The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Timeisup on January 08, 2020, 12:04:40 AM

Title: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 08, 2020, 12:04:40 AM
This topic for discussion was prompted by Curiouser and Curiouser, one of the moderators. The background is important but I will be as brief as possible. Please be mindful this is a serious question and could lead to a fruitful discussion.
It has emerged that Curiouser and Curiouser was employed for a number of years on various projects all to do with the manufacture of systems for satellites. Which you may find strange as many of the flat earth representatives here apparently deny their very existence. He stated he values properly constructed and well presented arguments that use logic. In a discussion I had with him he posted a link to a previous post he made. In this post Curiouser and Curiouser along with others admonished a forum visitor for his/her inability to consider the Ďflat earth infinite planeí  and the Ďflat earth ice wallí through a properly constructed thought experiment.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=81384.msg2173876#msg2173876
In this discussion, if you care to read it, more or less gives  the background to the question.

The question, which I think is an interesting one, so here goes.

Thought experiments have been employed since the time of the birth of philosophy. Experiments such as Newtonís bucket, Heisenbergís gamma-ray microscope, Einsteinís elevator, Leibnizís mill, Parfitís people who split like amoebas, and Thomsonís violinist have all been written about extensively as being useful in the development of scientific thought.
The question is can a flat earth thought experiment such as the Ďinfinite planeí have any logical or scientific validity? In all honesty Iím not sure, which is why I have asked the question.
My immediate thought is that such experiments would due to their initial starting premise fall under the reductio ad absurdum heading and be governed by the law of Law of noncontradiction and as such be null and void. I also thought that such an experiment would exist outside the recognised taxonomy of thought experiments but after thinking about it Iím now not sure. The question is, what do you think?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Space Cowgirl on January 08, 2020, 07:27:46 AM
Curiouser and Curiouser is not a flat earther or a moderator. Calling you out on your terrible arguments does not make someone FE.

Also, you will get out of a "thought experiment" what you put into it. If you're not willing to think there's no point.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: John Davis on January 08, 2020, 12:41:47 PM
This topic for discussion was prompted by Curiouser and Curiouser, one of the moderators. The background is important but I will be as brief as possible. Please be mindful this is a serious question and could lead to a fruitful discussion.
It has emerged that Curiouser and Curiouser was employed for a number of years on various projects all to do with the manufacture of systems for satellites. Which you may find strange as many of the flat earth representatives here apparently deny their very existence. He stated he values properly constructed and well presented arguments that use logic. In a discussion I had with him he posted a link to a previous post he made. In this post Curiouser and Curiouser along with others admonished a forum visitor for his/her inability to consider the Ďflat earth infinite planeí  and the Ďflat earth ice wallí through a properly constructed thought experiment.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=81384.msg2173876#msg2173876
In this discussion, if you care to read it, more or less gives  the background to the question.

The question, which I think is an interesting one, so here goes.

Thought experiments have been employed since the time of the birth of philosophy. Experiments such as Newtonís bucket, Heisenbergís gamma-ray microscope, Einsteinís elevator, Leibnizís mill, Parfitís people who split like amoebas, and Thomsonís violinist have all been written about extensively as being useful in the development of scientific thought.
The question is can a flat earth thought experiment such as the Ďinfinite planeí have any logical or scientific validity? In all honesty Iím not sure, which is why I have asked the question.
My immediate thought is that such experiments would due to their initial starting premise fall under the reductio ad absurdum heading and be governed by the law of Law of noncontradiction and as such be null and void. I also thought that such an experiment would exist outside the recognised taxonomy of thought experiments but after thinking about it Iím now not sure. The question is, what do you think?

I see thought experiments as the food for non-problem solving, or Kuhnian revolutionary, theory. In a system where one must have less empirical evidence to assert more valid things - as is the case with a revolution of any size - it makes sense to use a non-empirical or a not strictly empirical 'thought experiment' as a basis.

To me then, it seems to be one of the many tools within scientific "method" or scientific anarchy, depending on which side you fall in that argument.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 08, 2020, 01:23:00 PM
Curiouser and Curiouser is not a flat earther or a moderator. Calling you out on your terrible arguments does not make someone FE.

Also, you will get out of a "thought experiment" what you put into it. If you're not willing to think there's no point.

Forgive me but it does say 'Moderator' on his avatar. Going by your comment you have obviously not read or possibly understood the initial post, I had expected a bit more thoughtful.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Unconvinced on January 08, 2020, 01:30:20 PM
Curiouser and Curiouser is not a flat earther or a moderator. Calling you out on your terrible arguments does not make someone FE.

Also, you will get out of a "thought experiment" what you put into it. If you're not willing to think there's no point.

Forgive me but it does say 'Moderator' on his avatar. Going by your comment you have obviously not read or possibly understood the initial post, I had expected a bit more thoughtful.

I donít believe heís the only one either.  It would be nice to know for certain who the real mods are.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Space Cowgirl on January 08, 2020, 01:36:00 PM
If it says "Moderator" or "Administrator" above the post count that's the real mods.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: JackBlack on January 08, 2020, 01:37:05 PM
Thought experiments are only useful for showing the logical conclusions of a model.
This can be used to demonstrate that something is not incompatible with a model, or to show a problem with that model.

The latter is most useful for scientific progress or revolutions, such as the thought experiment exposing the incompatibility of Newtonian relativity and the speed of light being constant.
The former is most useful for understanding and teaching concepts, like Newton's cannonball.

The problem arises when you try and do a thought experiment based upon a hypothesis and make up the results to try and claim it proves you are correct.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: John Davis on January 08, 2020, 01:48:51 PM
Thought experiments are only useful for showing the logical conclusions of a model.
This can be used to demonstrate that something is not incompatible with a model, or to show a problem with that model.

The latter is most useful for scientific progress or revolutions, such as the thought experiment exposing the incompatibility of Newtonian relativity and the speed of light being constant.
The former is most useful for understanding and teaching concepts, like Newton's cannonball.
Good point, they are also useful for understanding and teaching new problem solvers.

Quote
The problem arises when you try and do a thought experiment based upon a hypothesis and make up the results to try and claim it proves you are correct.
How do you reconcile your opinion that this is a problem with the fact that historically they have been used in exactly this way and we would not have come about many advances if we were to take your advice that it is problematic and avoid it. For example, Galileo was lousy about this.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: JackBlack on January 08, 2020, 02:42:44 PM
Quote
The problem arises when you try and do a thought experiment based upon a hypothesis and make up the results to try and claim it proves you are correct.
How do you reconcile your opinion that this is a problem with the fact that historically they have been used in exactly this way and we would not have come about many advances if we were to take your advice that it is problematic and avoid it. For example, Galileo was lousy about this.
Could you provide a more concrete example of this?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 09, 2020, 12:51:12 AM
Thought experiments are only useful for showing the logical conclusions of a model.
This can be used to demonstrate that something is not incompatible with a model, or to show a problem with that model.

The latter is most useful for scientific progress or revolutions, such as the thought experiment exposing the incompatibility of Newtonian relativity and the speed of light being constant.
The former is most useful for understanding and teaching concepts, like Newton's cannonball.

The problem arises when you try and do a thought experiment based upon a hypothesis and make up the results to try and claim it proves you are correct.

Based on the reading of a few works on the subject I would have to disagree with your very first sentence as the definition you appear to present I would say is too narrow in its scope. Forgive me if I use this quote as it lays out my my argument much better than I could.

Thought experiments may be used to entertain. This is probably true of short stories or novels which some argue qualify as thought experiments if certain conditions apply (see, e.g., Davenport 1983). Some thought experiments fulfil a specific function within a theory (see Borsboom et al. 2002). Others are executed because it is impossible to run the experimental scenario in the real world (see, e.g., Sorensen 1992, pp. 200Ė202). Sometimes thought experiments help to illustrate and clarify very abstract states of affairs, thereby accelerating the process of understanding (see Behmel 2001). Again others serve as examples in conceptual analysis (see Cohnitz 2006). And, then there are those that matter in the process of theory discovery (Praem and SteglichĖPeterson 2015). The thought experiments that have received most of the attention are taken to provide evidence for or against a theory, putting them on a par with real-world experiments (see, e.g., Gendler 2004). The different ways to use thought experiments, of course, do not exclude one another. Most obviously, for example, a thought experiment can both entertain and make a case against a theory.

The above quote is from a Stanford publication on the subject which is a very interesting read on the subject. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thought-experiment/

With that said the question is can one logically conduct a thought experiment on a subject, other than for entertainment purposes, where in reality the answer is already known? The question Iím referring to: Is the earth an infinite plane?

Some argue that Ďfictionsí or fictional works can be viewed in some instances as thought experiments

Some have placed ďliterary fiction on the level of thought experiments.Ē (Swirski 2007, p. 6) There are two readings of such a claim. According to the first, some literary fiction may be of cognitive power due to the fact that they are thought experiments. In other words, we shouldnít outright reject the idea that literature can be of cognitive value.

I recently read a series of novels by sci fi writer Peter Hamilton, His Commonwealth Saga, in which he describes hidden walkable pathways between planets, allowing those entering the hidden entrances to go on an almost infinite walk. The question again is could this fiction be considered a thought experiment or is it just a fiction? The same could be said of the idea that the earth is an infinite plane, while it may be amusing to think about it, can one actually construct a meaningful and logical thought experiment about it?
Pierre Duhem, the great historian of physics, is almost alone in what has been understood as an outright condemnation of scientific thought experiments, he says in the world of science a thought experiment is no substitute for a real experiment. Does he have a valid point to make in this instance? I would say yes.
Currently with enough money one can purchase a round the world ticket for flights or cruises or a combination that will allow you to circumnavigate the world. If fit enough one could cycle or even walk around the world. Alternatively one can stay at home and read the exploits of those who have sailed around the world.
I can stand on a mountain top with a telescope on a clear night and look at the heavens and the great void between us , the moon, the planets and the stars.
While flat earth advocates shrink back from the reality of satellites, they are in plain view for all to see with no thought experiment required, information obtained from them for daily weather forecasts, ground surveys and data updates for maps I think show the reality of the world in which we live.
In my opinion, and that of the whole scientific community, the world is not an infinite plane. If one put any store in science and itís findings a thought experiment on the idea that the earth is an infinite plane has no scientific value in it at all and could only be done for purposes of entertainment.

Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 09, 2020, 01:15:44 AM
Thought experiments are only useful for showing the logical conclusions of a model.
This can be used to demonstrate that something is not incompatible with a model, or to show a problem with that model.

The latter is most useful for scientific progress or revolutions, such as the thought experiment exposing the incompatibility of Newtonian relativity and the speed of light being constant.
The former is most useful for understanding and teaching concepts, like Newton's cannonball.
Good point, they are also useful for understanding and teaching new problem solvers.

Quote
The problem arises when you try and do a thought experiment based upon a hypothesis and make up the results to try and claim it proves you are correct.
How do you reconcile your opinion that this is a problem with the fact that historically they have been used in exactly this way and we would not have come about many advances if we were to take your advice that it is problematic and avoid it. For example, Galileo was lousy about this.

I donít quite understand how you consider Galileo to have been as you say Ďlousyí at this when his own thought experiment on free falling objects revealed a truth, overturning conventional thought at the time and what Aristotle had taught: that heavy objects fall faster than lighter ones. We now know, thanks to Galileo that this is not the case.
The truth as revealed by Galileo is one easily replicated by a couple of steel balls of differing sizes an electro magnet and a couple of switches linked to timers, or a high speed camera.

As I and more importantly others have said for a logical or valid scientific thought experiment to be carried out other than one just for amusement, it has at some level to integrate or communicate with some concept(s) of scientific truth, rather than just existing on its own as a unconnected free floating idea or fiction.

Dressing what is only a fictionalised idea up in a thought experiment costume does not automatically turn it into a credible idea. At some moment in time the idea has to face some kind of scientific scrutiny.
Nice little video on the subject
https://www.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/nvmm-math-fallingbodies/galileos-falling-bodies/#.XhbxOcqnyhA
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: JackBlack on January 09, 2020, 01:19:29 AM
Based on the reading of a few works on the subject I would have to disagree with your very first sentence as the definition you appear to present I would say is too narrow in its scope. Forgive me if I use this quote as it lays out my my argument much better than I could.
The problem with just taking a quote is that they often don't actually address what was said.

For example, how does it entertain? By showing the logical conclusion of the model?

Especially note the last part, that the different ways do not exclude from one another.

But I suppose I was too harsh. I was meaning in terms of trying to obtain information about reality.
You can show the logical conclusions of a model. This can be used to help explain something from reality, or it can be used to

With that said the question is can one logically conduct a thought experiment on a subject, other than for entertainment purposes, where in reality the answer is already known? The question Iím referring to: Is the earth an infinite plane?
Does everyone know? If not, then you can use it to show problems with that idea.
You can also use it to show problems with arguments raised against it.

But such a topic has no place in science as science has conclusively shown Earth isn't flat.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 09, 2020, 01:43:13 AM
Based on the reading of a few works on the subject I would have to disagree with your very first sentence as the definition you appear to present I would say is too narrow in its scope. Forgive me if I use this quote as it lays out my my argument much better than I could.
The problem with just taking a quote is that they often don't actually address what was said.

For example, how does it entertain? By showing the logical conclusion of the model?

Especially note the last part, that the different ways do not exclude from one another.

But I suppose I was too harsh. I was meaning in terms of trying to obtain information about reality.
You can show the logical conclusions of a model. This can be used to help explain something from reality, or it can be used to

With that said the question is can one logically conduct a thought experiment on a subject, other than for entertainment purposes, where in reality the answer is already known? The question Iím referring to: Is the earth an infinite plane?
Does everyone know? If not, then you can use it to show problems with that idea.
You can also use it to show problems with arguments raised against it.

But such a topic has no place in science as science has conclusively shown Earth isn't flat.

Entertaining? Yes 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
We would not and never have existed due to the earth being a black hole

If a thought experiment is to have any ultimate logical scientific credibility at some time it has to engage with known scientific truths. In this instance we can see through just thinking about it the earth could never be an infinite plane in this universe obeying its rules. An infinite earth could only exist in another universe with very different laws or exist in someoneís imagination.

ergo, in this universe the earth is not an infinite plane, flat or otherwise.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: boydster on January 09, 2020, 04:11:55 AM
An infinite plane would not inevitably collapse into a black hole. That's where your thought experiment breaks down. You can't introduce invalid assumptions and expect to arrive at a valid conclusion.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: John Davis on January 09, 2020, 10:19:20 AM
Quote
The problem arises when you try and do a thought experiment based upon a hypothesis and make up the results to try and claim it proves you are correct.
How do you reconcile your opinion that this is a problem with the fact that historically they have been used in exactly this way and we would not have come about many advances if we were to take your advice that it is problematic and avoid it. For example, Galileo was lousy about this.
Could you provide a more concrete example of this?
It is widely considered true by historians that Galileo never conducted his leaning tower experiment. He simply assumed the results and used them as evidence for his assertion that Copernicus was correct.

His model was also at a less empirical basis than the one at the time - it required more epicycles for it to work, and it had several issues with known measured empirical data - like the number of tides a day, the way the moon looks etc.

Further, he had not yet had the benefit of Opticks by Newton that would have justified his use of his telescope as a valid scientific and empirical tool, by about 100 years. Many of the evidences he put forth using this are directly contradictory to plain sight vision of the moon as well as what we now know due to the benefit of today's technology.

There are a plethora more of examples in Against Method by Paul Feyerabend as well as the paperback pop-science book Free Radicals: The Secret Anarchy of Science by Michael Brooks.

Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Curiouser and Curiouser on January 09, 2020, 10:54:32 AM
Based on the reading of a few works on the subject I would have to disagree with your very first sentence as the definition you appear to present I would say is too narrow in its scope. Forgive me if I use this quote as it lays out my my argument much better than I could.
The problem with just taking a quote is that they often don't actually address what was said.

For example, how does it entertain? By showing the logical conclusion of the model?

Especially note the last part, that the different ways do not exclude from one another.

But I suppose I was too harsh. I was meaning in terms of trying to obtain information about reality.
You can show the logical conclusions of a model. This can be used to help explain something from reality, or it can be used to

With that said the question is can one logically conduct a thought experiment on a subject, other than for entertainment purposes, where in reality the answer is already known? The question Iím referring to: Is the earth an infinite plane?
Does everyone know? If not, then you can use it to show problems with that idea.
You can also use it to show problems with arguments raised against it.

But such a topic has no place in science as science has conclusively shown Earth isn't flat.

Entertaining? Yes 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
We would not and never have existed due to the earth being a black hole

If a thought experiment is to have any ultimate logical scientific credibility at some time it has to engage with known scientific truths. In this instance we can see through just thinking about it the earth could never be an infinite plane in this universe obeying its rules. An infinite earth could only exist in another universe with very different laws or exist in someoneís imagination.

ergo, in this universe the earth is not an infinite plane, flat or otherwise.

