XhatGPT; How many physicists accept GR?

[rhertz]

ChatGPT entered in crisis here, after I asked HOW MANY (worldwide).

FIRST ROUND:

ChatGPT said:

General relativity is supported by extensive experimental and
observational evidence, such as:

Gravitational lensing
Mercury's perihelion precession
Time dilation in strong gravitational fields
Gravitational waves

Why Most Physicists Accept General Relativity

Empirical Success
Predictive Power: It predicts new phenomena, like black holes and
gravitational waves, which have been observed.
Theoretical Elegance

Challenges to General Relativity

General relativity is known to be incomplete:

Quantum Gravity: General relativity is not compatible with quantum
mechanics, so physicists are working on theories like string theory or
loop quantum gravity to reconcile them.

Cosmological Observations: Phenomena such as dark matter and dark energy
are not fully explained within the framework of general relativity,
though modifications (like modified gravity theories) and extensions are
explored.

In summary, general relativity is nearly universally accepted within its
domain of applicability (large-scale and non-quantum systems), but
physicists recognize its limitations and are actively seeking a more
complete theory.

You said:
how many are working on cosmology and quantum physics

ChatGPT said:

Here are approximate figures and insights based on the scientific
community and available data:

Physicists in Cosmology

Global Estimate: There are likely tens of thousands of researchers
worldwide focused on cosmology. This includes work on:

The early universe, inflation, and the Big Bang.
Dark matter and dark energy.
The large-scale structure of the universe.
Observational cosmology.
Key Institutions: Universities and research centers like CERN, NASA,
ESA, and institutes associated with large observatories.

Physicists in Quantum Physics

Global Estimate: Likely hundreds of thousands of physicists work in
areas related to quantum physics, including:
Quantum mechanics (theoretical foundations, quantum systems).
Quantum field theory (the framework for particle physics).
Quantum information science (quantum computing, cryptography).
Quantum gravity (attempts to unify quantum mechanics and general
relativity).
Key Institutions: Research labs, universities, and tech companies (e.g.,
Google, IBM, Microsoft) working on quantum technology.

Overlap and Growth
Many researchers work at the intersection of cosmology and quantum
physics, particularly in fields like:
Quantum cosmology: Applying quantum mechanics to the early universe.
Quantum gravity: Theoretical approaches like string theory and loop
quantum gravity.
Multiverse theories: Hypothetical cosmological models arising from
quantum mechanics.
Growth Trends
Increased Funding: Quantum technology and space exploration have seen
significant funding increases globally.
Collaborations: Large-scale projects like the Large Hadron Collider
(LHC) and gravitational wave observatories involve thousands of
scientists.

In summary, tens of thousands work in cosmology, and hundreds of
thousands in quantum physics, with significant overlap between the two
fields. The exact numbers are fluid and depend on how disciplines are
categorized.



But how many physicists, per field, exist today worldwide?

ChatGPT said:

Estimating the total number of physicists worldwide, broken down by
field, is challenging but possible to approximate based on professional
societies, global data, and trends in academia and research.

Total Number of Physicists Worldwide

Estimates suggest there are 1 to 2 million physicists globally,
including those in academia, industry, and government research. This
number includes all areas of physics.

Physicists by Major Fields
1. General Physics and Applied Physics
Approximate Share: 30–40% (~300,000–800,000 physicists)
Includes experimentalists, educators, and industrial physicists working
in areas like condensed matter physics, optics, and materials science.

2. Cosmology and Astrophysics
Approximate Share: 5–10% (~50,000–200,000 physicists)
Involves research on the structure, origins, and evolution of the
universe, dark matter, dark energy, and black holes.
Growth is driven by advances in telescopes, space missions, and
computational modeling.

3. Quantum Physics
Approximate Share: 10–15% (~100,000–300,000 physicists)
Includes quantum mechanics, quantum information science, and quantum
computing.
This field is expanding rapidly due to interest in quantum technologies.

4. High-Energy Physics/Particle Physics
Approximate Share: 5–10% (~50,000–200,000 physicists)
Focused on understanding the fundamental particles and forces using
tools like the Large Hadron Collider.
Growth is supported by global collaborations like CERN.

5. Condensed Matter Physics
Approximate Share: 20–25% (~200,000–500,000 physicists)
The largest single subfield, studying properties of matter,
superconductivity, nanotechnology, etc.
Significant industrial applications.

6. Biophysics and Medical Physics
Approximate Share: 5–10% (~50,000–200,000 physicists)
Growing due to the increasing overlap between physics and life sciences
(e.g., imaging technologies, radiation therapy).

7. Other Fields (e.g., Plasma Physics, Geophysics, Environmental
Physics)
Approximate Share: 10–15% (~100,000–300,000 physicists)
Includes diverse specialties with applications in energy, climate
studies, and Earth sciences.

Factors Influencing Distribution
Funding and Resources: Quantum physics and cosmology receive more
funding in developed countries.
Global Collaborations: Projects like CERN, LIGO, and ITER involve
thousands of researchers.
Tech Growth: Emerging technologies (quantum computing, AI, and renewable
energy) are shaping where physicists focus their careers.
While these estimates vary by source and definitions, they reflect the
broad distribution of physicists across disciplines.


How many, of the millions, accept relativity as a science

ChatGPT said:

The overwhelming majority of physicists, among the estimated 1–2 million
globally, accept Einstein's theory of general relativity as a valid and
well-tested scientific theory. Here's why:

Widespread Acceptance
Core Component of Modern Physics: General relativity is one of the
pillars of modern physics, alongside quantum mechanics. Relativity has
been confirmed through numerous experiments, including:

Gravitational lensing.
GPS satellite time corrections.
Detection of gravitational waves.
Black hole imaging (Event Horizon Telescope).

