fields of potential,
in the total.