Epic fail.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Curiouser and Curiouser on January 09, 2020, 10:56:35 AM
An infinite plane would not inevitably collapse into a black hole. That's where your thought experiment breaks down. You can't introduce invalid assumptions and expect to arrive at a valid conclusion.


Thank you for bringing sense to an otherwise nonsensical argument.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: John Davis on January 09, 2020, 11:39:39 AM
Please remove moderator from your title.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: JackBlack on January 09, 2020, 12:45:58 PM
It is widely considered true by historians that Galileo never conducted his leaning tower experiment. He simply assumed the results and used them as evidence for his assertion that Copernicus was correct.

His model was also at a less empirical basis than the one at the time - it required more epicycles for it to work, and it had several issues with known measured empirical data - like the number of tides a day, the way the moon looks etc.

Further, he had not yet had the benefit of Opticks by Newton that would have justified his use of his telescope as a valid scientific and empirical tool, by about 100 years. Many of the evidences he put forth using this are directly contradictory to plain sight vision of the moon as well as what we now know due to the benefit of today's technology.

There are a plethora more of examples in Against Method by Paul Feyerabend as well as the paperback pop-science book Free Radicals: The Secret Anarchy of Science by Michael Brooks.
The only one which comes close to a thought experiment is the leaning tower experiment.
However from what I can see, some people say it happened some people say it didn't.
If it didn't happen then it isn't a valid experiment and shows nothing at all of scientific merit.

However it has been performed by various people, even if Galileo didn't do it.

What I have seen as a thought experiment was a variation on that where there were 2 objects which were tied together. That is valid as it shows the logical conclusion of the model which has heavier objects fall faster, where an even heavier object (formed by combing the 2 lighter objects) cannot fall faster.

But I see no problem with that.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: John Davis on January 09, 2020, 12:48:32 PM
It is widely considered true by historians that Galileo never conducted his leaning tower experiment. He simply assumed the results and used them as evidence for his assertion that Copernicus was correct.

His model was also at a less empirical basis than the one at the time - it required more epicycles for it to work, and it had several issues with known measured empirical data - like the number of tides a day, the way the moon looks etc.

Further, he had not yet had the benefit of Opticks by Newton that would have justified his use of his telescope as a valid scientific and empirical tool, by about 100 years. Many of the evidences he put forth using this are directly contradictory to plain sight vision of the moon as well as what we now know due to the benefit of today's technology.

There are a plethora more of examples in Against Method by Paul Feyerabend as well as the paperback pop-science book Free Radicals: The Secret Anarchy of Science by Michael Brooks.
The only one which comes close to a thought experiment is the leaning tower experiment.
However from what I can see, some people say it happened some people say it didn't.
If it didn't happen then it isn't a valid experiment and shows nothing at all of scientific merit.

However it has been performed by various people, even if Galileo didn't do it.

What I have seen as a thought experiment was a variation on that where there were 2 objects which were tied together. That is valid as it shows the logical conclusion of the model which has heavier objects fall faster, where an even heavier object (formed by combing the 2 lighter objects) cannot fall faster.

But I see no problem with that.
It is irrelevant that others after the acceptance of his work have performed it. Without using this methodology of proposing a thought experiment and claiming it proves his work, it would have had no opportunity to have been tested later and his view may not have been accepted.

You are right, I did go off topic on some of his other errors. However, I feel they are relevant to the discussion at large as they form a basis showing that non-empirical work has a taxonomy and a validity in method.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Curiouser and Curiouser on January 09, 2020, 01:32:00 PM
Please remove moderator from your title.

Thanks.

I do not find anywhere in my account settings that allows me a title, or a custom title. I have put "Moderator" into the Personal Text section of my profile. My friends and colleagues value me for my reasoned, even-handed way of thinking and my ability to moderate the sides of a discussion. Given that others include less-than-fully-accurate statements in their personal text, such as "Most Prolific Scientist, 2019" or "Best Ever Scientist" I would prefer to leave my personal text as is.

If you wish me to change my personal text in your capacity as administrator, please let me know.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: JackBlack on January 09, 2020, 01:53:44 PM
It is irrelevant that others after the acceptance of his work have performed it. Without using this methodology of proposing a thought experiment and claiming it proves his work, it would have had no opportunity to have been tested later and his view may not have been accepted.
And it remains completely invalid as a thought experiment. It is a hypothesis, nothing more.
Do you have any evidence that this was just a thought experiment and this lead to acceptance of his work, as opposed to the other, actually valid, thought experiment or people actually doing the experiment?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Space Cowgirl on January 09, 2020, 02:22:27 PM
Please remove moderator from your title.

Thanks.

I do not find anywhere in my account settings that allows me a title, or a custom title. I have put "Moderator" into the Personal Text section of my profile. My friends and colleagues value me for my reasoned, even-handed way of thinking and my ability to moderate the sides of a discussion. Given that others include less-than-fully-accurate statements in their personal text, such as "Most Prolific Scientist, 2019" or "Best Ever Scientist" I would prefer to leave my personal text as is.

If you wish me to change my personal text in your capacity as administrator, please let me know.

I thought you were asking John to remove your personal text for you, so I did it. Now I see that you were asking if you could keep it. SORRY. Anyway, it is confusing to the angry noobs so if you could think up some other personal text that describes your ability to be the moderate voice of reason... hey voice of reason. Also, if you would like a custom title let me know. I have the power.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: faded mike on January 09, 2020, 02:28:22 PM
"unofficial mod", "super mod", "antidisestablishmentarianism mod" (i heard it said thats the longest word, not sure exactly what it means)
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 09, 2020, 03:14:19 PM
An infinite plane would not inevitably collapse into a black hole. That's where your thought experiment breaks down. You can't introduce invalid assumptions and expect to arrive at a valid conclusion.
Can you put forward the scientific basis for your statement, or is it just an uninformed opinion?

Letís remember in the real universe the gravity on a planetary body is dependent on its mass.
In the real universe objects that have a mass far less than an infinite earth would have find themselves shaped by gravity into a super dense structure that ends up collapsing into a black hole. It is estimated that the collapse would occur in bodies with 3 solar masses or greater. As your infinite earth would have infinite mass and cross that specific mass threshold, just think of the implications.

Letís imagine for a moment some unknown force prevented your infinite flat earth with infinite mass and infinite gravity from collapsing what effect would it have on the solar system. Before we do that you do realise that life would be impossible on an infinite earth with infinite gravity.
Due to the infinite gravitational field produced all the planets including their moons and of course the sun would be torn from their orbits and would no doubt come crashing into your infinite earth, bearing in mind F = G (m1m2/r2). Pop infinity into the equation and see what happens.
This infinite gravitational field would create havoc throughout the universe....the implications are mind boggling.

What do you think would happen?
 
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 09, 2020, 03:24:34 PM
An infinite plane would not inevitably collapse into a black hole. That's where your thought experiment breaks down. You can't introduce invalid assumptions and expect to arrive at a valid conclusion.


Thank you for bringing sense to an otherwise nonsensical argument.

Nonsensical argument! Itís a thought experiment, same as the one you were going on about on another thread.
What do you think would happen on an infinite earth with infinite mass and hence infinite gravity. I think the spacecraft you designed would have one hell of a job obtaining escape velocity. What would your calculated escape velocity be for an earth with infinite mass?
Did the spacecraft you designed not have to rely on gravity kicks to get them to their final destination? By virtue of that you must know quite a bit about orbital mechanics, so whatís your take on the local effect on the solar system if the earth was suddenly infinite?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 09, 2020, 03:29:43 PM
So far no one else has presented their thoughts on the earth being an infinite plane. As Mr John Davis I believe is the originator of the Davis Plane, perhaps he might put forward his thoughts.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: boydster on January 09, 2020, 04:30:44 PM
An infinite plane would not inevitably collapse into a black hole. That's where your thought experiment breaks down. You can't introduce invalid assumptions and expect to arrive at a valid conclusion.
Can you put forward the scientific basis for your statement

https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/infinite-flat-earth-mathematics

I await your review.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: boydster on January 09, 2020, 04:36:50 PM
An infinite plane would not inevitably collapse into a black hole. That's where your thought experiment breaks down. You can't introduce invalid assumptions and expect to arrive at a valid conclusion.


Thank you for bringing sense to an otherwise nonsensical argument.

Nonsensical argument! Itís a thought experiment, same as the one you were going on about on another thread.
What do you think would happen on an infinite earth with infinite mass and hence infinite gravity. I think the spacecraft you designed would have one hell of a job obtaining escape velocity. What would your calculated escape velocity be for an earth with infinite mass?
Did the spacecraft you designed not have to rely on gravity kicks to get them to their final destination? By virtue of that you must know quite a bit about orbital mechanics, so whatís your take on the local effect on the solar system if the earth was suddenly infinite?

Why would you assert that an infinite plane would necessarily also have infinite gravity? Do you have any basis for that, despite there being mathematical models to the contrary?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Curiouser and Curiouser on January 10, 2020, 07:40:58 AM
An infinite plane would not inevitably collapse into a black hole. That's where your thought experiment breaks down. You can't introduce invalid assumptions and expect to arrive at a valid conclusion.
Can you put forward the scientific basis for your statement, or is it just an uninformed opinion?

Letís remember in the real universe the gravity on a planetary body is dependent on its mass.
In the real universe objects that have a mass far less than an infinite earth would have find themselves shaped by gravity into a super dense structure that ends up collapsing into a black hole. It is estimated that the collapse would occur in bodies with 3 solar masses or greater. As your infinite earth would have infinite mass and cross that specific mass threshold, just think of the implications.

Letís imagine for a moment some unknown force prevented your infinite flat earth with infinite mass and infinite gravity from collapsing what effect would it have on the solar system. Before we do that you do realise that life would be impossible on an infinite earth with infinite gravity.
Due to the infinite gravitational field produced all the planets including their moons and of course the sun would be torn from their orbits and would no doubt come crashing into your infinite earth, bearing in mind F = G (m1m2/r2). Pop infinity into the equation and see what happens.
This infinite gravitational field would create havoc throughout the universe....the implications are mind boggling.

What do you think would happen?

Since you clearly don't have the physics or mathematics background to do the integral that shows the way an infinite plane with uniform density produces a uniform gravitational field perpendicular to the plane, it's not going to be useful to try to show the mathematics here. Let's just point out that that derivation is simple, and that it's easily found elsewhere.

Let's do this at a very simple step-by-step level.


You understand that a large mass, unchecked by any other force, may collapse and form a black hole.

Why is it that large stars exist right now and are not already black holes? A force (outward pressure from fission) currently prevents it.

Picture any circle of an infinite plane with uniform mass density that is equivalent to several solar masses centered on point P. If it had no external force on it, you might imagine it would collapse as you postulate onto point P.

But it *does* have a force on it. The gravity of all the other mass that is outside the circle is tugging it *outward* preventing it from collapsing.

This is true at any point P on the plane.

Your statement "bearing in mind F = G (m1m2/r2). Pop infinity into the equation and see what happens" is an approximation only valid for masses that can be treated as point sources. It isn't valid for an extended mass.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Bullwinkle on January 10, 2020, 07:53:01 AM
That may be too much for him.

Let's try this . . .

There is no center point on an infinite plane.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Curiouser and Curiouser on January 10, 2020, 07:53:24 AM
An infinite plane would not inevitably collapse into a black hole. That's where your thought experiment breaks down. You can't introduce invalid assumptions and expect to arrive at a valid conclusion.


Thank you for bringing sense to an otherwise nonsensical argument.

Nonsensical argument! Itís a thought experiment, same as the one you were going on about on another thread.
What do you think would happen on an infinite earth with infinite mass and hence infinite gravity. I think the spacecraft you designed would have one hell of a job obtaining escape velocity. What would your calculated escape velocity be for an earth with infinite mass?
Did the spacecraft you designed not have to rely on gravity kicks to get them to their final destination? By virtue of that you must know quite a bit about orbital mechanics, so whatís your take on the local effect on the solar system if the earth was suddenly infinite?

I faulted turtles for his several times coming to the conclusion "this is the only possible explanation" given the initial parameters of the thought experiment.

I'm faulting you for coming to a conclusion that does not agree with the known properties of gravity given the initial parameters of the thought experiment.

I'm praising boydster for understanding the known properties of gravity given the initial parameters of the thought experiment.

Infinite mass does not imply infinite gravity. Infinity is funny that way.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: sokarul on January 10, 2020, 07:57:07 AM
Current theory states an infinite earth would require infinite energy. Also according to current theory infinite energy doesnít exist.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Curiouser and Curiouser on January 10, 2020, 07:57:32 AM
That may be too much for him.

Let's try this . . .

There is no center point on an infinite plane.

An excellent point.

Or another way, "If your infinite plane collapses to a black hole, where is the black hole, and why is it there rather than somewhere else?"
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: John Davis on January 10, 2020, 09:07:41 AM
And how long would it take to collapse. He clearly has spent next to no time thinking about this.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 10, 2020, 01:21:34 PM
An infinite plane would not inevitably collapse into a black hole. That's where your thought experiment breaks down. You can't introduce invalid assumptions and expect to arrive at a valid conclusion.


Thank you for bringing sense to an otherwise nonsensical argument.

Nonsensical argument! Itís a thought experiment, same as the one you were going on about on another thread.
What do you think would happen on an infinite earth with infinite mass and hence infinite gravity. I think the spacecraft you designed would have one hell of a job obtaining escape velocity. What would your calculated escape velocity be for an earth with infinite mass?
Did the spacecraft you designed not have to rely on gravity kicks to get them to their final destination? By virtue of that you must know quite a bit about orbital mechanics, so whatís your take on the local effect on the solar system if the earth was suddenly infinite?

Why would you assert that an infinite plane would necessarily also have infinite gravity? Do you have any basis for that, despite there being mathematical models to the contrary?

I think the clue is in the word infinite. If you are unable to work out the connection then that's your problem. 
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: John Davis on January 10, 2020, 01:23:26 PM
(https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/application/files/thumbnails/large/9314/6126/7140/math.jpg)
It is clearly able to have a finite gravitational pull.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 10, 2020, 01:40:43 PM
An infinite plane would not inevitably collapse into a black hole. That's where your thought experiment breaks down. You can't introduce invalid assumptions and expect to arrive at a valid conclusion.
Can you put forward the scientific basis for your statement, or is it just an uninformed opinion?

Letís remember in the real universe the gravity on a planetary body is dependent on its mass.
In the real universe objects that have a mass far less than an infinite earth would have find themselves shaped by gravity into a super dense structure that ends up collapsing into a black hole. It is estimated that the collapse would occur in bodies with 3 solar masses or greater. As your infinite earth would have infinite mass and cross that specific mass threshold, just think of the implications.

Letís imagine for a moment some unknown force prevented your infinite flat earth with infinite mass and infinite gravity from collapsing what effect would it have on the solar system. Before we do that you do realise that life would be impossible on an infinite earth with infinite gravity.
Due to the infinite gravitational field produced all the planets including their moons and of course the sun would be torn from their orbits and would no doubt come crashing into your infinite earth, bearing in mind F = G (m1m2/r2). Pop infinity into the equation and see what happens.
This infinite gravitational field would create havoc throughout the universe....the implications are mind boggling.

What do you think would happen?

Since you clearly don't have the physics or mathematics background to do the integral that shows the way an infinite plane with uniform density produces a uniform gravitational field perpendicular to the plane, it's not going to be useful to try to show the mathematics here. Let's just point out that that derivation is simple, and that it's easily found elsewhere.

Let's do this at a very simple step-by-step level.


You understand that a large mass, unchecked by any other force, may collapse and form a black hole.

Why is it that large stars exist right now and are not already black holes? A force (outward pressure from fission) currently prevents it.

Picture any circle of an infinite plane with uniform mass density that is equivalent to several solar masses centered on point P. If it had no external force on it, you might imagine it would collapse as you postulate onto point P.

But it *does* have a force on it. The gravity of all the other mass that is outside the circle is tugging it *outward* preventing it from collapsing.

This is true at any point P on the plane.

Your statement "bearing in mind F = G (m1m2/r2). Pop infinity into the equation and see what happens" is an approximation only valid for masses that can be treated as point sources. It isn't valid for an extended mass.
Have you or anyone else produced a simulation to show this or have you just produced these findings from your back passage?  Why do you all keep avoiding the word infinite?
Apparently you designed spacecraft and may well have come across recent findings of a huge clouds of gas and dust that have created a wave-like structure in our Milky Way that due to its gravity has had a huge influence on its locality. Now, this structure is just a mere 9000 light-years across a mere insignificance when dealing with a structure that you propose that is infinite.  How you can avoid an infinite structure having an infinite mass?  I think demonstrates a fundamental problem. It's a bit like the story of the infinite hotel, no matter how many visitors it has there is always room.
I tell you what you explain to me how an infinite body would not have both infinite mass and gravity and we can take it from there.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 10, 2020, 01:48:18 PM
That may be too much for him.

