Here is the result of my chat, which has been polished with its help: Hafele–Keating: A Post-Hoc Patchwork, Not an Experiment
The 1971 Hafele–Keating experiment is routinely cited as a definitive empirical proof of time dilation predicted by Special and General
Relativity. In it, atomic clocks were flown around the world—eastward
and westward—and the time discrepancies recorded after comparing with a reference clock left at the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington.
Albert Einstein's personal relationships were primarily with women. He
had an extramarital affair with Margarete Lebach and was unfaithful to
his first wife, Mileva Marić, before marrying his cousin Elsa Einstein,
Conclusion: A Theory-Laden "Experiment"
On 04/29/2025 05:55 PM, rhertz wrote:
An incredible hoax, with the complicity of academia, publishing
houses and establishment.
To hype the figure of Einstein and his theories was a very well
rewarded job in the '50s, '60s and '70s for opportunist scums like
Pound, Shapiro, Hafele and many others.
And this has been happening since 1919, with Eddington.
ChatGPT offered to me to debunk any major paper or experiment
"proving" relativity up to these days.
It seems that the AI entity find it amusing, so his proposals
were endless, like to disprove LIGO, Compton, Eddington,
Hawking's radiation on black holes, the very existence of
black holes, etc.
I could write a book with the material that ChatGPT provided
to me. It imposed only one condition: not to call them HOAX,
but to present conflicting facts that disproved famous "sacred
cows" of relativity. You only had to explain what was your
intentions and which were the starting points that made me a
non-believer. Then, it cooperated.
Gravitational singularities rather exist, even if as regards to
the "cosmic censorship" or "raw singularities", the wobbles as
they may be result an unboundedly large concentration even if
with a vanishingly small extent or duration.
Gravitational waves like LIGO and others like Weber bars
do detect gravitational waves, or rather, the tail end
of them, with regards to the instantaneous formation of
gravitational waves.
There are a variety of Compton effects, that Eddington
isn't saying much. Hawking is all over the place.
Higgs boson is outside the standard model of course.
Hafaele-Keating picked a careful circuit in terms of
that the configuration and energy of experiment of
the day wasn't just an oscillator they could strap
into a passenger flight seat, yet also quite the
many regularly scheduled flights they could pick from
to go around the right way.
Eotvos really did spin freely, after it lined up right,
much like Michelson-Morley, after it came to rest,
as according to what Foucault says, and a bit of Allais.
Pound-Rebka and the rubidium laser bit, has those are pumped.
The trick of these experiments is to actually validate usual
GR and QM in very contrived configurations and energies of
experiment, because there are lots of configurations and
at least something has to result, the, "classical limit".
Then that most people have no idea about the difference of
these is because they're not figuring it out for themselves.
Most have never even heard of that NIST CODATA measures the
theoretical particle every few years, and it gets smaller,
and the age of the universe, and it gets larger.
On 04/30/2025 06:41 AM, gharnagel wrote:
I find the AI discourse rather shallow. There were no mentions of
more recent experiments which support relativity not at all dependent
on muons:
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5253894/
"Relativity in the Global Positioning System"
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature01997
"A test of general relativity using radio links with the Cassini spacecraft"
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 3:42:29 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
Gravitational singularities rather exist, even if as regards to
the "cosmic censorship" or "raw singularities", the wobbles as
they may be result an unboundedly large concentration even if
with a vanishingly small extent or duration.
Singularities only appear in theories, not in reality. Their
presence indicates that the theory has exceeded its domain of applicability.
Mathematics _owes_ physics better mathematics of infinities
and singularities, because infinitesimals and multiplicities
are in effect in dynamics of continuous change.
Singularity theories are just half-accounts of multiplicity theories.
When they asked Einstein "is the universe infinite" he said
something along the lines of "it isn't not".
It's pretty well agreed we're looking at a field theory
and a gauge theory and over a continuous manifold,
.....
So, the "domain of applicability" here is "a physics",
And more FYI: An experiment isn't an experiment until it has been
correctly interpreted,
“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
J. J. Lodder wrote:
And more FYI: An experiment isn't an experiment until it has been
correctly interpreted,
incorrect, most experiments are brute force which works everytime.
Otherwise you may have that it works, but you dont know why. Or
conversely, not working inspite of everything is as prescribed.
the Russians brought civilization and welfare into your shithole country
and the entire west. That's where that welfare came from, you disgusting brain dead piece of shit. Hopefully soon you'll arrive in Siberia to build icebreakers, dig underground tunnels, clean toilets and so on.
Ezekiel Bazunov <eouaol@oalka.ru> wrote:
J. J. Lodder wrote:
And more FYI: An experiment isn't an experiment until it has been
correctly interpreted,
incorrect, most experiments are brute force which works everytime.
Otherwise you may have that it works, but you dont know why. Or
conversely, not working inspite of everything is as prescribed.
Sure, that seems to be the way it works in Russia.
Brutish and dumb, over there,
Den 01.05.2025 11:59, skrev Sibtain Haritonov:
the Russians brought civilization and welfare into your shithole
country and the entire west. That's where that welfare came from, you
disgusting brain dead piece of shit. Hopefully soon you'll arrive in
Siberia to build icebreakers, dig underground tunnels, clean toilets
and so on.
You have to be a gullible Russian to believe everything Putin tells you.
:-D
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.
theories.Singularity theories are just half-accounts of multiplicity
“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.
[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.
[More irrelevance deleted]
There are a lot of empirical models: there's only one data.
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,
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.
....
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,
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".
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
On Thu, 1 May 2025 16:21:10 +0000, gharnagel wrote:
On Thu, 1 May 2025 15:34:25 +0000, rhertz wrote:
theI asked to the chinese DeepSeek to analyze the comment generated by
defendUS ChatGPT, which is in the OP of this thread. I copied entirely the analysis. This is what DeepSeek answered (agree partially, but
THEORETICALLYthe experiment as pioneering). It misses that the data was
Washington.GENERATED, by decomposing the Schwarzschild solution (SR + GR) and ignored the GROSS ESTIMATION of the readings of the clock at
Well trained to not have a front collision with ChatGPT.
***************************************************************************
relativisticYour text presents a highly skeptical view of the Hafele-Keating experiment, challenging its validity as empirical proof of
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 weacknowledging
here have done, and pinned his ears back quite well while
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.
Baloney! H-K compared experimental results with relativity
theory. Only ADHD autistic engineers would think that meant
"using relativity equations to make results."
Of COURSE you do. It's obvious that what you really did was cook
ChatGPT. A GOOD rebuttal would have included comparison with more
recent H-K type experiments as well as experiments that confirm (and
deny) the relativity model. As it is, it is unconvincing.
And ChatGPT admitted that H-Kt was consistent with the time dilation explanation.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 493 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 178:44:30 |
| Calls: | 9,705 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 13,736 |
| Messages: | 6,179,245 |