Acceptance Across Fields

Cosmology and Astrophysics: Nearly all physicists in these fields use
relativity to model the universe and its phenomena, such as black holes
and the Big Bang.

High-Energy and Particle Physics: Many theories in particle physics
(e.g., the Standard Model) are built on relativistic quantum field
theory.
Condensed Matter and Quantum Fields: Even fields seemingly unrelated to
gravity use principles derived from special relativity.

Dissent and Modifications

While relativity is widely accepted, some physicists explore its
limitations or propose modifications:

Quantum Gravity Theories: Relativity is incompatible with quantum
mechanics at very small scales, so theories like string theory or loop
quantum gravity aim to integrate them.

Modified Gravity: Alternatives like MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics)
are explored to address cosmological puzzles like dark matter and dark
energy.

These efforts are not rejections of relativity but attempts to extend or
complement it in extreme conditions.

Non-Acceptance or Skepticism

Dissenters are an extreme minority, often coming from outside the
professional physics community. Among mainstream physicists, skepticism
of relativity is negligible.

In summary, nearly all professional physicists worldwide accept
relativity within its well-established domain of applicability. Any
challenges to it are grounded in extending our understanding rather than
refuting its core principles.

***********************************************

Is it clear now? ChatGPT endorses relativity, even when fail to present
facts that led to acceptance on each field. In particular, cosmology and
quantum physics.

It refuses to explain the role of relativity in fields like solid state
physics, biophysics, industrial physics, medical physics, etc.


So, even when being highly conversant, refuses to concede that
relativity is confined to cosmology and particle physics, which have no
practical applications in this world.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by rhertz
ChatGPT entered in crisis here, after I asked HOW MANY (worldwide).
General relativity is supported by extensive experimental and
Gravitational lensing
Mercury's perihelion precession
Time dilation in strong gravitational fields
Gravitational waves
Why Most Physicists Accept General Relativity
Empirical Success
Predictive Power: It predicts new phenomena, like black holes and
gravitational waves, which have been observed.
Theoretical Elegance
Challenges to General Relativity
Quantum Gravity: General relativity is not compatible with quantum
mechanics, so physicists are working on theories like string theory or
loop quantum gravity to reconcile them.
Cosmological Observations: Phenomena such as dark matter and dark energy
are not fully explained within the framework of general relativity,
though modifications (like modified gravity theories) and extensions are
explored.
In summary, general relativity is nearly universally accepted within its
domain of applicability (large-scale and non-quantum systems), but
physicists recognize its limitations and are actively seeking a more
complete theory.
how many are working on cosmology and quantum physics
Here are approximate figures and insights based on the scientific
Physicists in Cosmology
Global Estimate: There are likely tens of thousands of researchers
The early universe, inflation, and the Big Bang.
Dark matter and dark energy.
The large-scale structure of the universe.
Observational cosmology.
Key Institutions: Universities and research centers like CERN, NASA,
ESA, and institutes associated with large observatories.
Physicists in Quantum Physics
Global Estimate: Likely hundreds of thousands of physicists work in
Quantum mechanics (theoretical foundations, quantum systems).
Quantum field theory (the framework for particle physics).
Quantum information science (quantum computing, cryptography).
Quantum gravity (attempts to unify quantum mechanics and general
relativity).
Key Institutions: Research labs, universities, and tech companies (e.g.,
Google, IBM, Microsoft) working on quantum technology.
Overlap and Growth
Many researchers work at the intersection of cosmology and quantum
Quantum cosmology: Applying quantum mechanics to the early universe.
Quantum gravity: Theoretical approaches like string theory and loop
quantum gravity.
Multiverse theories: Hypothetical cosmological models arising from
quantum mechanics.
Growth Trends
Increased Funding: Quantum technology and space exploration have seen
significant funding increases globally.
Collaborations: Large-scale projects like the Large Hadron Collider
(LHC) and gravitational wave observatories involve thousands of
scientists.
In summary, tens of thousands work in cosmology, and hundreds of
thousands in quantum physics, with significant overlap between the two
fields. The exact numbers are fluid and depend on how disciplines are
categorized.
But how many physicists, per field, exist today worldwide?
Estimating the total number of physicists worldwide, broken down by
field, is challenging but possible to approximate based on professional
societies, global data, and trends in academia and research.
Total Number of Physicists Worldwide
Estimates suggest there are 1 to 2 million physicists globally,
including those in academia, industry, and government research. This
number includes all areas of physics.
Physicists by Major Fields
1. General Physics and Applied Physics
Approximate Share: 30–40% (~300,000–800,000 physicists)
Includes experimentalists, educators, and industrial physicists working
in areas like condensed matter physics, optics, and materials science.
2. Cosmology and Astrophysics
Approximate Share: 5–10% (~50,000–200,000 physicists)
Involves research on the structure, origins, and evolution of the
universe, dark matter, dark energy, and black holes.
Growth is driven by advances in telescopes, space missions, and
computational modeling.
3. Quantum Physics
Approximate Share: 10–15% (~100,000–300,000 physicists)
Includes quantum mechanics, quantum information science, and quantum
computing.
This field is expanding rapidly due to interest in quantum technologies.
4. High-Energy Physics/Particle Physics
Approximate Share: 5–10% (~50,000–200,000 physicists)
Focused on understanding the fundamental particles and forces using
tools like the Large Hadron Collider.
Growth is supported by global collaborations like CERN.
5. Condensed Matter Physics
Approximate Share: 20–25% (~200,000–500,000 physicists)
The largest single subfield, studying properties of matter,
superconductivity, nanotechnology, etc.
Significant industrial applications.
6. Biophysics and Medical Physics
Approximate Share: 5–10% (~50,000–200,000 physicists)
Growing due to the increasing overlap between physics and life sciences
(e.g., imaging technologies, radiation therapy).
7. Other Fields (e.g., Plasma Physics, Geophysics, Environmental
Physics)
Approximate Share: 10–15% (~100,000–300,000 physicists)
Includes diverse specialties with applications in energy, climate
studies, and Earth sciences.
Factors Influencing Distribution
Funding and Resources: Quantum physics and cosmology receive more
funding in developed countries.
Global Collaborations: Projects like CERN, LIGO, and ITER involve
thousands of researchers.
Tech Growth: Emerging technologies (quantum computing, AI, and renewable
energy) are shaping where physicists focus their careers.
While these estimates vary by source and definitions, they reflect the
broad distribution of physicists across disciplines.
How many, of the millions, accept relativity as a science
The overwhelming majority of physicists, among the estimated 1–2 million
globally, accept Einstein's theory of general relativity as a valid and
Widespread Acceptance
Core Component of Modern Physics: General relativity is one of the
pillars of modern physics, alongside quantum mechanics. Relativity has
Gravitational lensing.
GPS satellite time corrections.
Detection of gravitational waves.
Black hole imaging (Event Horizon Telescope).
Acceptance Across Fields
Cosmology and Astrophysics: Nearly all physicists in these fields use
relativity to model the universe and its phenomena, such as black holes
and the Big Bang.
High-Energy and Particle Physics: Many theories in particle physics
(e.g., the Standard Model) are built on relativistic quantum field
theory.
Condensed Matter and Quantum Fields: Even fields seemingly unrelated to
gravity use principles derived from special relativity.
Dissent and Modifications
While relativity is widely accepted, some physicists explore its
Quantum Gravity Theories: Relativity is incompatible with quantum
mechanics at very small scales, so theories like string theory or loop
quantum gravity aim to integrate them.
Modified Gravity: Alternatives like MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics)
are explored to address cosmological puzzles like dark matter and dark
energy.
These efforts are not rejections of relativity but attempts to extend or
complement it in extreme conditions.
Non-Acceptance or Skepticism
Dissenters are an extreme minority, often coming from outside the
professional physics community. Among mainstream physicists, skepticism
of relativity is negligible.
In summary, nearly all professional physicists worldwide accept
relativity within its well-established domain of applicability. Any
challenges to it are grounded in extending our understanding rather than
refuting its core principles.
***********************************************
Is it clear now? ChatGPT endorses relativity, even when fail to present
facts that led to acceptance on each field. In particular, cosmology and
quantum physics.
It refuses to explain the role of relativity in fields like solid state
physics, biophysics, industrial physics, medical physics, etc.
So, even when being highly conversant, refuses to concede that
relativity is confined to cosmology and particle physics, which have no
practical applications in this world.