Let's try this . . .

There is no center point on an infinite plane.
A center point is pretty meaningless. I'm not sure what point you are actually trying to make, perhaps you are out of your depth as it requires you to come up with more than a one-line response. A centre has no bearing on this problem. I just think you chaps have no real handle on the word infinite and its implications. Infinite plane...infinite atoms, Infinite mass. Are you unable to grasp this pretty simple point? As soon as you invoke the term infinite then there are no holds barred.  As I have said to the other rather slow on the uptake people here, what is it that you don't understand about the term infinite
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: John Davis on January 10, 2020, 01:51:59 PM
An infinite plane would not inevitably collapse into a black hole. That's where your thought experiment breaks down. You can't introduce invalid assumptions and expect to arrive at a valid conclusion.
Can you put forward the scientific basis for your statement, or is it just an uninformed opinion?

Letís remember in the real universe the gravity on a planetary body is dependent on its mass.
In the real universe objects that have a mass far less than an infinite earth would have find themselves shaped by gravity into a super dense structure that ends up collapsing into a black hole. It is estimated that the collapse would occur in bodies with 3 solar masses or greater. As your infinite earth would have infinite mass and cross that specific mass threshold, just think of the implications.

Letís imagine for a moment some unknown force prevented your infinite flat earth with infinite mass and infinite gravity from collapsing what effect would it have on the solar system. Before we do that you do realise that life would be impossible on an infinite earth with infinite gravity.
Due to the infinite gravitational field produced all the planets including their moons and of course the sun would be torn from their orbits and would no doubt come crashing into your infinite earth, bearing in mind F = G (m1m2/r2). Pop infinity into the equation and see what happens.
This infinite gravitational field would create havoc throughout the universe....the implications are mind boggling.

What do you think would happen?

Since you clearly don't have the physics or mathematics background to do the integral that shows the way an infinite plane with uniform density produces a uniform gravitational field perpendicular to the plane, it's not going to be useful to try to show the mathematics here. Let's just point out that that derivation is simple, and that it's easily found elsewhere.

Let's do this at a very simple step-by-step level.


You understand that a large mass, unchecked by any other force, may collapse and form a black hole.

Why is it that large stars exist right now and are not already black holes? A force (outward pressure from fission) currently prevents it.

Picture any circle of an infinite plane with uniform mass density that is equivalent to several solar masses centered on point P. If it had no external force on it, you might imagine it would collapse as you postulate onto point P.

But it *does* have a force on it. The gravity of all the other mass that is outside the circle is tugging it *outward* preventing it from collapsing.

This is true at any point P on the plane.

Your statement "bearing in mind F = G (m1m2/r2). Pop infinity into the equation and see what happens" is an approximation only valid for masses that can be treated as point sources. It isn't valid for an extended mass.
Have you or anyone else produced a simulation to show this or have you just produced these findings from your back passage?  Why do you all keep avoiding the word infinite?
Apparently you designed spacecraft and may well have come across recent findings of a huge clouds of gas and dust that have created a wave-like structure in our Milky Way that due to its gravity has had a huge influence on its locality. Now, this structure is just a mere 9000 light-years across a mere insignificance when dealing with a structure that you propose that is infinite.  How you can avoid an infinite structure having an infinite mass?  I think demonstrates a fundamental problem. It's a bit like the story of the infinite hotel, no matter how many visitors it has there is always room.
I tell you what you explain to me how an infinite body would not have both infinite mass and gravity and we can take it from there.
I did.

Its right here:
(https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/application/files/thumbnails/large/9314/6126/7140/math.jpg)
It is clearly able to have a finite gravitational pull.

And here:
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/infinite-flat-earth-mathematics
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 10, 2020, 01:55:37 PM
(https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/application/files/thumbnails/large/9314/6126/7140/math.jpg)
It is clearly able to have a finite gravitational pull.

Mr Davis. What is it you don't understand about the term infinite?
A wee thought experiment.
If there was an infinite carbon cube. Would this carbon cube contain an infinite number of carbon atoms or less than an infinite number of carbon atoms? Would the resulting mass be equal to or less than infinite? Simple question. Just think of the old infinite hotel and its infinite number of both odd and even-numbered rooms. What do you think?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 10, 2020, 02:01:24 PM
An infinite plane would not inevitably collapse into a black hole. That's where your thought experiment breaks down. You can't introduce invalid assumptions and expect to arrive at a valid conclusion.
Can you put forward the scientific basis for your statement, or is it just an uninformed opinion?

Letís remember in the real universe the gravity on a planetary body is dependent on its mass.
In the real universe objects that have a mass far less than an infinite earth would have find themselves shaped by gravity into a super dense structure that ends up collapsing into a black hole. It is estimated that the collapse would occur in bodies with 3 solar masses or greater. As your infinite earth would have infinite mass and cross that specific mass threshold, just think of the implications.

Letís imagine for a moment some unknown force prevented your infinite flat earth with infinite mass and infinite gravity from collapsing what effect would it have on the solar system. Before we do that you do realise that life would be impossible on an infinite earth with infinite gravity.
Due to the infinite gravitational field produced all the planets including their moons and of course the sun would be torn from their orbits and would no doubt come crashing into your infinite earth, bearing in mind F = G (m1m2/r2). Pop infinity into the equation and see what happens.
This infinite gravitational field would create havoc throughout the universe....the implications are mind boggling.

What do you think would happen?

Since you clearly don't have the physics or mathematics background to do the integral that shows the way an infinite plane with uniform density produces a uniform gravitational field perpendicular to the plane, it's not going to be useful to try to show the mathematics here. Let's just point out that that derivation is simple, and that it's easily found elsewhere.

Let's do this at a very simple step-by-step level.


You understand that a large mass, unchecked by any other force, may collapse and form a black hole.

Why is it that large stars exist right now and are not already black holes? A force (outward pressure from fission) currently prevents it.

Picture any circle of an infinite plane with uniform mass density that is equivalent to several solar masses centered on point P. If it had no external force on it, you might imagine it would collapse as you postulate onto point P.

But it *does* have a force on it. The gravity of all the other mass that is outside the circle is tugging it *outward* preventing it from collapsing.

This is true at any point P on the plane.

Your statement "bearing in mind F = G (m1m2/r2). Pop infinity into the equation and see what happens" is an approximation only valid for masses that can be treated as point sources. It isn't valid for an extended mass.
Have you or anyone else produced a simulation to show this or have you just produced these findings from your back passage?  Why do you all keep avoiding the word infinite?
Apparently you designed spacecraft and may well have come across recent findings of a huge clouds of gas and dust that have created a wave-like structure in our Milky Way that due to its gravity has had a huge influence on its locality. Now, this structure is just a mere 9000 light-years across a mere insignificance when dealing with a structure that you propose that is infinite.  How you can avoid an infinite structure having an infinite mass?  I think demonstrates a fundamental problem. It's a bit like the story of the infinite hotel, no matter how many visitors it has there is always room.
I tell you what you explain to me how an infinite body would not have both infinite mass and gravity and we can take it from there.
I did.

Its right here:
(https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/application/files/thumbnails/large/9314/6126/7140/math.jpg)
It is clearly able to have a finite gravitational pull.

And here:
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/infinite-flat-earth-mathematics

I'll just give you a good old one-liner that at least has some credibility which is more than your half-page or meaningless scribbles.
 F = Gm1m2/r2
Try putting infinity in this equation and see what you get.
Looking at your page of sums I really don't think you understand the term infinity, are you not embarrassed by that?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 10, 2020, 02:06:01 PM
An infinite plane would not inevitably collapse into a black hole. That's where your thought experiment breaks down. You can't introduce invalid assumptions and expect to arrive at a valid conclusion.


Thank you for bringing sense to an otherwise nonsensical argument.

Nonsensical argument! Itís a thought experiment, same as the one you were going on about on another thread.
What do you think would happen on an infinite earth with infinite mass and hence infinite gravity. I think the spacecraft you designed would have one hell of a job obtaining escape velocity. What would your calculated escape velocity be for an earth with infinite mass?
Did the spacecraft you designed not have to rely on gravity kicks to get them to their final destination? By virtue of that you must know quite a bit about orbital mechanics, so whatís your take on the local effect on the solar system if the earth was suddenly infinite?

I faulted turtles for his several times coming to the conclusion "this is the only possible explanation" given the initial parameters of the thought experiment.

I'm faulting you for coming to a conclusion that does not agree with the known properties of gravity given the initial parameters of the thought experiment.

I'm praising boydster for understanding the known properties of gravity given the initial parameters of the thought experiment.

Infinite mass does not imply infinite gravity. Infinity is funny that way.

Rather than just using a succession of rather empty phrases, why not provide some substance. What property of gravity are you actually pertaining to or would you rather keep that a secret?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Curiouser and Curiouser on January 10, 2020, 02:11:52 PM
Have you or anyone else produced a simulation to show this or have you just produced these findings from your back passage?

Yes, you were told that such a calculation is simple and easily found, but I was using your preferred method of a simple thought experiment as you have a lack of understanding of physics.  Perhaps you haven't had time to review the physics, or perhaps it's over your head.

...
I tell you what you explain to me how an infinite body would not have both infinite mass and gravity and we can take it from there.

Review a derivation of gravitational field over an infinite plane. Google to your heart's content.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 10, 2020, 02:14:42 PM
Have you or anyone else produced a simulation to show this or have you just produced these findings from your back passage?

Yes, you were told that such a calculation is simple and easily found, but I was using your preferred method of a simple thought experiment as you have a lack of understanding of physics.  Perhaps you haven't had time to review the physics, or perhaps it's over your head.

...
I tell you what you explain to me how an infinite body would not have both infinite mass and gravity and we can take it from there.

Review a derivation of gravitational field over an infinite plane. Google to your heart's content.

Please provide the link unless it loops back to the FE society as those guys really suck at maths.
Do you have a problem with infinity? Would an infinite structure not have an infinite number of atoms, or do you put a restriction on that?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Curiouser and Curiouser on January 10, 2020, 02:17:04 PM
I'll just give you a good old one-liner that at least has some credibility which is more than your half-page or meaningless scribbles.
 F = Gm1m2/r2
Try putting infinity in this equation and see what you get.
Looking at your page of sums I really don't think you understand the term infinity, are you not embarrassed by that?

Your good old one-liner does not apply.

You have been told that your stated formula is only applicable when m1 and m2 can be treated as point masses.

An infinite plane cannot.

The gravitational field must be calculated by summing appropriate masses that act as point sources, i.e., integrating.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Curiouser and Curiouser on January 10, 2020, 02:24:55 PM
Have you or anyone else produced a simulation to show this or have you just produced these findings from your back passage?

Yes, you were told that such a calculation is simple and easily found, but I was using your preferred method of a simple thought experiment as you have a lack of understanding of physics.  Perhaps you haven't had time to review the physics, or perhaps it's over your head.

...
I tell you what you explain to me how an infinite body would not have both infinite mass and gravity and we can take it from there.

Review a derivation of gravitational field over an infinite plane. Google to your heart's content.

Please provide the link unless it loops back to the FE society as those guys really suck at maths.
Do you have a problem with infinity? Would an infinite structure not have an infinite number of atoms, or do you put a restriction on that?

https://physics.info/gravitation-extended/practice.shtml (https://physics.info/gravitation-extended/practice.shtml)

Review Practice Problem 2 where the derivation shows the finite gravitational field, and further the thickness of the slab required to produce an equivalent observed surface gravity.

Yes, an infinite slab has an infinite number of atoms, but not infinite gravity.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 10, 2020, 02:39:14 PM
Have you or anyone else produced a simulation to show this or have you just produced these findings from your back passage?

Yes, you were told that such a calculation is simple and easily found, but I was using your preferred method of a simple thought experiment as you have a lack of understanding of physics.  Perhaps you haven't had time to review the physics, or perhaps it's over your head.

...
I tell you what you explain to me how an infinite body would not have both infinite mass and gravity and we can take it from there.

Review a derivation of gravitational field over an infinite plane. Google to your heart's content.

Please provide the link unless it loops back to the FE society as those guys really suck at maths.
Do you have a problem with infinity? Would an infinite structure not have an infinite number of atoms, or do you put a restriction on that?

https://physics.info/gravitation-extended/practice.shtml (https://physics.info/gravitation-extended/practice.shtml)

Review Practice Problem 2 where the derivation shows the finite gravitational field, and further the thickness of the slab required to produce an equivalent observed surface gravity.

Yes, an infinite slab has an infinite number of atoms, but not infinite gravity.

Granted it's not obviously a flat earth web resource, but who are these people, John Davis in disguise?  but the mathematics used looks highly suspect reminding me of those early 1950s boys adventure stories, "with one giant leap john was free" I think you would have to do better than. If flat earthers can reject actual footage of launches and satellite images, possibly provided by satellites that allegedly you yourself designed why should a random weblink you provide be automatically be seen as the holly grail of mathematics?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Curiouser and Curiouser on January 10, 2020, 03:02:44 PM
Have you or anyone else produced a simulation to show this or have you just produced these findings from your back passage?

Yes, you were told that such a calculation is simple and easily found, but I was using your preferred method of a simple thought experiment as you have a lack of understanding of physics.  Perhaps you haven't had time to review the physics, or perhaps it's over your head.

...
I tell you what you explain to me how an infinite body would not have both infinite mass and gravity and we can take it from there.

Review a derivation of gravitational field over an infinite plane. Google to your heart's content.

Please provide the link unless it loops back to the FE society as those guys really suck at maths.
Do you have a problem with infinity? Would an infinite structure not have an infinite number of atoms, or do you put a restriction on that?

https://physics.info/gravitation-extended/practice.shtml (https://physics.info/gravitation-extended/practice.shtml)

Review Practice Problem 2 where the derivation shows the finite gravitational field, and further the thickness of the slab required to produce an equivalent observed surface gravity.

Yes, an infinite slab has an infinite number of atoms, but not infinite gravity.

Granted it's not obviously a flat earth web resource, but who are these people, John Davis in disguise?  but the mathematics used looks highly suspect reminding me of those early 1950s boys adventure stories, "with one giant leap john was free" I think you would have to do better than. If flat earthers can reject actual footage of launches and satellite images, possibly provided by satellites that allegedly you yourself designed why should a random weblink you provide be automatically be seen as the holly grail of mathematics?

You didn't ask for a Holy Grail. You asked for a link that didn't loop back to a FE site.

"...the mathematics used looks highly suspect...." This should be of little consequence, because anyone with a modicum of physics and mathematics should be able to go through the derivation and either reproduce it or find the flaw.

It appears as if you are unable to do this, and are now playing the game of which resource to trust. Go to a physics professor you trust with this derivation and see if it holds. Or pick up a physics textbook (if you trust physics) and see if you can reproduce it. (Hint: it's very similar to finding the electric field at a distance from an infinite sheet of charge).

No one is asking you to trust a source, but you did ask for a source. Use it as a starting point. You can obviously use the "why should I trust what you give me" for any source that is provided here, so it's no use providing you with others. Come back when you've learned some physics.

Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: John Davis on January 10, 2020, 03:27:55 PM
An infinite plane would not inevitably collapse into a black hole. That's where your thought experiment breaks down. You can't introduce invalid assumptions and expect to arrive at a valid conclusion.
Can you put forward the scientific basis for your statement, or is it just an uninformed opinion?

Letís remember in the real universe the gravity on a planetary body is dependent on its mass.
In the real universe objects that have a mass far less than an infinite earth would have find themselves shaped by gravity into a super dense structure that ends up collapsing into a black hole. It is estimated that the collapse would occur in bodies with 3 solar masses or greater. As your infinite earth would have infinite mass and cross that specific mass threshold, just think of the implications.

Letís imagine for a moment some unknown force prevented your infinite flat earth with infinite mass and infinite gravity from collapsing what effect would it have on the solar system. Before we do that you do realise that life would be impossible on an infinite earth with infinite gravity.
Due to the infinite gravitational field produced all the planets including their moons and of course the sun would be torn from their orbits and would no doubt come crashing into your infinite earth, bearing in mind F = G (m1m2/r2). Pop infinity into the equation and see what happens.
This infinite gravitational field would create havoc throughout the universe....the implications are mind boggling.

What do you think would happen?

Since you clearly don't have the physics or mathematics background to do the integral that shows the way an infinite plane with uniform density produces a uniform gravitational field perpendicular to the plane, it's not going to be useful to try to show the mathematics here. Let's just point out that that derivation is simple, and that it's easily found elsewhere.

