Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: I asked ChatGPT to prove that Hafele-Keating 1971 experiment was A
 HOAX.
Date: Thu, 1 May 2025 21:28:00 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <b10588be1f426cecf7339dab65c0b839@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> <183b6b23a97191a9$2085521$1799812$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> <0141dc2f20c8015984a01103ec8d55e5@www.novabbs.com> <b5e708297a8b0e949a3e0b25ffaf8bca@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="2727890"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="OjDMvaaXMeeN/7kNOPQl+dWI+zbnIp3mGAHMVhZ2e/A";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Posting-User: 26080b4f8b9f153eb24ebbc1b47c4c36ee247939
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$s6E/1SVdoy3HU6SF0TSSW.hTphFbrNgN.y9fyspVN6k91F3bswumq
Bytes: 4114
Lines: 51

On Thu, 1 May 2025 16:21:10 +0000, gharnagel wrote:

> On Thu, 1 May 2025 15:34:25 +0000, rhertz wrote:
>
>> I asked to the chinese DeepSeek to analyze the comment generated by the
>> US ChatGPT, which is in the OP of this thread. I copied entirely the
>> analysis. This is what DeepSeek answered (agree partially, but defend
>> the experiment as pioneering). It misses that the data was THEORETICALLY
>> GENERATED, by decomposing the Schwarzschild solution (SR + GR) and
>> ignored the GROSS ESTIMATION of the readings of the clock at Washington.
>> Well trained to not have a front collision with ChatGPT.
>>
>> ***************************************************************************
>> Your text presents a highly skeptical view of the Hafele-Keating
>> experiment, challenging its validity as empirical proof of relativistic
>> time dilation. Below, I analyze the certainties and uncertainties in
>> each claim, assessing their factual basis and potential biases.
>> ....
>
> Very interesting.  DeepSeek detected Hertz's skepticism, as many of we
> here have done, and pinned his ears back quite well while acknowledging
> the dated nature of the H-K experiment.
>
> It's of particular note that when it offered newer experimental
> evidence, Hertz declined and kept nit-picking the H-K data.  This
> demonstrates that Hertz isn't interested in truth, only in finding
> fault (unjustified) with relativity.
>
> But it does look like DeepSeek is better than ChatGPT because the
> latter seems to be swayed more easily by the nature of the question
> rather than facts (as indicated by Hertz's results with the muon
> question).  Perhaps Hertz would submit his H-K question to ChatGPT
> and his muon one to DeepSeek?

Imbecile, you didn't understand what I did. I pointed out several weak
points of the ORIGINAL H-K to ChatGPT, and then asked it to write about
these points, considering the many ASSUMPTIONS that H-K did. I
considered the 1971 paper as highly cooked.

Then I took the ChatGPT answer (as it is in the OP of this thread), and
asked DeepSeek to analyze it, letting know to it that the text was
written by ChatGPT.

I wanted to see how the Chinese DeepSeek charged against the US ChatGPT.

At any case, both AI engines concluded that the paper was written with
circular reasoning, using relativity equations to make results AND THEN
CLAIM THAT THEY PROVED SR/GR.

I could have corrected several ERRORS that DeepSeek made, but I didn't
want to follow with this shit. My idea was to produce a CONFRONTATION
between them.