Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!border-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 01 May 2025 16:24:43 +0000
Subject: Re: I asked ChatGPT to prove that Hafele-Keating 1971 experiment was
 A HOAX.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
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>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2025 09:24:29 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <tUadndytMrPIA471nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <CvGcnUKS05zQPY71nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 122
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-aMdr7uLFprCHLjbiJe38rn4EeinlPpV9DuD75+XDq537hj08HnFGrPhco7tMcPIQGIK3xy3EYuW1l9u!ZWbkK2EUVG35YbtaTnSVhPVb4uWapckEeOkYyI0yMteJwPBopx0or5oL2tfGOfUJfcPHaHcg1R0=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40

On 05/01/2025 09:16 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 05/01/2025 06:20 AM, gharnagel wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 May 2025 3:26:30 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>
>>> On 04/30/2025 12:44 PM, gharnagel wrote:
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 14:18:34 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > Mathematics _owes_ physics better mathematics of infinities
>>> > > and singularities, because infinitesimals and multiplicities
>>> > > are in effect in dynamics of continuous change.
>>> >
>>> > There has been considerable interplay between mathematicians and
>>> > physicists.  Mathematicians invented complex analysis and Laplace
>>> > transforms. which are used by physicists and engineers.  The Euler
>>> > function had no practical use until physicists noticed that it
>>> > seemed to predict baryon masses, which then led to string theory
>>> > and brane theory.
>>> >
>>> > > Singularity theories are just half-accounts of multiplicity
>>> theories.
>>> >
>>> > “as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are
>>> > not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer
>>> > to reality” -- Albert Einstein
>>> >
>>> > > When they asked Einstein "is the universe infinite" he said
>>> > > something along the lines of "it isn't not".
>>> >
>>> > "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,
>>> > and I'm not sure about the former."  -- Albert Einstein
>>> >
>>> > > It's pretty well agreed we're looking at a field theory
>>> > > and a gauge theory and over a continuous manifold,
>>> >
>>> > I'm not sure about that.  Those are mathematical models
>>> > of reality (see the first Einstein quote above).
>>> >
>>> > > .....
>>> > > So, the "domain of applicability" here is "a physics",
>>> >
>>> > Actually, it's a limit on a model.  If you want a larger
>>> > domain, get a new model.
>>>
>>> Well, there are a lot of empirical models.
>>
>> I sort of think that's ALL we have.
>>
>>> [Irrelevance deleted]
>>>
>>> So, before even getting into mathematical models and physical
>>> models, and the mathematical interpretation and the physical
>>> interpretation, and what's "real" as it's in the physical
>>> interpretation, there's all of mathematical model theory
>>> to figure out, or at least as with regards to continuity,
>>> and here, infinity.
>>
>> Data is real.  Everything else is modeling (invention).
>>
>>> [More irrelevance deleted]
>>
>>> There are a lot of empirical models: there's only one data.
>>
>> Amen.  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, 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".
>
>
> As a realist then there are lots of abandoned theories that were
> abandoned because the great fundamental ensemble says nothing about
> them, yet all their empirical units remain in their sub-fields,
> because, System Internationale our great and familiar system of
> standard units, doesn't say quantitatively and qualitatively
> what are the fuller effects, what "is" so, in each these sub-fields,
> or sectors, say, about electron-physics, which of course is how
> the statistical mechanics the statistical ensemble is largely put
> together at all: and muon and hadron and neutrino physics,
> which break from it.
>
>
> Then, plenty abandoned theories have the reasonings why their
> causal notions and explanatory factors are still good, then
> there's a lot going on to result the "more fundamental" theory,
> that though, is less simple than "electron-physics statistical
> ensemble", or as with regards to thermo 2'nd law in kinetics
> and electron-physics put together about e/m of the electron.
>
>
> So, I think what you're talking about are "ad-hoc" models,
> vis-a-vis, "empirical sub-fields" or sectors of physics.
> That's empirical, and, inductive, yet, there still very
> much is a "realist" position in physics, a theory of it.
>
>
> This is where a, "more fundamental" theory,
> may require more, "fundamental elements",
> than a, "simplest fundamental", theory.
>
>
> https://www.google.com/search?q="near-field"+"far-field"+"high-energy"+"low-energy"
>
>

"Areas of Physics" is I guess what the contemporaneous hive-mind
is calling it, one big "measure problem".