Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Argument with ChatGPT about that Pound-Rebka experiment was A FRAUD.
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2024 00:33:25 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <05f9aaea77b2e88a5bbfd20b5b423d90@www.novabbs.com>
References: <3b78e0c128ecdc966a66fd37b6de07fd@www.novabbs.com> <ff475971506169bab3f6c59b0f266445@www.novabbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1254499"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="OjDMvaaXMeeN/7kNOPQl+dWI+zbnIp3mGAHMVhZ2e/A";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Posting-User: 26080b4f8b9f153eb24ebbc1b47c4c36ee247939
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$c34dWI2VxesOXtgJiO8d1.TkJvJKkbfTkRYsflaVEc/nuRxGSfWbO
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 18099
Lines: 353

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

> On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 22:38:58 +0000, rhertz wrote:
>
>> My question:
>>
>> Regarding the conclusion of the 1959 paper, It's the same as if he had
>> written:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Clearly, it's shown that the gravitational shift exists and that can be
>> extracted from two sets of measurements that should have been equal.
>> Stop mentioning differences due to Doppler or other sources. The
>> experiment clearly used statistically cooked data, and NO ONE questioned
>> these results.
>
> <snip>
>
>> I finally rest my case. The experiment was an HOAX, with fraudulent,
>> cooked data, and NOBODY DID CARE TO QUESTION THIS EXPERIMENT (under a
>> grant from US. MILITARY, who paid even the sandwiches and drinks for all
>> the staff).
>
> <snip>
>
> Here is what ChatGPT says about the vulnerability of chatbots
> (inclucing itself) to social engineering efforts by humans who want
> to guide the chatbot into making false statements:
>
> My question:
> How susceptible are ai chatbots to being led on by a questioner to
> making false or distorted statements?
>
> ChatGPT's answer:
> AI chatbots, including myself, can be susceptible to being led into
> making false or distorted statements, though safeguards are in place
> to minimize this risk. Here are some factors that influence
> susceptibility:
>
> 1. Context Manipulation
> • Leading Questions: Users can pose misleading or loaded questions
>   designed to nudge the chatbot into giving inaccurate responses.
> • Ambiguity: If a question is unclear or lacks context, the chatbot
>   might interpret it in a way that leads to an incorrect or distorted
>   statement.
> 2. Mimicking User Input
> • Echoing False Information: Chatbots often aim to be conversational,
>   and in doing so, they might inadvertently repeat or agree with
>   misinformation provided by the user.
> 3. Knowledge Gaps
> • If a chatbot doesn’t have sufficient information on a topic, it may
>   attempt to “fill in the gaps” or make assumptions, which can lead to
>   errors.
> 4. Complex or Niche Topics
> • Chatbots are more likely to falter on topics requiring specialized
>   knowledge, as they rely on patterns from training data or accessible
>   online sources, which may not always be accurate.
> 5. Social Engineering
> • Users can exploit the chatbot’s attempt to align with conversational
>   tone or user sentiment, subtly leading it to make questionable
>   statements.
>
> Safeguards to Prevent This
> • Fact-Checking: Some chatbots are designed to verify statements
>   against reliable databases when available.
> • Transparency: Many chatbots acknowledge uncertainty or gaps in
>   knowledge when appropriate.
> • Ethical Constraints: Ethical guidelines help limit the chatbot’s
>   engagement with harmful or misleading narratives.
>
> To ensure accuracy, questioners should provide clear, well-intentioned
> questions and clarify when necessary. Similarly, chatbots must evolve
> to detect and resist manipulation while prioritizing factual responses.
>
> ======================================================================
>
> 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.

I know that you are anti-ChatGPT, because it's mostly an ERUDITE IDIOT
MACHINE, which know nothing about the Pound-Rebka experiment.

What you didn't take into account, ASSHOLE, is that the PR experiment
was just an insignificant and early use of the Mossbauer effect. 64
years after that paper, the knowledge about Mossbauer effect and its
uses everywhere INCREASED 1,000,000 TIMES, with information about
Mossbauer spectroscopy being available in HUGE AMOUNTS and EVERYWHERE,
like this german document of 299 pages:

https://www.blogs.uni-mainz.de/fb09akguetlich/files/2017/11/Moessbauer_Lectures.pdf

READ IT AND LEARN, PRETENDER KNOW-IT-ALL!

Now, FOR YOU TO SUFFER WHILE READING, I'm transcribing a dialog with
ChatGPT, where I ONLY QUESTION and supply no data.

Let's see if you now can call the AI Engine A GULLIBLE MACHINE. Read and
suffer:


****************************************************************************

You said:
How many scintillation counters were placed below the absorber to detect
the gamma rays that passed through the absorber?

ChatGPT said:
In the Pound-Rebka experiment, two scintillation counters were placed
below the absorber to detect the gamma rays that passed through it.
These detectors measured the intensity of the transmitted gamma rays,
which varied depending on whether the gamma-ray frequency matched the
resonance absorption frequency of the absorber.
This setup allowed precise detection of changes in gamma-ray
transmission caused by the gravitational redshift and the induced
Doppler shift. Using two scintillation counters improved the accuracy of
the experiment by providing redundancy and helping to reduce the
influence of noise and systematic errors.

You said:
How the two scintillator counters were used to measure pulse counts on
each side of the absorption curve? How were the four counters tuned to
count pulses at exactly four different Doppler velocities (+/- 0.11 mm/s
and +/- 0.09 mm/s)?
ChatGPT said:
In the Pound-Rebka experiment, the scintillation counters played a
critical role in detecting gamma rays at specific Doppler velocities to
measure the gravitational redshift. Here’s how the counters and the
experimental setup were used:
________________________________________
1. Two Scintillation Counters and Pulse Counting
•	The two scintillation counters below the absorber were used to measure
the number of gamma rays transmitted through the absorber. These
counters recorded pulse counts at different Doppler velocities by
monitoring the gamma rays' resonance absorption characteristics.
•	To obtain data on both sides of the Mössbauer resonance curve, the
experimenters measured pulse counts as the emitter's velocity was varied
symmetrically around the expected resonance frequency. This allowed them
to quantify the shifts in gamma-ray frequency due to gravitational
redshift and Doppler effects.
________________________________________
2. Tuning the Counters for Four Doppler Velocities
The experiment required measurements at four specific Doppler
velocities: ±0.11 mm/s, and ±0.09 mm/s. These velocities were chosen to
span the resonance curve symmetrically and ensure accurate
characterization of the absorption.
How the tuning was achieved:
1.	Controlled Motion of the Emitter:
o	The emitter was mounted on a mechanical drive capable of moving it at
precisely controlled velocities.
o	The drive system ensured that the Doppler velocities vvv could be set
to the required values ±0.11 mm/s and ±0.09 mm/s.
o	At these velocities, the frequency shift Δν\ν caused by the Doppler
effect matched specific offsets from the resonance frequency.
2.	Synchronization with Pulse Counting:
o	Each scintillation counter was paired with a timing and pulse-counting
circuit to detect gamma rays transmitted at each of the four Doppler
velocities.
o	The counters alternated between recording pulses at the positive and
negative velocities (+0.11 mm/s, −0.11 mm/s, +0.09 mm/s, −0.09 mm/s..
o	This configuration provided data for both sides of the resonance
curve, enabling the experimenters to accurately determine the
gravitational redshift.
3.	Calibration of the Velocity Drive:
o	The velocity drive was carefully calibrated to ensure that the Doppler
velocities matched the desired values.
o	A feedback system may have been used to maintain the precision of the
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========