Let's do this at a very simple step-by-step level.


You understand that a large mass, unchecked by any other force, may collapse and form a black hole.

Why is it that large stars exist right now and are not already black holes? A force (outward pressure from fission) currently prevents it.

Picture any circle of an infinite plane with uniform mass density that is equivalent to several solar masses centered on point P. If it had no external force on it, you might imagine it would collapse as you postulate onto point P.

But it *does* have a force on it. The gravity of all the other mass that is outside the circle is tugging it *outward* preventing it from collapsing.

This is true at any point P on the plane.

Your statement "bearing in mind F = G (m1m2/r2). Pop infinity into the equation and see what happens" is an approximation only valid for masses that can be treated as point sources. It isn't valid for an extended mass.
Have you or anyone else produced a simulation to show this or have you just produced these findings from your back passage?  Why do you all keep avoiding the word infinite?
Apparently you designed spacecraft and may well have come across recent findings of a huge clouds of gas and dust that have created a wave-like structure in our Milky Way that due to its gravity has had a huge influence on its locality. Now, this structure is just a mere 9000 light-years across a mere insignificance when dealing with a structure that you propose that is infinite.  How you can avoid an infinite structure having an infinite mass?  I think demonstrates a fundamental problem. It's a bit like the story of the infinite hotel, no matter how many visitors it has there is always room.
I tell you what you explain to me how an infinite body would not have both infinite mass and gravity and we can take it from there.
I did.

Its right here:
(https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/application/files/thumbnails/large/9314/6126/7140/math.jpg)
It is clearly able to have a finite gravitational pull.

And here:
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/infinite-flat-earth-mathematics

I'll just give you a good old one-liner that at least has some credibility which is more than your half-page or meaningless scribbles.
 F = Gm1m2/r2
Try putting infinity in this equation and see what you get.
Looking at your page of sums I really don't think you understand the term infinity, are you not embarrassed by that?

You don't understand infinity.

So let's dismiss your stupid little claim that an infinite number of finite values added together must yield an infinite value.

This is the most elementary example I can think of, and it has been known to humanity since at least 430 BC. You might be familiar with it as Zeno's paradox or as a geometric converging series.

Disproof by example:
∫ (1/2)n as n -> ∞ = 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 .... = 1

Even if you disagree incorrectly that this equals 1, it still clearly sums to a finite value.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: JackBlack on January 10, 2020, 03:28:02 PM
An infinite plane would not inevitably collapse into a black hole. That's where your thought experiment breaks down. You can't introduce invalid assumptions and expect to arrive at a valid conclusion.
Can you put forward the scientific basis for your statement, or is it just an uninformed opinion?
A homogeneous infinite plane will not collapse.
A simple question to ask to show this problem is where would the black hole be?

For any normal mass, if it were to collapse into a black hole, without ejecting any matter, the centre of the black hole would be the centre of mass of the object. But for an infinite plane, the centre of mass is a plane. Would that mean it would collapse into a plane?

The other way is to focus on the force from the mass of the plane for any given point.
The majority of the infinite plane pulls it outwards, cancelling out the infinite forces.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 10, 2020, 03:35:51 PM
Have you or anyone else produced a simulation to show this or have you just produced these findings from your back passage?

Yes, you were told that such a calculation is simple and easily found, but I was using your preferred method of a simple thought experiment as you have a lack of understanding of physics.  Perhaps you haven't had time to review the physics, or perhaps it's over your head.

...
I tell you what you explain to me how an infinite body would not have both infinite mass and gravity and we can take it from there.

Review a derivation of gravitational field over an infinite plane. Google to your heart's content.

Please provide the link unless it loops back to the FE society as those guys really suck at maths.
Do you have a problem with infinity? Would an infinite structure not have an infinite number of atoms, or do you put a restriction on that?

https://physics.info/gravitation-extended/practice.shtml (https://physics.info/gravitation-extended/practice.shtml)

Review Practice Problem 2 where the derivation shows the finite gravitational field, and further the thickness of the slab required to produce an equivalent observed surface gravity.

Yes, an infinite slab has an infinite number of atoms, but not infinite gravity.

Granted it's not obviously a flat earth web resource, but who are these people, John Davis in disguise?  but the mathematics used looks highly suspect reminding me of those early 1950s boys adventure stories, "with one giant leap john was free" I think you would have to do better than. If flat earthers can reject actual footage of launches and satellite images, possibly provided by satellites that allegedly you yourself designed why should a random weblink you provide be automatically be seen as the holly grail of mathematics?

You didn't ask for a Holy Grail. You asked for a link that didn't loop back to a FE site.

"...the mathematics used looks highly suspect...." This should be of little consequence, because anyone with a modicum of physics and mathematics should be able to go through the derivation and either reproduce it or find the flaw.

It appears as if you are unable to do this, and are now playing the game of which resource to trust. Go to a physics professor you trust with this derivation and see if it holds. Or pick up a physics textbook (if you trust physics) and see if you can reproduce it. (Hint: it's very similar to finding the electric field at a distance from an infinite sheet of charge).

No one is asking you to trust a source, but you did ask for a source. Use it as a starting point. You can obviously use the "why should I trust what you give me" for any source that is provided here, so it's no use providing you with others. Come back when you've learned some physics.

In my naivety I expected something from Nature or perhaps a paper from Caltech, not some nondescript waffle from who knows who from who knows where. Quick question, are we entering the zone; if itís on the Internet then it must be true?, or are we going to debate in the real world. You choose. I could provide you links from reputable sources that prove infinite structures in nature are impossible.
You may have noticed but on this site FE proponents put little store on information from very reputable scientific organisations, true or not true? John Davis decries the work of scientists like Einstein and then expects people to buy his half page of bad sums.
You mentioned you like logic, what does your logical brain say about such a situation?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 10, 2020, 03:40:53 PM
An infinite plane would not inevitably collapse into a black hole. That's where your thought experiment breaks down. You can't introduce invalid assumptions and expect to arrive at a valid conclusion.
Can you put forward the scientific basis for your statement, or is it just an uninformed opinion?

Letís remember in the real universe the gravity on a planetary body is dependent on its mass.
In the real universe objects that have a mass far less than an infinite earth would have find themselves shaped by gravity into a super dense structure that ends up collapsing into a black hole. It is estimated that the collapse would occur in bodies with 3 solar masses or greater. As your infinite earth would have infinite mass and cross that specific mass threshold, just think of the implications.

Letís imagine for a moment some unknown force prevented your infinite flat earth with infinite mass and infinite gravity from collapsing what effect would it have on the solar system. Before we do that you do realise that life would be impossible on an infinite earth with infinite gravity.
Due to the infinite gravitational field produced all the planets including their moons and of course the sun would be torn from their orbits and would no doubt come crashing into your infinite earth, bearing in mind F = G (m1m2/r2). Pop infinity into the equation and see what happens.
This infinite gravitational field would create havoc throughout the universe....the implications are mind boggling.

What do you think would happen?

Since you clearly don't have the physics or mathematics background to do the integral that shows the way an infinite plane with uniform density produces a uniform gravitational field perpendicular to the plane, it's not going to be useful to try to show the mathematics here. Let's just point out that that derivation is simple, and that it's easily found elsewhere.

Let's do this at a very simple step-by-step level.


You understand that a large mass, unchecked by any other force, may collapse and form a black hole.

Why is it that large stars exist right now and are not already black holes? A force (outward pressure from fission) currently prevents it.

Picture any circle of an infinite plane with uniform mass density that is equivalent to several solar masses centered on point P. If it had no external force on it, you might imagine it would collapse as you postulate onto point P.

But it *does* have a force on it. The gravity of all the other mass that is outside the circle is tugging it *outward* preventing it from collapsing.

This is true at any point P on the plane.

Your statement "bearing in mind F = G (m1m2/r2). Pop infinity into the equation and see what happens" is an approximation only valid for masses that can be treated as point sources. It isn't valid for an extended mass.
Have you or anyone else produced a simulation to show this or have you just produced these findings from your back passage?  Why do you all keep avoiding the word infinite?
Apparently you designed spacecraft and may well have come across recent findings of a huge clouds of gas and dust that have created a wave-like structure in our Milky Way that due to its gravity has had a huge influence on its locality. Now, this structure is just a mere 9000 light-years across a mere insignificance when dealing with a structure that you propose that is infinite.  How you can avoid an infinite structure having an infinite mass?  I think demonstrates a fundamental problem. It's a bit like the story of the infinite hotel, no matter how many visitors it has there is always room.
I tell you what you explain to me how an infinite body would not have both infinite mass and gravity and we can take it from there.
I did.

Its right here:
(https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/application/files/thumbnails/large/9314/6126/7140/math.jpg)
It is clearly able to have a finite gravitational pull.

And here:
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/infinite-flat-earth-mathematics

I'll just give you a good old one-liner that at least has some credibility which is more than your half-page or meaningless scribbles.
 F = Gm1m2/r2
Try putting infinity in this equation and see what you get.
Looking at your page of sums I really don't think you understand the term infinity, are you not embarrassed by that?

You don't understand infinity.

So let's dismiss your stupid little claim that an infinite number of finite values added together must yield an infinite value.

This is the most elementary example I can think of, and it has been known to humanity since at least 430 BC. You might be familiar with it as Zeno's paradox or as a geometric converging series.

Disproof by example:
∫ (1/2)n as n -> ∞ = 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 .... = 1

Even if you disagree incorrectly that this equals 1, it still clearly sums to a finite value.

And I thought you didnít like the Greeks. Do you like Hotel California?
Imagine you went on holiday to the infinite California hotel run by Mr. Hilbert and it was full. Would they be able to make room for you?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 10, 2020, 04:00:49 PM
An infinite plane would not inevitably collapse into a black hole. That's where your thought experiment breaks down. You can't introduce invalid assumptions and expect to arrive at a valid conclusion.
Can you put forward the scientific basis for your statement, or is it just an uninformed opinion?
A homogeneous infinite plane will not collapse.
A simple question to ask to show this problem is where would the black hole be?

For any normal mass, if it were to collapse into a black hole, without ejecting any matter, the centre of the black hole would be the centre of mass of the object. But for an infinite plane, the centre of mass is a plane. Would that mean it would collapse into a plane?

The other way is to focus on the force from the mass of the plane for any given point.
The majority of the infinite plane pulls it outwards, cancelling out the infinite forces.

You appear to know a lot about infinite planes.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: John Davis on January 10, 2020, 04:09:57 PM
Hilbert's paradox is simply not relevant. It's like you learned about one thought experiment on infinity and decided to ignore the entirity of mathematics. If you think my math is suspect, and you are a learned man familiar with mathematics enough to make such a judgement then you should have no problem showing me where it is suspect.

Have you or anyone else produced a simulation to show this or have you just produced these findings from your back passage?

Yes, you were told that such a calculation is simple and easily found, but I was using your preferred method of a simple thought experiment as you have a lack of understanding of physics.  Perhaps you haven't had time to review the physics, or perhaps it's over your head.

...
I tell you what you explain to me how an infinite body would not have both infinite mass and gravity and we can take it from there.

Review a derivation of gravitational field over an infinite plane. Google to your heart's content.

Please provide the link unless it loops back to the FE society as those guys really suck at maths.
Do you have a problem with infinity? Would an infinite structure not have an infinite number of atoms, or do you put a restriction on that?

https://physics.info/gravitation-extended/practice.shtml (https://physics.info/gravitation-extended/practice.shtml)

Review Practice Problem 2 where the derivation shows the finite gravitational field, and further the thickness of the slab required to produce an equivalent observed surface gravity.

Yes, an infinite slab has an infinite number of atoms, but not infinite gravity.

Granted it's not obviously a flat earth web resource, but who are these people, John Davis in disguise?  but the mathematics used looks highly suspect reminding me of those early 1950s boys adventure stories, "with one giant leap john was free" I think you would have to do better than. If flat earthers can reject actual footage of launches and satellite images, possibly provided by satellites that allegedly you yourself designed why should a random weblink you provide be automatically be seen as the holly grail of mathematics?

You didn't ask for a Holy Grail. You asked for a link that didn't loop back to a FE site.

"...the mathematics used looks highly suspect...." This should be of little consequence, because anyone with a modicum of physics and mathematics should be able to go through the derivation and either reproduce it or find the flaw.

It appears as if you are unable to do this, and are now playing the game of which resource to trust. Go to a physics professor you trust with this derivation and see if it holds. Or pick up a physics textbook (if you trust physics) and see if you can reproduce it. (Hint: it's very similar to finding the electric field at a distance from an infinite sheet of charge).

No one is asking you to trust a source, but you did ask for a source. Use it as a starting point. You can obviously use the "why should I trust what you give me" for any source that is provided here, so it's no use providing you with others. Come back when you've learned some physics.

In my naivety I expected something from Nature or perhaps a paper from Caltech, not some nondescript waffle from who knows who from who knows where. Quick question, are we entering the zone; if itís on the Internet then it must be true?, or are we going to debate in the real world. You choose. I could provide you links from reputable sources that prove infinite structures in nature are impossible.
You may have noticed but on this site FE proponents put little store on information from very reputable scientific organisations, true or not true? John Davis decries the work of scientists like Einstein and then expects people to buy his half page of bad sums.
You mentioned you like logic, what does your logical brain say about such a situation?
Where have I decried Einstein?

We have provided citations so you don't need to take my word on it. Or you can do it yourself. Start with Gauss's Law.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Curiouser and Curiouser on January 10, 2020, 06:00:44 PM
Have you or anyone else produced a simulation to show this or have you just produced these findings from your back passage?

Yes, you were told that such a calculation is simple and easily found, but I was using your preferred method of a simple thought experiment as you have a lack of understanding of physics.  Perhaps you haven't had time to review the physics, or perhaps it's over your head.

...
I tell you what you explain to me how an infinite body would not have both infinite mass and gravity and we can take it from there.

Review a derivation of gravitational field over an infinite plane. Google to your heart's content.

Please provide the link unless it loops back to the FE society as those guys really suck at maths.
Do you have a problem with infinity? Would an infinite structure not have an infinite number of atoms, or do you put a restriction on that?

https://physics.info/gravitation-extended/practice.shtml (https://physics.info/gravitation-extended/practice.shtml)

Review Practice Problem 2 where the derivation shows the finite gravitational field, and further the thickness of the slab required to produce an equivalent observed surface gravity.

Yes, an infinite slab has an infinite number of atoms, but not infinite gravity.

Granted it's not obviously a flat earth web resource, but who are these people, John Davis in disguise?  but the mathematics used looks highly suspect reminding me of those early 1950s boys adventure stories, "with one giant leap john was free" I think you would have to do better than. If flat earthers can reject actual footage of launches and satellite images, possibly provided by satellites that allegedly you yourself designed why should a random weblink you provide be automatically be seen as the holly grail of mathematics?

You didn't ask for a Holy Grail. You asked for a link that didn't loop back to a FE site.

"...the mathematics used looks highly suspect...." This should be of little consequence, because anyone with a modicum of physics and mathematics should be able to go through the derivation and either reproduce it or find the flaw.

It appears as if you are unable to do this, and are now playing the game of which resource to trust. Go to a physics professor you trust with this derivation and see if it holds. Or pick up a physics textbook (if you trust physics) and see if you can reproduce it. (Hint: it's very similar to finding the electric field at a distance from an infinite sheet of charge).

No one is asking you to trust a source, but you did ask for a source. Use it as a starting point. You can obviously use the "why should I trust what you give me" for any source that is provided here, so it's no use providing you with others. Come back when you've learned some physics.

In my naivety I expected something from Nature or perhaps a paper from Caltech, not some nondescript waffle from who knows who from who knows where. Quick question, are we entering the zone; if it’s on the Internet then it must be true?, or are we going to debate in the real world. You choose. I could provide you links from reputable sources that prove infinite structures in nature are impossible.
You may have noticed but on this site FE proponents put little store on information from very reputable scientific organisations, true or not true? John Davis decries the work of scientists like Einstein and then expects people to buy his half page of bad sums.
You mentioned you like logic, what does your logical brain say about such a situation?

I gave you a reference, with a mathematical derivation, that I though might be at your level of sophistication, because all your previous posts have shown a woeful deficiency in the ability to understand physics or mathematics. I did not expect you to take the reference as gospel, but as an example of how to derive the result for yourself.

The question is not whether infinite structures are possible or not. The question is would an infinite slab have infinite gravity. That is what you were called out on. Moving the goalposts is a frequent tactic of those with poor arguing skills; do not attempt it.

Again, this is not a competition of veracity of references, but I've given you a reference that is a guide to how to do the calculation yourself, if you possess rudimentary physics and math skills. It is becoming absolutely clear that you do not.

