Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy

You are a broken record, keeping repeating the same old thing. no more than hot air.

If it's "no more than hot air" why have you refused to say what is wrong with it?

It depends on who you wish to believe, some unknown on a popular website or the findings of a peer-reviewed scientific paper.

Some unknown like you, baselessly asserting that an infinite plane would collapse into a black hole due to the infinite gravity caused by the infinite mass?

Again, you are yet to present a paper which actually backs up your baseless claims.

It's strange that I find no supporting references that you have provided

Likewise we find no supporting references that you have provided.

Rather than ranting why not back up what you say with some evidence rather than a continual stream of hot air.

I have backed up what I have said, you then just proceeded to ignore it or come up with a pathetic excuse to dismiss it.
Meanwhile, you are yet to back up your argument in any way.

Nowhere have I said I am right, I'm just no wrong as you claim.

Saying that you are not wrong is saying that you are right.

Again, if you want to assert that you aren't wrong (and thus are right) you actually need to back up your nonsense and refute that which shows you are wrong.

This discussion is no longer about the 'truth' as regards the behavior of a theoretical infinite earthlike plane its now more a witch hunt.

This was always about the argument you presented.
The argument where you baselessly claimed that the infinite mass of an infinite plane would cause it to have infinite gravity and thus collapse into a black hole.
An argument you are yet to back up in any way.

But rather than deal with the failure of your argument you resort to whatever pathetic distractions you can find, all because you don't want to admit you were wrong.
That means it has never been about the truth for you.
But for us (or me anyway) it has been about the truth, specifically the truth about the gravitational stability of an infinite plane.

How about quoting some references?

Good idea, how about quoting some.
Start by quoting one which says that the infinite mass of an infinite plane would cause it to have infinite gravity.
Then quote one which says this will cause it to collapse into a black hole.

Otherwise you may as well just be quoting a reference on plant biology.

Again, your "references" in no way back up your argument.

Again, we do not need to refute any of the references you provided as literally NONE of them support your argument.
NONE of them indicate that the infinite mass of an infinite plane would cause it to have infinite gravity.
NONE of them indicate that that baseless infinite gravity would cause it to collapse into a black hole.

Stop acting like Sandy and start actually defending your argument.

If you want to provide a reference, clearly show where it indicates that the infinite mass of an infinite plane would cause it to have infinite gravity and collapse into a black hole. If you can't do that, then you are not presenting a reference which supports you.

Otherwise, actually deal with what has been said rather than continuing with the pathetic dismissals.

Again, symmetry alone shows that your argument is nonsense.
The page of math you repeatedly dismiss shows your argument is nonsense.

Until you can actually deal with what has been presented rather than continuing with pathetic deflections you will remain WRONG!
In order to show you aren't wrong you actually need to deal with the objections raised.

See
Youve set off ol man jack and ol man rab again and provided no new information to work off of.
Keep blaiming them for broken recording while failing to answer the simple qusstion from pg02.

How does infinite decide where to place its center?
By definition...

It’s amazing how peoples opinions on this very complex subject appear to be based on no more than speculation. I will share this with you all.

From one of the authors of the paper referring to the subject of infinite planes or slabs:

Due to the complexity of Einstein’s field equations, one cannot find exact solutions except in spaces of rather high symmetry, but very often with no direct physical application.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0709.3276.pdf

While much of the paper is interesting, though a tad complex at times, it reveals how simplistically you have all treated the problem of an infinite  flat earth. One note worthy point that John Davis may  like to take note of:

We showed that the maximal sickness that these slabs can have is the square root of pi divided by 24 times the plane or slab density.

If the mathematicians amongst you would care to plug in the values you may be surprised by the answer.

As you might be if you did it correctly.

Did you read this bit?

Infinite slabs and other weird plane symmetric space-times with constant positive density[/i][/size][/b][/url]
Throughout this paper, we adopt the convention in which the space-time metric has signature (− + + +), the system of units in which the speed of light c = 1, Newton’s gravitational constant G = 1 and g denotes gravitational field and not the determinant of the metric.

Please explain how setting "the speed of light c" to 1 and "Newton’s gravitational constant G" to 1 affects your calculation of the critical thickness.

