• Re: I asked ChatGPT to prove that Hafele-Keating 1971 experiment was A

    From Octaviano Russkikh Huan@21:1/5 to rhertz on Tue Apr 29 23:22:08 2025
    rhertz wrote:

    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.

    There is no evidence to suggest that Albert Einstein was gay or had a
    romantic relationship with a male cousin. The confusion seems to have
    arisen from a viral post that mistakenly conflated Albert Einstein with
    Sergei Eisenstein, a Soviet filmmaker.

    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, who
    was a man.

    The Einstein family includes several cousins, but there is no
    documentation or historical evidence indicating a romantic or sexual relationship between Albert Einstein and any male cousin. The confusion
    might stem from the fact that Albert Einstein had a close relationship
    with his cousin Robert Einstein, who lived in Italy and was targeted by
    the Nazis during World War II.

    Therefore, there is no proof that Albert Einstein was gay or had a
    romantic relationship with a male cousin.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alexey Mulatov@21:1/5 to Octaviano Russkikh Huan on Wed Apr 30 08:24:38 2025
    Octaviano Russkikh Huan wrote:

    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,


    they say 'primarily with women' not 'only with..' admitting that gay
    Einstine was a gay, a deplorable attempt to a human being, leaving his
    wife and children in the middle of the war, to gay in gay america with his cousin in drag.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to rhertz on Wed Apr 30 15:13:05 2025
    rhertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
    [snip AI nonsense]

    Conclusion: A Theory-Laden "Experiment"

    Great discovery.

    And FYI: All experiments (except perhaps the most primitive ones)
    are theory laden.

    And more FYI: An experiment isn't an experiment
    until it has been correctly interpreted,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Wed Apr 30 13:41:40 2025
    On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 3:42:29 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

    On 04/29/2025 05:55 PM, rhertz wrote:

    An incredible hoax, with the complicity of academia, publishing
    houses and establishment.

    Not a hoax. Although ChatGPT suggested alternative explanations
    for muon lifetime extension, it admitted that it was consistent
    with the time dilation explanation.

    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.

    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"

    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.

    Singularities only appear in theories, not in reality. Their
    presence indicates that the theory has exceeded its domain of
    applicability.

    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.

    I thought Weber never detected them. Ah, he claimed to have
    detected them but no one else was able to reproduce them.

    https://www.science.org/content/article/remembering-joseph-weber-controversial-pioneer-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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Wed Apr 30 19:44:26 2025
    On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 14:18:34 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

    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.

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ezekiel Bazunov@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Wed Apr 30 19:33:32 2025
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dameian Babayan@21:1/5 to gharnagel on Wed Apr 30 21:55:46 2025
    gharnagel wrote:

    “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

    completely wrong. Here the Michel Obama

    ".. that warms my heart, particularly as a black man.." https://www.bi%74%63%68%75te.com/v%69%64%65o/CkAIGyDi36G9

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. J. Lodder@21:1/5 to Ezekiel Bazunov on Thu May 1 09:12:32 2025
    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,

    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Thu May 1 12:15:14 2025
    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

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sibtain Haritonov@21:1/5 to J. J. Lodder on Thu May 1 09:59:45 2025
    J. J. Lodder wrote:

    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,

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Prigojin Mochulov Tsen@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Thu May 1 11:36:58 2025
    Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    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

    no, he believes what your lying corrupt terrorist khazar regime and your khazar propaganda massmedia serves you to eat. State terrorists blowing up energy pipelines at the bottom of the sea, with profs etc. You disgusting impertinent pig. Here comes the
    poof, memorize and make sure

    *_BALTOPS22 (nato Baltic Operations 2022)_*
    These countries will exercise a myriad of capabilities, demonstrating the inherent flexibility of maritime forces. Exercise scenarios include amphibious, gunnery, anti-submarine, air defense, and mine clearance operations, as well as explosive ordnance
    disposal, unmanned underwater and surface vehicle exercises, and medical responses.
    https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/06/baltops-2023-exercise-kicks-off-in-the-baltic-sea/
    Participating nations include Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Türkiye, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

    nato is Khazaria in Drag. They worship the god of this world, not the GOD of Jesus.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Thu May 1 13:20:14 2025
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@21:1/5 to gharnagel on Thu May 1 15:44:41 2025
    On 5/1/2025 3:20 PM, gharnagel wrote:

    There are a lot of empirical models: there's only one data.

    Amen.  The useful models are, well, used.  The others are dumped.

    Sure. And even the hardest fanatics of Einstein's
    Shit are not stupid enough to use it; they apply
    Euclid and pretend it's GR.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Thu May 1 18:20:10 2025
    On 5/1/2025 6:16 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:


    Today we have a fundamental physics that's a bit more than
    a grab-bag assortment of empirical models,

    Today you have some mystical religion.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to rhertz on Thu May 1 16:21:10 2025
    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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Ross Finlayson on Thu May 1 18:42:08 2025
    On Thu, 1 May 2025 16:24:29 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

    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,

    I disagree. We have a hierarchy of models, with GR and QFT at
    the top. We may need another top-rank model for phenomena that
    falls outside GR and QM. Everything else is simplification of
    the top. We try to fit data to models in the hierarchy.

    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".

    Models are maps, and the map is not the territory. The top of the
    hierarchy isn't the end.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@21:1/5 to gharnagel on Thu May 1 20:31:22 2025
    On 5/1/2025 6:21 PM, 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

    Gary, poor trash, you believe your mystical
    "experimental evidence" because you're stupid
    and your logic sucks.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to rhertz on Fri May 2 15:25:26 2025
    On Thu, 1 May 2025 21:28:00 +0000, rhertz wrote:

    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,

    Pot, kettle,black :-))

    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.

    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.

    Then I took the ChatGPT answer (as it is in the OP of this
    thread),

    Really? I seem to remember more than what is available now.

    and asked DeepSeek to analyze it,

    Which is nowhere to be found.

    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,

    I don't recall that at all.

    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."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@21:1/5 to gharnagel on Fri May 2 19:25:34 2025
    On 5/2/2025 5:25 PM, gharnagel wrote:

    Baloney!  H-K compared experimental results with relativity
    theory.  Only ADHD autistic engineers would think that meant
    "using relativity equations to make results."

    And only a brainwashed fanatic idiot would think
    the opposite.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Yunesky Zhigmytov Ping@21:1/5 to gharnagel on Fri May 2 21:00:30 2025
    gharnagel wrote:

    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.

    so true indeed. I agree 100%. The AI says there are no proofs the EInstine
    did any relativity at all. SOmenthing he dont undrestand. A weak student,
    in math physics and so on. Maybe his wife did somehow relativity from some
    old papers. Read my lips.

    one more, the Einstine went to physics conferences as spectator. Nobody
    herd him saying anything.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)