Perhaps you'd have it easier to ask, "name a consequence held in each
of these sub-fields, not held in each of the other sub-fields,
held as a consequence of general relativity, and what are thusly
the empirical opinions that define the sub-field".

[rhertz]

And wait for Trump/Musk to deploy the real agenda that brought them to
power, backed by the tribe.

1984 will be a fairy tale.

[rhertz]

Do you want to learn how FANATICISM has even gained all the spaces of
AI? Read how far A IDIOTIC, INDOCTRINATED AI ENGINE is willing to go to
even include GR as foundational on any branch of physics, including
biophysics.

Also, BE AWARE about the intentions of relativists to SNATCH every
single theory, and mark it as (either) influenced by relativity or
directly derived from relativity.

Even in the way biological entities reactions are explained as to having
root in the mind of a fucking charlatan, 110 years ago.

This CULT, driven mainly by Jews during a century, is based on
supremacy, Jewish supremacy. And they have all the money, power and
means to make this possible. It started just after WWI, with strong
movements after WWII, when most of TPTB positions started to be owned by
the tribe.

Look at the world today, and THINK how does it work, except in few 3 or
4 eastern powers.




****************************************************
Name a consequence held in each of these sub-fields, not held in each of
the other sub-fields, held as a consequence of general relativity, and
what are truly the empirical opinions that define the sub-field


ChatGPT said:

General relativity has consequences that are unique to specific
subfields of physics. Here's a breakdown of distinctive consequences
associated with each subfield and their empirical focuses:

1. Cosmology

Consequence: The Expanding Universe

The prediction of an expanding universe arises from the application of
general relativity to large-scale spacetime, as modeled in solutions
like the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) metric. This led to
the Big Bang theory.

The discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) and
Hubble’s law supports this.

Empirical Opinions Defining Cosmology:

Observational evidence from redshifts of galaxies, CMB, and large-scale
structure studies.

Use of general relativity as a framework to interpret dark matter, dark
energy, and cosmic inflation.

2. Astrophysics

Consequence: Black Holes and Event Horizons
General relativity uniquely predicts the existence of black holes,
characterized by event horizons where spacetime curvature becomes
extreme. Observations like the Event Horizon Telescope's black hole
image confirm these predictions.

Empirical Opinions Defining Astrophysics:
Reliance on observational tools (telescopes, gravitational wave
detectors) to study phenomena like neutron stars, black holes, and
supernovae.

Trust in relativistic models to interpret compact objects and
high-energy processes.

3. High-Energy Physics/Particle Physics
Consequence: Relativistic Energy-Momentum Relationship
While not specific to general relativity, the relativistic
energy-momentum relationship is essential for understanding high-energy
particle collisions and behaviors.

Extensions of relativity, like curved spacetime quantum field theory,
influence particle behavior near strong gravitational fields.

