Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: I asked ChatGPT to prove that Hafele-Keating 1971 experiment was A
 HOAX.
Date: Thu, 1 May 2025 18:42:08 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <724db3e7fe406e3dcf68e0e3ddaf4ae9@www.novabbs.com>
References: <f77fb3c3315095aacf628a4ee545f0a1@www.novabbs.com> <vurmv0$2sp4g$1@dont-email.me> <fd0533d44bb919ee765255c9402030ce@www.novabbs.com> <EhOdnRn3GJqoAYz1nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <5f16762c075f4a5862273d734907cc49@www.novabbs.com> <v6qdnRPDdI6jrI_1nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com> <4068b45f9decd9f08efa9ec65c3ff0cb@www.novabbs.com> <WHCdnRp4u_5ydI_1nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com> <a524428ea1677f0844c25c71ad38e411@www.novabbs.com> <tUadndytMrPIA471nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com> <CvGcnUKS05zQPY71nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2711574"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="TRF929uvrTGZYJLF+N3tVBXNVfr/PeoSjsJ9hd5hWzo";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Posting-User: cefb4c33981645a229d345bae7bb8942e6b32c35
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$pREA1ok1/cvArmH.IWewIehd0gqwoCveyUdMVATIbnG2V4pNJKy1e
Bytes: 3011
Lines: 34

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.