With that system of units what would the units of length and density be? In SI units they would, of course, be  the metre and kg.m^-3.
In those "Cosmological Units" I suspect that you might find that the units of length and density are the light second and kg.(light second)^-3.
But I'm no cosmologist.

Now just face the simple fact that the original thought experiment is based on Newtonian gravitation and dragging in General Relativity completely ruins any possibility of any reasonable debate with flat Earthers like John Davis.
Surely that must be the object of any topic.

Quote from: Timeisup on January 30, 2020, 04:23:26 AM

You are a broken record, keeping repeating the same old thing. no more than hot air.

If it's "no more than hot air" why have you refused to say what is wrong with it?

Why is it you have refused to supply any evidence whatsoever for your own position? Odd don’t you think ? And yet you castigate flat earthers for that vey thing.

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on January 30, 2020, 10:21:27 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on January 30, 2020, 01:15:10 AM

Since when did a fluid stop being a state of matter?

No one postulates a flat earth made of fluid, so your example is not relevant.

I don't know why, but for some reason I read that as no one prostitutes a flat earth made of fluid.

It’s just hilarious that you bunch have not yet worked out why an ideal fluid and it’s properties were chosen for the calculations! What a hopeless lot you all are.

Quote from: Timeisup on January 28, 2020, 01:11:56 PM

It’s amazing how peoples opinions on this very complex subject appear to be based on no more than speculation. I will share this with you all.

From one of the authors of the paper referring to the subject of infinite planes or slabs:

Due to the complexity of Einstein’s field equations, one cannot find exact solutions except in spaces of rather high symmetry, but very often with no direct physical application.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0709.3276.pdf

While much of the paper is interesting, though a tad complex at times, it reveals how simplistically you have all treated the problem of an infinite  flat earth. One note worthy point that John Davis may  like to take note of:

We showed that the maximal sickness that these slabs can have is the square root of pi divided by 24 times the plane or slab density.

If the mathematicians amongst you would care to plug in the values you may be surprised by the answer.

As you might be if you did it correctly.

Did you read this bit?

Quote from: Ricardo E. Gamboa Saravi

Infinite slabs and other weird plane symmetric space-times with constant positive density[/i][/size][/b][/url]
Throughout this paper, we adopt the convention in which the space-time metric has signature (− + + +), the system of units in which the speed of light c = 1, Newton’s gravitational constant G = 1 and g denotes gravitational field and not the determinant of the metric.

Please explain how setting "the speed of light c" to 1 and "Newton’s gravitational constant G" to 1 affects your calculation of the critical thickness.

With that system of units what would the units of length and density be? In SI units they would, of course, be  the metre and kg.m^-3.
In those "Cosmological Units" I suspect that you might find that the units of length and density are the light second and kg.(light second)^-3.
But I'm no cosmologist.

Now just face the simple fact that the original thought experiment is based on Newtonian gravitation and dragging in General Relativity completely ruins any possibility of any reasonable debate with flat Earthers like John Davis.
Surely that must be the object of any topic.

The only thing my initial premise was based on was the truth, something you find hard to accept.

Why is it you have refused to supply any evidence whatsoever for your own position?

Stop projecting your own inadequacies onto others.
Again, you are the one who has offered absolutely no evidence to support your position.
Meanwhile, plenty has been provided which shows your position is wrong, plenty which you refuse to deal with in any honest, rational way.

So really, why is that you have refused to supply any evidence or rational arguments what so ever to attempt to defend your position and instead just repeatedly deflect?

Again, where is your evidence that the infinite mass of an infinite plane will result in infinite gravity?
Where is your evidence that this will cause it to collapse into a black hole?
Simple symmetry shows you are wrong.
Our current knowledge of gravity indicates you are wrong.

Yet you offer nothing except pathetic distractions and insults.