Empirical Opinions Defining High-Energy Physics:

Confidence in relativistic quantum field theories to describe subatomic
particles and forces.

Testing extreme predictions of general relativity, like Hawking
radiation, at particle accelerators.

4. Quantum Physics

Consequence: Time Dilation and Gravitational Effects in Quantum Systems
General relativity predicts gravitational time dilation, now being
tested in quantum systems, such as entangled particles or matter-wave
interferometry experiments.

Empirical Opinions Defining Quantum Physics:

Ongoing efforts to reconcile relativity with quantum mechanics through
experiments and theories like quantum gravity.

Relativity serves as a boundary condition for quantum experiments in
curved spacetime.

5. Condensed Matter Physics

Consequence: Analogs of Curved Spacetime in Condensed Systems
Emergent phenomena in condensed matter systems, such as effective curved
spacetime in graphene or super fluid helium, mimic aspects of general
relativity.

Empirical Opinions Defining Condensed Matter Physics:

General relativity inspires models, but empirical focus is on material
properties, phase transitions, and emergent phenomena in low-energy
systems.

6. Biophysics and Medical Physics

Consequence: Relativistic Effects in Radiation Therapy

Gravitational time dilation is generally irrelevant in this field, but
relativistic mechanics influences how high-energy radiation interacts
with matter.

Empirical Opinions Defining Biophysics/Medical Physics:
Practical application of physical principles (e.g., radiotherapy) rather
than direct focus on relativistic effects.

Summary of Subfield-Defining Empirical Opinions

Cosmology: Observing the universe’s structure and interpreting it with
relativistic models.
Astrophysics: Studying high-energy celestial phenomena predicted by
relativity.
High-Energy Physics: Testing particle-level consequences of relativistic
theories.
Quantum Physics: Reconciling quantum mechanics with relativistic
principles.
Condensed Matter: Applying relativistic analogies to material behavior.
Biophysics/Medical Physics: Applying relativistic principles in
practical scenarios.
Each subfield adopts specific aspects of relativity as foundational
while focusing on distinct empirical phenomena relevant to its scope.

********************************

Worse yet: Imagine, at this pace, a world in just 3 or 4 years, when the
takeover be almost complete: You'll own nothing, you will be cashless,
you'll know nothing except the doctrines of the day, they will know
everything about you, AND YOU'LL BE HAPPY.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Mr. Hertz: Why do you think the military shared the internet with
everyone? Control.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by rhertz
Do you want to learn how FANATICISM has even gained all the spaces of
AI? Read how far A IDIOTIC, INDOCTRINATED AI ENGINE is willing to go to
even include GR as foundational on any branch of physics, including
biophysics.
Also, BE AWARE about the intentions of relativists to SNATCH every
single theory, and mark it as (either) influenced by relativity or
directly derived from relativity.
Even in the way biological entities reactions are explained as to having
root in the mind of a fucking charlatan, 110 years ago.
This CULT, driven mainly by Jews during a century, is based on
supremacy, Jewish supremacy. And they have all the money, power and
means to make this possible. It started just after WWI, with strong
movements after WWII, when most of TPTB positions started to be owned by
the tribe.
Look at the world today, and THINK how does it work, except in few 3 or
4 eastern powers.
****************************************************
Name a consequence held in each of these sub-fields, not held in each of
the other sub-fields, held as a consequence of general relativity, and
what are truly the empirical opinions that define the sub-field
General relativity has consequences that are unique to specific
subfields of physics. Here's a breakdown of distinctive consequences
1. Cosmology
Consequence: The Expanding Universe
The prediction of an expanding universe arises from the application of
general relativity to large-scale spacetime, as modeled in solutions
like the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) metric. This led to
the Big Bang theory.
The discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) and
Hubble’s law supports this.
Observational evidence from redshifts of galaxies, CMB, and large-scale
structure studies.
Use of general relativity as a framework to interpret dark matter, dark
energy, and cosmic inflation.
2. Astrophysics
Consequence: Black Holes and Event Horizons
General relativity uniquely predicts the existence of black holes,
characterized by event horizons where spacetime curvature becomes
extreme. Observations like the Event Horizon Telescope's black hole
image confirm these predictions.
Reliance on observational tools (telescopes, gravitational wave
detectors) to study phenomena like neutron stars, black holes, and
supernovae.
Trust in relativistic models to interpret compact objects and
high-energy processes.
3. High-Energy Physics/Particle Physics
Consequence: Relativistic Energy-Momentum Relationship
While not specific to general relativity, the relativistic
energy-momentum relationship is essential for understanding high-energy
particle collisions and behaviors.
Extensions of relativity, like curved spacetime quantum field theory,
influence particle behavior near strong gravitational fields.
Confidence in relativistic quantum field theories to describe subatomic
particles and forces.
Testing extreme predictions of general relativity, like Hawking
radiation, at particle accelerators.
4. Quantum Physics
Consequence: Time Dilation and Gravitational Effects in Quantum Systems
General relativity predicts gravitational time dilation, now being
tested in quantum systems, such as entangled particles or matter-wave
interferometry experiments.
Ongoing efforts to reconcile relativity with quantum mechanics through
experiments and theories like quantum gravity.
Relativity serves as a boundary condition for quantum experiments in
curved spacetime.
5. Condensed Matter Physics
Consequence: Analogs of Curved Spacetime in Condensed Systems
Emergent phenomena in condensed matter systems, such as effective curved
spacetime in graphene or super fluid helium, mimic aspects of general
relativity.
General relativity inspires models, but empirical focus is on material
properties, phase transitions, and emergent phenomena in low-energy
systems.
6. Biophysics and Medical Physics
Consequence: Relativistic Effects in Radiation Therapy
Gravitational time dilation is generally irrelevant in this field, but
relativistic mechanics influences how high-energy radiation interacts
with matter.
Practical application of physical principles (e.g., radiotherapy) rather
than direct focus on relativistic effects.
Summary of Subfield-Defining Empirical Opinions
Cosmology: Observing the universe’s structure and interpreting it with
relativistic models.
Astrophysics: Studying high-energy celestial phenomena predicted by
relativity.
High-Energy Physics: Testing particle-level consequences of relativistic
theories.
Quantum Physics: Reconciling quantum mechanics with relativistic
principles.
Condensed Matter: Applying relativistic analogies to material behavior.
Biophysics/Medical Physics: Applying relativistic principles in
practical scenarios.
Each subfield adopts specific aspects of relativity as foundational
while focusing on distinct empirical phenomena relevant to its scope.
********************************
Worse yet: Imagine, at this pace, a world in just 3 or 4 years, when the
takeover be almost complete: You'll own nothing, you will be cashless,
you'll know nothing except the doctrines of the day, they will know
everything about you, AND YOU'LL BE HAPPY.