My logical brain interprets the current situation this way:

You wanted to come in with a quick "gotcha" thought experiment. In doing so you used your own imagination to come up with the "fact" that a theoretical infinite slab would have infinite gravity. Your knowledge of physics is poor, and you don't have experience with integrals, limits, or similar calculations.

You were called out on it by members, including several that are not flat earthers. It is something that you could use standard research techniques to verify, but you are embarrassed about being wrong and losing face both about that and your lack of skill at physics, and therefore are using an array of standard techniques to double down, question references, change the subject, and pretend that you are an expert in a subject in which you are outmatched. And much as I disagree with John Davis about almost everything, this is an area in which he is correct. It must really sting to be shown up by a flat earther.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: John Davis on January 10, 2020, 06:12:49 PM
Well put. Thank you for stating this.

And we don't care if you don't know something. We really don't. Everybody here (or at least most of us :) are more than happy to explain or help you learn anything relevant.

There is a surprising, perhaps to you, amount of knowledge being used by both sides of the argument here. It's easy to assume its all bollocks - I get it. You are on the flat earth society forums. There are a fair amount of ideas here that an orthodox view would ignore out of hand. On the other hand, it's not often I see someone use math incorrectly and the other side doesn't smash them for it instantly.

Stay a bit and learn the culture.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Macarios on January 10, 2020, 09:36:07 PM
And how long would it take to collapse. He clearly has spent next to no time thinking about this.

Ok, then "toward which point it would keep collapsing, and what exists at that point now?" :)
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 11, 2020, 07:15:21 AM
At this stage in the debate, it's possibly a good point to stand back and reflect on some aspects of the discussion so far.
In terms of large or infinite structures in the known universe no infinite structure has ever been observed, ( I wonder why?) while the largest Ďthingí ever observed is a pileup of galaxies or galaxy cluster known as SPT2349. This is according to Nature. If you have a subscription you can read up about it here.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1829-4
Its actual size is only 10 trillion times larger than our own sun, that's the 1.4 Million km real version.
While this is pretty big, it's a comparative non-entity when compared to anything infinite.
I was in the pub last night talking to a couple of pals of mine one of whom happens to be a prof at a local university in mathematics. I made the mistake of mentioning infinity. You know what happens when you light a blue touch paper, well that was him. One of the first things he said, which I looked up when I got home, was when talking about infinity the first thing you need to realise that it is not and canít be treated as a number and its a really bad idea if you do.
Consider two infinite lines one made up of an infinite number of millimeters and the other of an infinite number of kilometers. Does it mean that the infinite kilometer line is  1000 times longer than the infinite millimeter line? exactly you canít think of infinity as a number. Remember that infinity is not a number.
It appears that many contributors did not like my assertion that an infinite object would be composed of infinite atoms and have an infinite mass which would give rise to infinite gravity.
They produced some extremely dubious maths from a dubious source that they asserted Ďprovedí an infinite plane of thickness 4000 miles or so would have a finite gravity of around that of the earth. I would say to them that both they and the Ďmathematicianí that did the calculation do not understand infinity.
While the Greeks did mention infinity, though they really didnít like it, and Zeno had a think about it but any real understanding of infinity only really came in the early 20th Century. Infinity in either mathematics or philosophy is very very different from considering an infinite object existing in the real world. The science of physical infinities is much less developed than the science of mathematical infinities. The main reason is simply that the status of physical infinities is quite undecided.
For example, think about this. If the earth were an infinite plane, made up of an infinite amount of matter how can there then be any other matter in the universe?
the existence of other galaxies of which billions have been observed would in one fell stroke preclude the existence of an infinite structure existing.
I think that fact kills any idea of there being infinite flat earth existing in either a thought experiment or in the real world.
One of the main problems of this debate has been the use of maths and science to justify one's stance. According to science, the idea of the existence of an infinite flat earth is precluded due to the behavior of mass when subjected or should I say influenced by the presence of a gravitational field. It has been shown that if the object is made of ice then it becomes spherical when it reaches 400km in diameter or 600 if rock. This appears to be a fairly universal law and another reason despite the maths of John Davis that a flat body even finite and the size of the earth, could not exist.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 11, 2020, 07:24:42 AM
Have you or anyone else produced a simulation to show this or have you just produced these findings from your back passage?

Yes, you were told that such a calculation is simple and easily found, but I was using your preferred method of a simple thought experiment as you have a lack of understanding of physics.  Perhaps you haven't had time to review the physics, or perhaps it's over your head.

...
I tell you what you explain to me how an infinite body would not have both infinite mass and gravity and we can take it from there.

Review a derivation of gravitational field over an infinite plane. Google to your heart's content.

Please provide the link unless it loops back to the FE society as those guys really suck at maths.
Do you have a problem with infinity? Would an infinite structure not have an infinite number of atoms, or do you put a restriction on that?

https://physics.info/gravitation-extended/practice.shtml (https://physics.info/gravitation-extended/practice.shtml)

Review Practice Problem 2 where the derivation shows the finite gravitational field, and further the thickness of the slab required to produce an equivalent observed surface gravity.

Yes, an infinite slab has an infinite number of atoms, but not infinite gravity.

Granted it's not obviously a flat earth web resource, but who are these people, John Davis in disguise?  but the mathematics used looks highly suspect reminding me of those early 1950s boys adventure stories, "with one giant leap john was free" I think you would have to do better than. If flat earthers can reject actual footage of launches and satellite images, possibly provided by satellites that allegedly you yourself designed why should a random weblink you provide be automatically be seen as the holly grail of mathematics?

You didn't ask for a Holy Grail. You asked for a link that didn't loop back to a FE site.

"...the mathematics used looks highly suspect...." This should be of little consequence, because anyone with a modicum of physics and mathematics should be able to go through the derivation and either reproduce it or find the flaw.

It appears as if you are unable to do this, and are now playing the game of which resource to trust. Go to a physics professor you trust with this derivation and see if it holds. Or pick up a physics textbook (if you trust physics) and see if you can reproduce it. (Hint: it's very similar to finding the electric field at a distance from an infinite sheet of charge).

No one is asking you to trust a source, but you did ask for a source. Use it as a starting point. You can obviously use the "why should I trust what you give me" for any source that is provided here, so it's no use providing you with others. Come back when you've learned some physics.

In my naivety I expected something from Nature or perhaps a paper from Caltech, not some nondescript waffle from who knows who from who knows where. Quick question, are we entering the zone; if itís on the Internet then it must be true?, or are we going to debate in the real world. You choose. I could provide you links from reputable sources that prove infinite structures in nature are impossible.
You may have noticed but on this site FE proponents put little store on information from very reputable scientific organisations, true or not true? John Davis decries the work of scientists like Einstein and then expects people to buy his half page of bad sums.
You mentioned you like logic, what does your logical brain say about such a situation?

I gave you a reference, with a mathematical derivation, that I though might be at your level of sophistication, because all your previous posts have shown a woeful deficiency in the ability to understand physics or mathematics. I did not expect you to take the reference as gospel, but as an example of how to derive the result for yourself.

The question is not whether infinite structures are possible or not. The question is would an infinite slab have infinite gravity. That is what you were called out on. Moving the goalposts is a frequent tactic of those with poor arguing skills; do not attempt it.

Again, this is not a competition of veracity of references, but I've given you a reference that is a guide to how to do the calculation yourself, if you possess rudimentary physics and math skills. It is becoming absolutely clear that you do not.

My logical brain interprets the current situation this way:

You wanted to come in with a quick "gotcha" thought experiment. In doing so you used your own imagination to come up with the "fact" that a theoretical infinite slab would have infinite gravity. Your knowledge of physics is poor, and you don't have experience with integrals, limits, or similar calculations.

You were called out on it by members, including several that are not flat earthers. It is something that you could use standard research techniques to verify, but you are embarrassed about being wrong and losing face both about that and your lack of skill at physics, and therefore are using an array of standard techniques to double down, question references, change the subject, and pretend that you are an expert in a subject in which you are outmatched. And much as I disagree with John Davis about almost everything, this is an area in which he is correct. It must really sting to be shown up by a flat earther.

Do you honestly think that the numbers on the side of an argument have any relevance? I think you who values logic would have not used that one. As I have said how do you escape from a fact I mentioned earlier that appeared to have gone over your head. Infinite flat earth makes for an infinite number of atoms. Would you agree? If there is an infinity of atoms in the universe and the earth is infinite then the universe should be composed solely of the infinite flat earth and thats all.

Remember a physical infinity is very different from a mathematical or theoretical infinity, remember what Paul Caplin said on the subject, infinity is not a physical object, but then neither is the number 5.  You can hold 5 apples in your hand, and you can hold a piece of paper with the numeral for 5 on it, but you can't hold a 5 in your hand. A physical infinity does not exist.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Bullwinkle on January 11, 2020, 07:29:32 AM

In terms of large or infinite structures in the known universe no infinite structure has ever been observed, ( I wonder why?)

Have you ever seen your own butthole?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 11, 2020, 07:34:50 AM
Well put. Thank you for stating this.

And we don't care if you don't know something. We really don't. Everybody here (or at least most of us :) are more than happy to explain or help you learn anything relevant.

There is a surprising, perhaps to you, amount of knowledge being used by both sides of the argument here. It's easy to assume its all bollocks - I get it. You are on the flat earth society forums. There are a fair amount of ideas here that an orthodox view would ignore out of hand. On the other hand, it's not often I see someone use math incorrectly and the other side doesn't smash them for it instantly.

Stay a bit and learn the culture.

I think you should learn the science.
I think the real problem here is you really don't understand the concept of infinity. All the way through you confuse the concept of a mathematical or a metaphysical infinity with a physical one. For reasons I have mentioned before an infinite anything could not exist in the real world, just think about it. It can be big, it can be really big, but not infinite.

Just as I remember  Einstein said, "only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." 
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 11, 2020, 07:39:45 AM

In terms of large or infinite structures in the known universe no infinite structure has ever been observed, ( I wonder why?)

Have you ever seen your own butthole?

 Einstein said, "only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."  I think you prove the latter. Is that you run out of things to say. I think you restoring to that remark tells me I've won the argument, and convinced me you really don't understand the concept of infinity.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Bullwinkle on January 11, 2020, 07:54:33 AM

In terms of large or infinite structures in the known universe no infinite structure has ever been observed, ( I wonder why?)

Perhaps because of size?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 11, 2020, 09:02:19 AM

In terms of large or infinite structures in the known universe no infinite structure has ever been observed, ( I wonder why?)

Perhaps because of size?
You really don't get it, the concept of physical infinity do you? and how you imagine you and all you know can exist separately from it. Just think about it and tell me what you think.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: boydster on January 11, 2020, 09:10:43 AM
You keep telling people to "just think about it." I suggest you take some time to do just that. Don't think for one moment that your shifting of the goalposts again is going unnoticed.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 11, 2020, 09:16:33 AM
I think Cantor has a lot to answer for when he said that some infinities are bigger than others.
Many people think that there can be an infinite number of objects in the universe.
Some people think there can be infinite flat earth existing in the universe, problematic if you actually think about it, whether they think the universe is finite or infinite I'm not sure, but I suppose the concept of an infinite flat earth existing in a finite universe has a bit of a problem from the word go as does the physical concept of an infinite earth inside an infinite universe. Whichever way you wish to square it despite what 'all' the people are saying any rational thought experiment considering the idea of an infinite flat earth holds no water and is therefore officially busted.
John Davis mentioned Gauss, he, Carl Friedrich Gauss actually said ďInfinity is merely a way of speakingĒ and ďI protest against the use of infinite magnitude as something completed, which is never permissible in mathematics.Ē
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 11, 2020, 09:17:58 AM
You keep telling people to "just think about it." I suggest you take some time to do just that. Don't think for one moment that your shifting of the goalposts again is going unnoticed.
Unlike most people on this forum, I have been thinking about it.
Tell me where the goalposts were originally and where they are now located.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Bullwinkle on January 11, 2020, 09:40:58 AM

In terms of large or infinite structures in the known universe no infinite structure has ever been observed, ( I wonder why?)

Perhaps because of size?
You really don't get it, the concept of physical infinity do you? and how you imagine you and all you know can exist separately from it. Just think about it and tell me what you think.

You have observed infinity?
Tell me all about it.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 11, 2020, 11:10:43 AM

In terms of large or infinite structures in the known universe no infinite structure has ever been observed, ( I wonder why?)

Perhaps because of size?
You really don't get it, the concept of physical infinity do you? and how you imagine you and all you know can exist separately from it. Just think about it and tell me what you think.

You have observed infinity?
Tell me all about it.

Again you misunderstand, but at least you're consistent. It was the Davis man with his ill-fated and illogical Davis Plane who was somehow seeing infinity. Ask him. Perhaps he needs new glasses.
Infinity in the physical world probably does not exist. I've been saying that since the beginning, but you people are so slowwwww on the uptake.
The initial clue was in my original statement. `Infinite earth, infinite atoms, infinit...energy, gravity, mass etc... But people were too caught up in their narrow beliefs and brown-nosing each other to put their brains into gear. How you doing by the way, caught up yet?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 11, 2020, 11:17:50 AM
If no one comes in with an intelligent response. I think Bullwinkles, using bumhole tends to put one in the unintelligent arena,  and the other moderator who spends all his time playing with his Avatar, cant remember the name, body something. I will claim a victory for sense and reason.  I get the feeling John Davis has ran away possibly deleting the infinite Davis plane, which may well take a long time given its size. The Curious one should spend less time telling other people off for using bad arguments and focus more on his own bad arguments.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: JackBlack on January 11, 2020, 12:52:38 PM
They produced some extremely dubious maths from a dubious source that they asserted Ďprovedí an infinite plane of thickness 4000 miles or so would have a finite gravity of around that of the earth. I would say to them that both they and the Ďmathematicianí that did the calculation do not understand infinity.
I would say you are the one who fails to understand.
Yes, you made a mistake by saying that an infinite plane has infinite gravity.
It has an infinite gravitational well, but the gravitational acceleration is finite.

I notice that while you dismiss the math as dubious, you were unable to show any problem with it.

Before running off to another topic, why not deal with your claim that it should collapse into a black hole?

How about we try a real reflection?

You have baselessly asserted that an finite plane should collapse into a black hole and has infinite gravity.
You did this by treating it as if it is just a really big finite plane.
You then just dismissed any argument which shows you are wrong, with the same assertions.

Do you accept that an infinite plane wouldn't collapse into a black hole, and that the the acceleration due to gravity is finite?

It has been shown that if the object is made of ice then it becomes spherical when it reaches 400km in diameter or 600 if rock. This appears to be a fairly universal law and another reason despite the maths of John Davis that a flat body even finite and the size of the earth, could not exist.
Yes, a FINITE body, not an infinite one.

Tell me where the goalposts were originally and where they are now located.
Well you seemed to be discussing the gravity associated with an infinite plane and how it would cause it to collapse into a black hole.
Then after that was refuted, without even admitting it was refuted, you now seem to have run to a far more philosophical discussion of if an infinite plain could even exist in the first place, at least with other things existing as well.

Why not stick with the initial goalposts?

Infinity in the physical world probably does not exist. I've been saying that since the beginning
Really?
Because before it seems like you were saying with certainty that it can't exist, not just that it probably doesn't.

Are we talking about what is possible, or just what exists in this universe?

The Curious one should spend less time telling other people off for using bad arguments and focus more on his own bad arguments.
Timeisup should also considering following that advice.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 11, 2020, 01:49:44 PM
They produced some extremely dubious maths from a dubious source that they asserted Ďprovedí an infinite plane of thickness 4000 miles or so would have a finite gravity of around that of the earth. I would say to them that both they and the Ďmathematicianí that did the calculation do not understand infinity.
I would say you are the one who fails to understand.
Yes, you made a mistake by saying that an infinite plane has infinite gravity.
It has an infinite gravitational well, but the gravitational acceleration is finite.

I notice that while you dismiss the math as dubious, you were unable to show any problem with it.

Before running off to another topic, why not deal with your claim that it should collapse into a black hole?

How about we try a real reflection?

You have baselessly asserted that an finite plane should collapse into a black hole and has infinite gravity.
You did this by treating it as if it is just a really big finite plane.
You then just dismissed any argument which shows you are wrong, with the same assertions.

Do you accept that an infinite plane wouldn't collapse into a black hole, and that the the acceleration due to gravity is finite?

It has been shown that if the object is made of ice then it becomes spherical when it reaches 400km in diameter or 600 if rock. This appears to be a fairly universal law and another reason despite the maths of John Davis that a flat body even finite and the size of the earth, could not exist.
Yes, a FINITE body, not an infinite one.