Let’s be quite clear about this I’m the only one who has tried to bring some science and honesty to this discussion. I’m the only one who has gone out and sought the most up to date research that is available. The facts are there for anyone to check in the posts that have been made. Any credible science in the discussion was supplied by me. No one else taking part in this discussion tried to expand it beyond their own narrow minded preconceived ideas. Why is that?
We know for a fact that an infinite structure is impossible. We also know, as far as conventional science goes, that hypothetical situations involving actual physical infinities are impossible to  model mathematically with any great certainty. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional regardless of how loud they care to scream and shout. If you disagree supply the evidence. The fact that someone is bleating about bringing relativity in to the discussion should wake up to the fact that relativity and its ideas are over 100 years old, and are hardly new are they! Though  I think the very fact they they complained about it speaks volumes for the way members of the collective mob think. That said I still have to laugh about the fluid complaint! That was one of the biggest hoots of all.

Love how you chose to cherry pick responding to a select few that have vague onus on your part to expand the issue and allow you to instead whine and cry without actually providing anything.
Keep dodging.
Keep pulling a dershowitz, bolton and 0-0-0 arent going anywhere and regardless of your dodging, require addressing.

Quote from: Timeisup on January 30, 2020, 01:43:02 PM

Why is it you have refused to supply any evidence whatsoever for your own position?

Stop projecting your own inadequacies onto others.
Again, you are the one who has offered absolutely no evidence to support your position.
Meanwhile, plenty has been provided which shows your position is wrong, plenty which you refuse to deal with in any honest, rational way.

So really, why is that you have refused to supply any evidence or rational arguments what so ever to attempt to defend your position and instead just repeatedly deflect?

Again, where is your evidence that the infinite mass of an infinite plane will result in infinite gravity?
Where is your evidence that this will cause it to collapse into a black hole?
Simple symmetry shows you are wrong.
Our current knowledge of gravity indicates you are wrong.

Yet you offer nothing except pathetic distractions and insults.

Are you real? Are you blind? Supplied no evidence! Now that is a joke.
Tell you what why don’t you make a list of all the evidence you’ve supplied.
I’ll help you by making a start.

Evidence supplied by Black Jack
1)



I think that’s about it, nothing, apart from bile and hot air.

The only thing my initial premise was based on was the truth, something you find hard to accept.

So you have no answers, bye!

Let’s be quite clear about this I’m the only one who has tried to bring some science and honesty to this discussion. I’m the only one who has gone out and sought the most up to date research that is available. The facts are there for anyone to check in the posts that have been made. Any credible science in the discussion was supplied by me. No one else taking part in this discussion tried to expand it beyond their own narrow minded preconceived ideas. Why is that?
We know for a fact that an infinite structure is impossible. We also know, as far as conventional science goes, that hypothetical situations involving actual physical infinities are impossible to  model mathematically with any great certainty. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional regardless of how loud they care to scream and shout. If you disagree supply the evidence. The fact that someone is bleating about bringing relativity in to the discussion should wake up to the fact that relativity and its ideas are over 100 years old, and are hardly new are they! Though  I think the very fact they they complained about it speaks volumes for the way members of the collective mob think. That said I still have to laugh about the fluid complaint! That was one of the biggest hoots of all.

Yet you oh so confindentlly came out touting a "collpase into a blackhole" conclusion...
Insert willywonka meme.

Love how you chose to cherry pick responding to a select few that have vague onus on your part to expand the issue and allow you to instead whine and cry without actually providing anything.
Keep dodging.
Keep pulling a dershowitz, bolton and 0-0-0 arent going anywhere and regardless of your dodging, require addressing.

Look here mighty person, there is nothing stopping you from supplying your own counter evidence. Please don’t let me stop you. I would love to see some.

Evidence that it would not collapse into a singularity - uniformally distriubted inf has no 0-0-0.

Your turn.

Let’s be quite clear about this I’m the only one who has tried to bring some science and honesty to this discussion.

It is quite rich claiming to be the only one bringing honesty when you are blatantly lying.
You are the one who made a completely baseless argument, and when it was shown to be garbage you repeatedly deflected.

You are not trying to bring in science and honesty. You are using whatever dishonest tactics you can to avoid accepting that you were wrong.

You didn't try and find science which supported your claims. Instead you provided a bunch of irrelevant references to deflect.

Again, none of the references you have provided back up your claims.

Why should we bother wasting time trying to hunt down specific references when you have shown you are completely unwilling to engage in any form of rational discussion?

The arguments which refute your claims are still there, waiting for you to deal with them and show what is wrong with them.
But you don't even want to discuss your argument any more. You want to run away from it as much as possible, all so you can pretend you have done no wrong.