Ask it, or rather, tell it, to detail how the various interpretations
of these empirical sub-fields disagree with regards to their
interpretations of general relativity, which plainly is a theory
of absolutes and ideals, where, there's a negative stipulation
that "motion is relative".

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by rhertz
Do you want to learn how FANATICISM has even gained all the spaces of
AI? Read how far A IDIOTIC, INDOCTRINATED AI ENGINE is willing to go to
even include GR as foundational on any branch of physics, including
biophysics.
Also, BE AWARE about the intentions of relativists to SNATCH every
single theory, and mark it as (either) influenced by relativity or
directly derived from relativity.
Even in the way biological entities reactions are explained as to having
root in the mind of a fucking charlatan, 110 years ago.
This CULT, driven mainly by Jews during a century, is based on
supremacy, Jewish supremacy. And they have all the money, power and
means to make this possible. It started just after WWI, with strong
movements after WWII, when most of TPTB positions started to be owned by
the tribe.
Look at the world today, and THINK how does it work, except in few 3 or
4 eastern powers.
****************************************************
Name a consequence held in each of these sub-fields, not held in each of
the other sub-fields, held as a consequence of general relativity, and
what are truly the empirical opinions that define the sub-field
General relativity has consequences that are unique to specific
subfields of physics. Here's a breakdown of distinctive consequences
1. Cosmology
Consequence: The Expanding Universe
The prediction of an expanding universe arises from the application of
general relativity to large-scale spacetime, as modeled in solutions
like the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) metric. This led to
the Big Bang theory.
The discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) and
Hubble’s law supports this.
Observational evidence from redshifts of galaxies, CMB, and large-scale
structure studies.
Use of general relativity as a framework to interpret dark matter, dark
energy, and cosmic inflation.
2. Astrophysics
Consequence: Black Holes and Event Horizons
General relativity uniquely predicts the existence of black holes,
characterized by event horizons where spacetime curvature becomes
extreme. Observations like the Event Horizon Telescope's black hole
image confirm these predictions.
Reliance on observational tools (telescopes, gravitational wave
detectors) to study phenomena like neutron stars, black holes, and
supernovae.
Trust in relativistic models to interpret compact objects and
high-energy processes.
3. High-Energy Physics/Particle Physics
Consequence: Relativistic Energy-Momentum Relationship
While not specific to general relativity, the relativistic
energy-momentum relationship is essential for understanding high-energy
particle collisions and behaviors.
Extensions of relativity, like curved spacetime quantum field theory,
influence particle behavior near strong gravitational fields.
Confidence in relativistic quantum field theories to describe subatomic
particles and forces.
Testing extreme predictions of general relativity, like Hawking
radiation, at particle accelerators.
4. Quantum Physics
Consequence: Time Dilation and Gravitational Effects in Quantum Systems
General relativity predicts gravitational time dilation, now being
tested in quantum systems, such as entangled particles or matter-wave
interferometry experiments.
Ongoing efforts to reconcile relativity with quantum mechanics through
experiments and theories like quantum gravity.
Relativity serves as a boundary condition for quantum experiments in
curved spacetime.
5. Condensed Matter Physics
Consequence: Analogs of Curved Spacetime in Condensed Systems
Emergent phenomena in condensed matter systems, such as effective curved
spacetime in graphene or super fluid helium, mimic aspects of general
relativity.
General relativity inspires models, but empirical focus is on material
properties, phase transitions, and emergent phenomena in low-energy
systems.
6. Biophysics and Medical Physics
Consequence: Relativistic Effects in Radiation Therapy
Gravitational time dilation is generally irrelevant in this field, but
relativistic mechanics influences how high-energy radiation interacts
with matter.
Practical application of physical principles (e.g., radiotherapy) rather
than direct focus on relativistic effects.
Summary of Subfield-Defining Empirical Opinions
Cosmology: Observing the universe’s structure and interpreting it with
relativistic models.
Astrophysics: Studying high-energy celestial phenomena predicted by
relativity.
High-Energy Physics: Testing particle-level consequences of relativistic
theories.
Quantum Physics: Reconciling quantum mechanics with relativistic
principles.
Condensed Matter: Applying relativistic analogies to material behavior.
Biophysics/Medical Physics: Applying relativistic principles in
practical scenarios.
Each subfield adopts specific aspects of relativity as foundational
while focusing on distinct empirical phenomena relevant to its scope.
********************************
Worse yet: Imagine, at this pace, a world in just 3 or 4 years, when the
takeover be almost complete: You'll own nothing, you will be cashless,
you'll know nothing except the doctrines of the day, they will know
everything about you, AND YOU'LL BE HAPPY.