Tell me where the goalposts were originally and where they are now located.
Well you seemed to be discussing the gravity associated with an infinite plane and how it would cause it to collapse into a black hole.
Then after that was refuted, without even admitting it was refuted, you now seem to have run to a far more philosophical discussion of if an infinite plain could even exist in the first place, at least with other things existing as well.

Why not stick with the initial goalposts?

Infinity in the physical world probably does not exist. I've been saying that since the beginning
Really?
Because before it seems like you were saying with certainty that it can't exist, not just that it probably doesn't.

Are we talking about what is possible, or just what exists in this universe?

The Curious one should spend less time telling other people off for using bad arguments and focus more on his own bad arguments.
Timeisup should also considering following that advice.

In my opinion, you are the one who is totally wrong as you are one of the group who has misinterpreted the concept of infinite when it is in relation to the physical world.  How can you say that infinite mass does not equal infinite gravity?  You are missing the whole point of this thought experiment by disappearing down some mythical rabbit hole of your own creation. Remember infinity is not a number and cant be treated as one.
The problem is the idea of an infinite structure within an infinite or finite universe is impossible. As I keep saying, just think about it! If something is infinite it doesn't leave much room for anything else does it? Or do you think things can exist outwith reality? If the earth were an infinite plane with infinite mass/energy/gravity etc etc. what about the rest of the universe. What you are trying to do, very badly I may say, is misusing science to look at a pseudoscientific impossibility.
Let start with what we do know. Objects greater than 600km in diameter become spherical. That is a known fact.
Objects and they are always spherical, with solar masses greater than around twenty solar masses or so tend to end their lives as black holes. This is known through observation. Once a structure became that large it would be spherical by default and ultimately collapse under its own gravity.
In your own words please describe the unknown forces or circumstances that would allow an object to grow larger, become flat, and then attain infinite dimensions, whatever that actually means? Would your flat earth be an infinite number of inches miles or kilometers in length? I would really love to hear your answer.
These are the real things we actually know about.
Do you honestly think our understanding of the laws of physics allows for infinite objects? Do you honestly think you have any idea of how one would behave either as a thought experiment or in some parallel universe that allows such things? I think few if any scientists of any discipline would agree with your point of view.
You are deluding yourself if you think you have some insight or knowledge on the subject of infinite planes. As far as I can see no one does.
You want some real maths to chew on...chew on this.
https://www.astro.uu.se/~hoefner/astro/teach/apd_files/apd_collapse.pdf
Answer this, do you honestly think an infinite flat earth could exist in a finite or infinite universe?

Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Bullwinkle on January 11, 2020, 02:07:59 PM
Tim Eisup is pissed off
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 11, 2020, 02:16:06 PM
Where the misunderstanding is coming from, and it's actually quite funny and ironic. The term flat earth. Possibly that should have been better defined at the start.
If by flat earth it was meant as a world like our own then the possibility of an infinite plane theoretical or real is nil, zero, naught.  As I originally stated. In the world of a possible theoretical infinite flat earth, this flat plane would have to be of absolute uniform density and thickness, like float glass, containing no irregularities possibly with infinite rigidity. Any slight irregularity in this infinite structure would cause an imbalance and the whole lot would collapse, most likely into a sphere and then some supermassive black hole. I think this is what I said at the outset.
I stand with my initial assertion I made at the start of this as I took the term infinite flat earth to mean, an earth-like structure like ours but infinite.

Any theoretical simplistic mathematical formulae that you may have come across which deals with the amusing theoretical possibility of an infinite plane existing is referring to a perfect plane of uniform density and rigidity existing in a universe that is not our own. The gravity on such an object due to its perfect structure would possibly be perpendicular to the surface and not infinite. This would most definitely NOT be the case on a theoretical infinite plane whose structure and terrain was the same as our own world.

I hope that clears up any possible misunderstanding.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: boydster on January 11, 2020, 02:20:09 PM
You continue to be wrong in your assertions. Please justify the following statement: "this flat plane would have to be of absolute uniform density and thickness, like float glass, containing no irregularities possibly with infinite rigidity."
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 11, 2020, 02:22:37 PM
Tim Eisup is pissed off

When dealing with people who can't, or don't want to, see beyond the end of their own noses, or bumholes in your case, and only want to see what they want can be a bit frustrating.
The internet is great but it's not a substitute for education. I can see what has happened. Some bright spark put up some maths for fun showing the 'theoretical possibility of a perfect flat plane' The word theoretically needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. Some flat earthers and other then pounced on this as possible proof for a flat earth without really understanding the parameters or the scope of the exercise. As I said before in the light of this revelation Mr. Davis is going to have to rethink his Davis Plane.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 11, 2020, 02:25:03 PM
You continue to be wrong in your assertions. Please justify the following statement: "this flat plane would have to be of absolute uniform density and thickness, like float glass, containing no irregularities possibly with infinite rigidity."

Go and read properly the original paper the mathematics you undoubtedly have come across in a 2nd or 3rd hand way actually says and the parameters it describes.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: boydster on January 11, 2020, 02:34:58 PM
Am I to understand that you can't actually back up your assertion? You are, after all, the one who made the claim. Can you support it?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: boydster on January 11, 2020, 02:39:53 PM
... 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
We would not and never have existed due to the earth being a black hole

If a thought experiment is to have any ultimate logical scientific credibility at some time it has to engage with known scientific truths. In this instance we can see through just thinking about it the earth could never be an infinite plane in this universe obeying its rules. An infinite earth could only exist in another universe with very different laws or exist in someoneís imagination.

ergo, in this universe the earth is not an infinite plane, flat or otherwise.

Reminder, this is the thought experiment you chose to engage in. Is there any part of this you'd like to now admit you may have misunderstood?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: JackBlack on January 11, 2020, 02:45:09 PM
In my opinion, you are the one who is totally wrong
Can you back up your claim that an infinite plane would collapse into a black hole?
Can you show a problem with the math which clearly indicates it will not?
Can you answer any of the questions which show it will not?


If not, then you are the one who is wrong.

Again, stop trying to change the subject, deal with this first. If you admit that it will not collapse, or conversely show that it will, then we can move on and discuss other issues.

How can you say that infinite mass does not equal infinite gravity?
Infinite A does not necessitate infinite B.
It has been explained how you have finite gravitational acceleration at any point. If you wish to claim it is infinite, perhaps you can demonstrate that it is rather than just repeating the assertions?

You are missing the whole point of this thought experiment
No, you seem to have fallen victim to exactly what I first indicated was a problem.
You are assuming a conclusion with nothing to back it up.

Do the thought experiment properly. You will find out that an infinite plane is stable.

Remember infinity is not a number and cant be treated as one.
So strop treating it like one then.
Stop acting like an infinite plane is just some finite object larger than an arbitrary threshold.
Stop appealing to how finite objects work.

Let start with what we do know. Objects greater than 600km in diameter become spherical. That is a known fact.
No, it isn't. It needs some very important qualifiers.
Firstly, the object needs to be roughly solid. For example, we know of galaxies which span over 100 thousand light years, yet they aren't spherical.
But the one which is more important for this conversation is that these objects are FINITE!

Do you know WHY these objects become roughly spherical?
Do you know if that reason still holds for an infinite object?
"Remember infinity is not a number and cant be treated as one."
Stop stop acting like this hypothetical infinite plane is just a very large finite plane.

In your own words please describe the unknown forces or circumstances that would allow an object to grow larger, become flat, and then attain infinite dimensions, whatever that actually means?
And there you go trying to move the goalposts again.


Again, deal with your claims of infinite gravity causing it to collapse into a black hole. Then move on.

Would your flat earth be an infinite number of inches miles or kilometers in length?
It isn't mine, but yes, it would be.

Do you honestly think you have any idea of how one would behave either as a thought experiment or in some parallel universe that allows such things?
Do you?
You sure seem to just pretend it is another finite object, completely ignoring that it is infinite.


But yes, I do understand.
In fact, a lot of science actually appeals to that.
Several things are based upon the idea of an infinite plane or an infinite rod.

Yes, in reality  it is an approximation and when you are too close to the edge or too far away the approximation fails.

You are deluding yourself if you think you have some insight or knowledge on the subject of infinite planes. As far as I can see no one does.
Yet here you are, deluding yourself and acting like you know it all.

this flat plane would have to be of absolute uniform density and thickness, like float glass, containing no irregularities possibly with infinite rigidity. Any slight irregularity in this infinite structure would cause an imbalance and the whole lot would collapse
And there you go with more claims as if you know everything about infinite objects.
Can you show any of this?
Are you sure that is the case and it isn't actually a variation of some magnitude will cause the collapse.

I think this is what I said at the outset.
It isn't. You made no appeal to any irregularity.
Instead you appealed to the infinite mass.
Let me remind you:

Yes 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
We would not and never have existed due to the earth being a black hole

So it seems more likely covering your mistakes than clearing up misunderstandings.
But don't worry, as I said above, it is still baseless.

If you would like a comparison, it is akin to claiming Earth must be a perfect sphere.
After all, Earth is greater than that 600 km threshold, so why doesn't it become a perfect sphere?

Is it because you actually need a significant enough irregularity before something happens to remove it?
That a small enough irregularity (such a mountain) can exist without causing a problem?

When dealing with people who can't, or don't want to, see beyond the end of their own noses, or bumholes in your case, and only want to see what they want can be a bit frustrating.
Yes, dealing with you can be frustrating.

Try to actually defend your claims rather than just doubling down and making more.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Curiouser and Curiouser on January 11, 2020, 03:19:53 PM
I was in the pub last night talking to a couple of pals of mine one of whom happens to be a prof at a local university in mathematics.

And you didn't bother talking to them about the mathematical derivation of the gravitational field of an infinite plane? When you had an academic who you seem to trust in front of you? Who would be able to verify the math?

They produced some extremely dubious maths from a dubious source that they asserted Ďprovedí an infinite plane of thickness 4000 miles or so would have a finite gravity of around that of the earth.

"Extremely dubious maths" = "Oh, shit, I don't understand this! If only I knew someone who could explain it to me ... someone who was in front of me ... like at a pub ..."

For example, think about this. If the earth were an infinite plane, made up of an infinite amount of matter how can there then be any other matter in the universe?

Thinking doesn't appear to be your strong suit.

Here's a thought experiment for you.
Postulate an infinite universe.
Construct a plane.
On one side of the plane, imagine a uniform density of matter.
The amount of matter in the filled half of the universe is therefore infinite.
You're arguing that no matter can exist in the opposite side of the plane? Or that the opposite side itself cannot exist?

Half of an infinite number of points is infinite.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Curiouser and Curiouser on January 11, 2020, 03:30:12 PM
How can you say that infinite mass does not equal infinite gravity?

Because it doesn't. Talk to your professor pal.

Have another thought experiment:
1. An infinite universe consists of nothing but a uniform density of gas at the level of the density of interstellar space, approximately 1 atom per cubic centimeter.
2. Therefore the number of atoms is infinite.
3. Therefore the amount of matter in the universe is infinite.
4. Is the gravitational field *anywhere* in the universe other than zero?
5. And, barring any other force that perturbs the uniform density of the universe (i.e., consider only the force of gravity), will the gravitational field *ever* be anything other than zero?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 11, 2020, 03:56:13 PM
You continue to be wrong in your assertions. Please justify the following statement: "this flat plane would have to be of absolute uniform density and thickness, like float glass, containing no irregularities possibly with infinite rigidity."

Itís certainly  not my claim.  I just checked it out and actually read it and understood it. You also have to remember it was partly done as a gimmick. The fact that you flat earth bunch jumped on it without understanding it is not my problem .
The point is rather mute as we have come to a juncture where the assertions I have made are correct and that is that. Go check it out and see what you find.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: JackBlack on January 11, 2020, 03:59:53 PM
Itís certainly  not my claim.
You are the one here making it, so it is your claim.
Now can you defend it?
Or can you only make a bunch of baseless assertions and run away when they are questioned or refuted?

The point is rather mute as we have come to a juncture where the assertions I have made are correct and that is that.
No, they are completely false. They have been refuted, and you just dismiss the refutations.

The juncture we are at is that you have come in making a bunch of assertions without understanding, and now are running away because you can't defend them and don't want to admit to your mistakes.

If you want to flee because you can't defend your claims, go ahead. But the rational way to do so is not by reasserting that you are correct with no defence of your claims.

Good job being just like skepty and Sandy.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 11, 2020, 04:01:30 PM
I was in the pub last night talking to a couple of pals of mine one of whom happens to be a prof at a local university in mathematics.

And you didn't bother talking to them about the mathematical derivation of the gravitational field of an infinite plane? When you had an academic who you seem to trust in front of you? Who would be able to verify the math?

They produced some extremely dubious maths from a dubious source that they asserted Ďprovedí an infinite plane of thickness 4000 miles or so would have a finite gravity of around that of the earth.

"Extremely dubious maths" = "Oh, shit, I don't understand this! If only I knew someone who could explain it to me ... someone who was in front of me ... like at a pub ..."

For example, think about this. If the earth were an infinite plane, made up of an infinite amount of matter how can there then be any other matter in the universe?

Thinking doesn't appear to be your strong suit.

Here's a thought experiment for you.
Postulate an infinite universe.
Construct a plane.
On one side of the plane, imagine a uniform density of matter.
The amount of matter in the filled half of the universe is therefore infinite.
You're arguing that no matter can exist in the opposite side of the plane? Or that the opposite side itself cannot exist?

Half of an infinite number of points is infinite.

ASI have said, save youíre breath and go look at the original paper, not some 4th hand rehash you posted.

I think you need to go back and rethink your thought experiment. Remember infinity is not a number and here we are dealing with a theoretical physical infinity. Your logic is incorrect.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Bullwinkle on January 11, 2020, 04:07:46 PM
You continue to be wrong in your assertions. Please justify the following statement: "this flat plane would have to be of absolute uniform density and thickness, like float glass, containing no irregularities possibly with infinite rigidity."

Itís certainly  not my claim.  I just checked it out and actually read it and understood it. You also have to remember it was partly done as a gimmick. The fact that you flat earth bunch jumped on it without understanding it is not my problem .
The point is rather mute as we have come to a juncture where the assertions I have made are correct and that is that. Go check it out and see what you find.

*moot*
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: JackBlack on January 11, 2020, 04:08:51 PM
I think you need to go back and rethink your thought experiment. Remember infinity is not a number and here we are dealing with a theoretical physical infinity. Your logic is incorrect.
You are projecting your own inadequacies onto others.

The entirety of your argument is based upon treating infinity as a number; treating the infinite plane as just a very big finite object.

Like I asked before, do you even understand why the arguments you are making work for finite objects?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Bullwinkle on January 11, 2020, 04:18:15 PM
Let's give Tim a break.
I feel he's 10 minutes away from kicking his mommie's knee for not cooking him mac n cheese. 
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Unconvinced on January 11, 2020, 04:30:45 PM
Sorry Timeisup, but for once I have to concur with John. 

If we forget about whether itís physically plausible, all the evidence regarding the shape of the earth, etc.  and are only consider whether an infinite plane could produce 9.8m/s/s gravity on the surface, then it appears the answer is yes.  It works mathematically, even using Newtonís Law of Universal gravitation.

Provided the plane is actually truly infinite.  It canít just be so enormous it seems infinite to us, because then somewhere thereís an edge and a centre, and then it would collapse in on itself.  I think it would also need to have a finite thickness.

The reason it works mathematically is the force has an inverse square relationship with distance.  Say we divide the surface into small areas and sum up the gravitational force of each area to give a total value for g.  The effect of distant areas drops off faster than they add up.

A simpler example of the principle is summing the following geometric number series:

1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ...

You can sum as many terms in this series as you like, it wonít even get up to 2.

So despite the earth having infinite mass, the gravitational force of that mass on something on or near the surface is actually finite.

None of that makes an infinite plane a credible hypothesis, it just means that on this particular point, the maths checks out.

Itís a good example of a thought experiment.  Thereís no evidence that the earth is an infinite plane and no good reason to suspect it might be, but we can still investigate the implications of that idea.  Itís not the only type of thought experiment though.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: boydster on January 11, 2020, 06:32:10 PM
I'd like to take a second to thank our new friend Timeisup. He has united both FE and RE, and in bringing us all together, has also done a great service for this fine community. Cheers, Tim. You may be wrong, but you are accomplishing something so right for this world!
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: JackBlack on January 11, 2020, 06:50:22 PM
Now that I have a bit more time (and you don't seem interested in trying to justify your claims), I can explain more.

You say that it is a fact that objects over 600 km in size will collapse into a sphere, but provide absolutely no justification for why they do that.

This is a special case of the fact that there will be a limit to the height of any mountain due to gravity.
But that still doesn't tell us why, so lets consider what would happen if the mountain was higher, or just the general case of a tall mountain.

