Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Fun with ChatGPT: Relativity is a lucky pseudoscience that fails at
 atomiic level.
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2025 16:06:52 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <bfecab41294ec2664e5b98a423857d6d@www.novabbs.com>
References: <0d509b1635259917c7b4407251adcf31@www.novabbs.com> <3a42db544af628ec3969d6b80f1122b7@www.novabbs.com> <e613885e553df4e05738929b0c9eb9a9@www.novabbs.com> <99a0b6f82daafa4c7f7db42b177c6415@www.novabbs.com> <lvu43oF8kd9U1@mid.individual.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1724210"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="4CIDjmRjWbqC4EEN5EcU+HA+pIaOwwy51Z63DnRPIoA";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$ED213PNfVxuUfl8nB19oN.twIAfIDnTrIadL/u4nTU/Mki8HGtbRq
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Posting-User: d1111375bdddd1d0b42e6fbe96c9934b24d8a010

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 7:36:28 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am Dienstag000028, 28.01.2025 um 18:42 schrieb rhertz:
>> I just tried DeepSeek with the same question that I did to ChatGPT:
>>
>> QUESTION: Does relativity breaks down at atomic level?
>>
>> Even when Deepseek is fed with information available through Internet,
>> the differences with ChatGPT were shocking.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Regarding Special Relativity, DeepSeek agreed that non-relativistic
>> quantum mechanics is MUCH MORE RELEVANT than the Dirac's model.
>> Schrodinger's theory reigns in most cases and is much more simple to use
>> than Dirac's.
>>
>> Quantum effects are much more relevant than relativistic effects and,
>> for this, SR is not relevant at quantum level in the majority of cases.
>> According to DeepSeek, SR is useful only with heavier atoms due to the
>> "allegations" that low level electrons orbit at speed closer to c in
>> heavier atoms (gold, lead,..). Hyperfine states are more accurate
>> defined using Dirac instead of Schrodinger QM.
>>
>> When I questioned it how physics managed "statistical orbitals" to apply
>> relativity, being that in QM electrons don't have a neat, well-defined
>> orbitals and that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle collided with the
>> pseudo-classic SR,
>> DeepSeek crashed and asked me to try again later, as the servers were
>> busy.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regarding GR, it started to mumble shit about quantum spacetime and
>> Planck's lengths and times, to later accept that IT'S BELIEVED that GR
>> has to have a role in atom's behavior, but immediately it added that
>> such area is under heavy study by several researches, and that such
>> influence of GR on atom's behavior IS FAR FROM BEING KNOWN BY NOW.
>>
>> Also, added that efforts to incorporate quantum spacetime in atomic
>> theory have been made in the last decades without results (string
>> theory, quantum loop gravity, etc.). Additionally, added that a
>> completely new theory is needed, but there are no indications that
>> current proposals are going to succeed.
>
>
> Well, how about my own idea?
>
> It isn't that new anymore, but aims to fill that gap and base particles
> on spacetime of GR.

Just forget the depravity of all relativity.
>
> The concept is therefore called 'stractured spacetime', where 'timelike
> stable patterns' are, what we call 'matter'.

Matter is charge - electrons orbiting protons or getting stuck to
protons.
>
>
> See my 'book' about this idea:
>
> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
>
> Relativistic effects are in this concept not related to velocity but to
> acceleration.

Relativistic effects occur from Earth's movement in space.
>
> IOW: you could create matter out of nothing, by acceleration of
> spacetime.

Protons and electrons come from aether and vanish into aether. The most
striking demonstration is growth from life internal forces; cell
splitting into two.
>
> This should be observable in some cases as 'Growing Earth' or 'magic
> dust'.

See any cell split. how matter appears.
We come from aether. We return to aether.
>
> Also the opposite could be possible, where matter disapears without a
> trace.
>
>   ...
>
>
> TH