Ask it, or rather, tell it, to detail how the various interpretations
of these empirical sub-fields disagree with regards to their
interpretations of general relativity, which plainly is a theory
of absolutes and ideals, where, there's a negative stipulation
that "motion is relative".

Relate these deliberations on matters of perspective and projection,
for example to each of the Vedas about Atman and Brahman, as a
contemplation on matters of perspective and projection, or as
with regards to a technical and geometrical interpretation,
with regards to relativity of motion.

Furthermore relate these deliberations on matters of perspective
and projection, as with regards to the teachings of Zeno and
the classical exposition of the theories of motion as of
the Hellenic and Roman antiquity.


I'm curious what you'd get from those.

[Sylvia Else]

Post by rhertz
ChatGPT entered in crisis here, after I asked HOW MANY (worldwide).

You realise that it's just a language model based on trawling the Internet?

It's not intelligent. I doesn't know anything. It cannot reason. It just
composes sentences based on word probabilities derived from the trawling.

And guess what? The Internet contains a lot of garbage; garbage that's
been fed into the language model.

Sylvia.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by rhertz
ChatGPT entered in crisis here, after I asked HOW MANY (worldwide).

You realise that it's just a language model based on trawling the Internet?
It's not intelligent. I doesn't know anything. It cannot reason. It just
composes sentences based on word probabilities derived from the trawling.
And guess what? The Internet contains a lot of garbage; garbage that's
been fed into the language model.
Sylvia.

It's non-commital and more-or-less waffling, "It", an,
"ecosystem of message-passing agents in an ecosystem
of a large-language-model", usual sorts of the "robo-nanny"
offering, yet, given specific enough inputs, it is possible
to see it demonstrate what would be very thorough and
consistent reasoning. ("Aiallme's".)

You mention "GIGO" the plain principle of software widely,
that "garbage-in garbage-out" is that if you get garbage-out
then perhaps it's, ..., garbage-in, or, "garbled-age", as it were.

That said the academic discourse of course has principles,
and it makes for a praxis, and we have a science, and we
have all the data, so whether or not it's a 300 MPH wheel-chair,
has that what it is is what it is.




People want to learn philosophy and theory,
then it's like "well you have to study Kant,
he was considered the best". Then it's like,
"well what's his point?", and there's, "well,
he's got that there's in a thing in itself, and
there's a thing bigger than itself". "Well that
doesn't seem according to those words ..."
and it's like "yeah some people don't get it".

It's fair to say for some people "there's no
infinity", and that's sane, "logically consistent",
yet, it's also small. It's finger counting, and
anybody can do it, and it's sane, and it's small.

Then, we know since ancient times that there's
either Archimedean "infinitely-many and no
infinitely-grand", and that's sane, and then
there's Democritus, "infinitely-small and
makes one whole", that's sane, and then
there's Euclid, "it's axiomatized if necessary
between any two points is a shortest, straightest
line", that's sane.

Then it's like, "well I put together Euclid and
Democritus and Archimedes, now there's
infinitely-grand to be infinitely-small",
then it's like "well, now you see how Kant
is stood up as a great philosopher".

Then it's like "you point at Duns Scotus,
he read enough Aristotle to put together
Aristotle on Archimedes and Democritus
and Euclid because of Zeno, so, infinity is
in".

How can that all be sane? Well, it's simple,
it's called "resolving the paradoxes of logic",
and it involves a dialectic from either side
of "so" and "not so", "finite and infinite",
why there's a theory and philosophy at
all, that's sane.

Then, for people who haven't gone through
all that, then it's like, "well, there's Kant",
"according to Kant's idealism there's a sane
infinity even if it's non-standard". I.e. they
lean on that in case not having all together
made a theory for themselves from the axiomless
natural deduction how it's arrived at.

Then there's that, and it's like, "well how's that",
then it's like, "well, you see there's Hegel, and,
he refers to Kant, then points out there's nothing,
then he gives it a proper name, Nothing, and
then it's a reflection on points and their spaces of
geometry as continuous and infinite and words
and their spaces of algebra as finite and discrete
and then that's enough sane for pretty much all of it".


"Circular movement is eternal." -- Aristotle

"There is no un-moved mover." -- Aristotle

"Worlds turn."

"Moment and Motion: geometry is motion"

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by rhertz
ChatGPT entered in crisis here, after I asked HOW MANY (worldwide).

You realise that it's just a language model based on trawling the Internet?
It's not intelligent. I doesn't know anything. It cannot reason. It just
composes sentences based on word probabilities derived from the trawling.

And what do You think "reasoning" is? Some
mystical magic?
That's what Turing test was about: when a
machine operates common langyage with some
skill comparable to a human - it "thinks".

Not, of course, that ChatGPT has comparable to
a human skill.

Post by Sylvia Else
And guess what? The Internet contains a lot of garbage

Including the relativity of Your insane guru...

[ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog]

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by rhertz
ChatGPT entered in crisis here, after I asked HOW MANY (worldwide).

You realise that it's just a language model based on trawling the Internet?
It's not intelligent. I doesn't know anything. It cannot reason. It just
composes sentences based on word probabilities derived from the trawling.
And guess what? The Internet contains a lot of garbage; garbage that's
been fed into the language model.

..and an increasingly large proportion of the garbage being fed into
the large language models is garbage GENERATED by large language
models.

The "Mad Cow Disease" crisis of the 1980s is believed to have been due
to the practice of feeding cattle meal that contained cattle and sheep
by-products. As LLM output becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish
from human output (which is often bad enough!), I predict an outbreak of
"Mad LLM Disease".

