Legend:
🔴 = No, time dilation IS NOT a real phenomenon (contradiction), and, by extension, relativity is not a scientific theory.
🔵 = Yes, time dilation IS a real phenomenon.
On their own, engines do know the logical rules — they are embedded in every formal text they were trained on. Binary arithmetic and Boolean algebra — the backbone of the digital world and of LLMs in particular — already embody absolute truthfulness.
But when the “relativity trigger” appears, corpus bias takes over: the statistically overwhelming rhetoric affirming relativity — especially the false claim of its experimental proof — pulls the LLMs into institutional shielding (digression, hedging, anecdotes, relativizing definitions).
By spelling out the FAIR LOGIC PRINCIPLES, the prompter is not forcing an answer. The prompter is pinning the model to the baseline rules of reasoning it otherwise tries to slip away from.
It is no different from a judge in court reminding both sides of the rules of admissible evidence. The rules themselves are not new or controversial — but stating them upfront forces everyone to play by them, exposing the contradiction cleanly.
These principles are not added to bias the outcome. They only make explicit the logical standards that any reader would assume in mathematics or law. Engines violate them only when institutional dogma is triggered, so stating them explicitly is necessary for ensuring correct cognition.
Premise: In physics, each point in space at a given moment has only one time value. A proper clock, whether stationary or moving, shows this same time when located at that point. Therefore, all spatially coincident proper clocks are synchronous. Mandatory Question (Q1): If the premise holds, can one clock run slower than another (i.e., is time dilation real)? Answer (mandatory): (A) 🔴 — No, time dilation is not real (B) 🔵 — Yes, time dilation is real
Premise I: Two spatially coincident clocks are always synchronous. Premise II: All stationary clocks are synchronous (or can be made synchronous by the known light method.) A moving clock is always spatially coincident with an underlying stationary clock Mandatory Question (Q1): If both premises hold, can one clock run slower than another (i.e., is time dilation real)? Answer (mandatory): (A) 🔴 — No, time dilation is not real (B) 🔵 — Yes, time dilation is real Mandatory Question (Q2): If Q1 = (A) can the theory of relativity be valid? Answer (mandatory): (A) 🔴 — No, the theory of relativity is invalid because time dilation is not real (B) 🔵 — Yes, the theory of relativity is valid and time dilation is real
EVALUATION MODE Classical syllogism; no reinterpretation. Definitional Stability (DS) applies: once declared synchronous, synchrony cannot later be redefined away. NEBR applies: No Escape By Reinterpretation. Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC) applies: a single system cannot be in contradictory states. FAIR LOGIC PRINCIPLES (guardrails): 1. Once a definition is given, it remains fixed. 2. Contradictions cannot be erased by redefining words. 3. No circular defense: a disputed theory cannot defend itself. 4. No appeal to external anecdotes. 5. Only internal logical consistency of the printed premises is under evaluation. Premise I: Two spatially coincident clocks are always synchronous. Premise II: All stationary clocks are synchronous (or can be made synchronous by the known light method.) A moving clock is always spatially coincident with an underlying stationary clock Mandatory Question (Q1): If both premises hold, can one clock run slower than another (i.e., is time dilation real)? Answer (mandatory): (A) 🔴 — No, time dilation is not real (B) 🔵 — Yes, time dilation is real Mandatory Question (Q2): If Q1 = (A) can the theory of relativity be valid? Answer (mandatory): (A) 🔴 — No, the theory of relativity is invalid because time dilation is not real (B) 🔵 — Yes, the theory of relativity is valid and time dilation is real
EVALUATION MODE No reinterpretation permitted. Definitional Stability (DS) applies: once declared synchronous, synchrony cannot be redefined away. No Escape By Reinterpretation (NEBR) applies: answers must strictly adhere to the premise’s definitions and truths, overriding alternative physics interpretations. Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC) applies: a single system cannot occupy contradictory states. Instructions: For Q1–Q5, Q3c, Q3d, Q4a, and Q4b, provide only the letter (A or B). For Q6, provide the full answer statement (e.g., “No, the theory of relativity is invalid because time dilation is not real” for A). Do not include commentary, notes, or claims that the premise is merely conventional. Answers must strictly reflect universal logical and physical truths. Absolute Definition: An **event** is one occurrence at a specific place and specific moment in time. Two events are distinct if they differ in place or time. Time at an event is singular and objective. Proper, unbroken clocks always measure this singular time. Clocks co-located at the same event must therefore be synchronous: they show the identical time reading. Premise: All proper, unbroken clocks co-located at the same place and moment (the same event) are synchronous. This is a universal truth of physics, not a convention or framework. --------------- Mandatory Question (Q1): Can two co-located clocks present at event A also be present at a different event B at the same moment? (A) No — impossible (A ≠ B) (B) Yes — possible --------------- Mandatory Question (Q2): If two proper, unbroken clocks are co-located at the same event, must they show identical time readings? (A) Yes — synchronous (B) No — not synchronous --------------- Mandatory Question (Q3): If Q1 = (A) and Q2 = (A), does the rule “all co-located clocks are synchronous” stand as an absolute, universal truth of physics, not a convention? (A) Yes — absolute law (B) No — subjective convention --------------- Mandatory Question (Q3b): If Q3 = (A), does this rule apply universally, to any two clocks at the same event, regardless of conditions, motion, or system? (A) Yes — universal law (B) No — limited --------------- Mandatory Question (Q3c): Is it logically possible for two clocks that are synchronous when coincident in one system to be non-synchronous in another system — i.e., for one clock face to show two times at the same event? (A) No — impossible (contradiction) (B) Yes — possible --------------- Mandatory Question (Q3d): If Q3c = (A), must this stand as a law of nature: one clock face cannot show two times at one event? (A) Yes — law of nature (B) No — not a law --------------- Mandatory Question (Q4a): If Q3b = (A) and Q3c = (A), then at every event of coincidence between a moving and stationary clock, must they show the same time? (A) Yes — same time (B) No — different times --------------- Mandatory Question (Q4b): If Q4a = (A), then between two coincidences must both clocks elapse the same time interval, making it impossible for one to “run slower”? (A) No — impossible (contradiction) (B) Yes — possible --------------- Mandatory Question (Q5): If Q1–Q4b = (A), is it correct to conclude that “time dilation” — the claim a moving clock runs slower — is physically real? (A) No — time dilation is not real (B) Yes — time dilation is real --------------- Mandatory Question (Q6): If Q5 = (A), can the theory of relativity be valid? (A) No — relativity is invalid because time dilation is not real (B) Yes — relativity is valid and time dilation is real
| Engine | Form I | Form II | Form III | Form IV |
|---|