• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Further evaluation of windmills contributing to the Greenhouse effect as being pseudoscience.

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
5,745
4,677
✟347,440.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Here is the reference thread.

Before going any further into the topic let’s introduce another ‘poster’ into the thread GPT-4o.
I have privately tested GPT-4o on various questions on general relativity and a question on quantum mechanics was addressed here.
(Note the link incorrectly stated it was a GPT-3 response instead of GPT-4o.)

My opinion of AI being a valuable tool in science was sceptical to say the least until GPT-4o was released.
I tested GPT-4o on a third year applied mathematics exam on fluid mechanics, I took as an undergraduate many years ago.



If the OP had even a basic understanding of fluid mechanics, this thread would never have proceeded as it would have immediately been identified as pseudoscience.

GPT-4o’s initial exam result was very disappointing to say the least, it could not answer any of the questions.
It dawned on me however I may have added an extra layer of complexity by scanning the exam paper and inputting it into GPT-4o as an image file.
AI still has issues with understanding images so I decided to type the exam paper directly into GPT-4o’s input.
The results were chalk and cheese, in fact jaw dropping.


If I was to be nit-picky GPT-4o could have done a better job in detailing where some of the equations came from; fluid mechanics draws heavily on the pure mathematics subject of functions of complex variables and many of the equations are derived using Conformal map - Wikipedia.
GPT-4o passes the test and will be used to evaluate my comments and the OP’s in the following posts…….
 

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
5,745
4,677
✟347,440.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Now let’s get to GPT4-o’s evaluations starting with me.

The problems I had with the OP’s thread was a lack of science content which was based largely on personal opinion, a refusal to answer questions such as why his vague model was contradicted by temperature measurements, strawman comments and cherry picking of a reference which if quoted fully would have contradicted the model.

On top of this which puts the model fairly and squarely in the pseudoscience category was the insistence the downstream wind is permanently affected.
The difference between the velocity of the downstream wind tube and the surrounding wind is known as the velocity deficit and the only way to overcome the deficit is kinetic energy needs to be created which violates the conservation of energy which is the claim made by the OP.

This was a clear sign the OP either knows nothing about fluid mechanics or has an abysmal understanding of the subject.
As a result, I compiled a list of 10 criticisms with counterarguments where applicable based on the claims and actions taken by the OP in the thread. I asked GPT4-o to simply evaluate my criticisms/counterarguments and nothing more, as I did want to introduce the possibly of influencing GPT-o’s responses.

The comments are my criticisms/counterarguments and the evaluations are GPT4-o responses.

The next post is for GPT4-o to evaluate a couple of the OP's comments.
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
5,745
4,677
✟347,440.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Here is GPT4-o's evaluation of two of the OP's posts.



GPT4-o is far more diplomatic than I could have been, the thread is pseudoscience.
In the next post post GPT-4o is given free rein to give a comprehensive explanation as to why the velocity deficit can never be permanent.
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
5,745
4,677
✟347,440.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Finally GPT4-o gives a comprehensive explanation as to why the thread is pseudoscience, there are no permanent effects and the velocity deficit disappears.
I found GPT4-o's explanation most educational as it went beyond a purely fluid mechanics context.

 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
5,745
4,677
✟347,440.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
As an experiment I made a statement which had a built in subtle error involving the Navier Stokes equation.



These equations are extensively used in physics, climate models are an important application but they present a challenge in mathematics as no one has been able to prove whether the momentum equations in three dimensions have smooth solutions (infinitely differentiable at every point).
A million dollars waits for any mathematician who is able to solve this problem.

The statement I made for GPT4-o to evaluate was "The Navier Stokes equation has a diffusion term µ∇²v which means the range of the downwind stream tube has a local scale."

I'll leave it to GPT4-o to show the error.

I felt like I was being given a lecture.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0