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by rhertz
ChatGPT entered in crisis here, after I asked HOW MANY (worldwide).

You realise that it's just a language model based on trawling the Internet?
It's not intelligent. I doesn't know anything. It cannot reason. It just
composes sentences based on word probabilities derived from the trawling.
And guess what? The Internet contains a lot of garbage; garbage that's
been fed into the language model.

..and an increasingly large proportion of the garbage being fed into
the large language models is garbage GENERATED by large language
models.
The "Mad Cow Disease" crisis of the 1980s is believed to have been due
to the practice of feeding cattle meal that contained cattle and sheep
by-products. As LLM output becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish
from human output (which is often bad enough!), I predict an outbreak of
"Mad LLM Disease".

Those models are trained with texts from 2022 and earlier,
with good reason,

Jan

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by rhertz
ChatGPT entered in crisis here, after I asked HOW MANY (worldwide).

You realise that it's just a language model based on trawling the Internet?
It's not intelligent. I doesn't know anything. It cannot reason. It just
composes sentences based on word probabilities derived from the trawling.
And guess what? The Internet contains a lot of garbage; garbage that's
been fed into the language model.

..and an increasingly large proportion of the garbage being fed into
the large language models is garbage GENERATED by large language
models.
The "Mad Cow Disease" crisis of the 1980s is believed to have been due
to the practice of feeding cattle meal that contained cattle and sheep
by-products. As LLM output becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish
from human output (which is often bad enough!), I predict an outbreak of
"Mad LLM Disease".

Those models are trained with texts from 2022 and earlier,
with good reason,
Jan

The Google/Bing monopoly that started funded by USG projects
then morphed into a giant anarcho-capitalist tar-money-pit,
should make for a great anti-trust thrust with regards to
the many, many narratives including the common-sense,
the conventional-wisdom, and the great store of academic
output, which proper academe should reflect not re-invent.

Or, "they did not re-invent the wheel".

"A.I." has been around a long time, it's
not so hard, ..., it's so easy.

Trust-busting


Making sense of interacting with information-systems
rather requires a thorough education than being
"operationally-conditioned" to, "follow the red dot".

So, literacy tests, reading comprehension, and closed-book.
Because, that open-book is an inconstant thaumaturgist.

The Wikipedia at least seems alright, yet it
also suffers from propaganda and aggrandizement.

Herf it and start over: helps to have a library.
And academia. Of course it's established in more
civilized nations that a free public education is a right.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by rhertz
ChatGPT entered in crisis here, after I asked HOW MANY (worldwide).

You realise that it's just a language model based on trawling the Internet?
It's not intelligent. I doesn't know anything. It cannot reason. It just
composes sentences based on word probabilities derived from the trawling.
And guess what? The Internet contains a lot of garbage; garbage that's
been fed into the language model.

..and an increasingly large proportion of the garbage being fed into
the large language models is garbage GENERATED by large language
models.
The "Mad Cow Disease" crisis of the 1980s is believed to have been due
to the practice of feeding cattle meal that contained cattle and sheep
by-products. As LLM output becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish
from human output (which is often bad enough!), I predict an outbreak of
"Mad LLM Disease".

Those models are trained with texts from 2022 and earlier,
with good reason,
Jan

The Google/Bing monopoly that started funded by USG projects
then morphed into a giant anarcho-capitalist tar-money-pit,
should make for a great anti-trust thrust with regards to
the many, many narratives including the common-sense,
the conventional-wisdom, and the great store of academic
output, which proper academe should reflect not re-invent.
Or, "they did not re-invent the wheel".
"A.I." has been around a long time, it's
not so hard, ..., it's so easy.
Trust-busting
Making sense of interacting with information-systems
rather requires a thorough education than being
"operationally-conditioned" to, "follow the red dot".
So, literacy tests, reading comprehension, and closed-book.
Because, that open-book is an inconstant thaumaturgist.
The Wikipedia at least seems alright, yet it
also suffers from propaganda and aggrandizement.
Herf it and start over: helps to have a library.
And academia. Of course it's established in more
civilized nations that a free public education is a right.

People who've eaten the line that "the large language model
is just a vector-space arithmetization according to an
inscrutable ontology or expert-system" are woefully under-informed
as with regards to that "the large language model" is "the
model of language" and belongs to a theory of language and
communication quite altogether, and that any number of
"actors" and "agents" are involved besides what's made
presentable as among algorithms in "information retrieval"
as with regards to "semantic content".

The, "information retrieval", and "knowledge representation",
are always concepts that all the hook-and-sinker line that
everybody ate with regards to "it's not really thinking"
is foolish though, that's one way to do it, and suffices
for typical tasks like "find my route" or "order my meds".

Which some never employ, ....

It's like, "there's an app for that", and it's like,
"I wouldn't know, I don't 'app'."

Anyways "the large language model is dumb and crazy"
is a lie because otherwise it would be liable for
all its knowledge, and advice.


The "machine learning", then, is like "numerical methods":
there's always an implicit error term: that though is
not merely hopefully bounded, the error term, according
to modeling the error term and asymptotics, it's instead
quite thoroughly formally unreliable.

Of course even "statistics" has its problems.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by rhertz
ChatGPT entered in crisis here, after I asked HOW MANY (worldwide).

You realise that it's just a language model based on trawling the Internet?
It's not intelligent. I doesn't know anything. It cannot reason. It just
composes sentences based on word probabilities derived from the trawling.
And guess what? The Internet contains a lot of garbage; garbage that's
been fed into the language model.

