Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Argument with ChatGPT about that Pound-Rebka experiment was A FRAUD.
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2025 11:45:07 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <b6405c314f9a3cc38d0c518fad8f91d3@www.novabbs.com>
References: <3b78e0c128ecdc966a66fd37b6de07fd@www.novabbs.com> <ff475971506169bab3f6c59b0f266445@www.novabbs.com> <05f9aaea77b2e88a5bbfd20b5b423d90@www.novabbs.com> <06a782c98fd042e2c23407d82baf1d55@www.novabbs.com> <984342cbac12bb5aebe658e0081b2ae7@www.novabbs.com> <e9f2cde1246361a578d00b6323871d5e@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="1963680"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="Ooch2ht+q3xfrepY75FKkEEx2SPWDQTvfft66HacveI";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$/0o6v5wngTWAvI1ny1YUc.QhpXthEBs.FNeVKaSxYe6RKi0fIYLEK
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Posting-User: 504a4e36a1e6a0679da537f565a179f60d7acbd8
Bytes: 4564
Lines: 81

On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 6:30:23 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:

> On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 4:47:21 +0000, rhertz wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 2:15:30 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 0:33:25 +0000, rhertz wrote:

>>>> Now, YOU ACCUSE ME OF CHEATING CHATGPT BY MISGUIDING THE AI ENGINE.
>>
>>
>>> Absolutely true. You fed it the following nonsense, and then
>>> questioned ChatGPT why the numbers didn't work out:
>>
>>> | 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.
>>>
>>
>>> ChatGPT assumed that your numbers were correct and bullshitted its
>>> answer as best as it could.
>>
>>
>> <snip rest of the post>
>>
>>
>>
>> What are you? Some kind of idiot?
>>
>> The above numbers reflect EXACTLY what Pound and Rebka published.
>>
>> This is the published table:
>>
>>
>> ********************************************************************
>> Source at the bottom  (x 10^15)
>> Shift observed     Temperature correction       Net shift
>> -11.5 ± 3.0             -9.2                    -20.7 ± 3.0
>> -16.4 ± 2.2             -5.9                    -22.3 ± 2.2
>> -13.8 ± 1.3             -8.3                    -19.1 ± 1.3
>> -11.9 ± 2.1             -8.0                    -19.9 ± 2.1
>> -8.7 ± 2.0             -10.5                    -19.2 ± 2.0
>> -10.8 ± 2.0            -10.6                    -21 ± 0.8
>>
>> Weighted average                                -19.7 ± 0.8
>>
>> Source at the top  (x 10^15)
>> Shift observed     Temperature correction       Net shift
>> -12 ± 4.1               -8.6                    -20.6 ± 4.1
>> -5.7 ± 1.4              -9.6                    -15.3 ± 1.4
>> -7.4 ± 2.1              -7.4                    -14.8 ± 2.1
>> -6.5 ± 2.1              -5.8                    -12.3 ± 2.1
>> -13.9 ± 3.1             -7.5                    -21.4 ± 3.1
>> -6.6 ± 3.0              -5.7                    -12.3 ± 3.0
>> -6.5 ± 2.0              -8.9                    -15.4 ± 2.0
>> -10 ± 2.6               -7.9                    -17.9 ± 2.6
>>
>> Weighted average                                -15.5 ± 0.8
>>
>> Mean shift                                      -17.6 ± 0.6
>> Difference of averages                           -4.2 ± 1.1
>>
>> ****************************************************************
>> AS ANY WHO IS NOT A RETARDED OR BLIND RELATIVIST CAN SEE, THE NUMBERS
>> THAT
>> I POSTED REFLECT THE RESULTS OF THE ABOVE TABLE.
>
> Sorry, no. You either made a massive goof, or you were deliberately
> trying to befuddle ChatGPT with inconsistent numbers.
>
> If you were being honest, you would have written something like
> Net Shift (x 10^15):
> source at bottom, red shift = (-17.6 - 2.1) = -19.7 (weighted avg)
> source at top,   blue shift = (-17.6 + 2.1) = -15.5 (weighted avg)
>
> Instead, your numbers were
> Net Shift (x 10^15):
> source at bottom, red shift = (-17.6 - 2.1) = -19.7 (weighted avg)
> source at top,   blue shift = (-15.5 + 2.1) = -13.4 WHAATTT????

Well, which was it, Richard? Did you innocently blunder, or did you
intentionally misrepresent Pound & Rebka's results?