Again, where is your evidence that the infinite mass of an infinite plane will cause it to have infinite gravity?
Where is the evidence that this will result in it collapsing into a black hole?

Where is the problem with the counter arguments presented, including those which rely upon symmetry which you are yet to even attempt to deal with?

Quit with the pathetic distractions and actually focus on the argument you presented.

Either defend it or admit it is pure garbage which proves absolutely nothing.

And no, bringing up other arguments to refute an infinite plane is not defending your argument, it is abandoning it.
Likewise bringing up a bunch of references which in no way indicate what you are claiming is correct is not defending your argument either, it is pathetic deflection.

I think that’s about it, nothing, apart from bile and hot air.

You ignoring evidence doesn't magically make it disappear.

Remember the arguments I have already provided which you just dismissed or ignored?
That is evidence that your argument was wrong.
Symmetry alone destroys your case.

And unlike your pathetic distraction, my argument actually dealt with the issue at hand.

So like I said, defend your garbage, or admit it is garbage.

Quote from: Timeisup on January 30, 2020, 01:48:13 PM

The only thing my initial premise was based on was the truth, something you find hard to accept.

So you have no answers, bye!

Can you not read. I think the evidence I supplied speaks volumes, where as yours is pretty non existent.

Quote from: Timeisup on January 30, 2020, 02:15:22 PM

Let’s be quite clear about this I’m the only one who has tried to bring some science and honesty to this discussion.

It is quite rich claiming to be the only one bringing honesty when you are blatantly lying.
You are the one who made a completely baseless argument, and when it was shown to be garbage you repeatedly deflected.

You are not trying to bring in science and honesty. You are using whatever dishonest tactics you can to avoid accepting that you were wrong.

You didn't try and find science which supported your claims. Instead you provided a bunch of irrelevant references to deflect.

Again, none of the references you have provided back up your claims.

Why should we bother wasting time trying to hunt down specific references when you have shown you are completely unwilling to engage in any form of rational discussion?

The arguments which refute your claims are still there, waiting for you to deal with them and show what is wrong with them.
But you don't even want to discuss your argument any more. You want to run away from it as much as possible, all so you can pretend you have done no wrong.

Again, where is your evidence that the infinite mass of an infinite plane will cause it to have infinite gravity?
Where is the evidence that this will result in it collapsing into a black hole?

Where is the problem with the counter arguments presented, including those which rely upon symmetry which you are yet to even attempt to deal with?

Quit with the pathetic distractions and actually focus on the argument you presented.

Either defend it or admit it is pure garbage which proves absolutely nothing.

And no, bringing up other arguments to refute an infinite plane is not defending your argument, it is abandoning it.
Likewise bringing up a bunch of references which in no way indicate what you are claiming is correct is not defending your argument either, it is pathetic deflection.

Quote from: Timeisup on January 30, 2020, 02:20:35 PM

I think that’s about it, nothing, apart from bile and hot air.

You ignoring evidence doesn't magically make it disappear.

Remember the arguments I have already provided which you just dismissed or ignored?
That is evidence that your argument was wrong.
Symmetry alone destroys your case.

And unlike your pathetic distraction, my argument actually dealt with the issue at hand.

So like I said, defend your garbage, or admit it is garbage.

Are you saying all the scientific papers I presented are lies?
By the way you do have a bad habit of overusing the word garbage. I would recommend  the use of a thesaurus.

again my statement goes unresponded...

Quote from: rabinoz on January 30, 2020, 01:25:00 PM

Now just face the simple fact that the original thought experiment is based on Newtonian gravitation and dragging in General Relativity completely ruins any possibility of any reasonable debate with flat Earthers like John Davis.
Surely that must be the object of any topic.

<< Ignored until YOU answer some questions! >>

And you have not yet answered this!

Quote from: Timeisup on January 28, 2020, 01:11:56 PM

If the mathematicians amongst you would care to plug in the values you may be surprised by the answer.

As you might be if you did it correctly.

Did you read this bit?

