Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Pound-Rebka: ChatGPT is TRAINED to obey, sucking asses of relativists at
 any cost.
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2024 00:22:56 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <6a7610a42b2509b3a6eabb47e3526dfb@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="465546"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="OjDMvaaXMeeN/7kNOPQl+dWI+zbnIp3mGAHMVhZ2e/A";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$QwyR43tiUzn0Sat9FAAez.xKMe63O5fqtnvxM7VNLTzwAkimpBkHi
X-Rslight-Posting-User: 26080b4f8b9f153eb24ebbc1b47c4c36ee247939
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 7594
Lines: 151

I've been using ChatGPT to analyze the FISHY 1959 infamous experiment
that "proved" Einstein's 1911 predicted gravitational blue-shifting,
with the formula g.h/c^2.

The 1959 Pound-Rebka experiment was conducted in less than a week,
because Pound had to lecture about his results in a conference of
physicists, to whom he had anticipated his idea.

Using a 22.5 meters height at the Jefferson Laboratory, a sample of
radioactive Fe57 that emitted 14.4 KeV gamma rays (a fraction of them
without recoil in the emitting atom), he and his collaborators devised
an extremely complex array of instruments and mechanisms to MEASURE a
"predicted" gravitational shift of only
2.5x10^-15. The problem was that the source of Fe57 emitted gamma
radiation within a band of frequencies that had a half energy width of
about 10^-12 around the central frequency. PLUS, only a fraction of
gamma rays were free of recoil effects.

In 1959, and even today, to measure a contribution of GR of almost 1,000
times smaller than the bandwidth of gamma rays was/is IMPOSSIBLE. The
radiation frequency of gamma rays followed a Lorentzian distribution,
similar to a Gauss distribution, around the central frequency.

Among the major perturbations that made such a measurement impossible by
direct means were: Doppler effects (first and second order), all kind of
noise in the environment and instruments, random distribution of
frequencies of gamma rays around its central frequency, vibrations of
any kind, IMPOSSIBILITY to separate the gravitational effect from the
general effects of frequency shifting (it was only 1/1,000 part of the
total frequency shift) and many other factors.

Pound and Rebka resorted to a HEAVY STATISTICAL MANIPULATION of the
results, and due to that, his presentation one week later to the
physicists' convention DIDN'T mention that he had proved Einstein's
right. That came LATER, by the hand of relativists, that started to
praise the experiment as extraordinary and the first one conducted on
Earth, instead of using astronomical measurements.

Pound's experiment was claimed as having an error of about 10%, when in
reality the paper published early in 1960 show an error of about 100%.

This is what ChatGPT answered when I presented the case:

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

Question: if the measured gravitational shift (−4.2×10^−15) was almost
twice
 the predicted value (+2.5×10^−15), it's claimed that the error is only
10% with respect to the theory?

Answer:


The claim that the error was only 10% despite the measured gravitational
shift
(−4.2×10^−15) being significantly different from the predicted value
(+2.5×10^−15)  is based on the way experimental uncertainty and
systematic corrections were handled in the Pound-Rebka experiment. Let's
break this down:

the following factors contribute to explaining the discrepancy:

a. Calibration of Doppler Velocities
The experiment relied on precise Doppler velocity adjustments to cancel
out the gravitational redshift.
Any small miscalibrations or systematic errors in determining the
Doppler shifts could result in an apparent shift that does not perfectly
match the theoretical prediction.
These systematic effects were treated as sources of uncertainty rather
than fundamental errors in the experiment.

b. Noise and Statistical Averaging
The results were derived from the averaging of many measurements, with
noise and random variations influencing individual data points.
Statistical analysis was applied to estimate the "true" shift by
reducing random noise. The final reported error margin reflected this
statistical uncertainty.

c. Systematic Corrections
The researchers applied corrections for known sources of systematic
error, such as:
Thermal expansion or contraction of components.
Alignment imperfections in the source or detector.
After applying these corrections, the discrepancy between the measured
and predicted values was reduced to within the claimed margin of error.

2. How the 10% Error Was Justified
The "10% error" claim stems from the combined experimental uncertainty
rather than the raw difference between the measured and theoretical
values. Here's how this works:

a. Combining Uncertainties
The total uncertainty was a combination of:
Statistical Error: The noise in the measurements, reduced through
averaging.
Systematic Error: Residual effects from calibration, alignment, and
environmental factors.

b. Accounting for the Discrepancy
When the measured shift was adjusted to account for systematic
corrections, the discrepancy with the theoretical value fell within this
10% error range.
This was considered acceptable for an experiment of this complexity and
sensitivity, particularly given the pioneering nature of the work.

3. Why the Result Was Accepted

Despite the apparent discrepancy, the experiment's results were
considered a validation of Einstein's prediction because:

a. Correct Order of Magnitude
The observed shift was of the same order of magnitude as the predicted
value, which was a significant achievement given the technological
limitations of the time.

b. Agreement Within Experimental Uncertainty

After accounting for uncertainties, the measured value was consistent
with the theoretical prediction to within 10%, which was deemed
sufficient given the challenges of measuring such a small effect.

c. Pioneering Nature of the Experiment

The Pound-Rebka experiment was the first direct measurement of
gravitational redshift on Earth. The scientific community recognized its
limitations but also its groundbreaking contribution to testing General
Relativity.


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


So, ChatGPT agreed that the error had an uncertainty of about 100%, but
accept this for "BEING SO CLOSE TO WAS WANTED TO BE PROVEN".

Then resort to all kind of idiocies to justify the HEROIC and
groundbreaking experiment, after what it switches to alternate
explanations like: The advances in the development of cesium clocks,
highly imperfect in the '60s, allowed to prove Einstein beyond any
doubt.

So, folks, ChatGPT is the COLLECTIVE MIND of relativists and will not
accept any opposite fact, even when the evidence crushes any defense of
GR.


The "dialog" is much more long than the resume I posted above.


Pound-Rebka experiment IS FALSE, a hoax and a desperate attempt to
impose Einstein's SR/GR AT ANY COST, resorting to lies, deformation of
truth, twisting facts and, mostly, TAKING YOU AS A FUCKING IDIOT.