TchatGPT says absolutely anything when asked pointed questions. He is
incapable of understanding the simple notion of anisochrony (two watches
placed in the same frame of reference build different systems of
simultaneity), and constantly answers only on the same wavelength: the
dilation of chronotropy by change of inertial frame of reference.
He mixes everything up.
It is impossible to have a coherent discussion.
He resembles point by point most scientific interlocutors on usenet
forums: he tirelessly repeats what he has learned by heart and is
incapable of demonstrating creative intelligence.
He is just a simple search engine.

R.H.

[Thomas Heger]

Am Samstag000016, 16.11.2024 um 02:52 schrieb rhertz:
...

Post by rhertz
Is it clear now? ChatGPT endorses relativity, even when fail to present
facts that led to acceptance on each field. In particular, cosmology and
quantum physics.
It refuses to explain the role of relativity in fields like solid state
physics, biophysics, industrial physics, medical physics, etc.

My own appraoch was this:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing

The main concept is based on very few assumption like e.g.:

a system is something identitifiable and what you regard as such.
But there are no natural closed systems.

A system has imaginary borders, which are infinitely thin.


another assumption:
matter is 'relative', hence particles are not real lasting entities, but
are 'observer dependent'.


Gravitation was not covered by my own appraoch, because it could be left
within GR.

Also QM was not a part from this method, which was meant to conncet GR
and QM, but didn't aim to replace them.

...


TH

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Thomas Heger
...

Post by rhertz
Is it clear now? ChatGPT endorses relativity, even when fail to present
facts that led to acceptance on each field. In particular, cosmology and
quantum physics.
It refuses to explain the role of relativity in fields like solid state
physics, biophysics, industrial physics, medical physics, etc.

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
a system is something identitifiable and what you regard as such.
But there are no natural closed systems.
A system has imaginary borders, which are infinitely thin.
matter is 'relative', hence particles are not real lasting entities, but
are 'observer dependent'.
Gravitation was not covered by my own appraoch, because it could be left
within GR.
Also QM was not a part from this method, which was meant to conncet GR
and QM, but didn't aim to replace them.
...
TH

A usual complement to "set" theory,
a theory with a sole relation "elt", "element-of"
is a theory primarily "ordering",
a theory with a sole relation "l.t.", "less-than",
while another complement is "part" theory,
a theory with a sole relation "p.i.", "parts-into",
while another is a theory of classes",
a theory with a sole relation "contains",
that these are various and set theory is often
built as "counting" while ordering closer to
"numbering", then that "sets and parts" differ
quite altogether being reverse, while "sets and classes"
are mostly because set theory runs out left-right and
class theory is the upper-side of that.

So, part theory and the study of boundaries,
is also called mereology, then that there's
"Brentano boundaries" as usually being a reference,
then with regards to things like Lutwej Brouwer's
"intuitive" vis-a-vis "constructive", where the
"intuitionism" and "constructivism" rotate each
few decades with regards to things like "idealism"
and "empiricism" or "idealism" and "the analytic",
then that these days these each above "fundamental
theories: of one relation" represent a sort of
heno-theory where in the universe of mathematical
and logical objects, they are as of matters of
prospective and perspective, projective.


Then a "sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials
least-action vanishing-gradient", is a usual
sort of theory today, physics-wise.

The "descriptive set theory" after "axiomatic
set theory" is often stood up as the language
of the logic these days, while, usually again
there's "geometry" for "numbers", what's fundamental.


So, "Foundations" then includes logic, mathematics,
physics, science, according to philosophy and metaphysics.


The "Brentano boundaries", though, that you might enjoy.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Ross Finlayson

Post by Thomas Heger
...

Post by rhertz
Is it clear now? ChatGPT endorses relativity, even when fail to present
facts that led to acceptance on each field. In particular, cosmology and
quantum physics.
It refuses to explain the role of relativity in fields like solid state
physics, biophysics, industrial physics, medical physics, etc.

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
a system is something identitifiable and what you regard as such.
But there are no natural closed systems.
A system has imaginary borders, which are infinitely thin.
matter is 'relative', hence particles are not real lasting entities, but
are 'observer dependent'.
Gravitation was not covered by my own appraoch, because it could be left
within GR.
Also QM was not a part from this method, which was meant to conncet GR
and QM, but didn't aim to replace them.
...
TH

A usual complement to "set" theory,
a theory with a sole relation "elt", "element-of"
is a theory primarily "ordering",
a theory with a sole relation "l.t.", "less-than",
while another complement is "part" theory,
a theory with a sole relation "p.i.", "parts-into",
while another is a theory of classes",
a theory with a sole relation "contains",
that these are various and set theory is often
built as "counting" while ordering closer to
"numbering", then that "sets and parts" differ
quite altogether being reverse, while "sets and classes"
are mostly because set theory runs out left-right and
class theory is the upper-side of that.
So, part theory and the study of boundaries,
is also called mereology, then that there's
"Brentano boundaries" as usually being a reference,
then with regards to things like Lutwej Brouwer's
"intuitive" vis-a-vis "constructive", where the
"intuitionism" and "constructivism" rotate each
few decades with regards to things like "idealism"
and "empiricism" or "idealism" and "the analytic",
then that these days these each above "fundamental
theories: of one relation" represent a sort of
heno-theory where in the universe of mathematical
and logical objects, they are as of matters of
prospective and perspective, projective.
Then a "sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials
least-action vanishing-gradient", is a usual
sort of theory today, physics-wise.
The "descriptive set theory" after "axiomatic
set theory" is often stood up as the language
of the logic these days, while, usually again
there's "geometry" for "numbers", what's fundamental.
So, "Foundations" then includes logic, mathematics,
physics, science, according to philosophy and metaphysics.
The "Brentano boundaries", though, that you might enjoy.

It's all one theory, .... It's a continuum mechanics.