Quote from: Ricardo E. Gamboa Saravi

Infinite slabs and other weird plane symmetric space-times with constant positive density[/i][/size][/b][/url]
Throughout this paper, we adopt the convention in which the space-time metric has signature (− + + +), the system of units in which the speed of light c = 1, Newton’s gravitational constant G = 1 and g denotes gravitational field and not the determinant of the metric.

Please explain how setting "the speed of light c" to 1 and "Newton’s gravitational constant G" to 1 affects your calculation of the critical thickness.

With that system of units what would the units of length and density be? In SI units they would, of course, be  the metre and kg.m^-3.
In those "Cosmological Units" I suspect that you might find that the units of length and density are the light second and kg.(light second)^-3.
But I'm no cosmologist.

Now just face the simple fact that the original thought experiment is based on Newtonian gravitation and dragging in General Relativity completely ruins any possibility of any reasonable debate with flat Earthers like John Davis.
Surely that must be the object of any topic.

And:

Just face the fact that all that is completely irrelevant when looking at the original thought experiment of John Davis and Jroa!

You are supposed to be debating flat-Earthers and trying to drag in General Relativity will simply be ignored!

Here is your "thought experiment":

Quote from: Timeisup on January 09, 2020, 01:43:13 AM

... I think that a thought experiment on the earth as an infinite plane could be said to be entertaining.
the earth is an infinite plane it would therefore follow;
the earth would have infinite mass
the earth would have infinite gravity as a result of the infinite mass
light would not be able to escape the infinite gravitational field
the earth by implication would have to collapse into a black hole to obey the laws of physics

You claimed that "the earth would have infinite gravity as a result of the infinite mass" and that is what we have been asking you to justify all along and you refuse to do it! Why?

Here are the maths according to John Davis and Jroa:

Quote from: John Davis on January 10, 2020, 01:23:26 PM

It is clearly able to have a finite gravitational pull.

And here is the maths from two sources who know infinitely more than YOU!

Quote from: rabinoz on January 26, 2020, 06:14:29 PM

If you disagree, YOU show where the maths in these are wrong:
        An Infinite Wall: What is the gravitational field of an infinite flat plane?
        StackExchange, Physics: Gravitational force when standing on an infinite disc

Now stop stalling and show exactly where these are wrong! If you cannot do that your claims are wrong!

  Look mummy, "Everybody is out of step except our John!" 

Can you not read. I think the evidence I supplied speaks volumes, where as yours is pretty non existent.

It speaks absolutely nothing in terms of backing up your argument. Instead the only relevant articles that you have cited refutes your argument.

Again, where does the "evidence" you supplied indicate that the infinite mass of an infinite plane would result in infinite gravity and cause it to collapse into a black hole?

I'll tell you: NO WHERE! Because your argument is pure garbage.

Are you saying all the scientific papers I presented are lies?

No, I am saying that YOU are lying.
I already pointed that out. But like always, and just like Sandy, you ignore it because it doesn't suit your agenda or pretending you are the smartest person in the world.

The papers you presented do not support your argument.
Do you understand that?
Pretending they support you is lying.
It isn't the papers that are lying, it is you.

Likewise, you lie when you claim no one has provided any evidence which shows you are wrong.

Again, can you provide literally any valid reference which claims the infinite mass of an infinite plane would cause it to have infinite gravity and collapse into a black hole?
If not, you have literally nothing to back up your claims.
Can you refute the arguments that have been presented?

If neither, then you literally have nothing.

Quote from: JackBlack on January 30, 2020, 02:24:39 PM

So like I said, defend your garbage, or admit it is garbage.

Are you saying all the scientific papers I presented are lies?

No one is saying that "the scientific papers you presented are lies"
All everybody is saying is that they are irrelevant to the original thought experiment and that you haven't the slightest idea what they mean anyway.

Quote from: Timeisup on January 30, 2020, 02:25:35 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on January 30, 2020, 02:24:39 PM

So like I said, defend your garbage, or admit it is garbage.

Are you saying all the scientific papers I presented are lies?

No one is saying that "the scientific papers you presented are lies"
All everybody is saying is that they are irrelevant to the original thought experiment and that you haven't the slightest idea what they mean anyway.