Well at the top, the land is just happy sitting there, being pulled down by gravity.
That applies a force to the ground below it, which applies a reactionary force to keep it up.
This means the layer below is under pressure.
This pressure is also transmitted to the next layer down, and so on.
However as well as that pressure it also has its own weight pushing down on the lower layer.
This means as you go further and further down, the pressure continues to increase.

Eventually you reach a threshold were the pressure increases to be greater than the yield stress of the material the mountain is made up of.
This means the base of the mountain will yield and spread outwards, with the rest of the mountain falling down.
It can also cause the ground around the mountain to rise up due to the yield strength being exceeded.

(There can also be some cases where a phase transformation is induced and that causes it to flow).

This means there will always be a limit to the height of a mountain.
For a very small object that height is larger than the object.
But for much larger objects, such as the 600 km cutoff, the height of the mountain is small compared to the size of the object, which means the object will be roughly spherical.


But what happens with infinite objects?
Well rather than just pretending infinity is a really big number and that the infinite plane is just a really big finite plane, we will actually treat it as an infinite plane.
So the first step was to start at the top of the mountain. Well if it was one sticking out of the plane, that would just cause it to go back to the plane. We need a mountain which sticks out in the direction of the plane.
But it is infinite, there is no edge to start from. So that kills is right there.

However, you can do the same with the finite case by starting anywhere. If you start inside the mountain, you still have the weight pushing down to the centre.
So lets try that with the infinite plane. We pick any random point in the infinite plane which is at the centre of the plane.
Well where is gravity pushing in this case?
NOWHERE.
In the plane, there is mass in all directions, an infinite mass in all directions which results in no net force due to gravity as the forces in each direction are cancelled by the force in the opposite direction.
This means there is no "down" for it. That means it isn't applying a force in any direction to increase the pressure in the object to exceed the yield stress.

That is why that argument does not work to show an infinite plane will collapse.

It relies upon the object being finite such that there is a direction of down towards the centre of the object such that there can be a pressure gradient to exceed the yield stress.
That does not apply for an infinite plane in the direction required.
It doesn't even work for an infinite rod.

So that "fact" of yours, when properly stated would be something more like this:

Any sufficiently large finite object acted on by gravity alone will collapse into a roughly spherical shape.

I think it would also need to have a finite thickness.
Yes certainly.
If it didn't it wouldn't be a plane, just a space. That would still be stable, we just couldn't live on it. (But as long as we don't make the voids to big, we could live in it).
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Unconvinced on January 11, 2020, 08:17:47 PM
I'd like to take a second to thank our new friend Timeisup. He has united both FE and RE, and in bringing us all together, has also done a great service for this fine community. Cheers, Tim. You may be wrong, but you are accomplishing something so right for this world!

Whoa!  Hold your horses there.  I still agree with Timeisup in general, just as I disagree with Flat Earthers in general. 

But ironically what I like about this site is that I've actually learned quite a lot by getting into daft debates.  One thing Flat Earther's are right about is that there's a lot of stuff we're taught early on that we take for granted.  Now I've looked more into how we know a lot of those things and understand them much better.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Curiouser and Curiouser on January 11, 2020, 08:19:32 PM
You continue to be wrong in your assertions. Please justify the following statement: "this flat plane would have to be of absolute uniform density and thickness, like float glass, containing no irregularities possibly with infinite rigidity."

Itís certainly  not my claim.  I just checked it out and actually read it and understood it. You also have to remember it was partly done as a gimmick. The fact that you flat earth bunch jumped on it without understanding it is not my problem .
The point is rather mute as we have come to a juncture where the assertions I have made are correct and that is that. Go check it out and see what you find.

*moot*

Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Stash on January 11, 2020, 08:39:43 PM
One thing Flat Earther's are right about is that there's a lot of stuff we're taught early on that we take for granted.  Now I've looked more into how we know a lot of those things and understand them much better.

Couldn't agree more with this. The "What if it actually worked like this..." or the "How do you know it works like that..." are immensely powerful learning jumping off points. Makes you think, research, understand, actually comprehend the how and why, not just the 'is'.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 12, 2020, 12:13:19 AM
This is turning out to be quite a laugh watching people wrestle with the concept of physical infinity. To Jack Black, regarding the sphericalisation of large objects either look at the paper I provided a link for, full of good hard maths you can chew on for ages, or go look it up! Itís basic physics or do you want me to hold your hand. I think people all need to go look up physical infinities and really get to grip with the implications. There really has not been much work done on this particular area. I wonder why?
Mr Curiosity and his half filled infinite plane inside an infinity was a total hoot. I think he should stick to making satellites.
I do feel sorry for the avatar swooping mod as he is obviously having an identity crisis, but most of all for Mr Davis and his totally busted Davis plane. However you do have to wonder about people who think moonlight is dangerous! Iím off on a photography trip so have fun in my absence and donít miss me too much.
Love and kisses
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: JackBlack on January 12, 2020, 03:21:27 AM
This is turning out to be quite a laugh watching people wrestle with the concept of physical infinity.
Yes, you especially.
Coming in treating it as if it is just a massive finite object, then complaining when people show you are wrong, and not even bothering with your own hypocrisy.

How about instead of the pathetic insults you provide a justification for your argument yourself, or actually deal with the refutations of it.

The explanation I provided, while not having actual numbers involved, still qualitatively explains why large, FINITE objects will collapse into a roughly spherical shape if the main force acting is gravity.

It also addresses why that doesn't hold for infinite objects.

either look at the paper I provided a link for
Do you mean the one discussing a galaxy cluster at a redshift of 2?
Because that is the only paper I see linked by you.
I also see a video and lecture notes, but only that paper.

The video seems to just be about gravity in general and nothing to do with collapse of an infinite plane.

The lecture notes are focusing on the formation of stars from clouds of gas.
Note: This is for a gas, where it relies upon assuming the pressure is a direct, linear function of the density.

Have you even bothered reading what you are providing to try and back up your nonsense?
Because if you have, you would realise it doesn't apply at all.

Again, can you actually justify any of your claims or deal with the refutations of them?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: rabinoz on January 12, 2020, 03:30:41 AM
This is turning out to be quite a laugh watching people wrestle with the concept of physical infinity.
You seem the only one wrestling! JackBlack was not supporting the "infinite flat-Earth" in any shape or form.
He and others were just showing that the maths are correct and an infinite plane of finite thickness has finite gravity that does NOT change with distance above the plane.

<< Oops, I left out a very vital "NOT" - sorry about that. >>
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: JackBlack on January 12, 2020, 11:55:47 AM
He and others were just showing that the maths are correct and an infinite plane of finite thickness has finite gravity that does change with distance above the plane.
Not the last part.
For an infinite plane the gravitational acceleration would be constant, regardless of how far you are away from the plane.
It only varies when you start going inside the plane (as then you effectively have a plane above and below both attracting you).
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: rabinoz on January 12, 2020, 12:57:03 PM
He and others were just showing that the maths are correct and an infinite plane of finite thickness has finite gravity that does NOT :( change with distance above the plane.
Not the last part.
For an infinite plane the gravitational acceleration would be constant, regardless of how far you are away from the plane.
It only varies when you start going inside the plane (as then you effectively have a plane above and below both attracting you).
You're right, of course. I made an embarrassing :( omission!.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: boydster on January 12, 2020, 03:14:44 PM
It would have been a lot of fun waiting for Timeisup to realize that, though ;D (or admit things quickly got over his head...)
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: MouseWalker on January 12, 2020, 04:41:29 PM
He and others were just showing that the maths are correct and an infinite plane of finite thickness has finite gravity that does NOT :( change with distance above the plane.
Not the last part.
For an infinite plane the gravitational acceleration would be constant, regardless of how far you are away from the plane.
It only varies when you start going inside the plane (as then you effectively have a plane above and below both attracting you).
You're right, of course. I made an embarrassing :( omission!.
and you it, forming the imbalance creating the collapsed to a black hole.
can there be tides on a infinite plane caused by a moon above the plane?
Another imbalance!
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: boydster on January 12, 2020, 05:02:52 PM
I do believe local imbalances are just fine on an infinite plane, much like they would be in an infinite universe, so long as things are homogeneous on the grander scheme of things. Of course, I defer to Timeisup's great wisdom on the matter.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: rabinoz on January 12, 2020, 05:25:04 PM
He and others were just showing that the maths are correct and an infinite plane of finite thickness has finite gravity that does NOT :( change with distance above the plane.
Not the last part.
For an infinite plane the gravitational acceleration would be constant, regardless of how far you are away from the plane.
It only varies when you start going inside the plane (as then you effectively have a plane above and below both attracting you).
You're right, of course. I made an embarrassing :( omission!.
and you it, forming the imbalance creating the collapsed to a black hole.
I don't think a small imbalance would have more than a local effect.

Quote from: MouseWalker
can there be tides on a infinite plane caused by a moon above the plane?
Yes, I believe a circling moon above could cause tides but not the two tides per day we see on the Globe.

On the Globe tides are due to the difference in the Moon's gravitation on side facing the Moon and the opposite side and that difference is very small.

On a flat-Earther the tides would be the result of the difference in the Moon's gravitation part facing the Moon and the 180į. 
But here, under the Moon its "pull" would be vertical but on the other side it would be near horizontal.

So there would be big differences - too hard for me.

Quote from: MouseWalker
Another imbalance!
But again, I doubt it would cause the flat-Earth to collapse.

The big question is, how could such an infinite plane originate? If it's not infinite it collapses.
Of course an extremely large, say a plane thousands of light years across, would take at least  thousands of years to collapsed from the outside inwards.

Too complicated! I'll stick with the far more easily understood Heliocentric Solar system.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Curiouser and Curiouser on January 12, 2020, 05:36:24 PM
... regarding the sphericalisation of large objects either look at the paper I provided a link for, full of good hard maths you can chew on for ages, or go look it up! Itís basic physics or do you want me to hold your hand.

Good hard maths, as opposed to dubious maths? Kindly walk us through the difference?

You are offering to hold someone's hand for basic physics? Everyone here is by now absolutely clear that you haven't the faintest idea how to follow the physics or math of basic gravity, let alone in your quickly-Googled reference and are furiously trying to save face by grabbing something that you thought looked good, but has little to do with the questions being addressed.

For a start, reading the assumptions in the paper is a fundamental part. The calculation only applies to gas, where the only force opposing gravity is pressure, hence inapplicable to all the discussions previous. So, first lesson, if you're going to try to pretend to have knowledge of a subject and fling a reference, at least do a cursory glance to see if Google gave you something relevant.


Mr Curiosity and his half filled infinite plane inside an infinity was a total hoot. I think he should stick to making satellites.

Glad I could amuse you. As I've said before, my primary interest here is entertainment. Still haven't bothered to offer an opinion on why it's not correct, though.

Iím off on a photography trip so have fun in my absence

Always.

and donít miss me too much.

Not a chance.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 18, 2020, 01:29:36 PM
This discussion leads me to some general considerations on the notion of infinity. I point out the risk of confusion that such a notion generates if we mistake limitations of our mind and our intelligence with properties of the natural world, or hints of the supernatural.
I point out the danger that is inherent when we try to fill up the mystery of the world with groundless solutions. In my opinion, uncertainty is preferable to unfounded certitudes.
Anthony Aguirre


https://www.edge.org/conversation/next-step-infinity

I spent the other day in the local university library reading up on current thought on infinity. The university in question is among one of the top twenty in the world so has access to the best up to date information available. Plus I had the assistance of a very helpful cosmology PhD student for a short time. One point to remember is flat earth believers would have severe problems with all this information as itís at odds with their own beliefs. Most of the best references, unfortunately, require access through a university account. See references at the end. I also had coffee with my pal the mathematician and a physics colleague of his. We had a bit of a blather about infinity, though they kept losing me. The fallout from both that and my reading led me to the conclusion that while mathematics may have a place and use for infinity, physicists have little time for it, many of them not believing in its existence, in the real world/universe. Thatís not to say that some physicists have not wrestled with the problem of considering it, though all the references I came across were all in relation to space and NOT objects. I have included link to a few papers that have global access though most were behind an academic barrier, which is unfortunate.
What becomes obvious very quickly after looking at a small fraction of the research that is available is the total cosmic gulf between conventional science and those who like to call themselves flat earth scientists. How anyone could entertain the notion of a flat earth infinite or otherwise after spending a day reading up on current research both in cosmology and physics is surely one of the mysteries of the universe.

Before I reply to all those people who have posted, who did so, in my opinion, without fully thinking through the implications Iíd like to apologise for such a lengthy post.
Firstly letís remember flat Earthers like Davis and his kind believe in a small near moon and sun with much smaller and nearer planets all floating around in an ether of unknown composition held in place by forces unknown and subjected to UA, whatever that is and its cause, and thatís not even including the idea of a dome. For them, gravity, as defined by Newton and later Einstein, does not exist. They also have other beliefs regarding the stars that are totally out of kilter with mainstream thought. They pretend a huge swathe of scientific discoveries and science fact are all faked. Given all that, the universe that this Davis plane supposedly exists in would have to, by virtue of flat earth belief, have very different laws of nature from the one described by mainstream science. This is why using mathematics (even though itís off a dubious nature) that includes mainstream laws, such as gravity, for a situation that exists outside these laws is completely illogical. For any credibility, Davis would have to devise a different physics and use those flat earth principles as the basis for any calculation. This is just one of the reasons why all of the people who rejected my original thoughts on this subject are mistaken from the outset and their collective logic is flawed.
Thinking about infinity itself- While the term infinity is widely used and possibly believed in, without any evidence, it has simply been taken for granted that infinity is a logically coherent concept. Such an assumption In my view, shared by others much smarter than I, is mistaken and is a view held by many physicists. Infinity, when taken out from the world of numbers, is, in fact, a logical absurdity like a square circle or a four-sided triangle. We can write about such things but like infinity, they donít exist in the physical world. Just because the word infinity exists and the concept used in mathematics does not then grant it a place in the real world.

https://philpapers.org/archive/SEWTCA

Its in mathematics and philosophy that the majority of the thought and work on infinity has been done. The scale of natural numbers looks as though it has ďno endĒ, but does that mean it is infinite? The discovery of irrational numbers that appear to go on and on never-ending without any discernible pattern or limit but does this never-ending or limitless equate to the same thing as infinite?
If you happen to look at the two sets of natural numbers, the entire set and the set composed of the odd numbers. The entire set of natural numbers appears to be bigger than the entire set of odd natural numbers because the set of odd natural numbers is just a subset of the natural numbers. It is taken by mathematicians that the two sets are infinite, one infinite set being bigger than the other. This suggests that infinite sets, in the world of mathematics can come in different ďsizes. Is this idea applicable to the real world? Apparently, this was a problem for Galileo but much later not for Cantor, who said it could be resolved by logic and was in fact coherent in the philosophical world, but what about the real world?
Philosopher William Lane Craig uses a good analogy to show these mathematical contradictions involved with infinite sets and how they could produce impossible real-world situations. Craig asks us to imagine that he has an infinite number of marbles in his possession and that he wants to give you a set containing an infinite number of marbles.
One way he could do that would be to give you the entire set of marbles. In that case, he would have zero marbles left for himself. However, another way he could do it would be to give you all the odd-numbered marbles. Then he would still have an infinite number left over for himself, and you would have an infinite set too. Youíd have just as many as he would. According to mathematicians, each of you would have just as many as Craig originally had before the marbles were divided into odd and even. How could that possibly translate to the real world? Mr Curiosity proposed this very situation in his thought experiment! Finite brains have real problems imagining any kind of infinity. If the universe started with an infinite number of atoms would they all have to be part of the infinite Davis plane if such a thing existed? or was it made up from odd atoms, all the even ones being reserved for other uses?

Problems inherent in the initial creation of the Davis Plane
As Iíve previously mentioned Davis invokes gravity in his Ďcalculationí an entity he claims does not exist. In regard to how gravity shapes the Cosmos there exists a fairly robust account of how matter tends to clump together to form primitive structures that eventually lead to planet-sized objects, there is non-known mechanism to explain how an infinite structure could come into being or resist the force of gravity at some stage in its Ďcreationí. This is where things become rather crazy. Could an object make the transition from finite to infinite, whatever that means! I donít think so. In the mind of Davis does he imagine the plane was created or just come into existence? I don't know and I suppose he has no idea either.
It is known that in the real world of the very small gravity appears not to hold good. Does the same thing also occur when gravity deals with very large star-sized objects, never mind the infinite, leading to the creation of the idea of dark matter and dark energy to solve the conundrum of why rapidly orbiting stars donít fly off into the Cosmos?
It appears as far as we know that there is no case of infinity in nature be it the very, small the very dense or the very large.
Because assuming the natural number scale to be infinite results in logical contradictions, we must conclude that the natural number scale, even when extended toward no clearly defined end (or ďindefinitelyĒ), is really finite in the sense that the scale terminates where we leave it incomplete. Consequently, any set of objects accurately designated with values from the finite scale of numbers must also be finiteó no matter how vast or extended how far beyond our ability to compute. Otherwise, we again end up with the internal contradictions of the infinite. So, the number of stars and planets in the Universe, for example, must be finite even if they are in number vast beyond any scale of computation that could in actual practice be defined (i.e., indefinite). No matter how large the number of stars and planets is in the Universe, that number must be finite since all sets, to be without logical contradiction, must be finite.