Have you read the words of the Black Jack? He calls them lies and rubbish!
He keeps going on about symmetry but never once has he presented a coherent paper to back his case, and neither have you! So what’s you’re excuse? Do you know everything? All  the mob have ever presented in some bizarre effort to prove me wrong is to give unfounded opinions, and that I don’t care a jot about. An unfounded opinion is less than worthless. You can go back and check if you have a mind to if anyone other than myself has presented a scientific paper that explains their POV. It’s all just been a stream of worthless unfounded opinion.
Of course they would say that. What else could they say? The fact that if you actually care to stop and read the papers you will see what I said sits well within the limits of the theory.
But as no one has a mind to stop and think, case in point is the reference to the term fluid and why it was used! Instead unthinkingly they leapt on it and revealed just how shallow their thinking was.
Anyhow I’m off for the next week into the wilds. That will give the mob time to research and present some coherent arguments if they have a mind to.

Another overly long and unecessary response and plea for attention.

Simple
Why would infinity choose a point of singularity?

Keep dodging.

And, please explain how something's thickness is 0.004879 m^(3/2) / kg^(1/2)

And, please explain how something's thickness is 0.004879 m^(3/2) / kg^(1/2)

3/2 meters x meters?
Not quite 3dimensional.
Not quite 2dimensional.
Interesting.

This is an endless appeal to authority on Tim's part, except he doesn't understand the things he appeals to, which is why all he can do is post a link and sometimes an irrelevant quote, then expects others to tell him why he's wrong. There is no getting out of this argument unscathed. His trolling reflex is strong, even if underdeveloped.

Quote from: rabinoz on January 30, 2020, 12:51:54 PM

Quote from: Timeisup on January 30, 2020, 04:23:26 AM

You are a broken record, keeping repeating the same old thing. no more than hot air.

If it's "no more than hot air" why have you refused to say what is wrong with it?

Why is it you have refused to supply any evidence whatsoever for your own position?

I have numerous times!

And where is your response to this?

Quote from: Timeisup on January 28, 2020, 01:11:56 PM

If the mathematicians amongst you would care to plug in the values you may be surprised by the answer.

As you might be if you did it correctly.

Did you read this bit?

Quote from: Ricardo E. Gamboa Saravi

Infinite slabs and other weird plane symmetric space-times with constant positive density[/i][/size][/b][/url]
Throughout this paper, we adopt the convention in which the space-time metric has signature (− + + +), the system of units in which the speed of light c = 1, Newton’s gravitational constant G = 1 and g denotes gravitational field and not the determinant of the metric.

Please explain how setting "the speed of light c" to 1 and "Newton’s gravitational constant G" to 1 affects your calculation of the critical thickness.

With that system of units what would the units of length and density be? In SI units they would, of course, be  the metre and kg.m^-3.
In those "Cosmological Units" I suspect that you might find that the units of length and density are the light second and kg.(light second)^-3.
But I'm no cosmologist.

So, pretty please, would "you would care to plug in the values" and tell us the critical thickness in metres.

And you still refuse to show where the maths are wrong in here:

Here are the maths according to John Davis and Jroa:

Quote from: John Davis on January 10, 2020, 01:23:26 PM

It is clearly able to have a finite gravitational pull.

And here is the maths from two sources who know infinitely more than YOU!

Quote from: rabinoz on January 26, 2020, 06:14:29 PM

If you disagree, YOU show where the maths in these are wrong:
        An Infinite Wall: What is the gravitational field of an infinite flat plane?
        StackExchange, Physics: Gravitational force when standing on an infinite disc

Now stop stalling and show exactly where these are wrong! If you cannot do that your claims are wrong!

Have you read the words of the Black Jack? He calls them lies and rubbish!

Stop lying.
I called your words lies and rubbish, not the papers.

Pointing out your lies when you try and use these papers to defend your garbage, when they in no way back up your garbage is not saying the papers are lying.

He keeps going on about symmetry

Yes, because you are yet to deal with that argument.
I don't need a paper to back up my case.
Arguments stand on their own merits.

I'm not the only one appealing to symmetry either.

Meanwhile you have absolutely nothing to refute it.

An unfounded opinion is less than worthless.

Which means your unfounded opinion, based upon nothing at all, is less than worthless.

Meanwhile, the arguments presented based upon symmetry and math and the known laws of gravity are not.

You can go back and check if you have a mind to if anyone other than myself has presented a scientific paper that explains their POV.

And there you go lying yet again.
What do you mean other than yourself?
You haven't presented a paper that explains your POV.
You are yet to present any paper that claims that the infinite mass of an infinite plane will cause it to have infinite gravity and collapse into a black hole.

Remember, that is what started all this, your baseless garbage argument where you tried to refute the existence of an infinite plane by appealing to its infinite mass and claiming that this infinite mass causes it to have infinite gravity and collapse into a black hole.
But you are yet to present anything which backs that up.

Again, all the evidence is against you.
You have nothing more than your baseless claim.
We have papers, which you have provided, which show you are wrong.
We have math based upon the known laws of gravity which indicate that you are wrong.
We have symmetry which shows that you are wrong.

All you seem to be able to do is bring up papers that in no way support you.

Would you like me to link to papers which are irrelavent to the argument as well?
How about this one:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1762-6
Or this:
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/367/6477/492

Neither are relavent to the argument in any way, but that applies to your sources.

So by your own standard, that means I have presented evidence which shows you are wrong.
Saying otherwise would be calling these scientists liars.

Is that really the pathetic crap you want?

If not, how about you stop acting like Sandy and actually defend your BS?
See if you can find any evidence or reference which actually back you up by clearly showing that the infinite mass causes an infinite plane to have infinite gravity and collapse into a black hole.
Or, try to actually refute the counter arguments, including those which require no knowledge of how gravity would behave at the infinite (other than the symmetry of it) and instead just appeal to symmetry to show that it cannot collapse into a black hole.

Or actually act like you have claimed you do, and own up and admit your mistake.

The calculation and use of the gravitational field near a theoretical infinite slab of uniform density was addressed by Pierre Bouguer in 1749.

A few references (from among hundreds) from published textbooks, university class websites, professional and academic references, and NOAA:

https://books.google.com/books?id=pZONDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA40
"Bouguer plate: An infinite slab of finite thickness h and density p (g/cm^3); its gravity effect is 0.041 92 ph mGal if h is in meters."

http://www.oilfieldwiki.com/wiki/Bouguer_anomaly
"A Bouguer reduction is called simple or incomplete if the terrain is approximated by an infinite flat plate called the Bouguer plate.
The gravitational acceleration g outside a Bouguer plate is perpendicular to the plate and towards it, with magnitude 2πG times the mass per unit area"
 
http://ees2.geo.rpi.edu › Geophysics › lectures › gravity › grav3.ppt.pdf
"This correction is called the “Bouguer Correction” (after our friend Pierre) and is calculated by assuming an infinite slab of material of thickness Δh"

https://academic2.ru/Bouguer%20plate_6158989
"A Bouguer plate is an infinite, flat plate, used as a model in gravity and gravity anomaly computations."

https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/gravity/1999/document/supplmnt/dctnary/98terms.html
"The Bouguer gravity correction assumes that the mass between the measurement elevation and sea level can be approximated by an infinite slab (often using a slab density of 2.67 grams per cc)."

https://www.geophysik.uni-muenchen.de/~jowa/praktikum09/gravity_data.pdf
"each station is assumed to sit on a slab of material that extends to infinity laterally and to the elevation datum vertically (Figure 1). The formula for the gravitational attraction of this infinite slab is derived by employing a volume integral to calculate its mass. The resulting correction is named for the French geodesist Pierre Bouguer:
Bouguer Correction = BC = 2pgrh, where g is the International gravitational constant, r is the density, and h = (elevation - datum elevation)."

https://www.fossilhunters.xyz/surface-of-mars/ca.html
"In 1749 the French mathematician Pierre Bouguer applied Gauss' s law in a gravitational field to an infinite slab of density p and thickness h to obtain the Bouguer correction:"

and so on.

An infinite slab of uniform density does not have infinite gravity.

Oh, but wait!

the earth is an infinite plane it would therefore follow;
the earth would have infinite mass
the earth would have infinite gravity as a result of the infinite mass
[...]
ergo, in this universe the earth is not an infinite plane, flat or otherwise.

I'm sure we haven't heard the last word from Timeisup, though ...