The other problem for an infinite object to exist Moreland has correctly concluded that if the past were infinite, then the Universe would have had to have undergone an actual infinite series of steps to get to the present, which is impossible. And since one cannot cross an actual infinite, then the past must have been finite. For the infinite Davis plane to exist it follows that there must have been an infinite amount of time to allow for its creationÖ.in other words, its total bollocks.


Lagrange Lecture: Methodology of Numerical Computations with Infinities and Infinitesimals.Yaroslav Sergeyev - 2010 - Rendiconti Del Seminario Matematico dell'Universitŗ E Del Politecnico di Torino68 (2):95Ė113.
Philosophy and Cosmology 2012 (The Journal of International Society of Philosophy and Cosmology (ISPC) ).Oleg Bazaluk (ed.) - 2012 - ISPC
Part IV. Perspectives on Infinity From Physics and Cosmology : 7. Some Considerations on Infinity in Physics / Carlo Rovelli ; 8. Cosmological Intimations of Infinity / Anthony Aguirre ; 9. Infinity and the Nostalgia of the Stars/ Marco Bersanelli ; 10. Infinities in Cosmology. [REVIEW]Michael Heller - 2011 - In Michał Heller & W. H. Woodin (eds.), Infinity: New Research Frontiers. Cambridge University Press.
Actual Versus Potential Infinity (BPhil Manuscript.).Anne Newstead - 1997 - Dissertation, University of Oxford
The Case Against Infinity.Kip Sewell - manuscript
The Universe Around Them: Cosmology and Cosmic Renewal in Indianized South-East Asia.H. G. Quaritch Wales - 1977 - A. Probsthain.
Theism and Physical Cosmology.Hans Halvorson - 2010 - In Charles Taliaferro, Victoria Harrison & Stewart Goetz (eds.), Routledge Companion to Theism.
Infinity: New Research Frontiers.Michał Heller & W. H. Woodin (eds.) - 2011 - Cambridge University Press.
Cosmic Agnosticism.Timothy E. Eastman - 2007 - Process Studies 36 (2):181-197.
The Harmony of the Spheres: Speculations on Western Man's Ever-Changing Views of the Cosmos, From Hesiod (700 B.C.) to Newton (1650 A.D.). [REVIEW]Robert Navon - 1991 - Selene Books.
Philosophy and Cosmology 2008 (The Journal of International Society of Philosophy and Cosmology (ISPC) ).Oleg Bazaluk (ed.) - 2008 - ISPC.
Philosophy and Cosmology 2011 (The Journal of International Society of Philosophy and Cosmology (ISPC) ).Oleg Bazaluk (ed.) - 2011 - ISPC.
On Describing the Total Universe as the Non-Self-Similar Fractal (NSSF) Set.Tim Crowther - manuscript
Cosmology and Political Culture in Early China.Aihe Wang - 2000 - Cambridge University Press
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 18, 2020, 01:38:55 PM
I'd like to take a second to thank our new friend Timeisup. He has united both FE and RE, and in bringing us all together, has also done a great service for this fine community. Cheers, Tim. You may be wrong, but you are accomplishing something so right for this world!

I may be wrong! but you are most definitely wrong.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: JackBlack on January 18, 2020, 04:14:08 PM
This is just one of the reasons why all of the people who rejected my original thoughts on this subject are mistaken from the outset and their collective logic is flawed.
No, this is just you being pretentious and not liking the fact that even mainstream physics has no problem with a hypothetical infinite plane.

You were the one who claimed that such a plane cannot exist, based upon conventional physics, specifically appealing to gravity.
What is wrong with showing that is not the case, based upon conventional physics?

Just because the word infinity exists and the concept used in mathematics does not then grant it a place in the real world.
Prove it, without just pretending it is a very big finite number.

Also, we are not necessarily dealing with the real world, by a hypothetical possibility.

Regardless, this is completely off topic from your original point.

If you need to appeal to infinite being impossible, then gravity has nothing at all to do with it.

Your argument from gravity assumes the plane already exists, which means infinite needs to exist.

Philosopher William Lane Craig
Really?
That is the authority you are appealing it?
Someone know for blatantly lying?
Someone who believes nonsense like if something is possibly necessary then it is necessary, which when applied properly means that every person in existence is necessary and there is no other possible outcome, and that everything is necessary, including things which would contradict other things?
Someone who just pretends infinite is a really big finite number to pretend there is a problem by applying rules which work on finite objects as if they work on infinite objects as well, with no justification that they do?

Problems inherent in the initial creation of the Davis Plane
Which yet again, is a completely separate argument, nothing at all to do with your initial argument.

How about you admit your initial argument was completely wrong before moving on?

As Iíve previously mentioned Davis invokes gravity in his Ďcalculationí an entity he claims does not exist.
Yes, you have previously asserted such nonsense.
However you are claiming gravity would cause an infinite plane to collapse.
You are yet to substantiate this, and actual calculations/analysis shows that is not the case at all.

The other problem for an infinite object to exist Moreland has correctly concluded that if the past were infinite, then the Universe would have had to have undergone an actual infinite series of steps to get to the present
Which is just more pathetic arguments from creation.
Unfortunately, they completely ignore Zeno's paradoxes, which show an infinite series is possible to complete.

It is also based entirely upon their perception of time.
Just because there is a hypothetical infinite distance behind me does not mean I had to cross it to arrive where I am.
So why should an infinite amount of time behind me mean I need to cross that to get to when I am?
I didn't live through all the time before now.

Are you actually here trying to argue against the FE, or are you trying to argue for a god?

For the infinite Davis plane to exist it follows that there must have been an infinite amount of time to allow for its creation
Why?
There is no logical connection there.
Again, you are treating it as if it is just a finite object which was slowly built up over time.

Stop treating infinite as if it is finite.

Now again, stop with the distractions and actual deal with the issues raised against your initial argument.

Do you accept that an infinite plane, if it exists, would be stable against gravitational collapse?
Especially the case where the plane is homogeneous.
If you disagree, then prove it, without pretending it is a very large finite object.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Curiouser and Curiouser on January 18, 2020, 09:04:35 PM
Let's remember what member Timeisup said:

Entertaining? Yes 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
We would not and never have existed due to the earth being a black hole

[snip]

ergo, in this universe the earth is not an infinite plane, flat or otherwise.

A thought experiment in which Timeisup imagines and stipulates for the purposes of the thought experiment (for the sake of attempting argument by reductio ad absurdum) that the earth is an infinite plane.

From which Timeisup makes the conclusion that an infinite plane must have infinite mass, and therefore infinite gravity.

And finally comes to the final conclusion that the earth cannot be an infinite plane because we have not collapsed to a black hole.

Notice that Timeisup's argument is proving that the earth cannot be an infinite plane, because we exist.

The fault in Timeisup's argument that is being argued is that given the premise of the thought experiment (the earth is a flat plane), the subsequent logical step (the earth has infinite gravity) is not correct.

Timeisup has ignored this, and has changed the argument and has spent considerable time arguing that infinite structures cannot exist.

This is irrelevant, as the thought experiment that Timeisup proposed assumed as a premise the existence of an infinite flat earth
.

Propositional logic does not demand that the premise be true, only that each step derived from the premise is valid. Timeisup states "infinite mass = infinite gravity". And even with a second visit with pal mathematician, and now a physicist, and a PhD cosmology student, never addressed the root issue (which any of the three of them should have been able to answer) "does an infinite uniform sheet of mass produce an infinite gravity field?"

When you next have coffee with your chappies, Timeisup, will you have the courage and intellectual honesty to ask that question?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 19, 2020, 01:20:10 AM
This is just one of the reasons why all of the people who rejected my original thoughts on this subject are mistaken from the outset and their collective logic is flawed.
No, this is just you being pretentious and not liking the fact that even mainstream physics has no problem with a hypothetical infinite plane.

You were the one who claimed that such a plane cannot exist, based upon conventional physics, specifically appealing to gravity.
What is wrong with showing that is not the case, based upon conventional physics?

Just because the word infinity exists and the concept used in mathematics does not then grant it a place in the real world.
Prove it, without just pretending it is a very big finite number.

Also, we are not necessarily dealing with the real world, by a hypothetical possibility.

Regardless, this is completely off topic from your original point.

If you need to appeal to infinite being impossible, then gravity has nothing at all to do with it.

Your argument from gravity assumes the plane already exists, which means infinite needs to exist.

Philosopher William Lane Craig
Really?
That is the authority you are appealing it?
Someone know for blatantly lying?
Someone who believes nonsense like if something is possibly necessary then it is necessary, which when applied properly means that every person in existence is necessary and there is no other possible outcome, and that everything is necessary, including things which would contradict other things?
Someone who just pretends infinite is a really big finite number to pretend there is a problem by applying rules which work on finite objects as if they work on infinite objects as well, with no justification that they do?

Problems inherent in the initial creation of the Davis Plane
Which yet again, is a completely separate argument, nothing at all to do with your initial argument.

How about you admit your initial argument was completely wrong before moving on?

As Iíve previously mentioned Davis invokes gravity in his Ďcalculationí an entity he claims does not exist.
Yes, you have previously asserted such nonsense.
However you are claiming gravity would cause an infinite plane to collapse.
You are yet to substantiate this, and actual calculations/analysis shows that is not the case at all.

The other problem for an infinite object to exist Moreland has correctly concluded that if the past were infinite, then the Universe would have had to have undergone an actual infinite series of steps to get to the present
Which is just more pathetic arguments from creation.
Unfortunately, they completely ignore Zeno's paradoxes, which show an infinite series is possible to complete.

It is also based entirely upon their perception of time.
Just because there is a hypothetical infinite distance behind me does not mean I had to cross it to arrive where I am.
So why should an infinite amount of time behind me mean I need to cross that to get to when I am?
I didn't live through all the time before now.

Are you actually here trying to argue against the FE, or are you trying to argue for a god?

For the infinite Davis plane to exist it follows that there must have been an infinite amount of time to allow for its creation
Why?
There is no logical connection there.
Again, you are treating it as if it is just a finite object which was slowly built up over time.

Stop treating infinite as if it is finite.

Now again, stop with the distractions and actual deal with the issues raised against your initial argument.

Do you accept that an infinite plane, if it exists, would be stable against gravitational collapse?
Especially the case where the plane is homogeneous.
If you disagree, then prove it, without pretending it is a very large finite object.

Letís just deal with your first point.

No, this is just you being pretentious and not liking the fact that even mainstream physics has no problem with a hypothetical infinite plane.

How about you offer up some proof, for both me being pretentious and that main stream physics has no problem with an infinite plane hypothetical or otherwise.
As I pointed out based on how gravity works at the very very small, no one has a clear idea how it operates at the very very large let alone infinite, thatís apart from you. All the references I came across, go check them out, point to few if any physicists having any truck with infinity....so where does your statement come from? Or like John Davis do you just make stuff up as you go along.
Go back and read the opening quote in my last post but one, you obviously missed that.

So letís see your proof, over to you chum.
Letís remember John Davis is proposing this for real.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 19, 2020, 01:31:23 AM
Let's remember what member Timeisup said:

Entertaining? Yes 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
We would not and never have existed due to the earth being a black hole

[snip]

ergo, in this universe the earth is not an infinite plane, flat or otherwise.

A thought experiment in which Timeisup imagines and stipulates for the purposes of the thought experiment (for the sake of attempting argument by reductio ad absurdum) that the earth is an infinite plane.

From which Timeisup makes the conclusion that an infinite plane must have infinite mass, and therefore infinite gravity.

And finally comes to the final conclusion that the earth cannot be an infinite plane because we have not collapsed to a black hole.

Notice that Timeisup's argument is proving that the earth cannot be an infinite plane, because we exist.

The fault in Timeisup's argument that is being argued is that given the premise of the thought experiment (the earth is a flat plane), the subsequent logical step (the earth has infinite gravity) is not correct.

Timeisup has ignored this, and has changed the argument and has spent considerable time arguing that infinite structures cannot exist.

This is irrelevant, as the thought experiment that Timeisup proposed assumed as a premise the existence of an infinite flat earth
.

Propositional logic does not demand that the premise be true, only that each step derived from the premise is valid. Timeisup states "infinite mass = infinite gravity". And even with a second visit with pal mathematician, and now a physicist, and a PhD cosmology student, never addressed the root issue (which any of the three of them should have been able to answer) "does an infinite uniform sheet of mass produce an infinite gravity field?"

When you next have coffee with your chappies, Timeisup, will you have the courage and intellectual honesty to ask that question?

Nice red text by the way.
Do you imagine it lends weight to your argument?
Iíve sure got your panties in a right old twist.

Here are a few questions for you.

How did your imaginary FE infinite plane come into existence?
How do you know how gravity will operate at the very very large? Or should I say UA as Davis is a UA man and does not hold with gravity.

I pointed out how flawed your logic was. Davis believes in very different physical laws so using regular laws for a FE situation is a bad argument. For a FE thought experiment you would have to use UA and not gravity.

Now you have two options, make your red text bigger or admit you used a very bad argument.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: JackBlack on January 19, 2020, 02:19:27 AM
How about you offer up some proof, for both me being pretentious and that main stream physics has no problem with an infinite plane hypothetical or otherwise.
You mean like the proof that has already been provided, some of which you just dismissed as dubious, and others you just fled from and tried to change subject?

As for pretentious, your posts speaks for itself, as you pretend you have done almost know wrong and everyone else is just stupid and doesn't have any idea what they are talking about.

Perhaps you just cut the crap, go back to your original argument, and either defend it, or admit it is wrong?
After all, this is yet another distraction from that failure of yours.

As I pointed out based on how gravity works at the very very small, no one has a clear idea how it operates at the very very large let alone infinite
So why did you make the claim that an infinite Earth would collapse due to gravity?

You sure seemed to pretend to know just how gravity would behave for an infinite object.
So confidently in fact that you acted as if it firmly ruled out the possibility of Earth being an infinite plane.

So if you really want to go down the path of "no one knows" would you care to admit your initial is just wild speculation based upon nothing at all, and that you were completely wrong to conclude that gravity rules out an infinite plane?

Or would you prefer a shovel to help dig yourself down deeper?

Here are a few questions for you.
No, deal with the topic at hand first.

Do you think gravity would cause an infinite plane to have infinite gravity and collapse into a black hole?

I pointed out how flawed your logic was.
No, you repeatedly asserted it without any justification at all.
Again, more proof of you being pretentious, acting like you just claiming something somehow makes it true, all the while ignoring your contradictions.

Now you have two options, make your red text bigger or admit you used a very bad argument.
No, that would be you that has 2 options, which is really just 1.
Admit you made a bad argument by claiming gravity would cause an infinite plane to collapse into a black hole, as no one knows about how gravity acts at the infinite scale and thus there is no basis for your claim,
or admit you made a bad argument by acting like an infinite plane is just a very large finite plane and ignoring the fact that gravity (at least as it applies to small objects) would not cause the infinite plane to collapse.

Either way you made a bad argument.

Unless you would like to try for the impossible third:
Directly contradict your prior statement by saying that we do know how gravity would work for an infinite object, and then proceed to demonstrate clearly, from first principles, how the gravity from the infinite plane would cause it to collapse into a black hole.

But I suspect you will take the 4th.
Admit no wrong, try to distract and just dig yourself deeper.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Space Cowgirl on January 19, 2020, 09:00:58 AM
Timmy, I don't know where you get the idea that John Davis believes in Universal Acceleration, but he does not.

https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/about-the-society/faq

Quote
Is The Earth Accelerating Upwards?

No. This is popular theory among some small groups to explain gravity, but it is problematic at best. The Earth Is Stationary. We are not whizzing about in space at 67,000 miles/hour or at speeds accelerating towards the speed of light.


If you'd like to read more about the math https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/infinite-flat-earth-mathematics

Gravity on an infinite plane:

Gravity on an Infinite Plane

One FE model features the Earth going on endlessly. While the part of the Earth that we live in is only some finite section, the matter of the Earth itself is endless.

In this case, the typical model of gravity, mass attracting mass, may apply.
There is no way for an infinite plane to be pulled into the shape of a ball. Similarly, the horizontal component of the pull of gravity on any object on the discís surface would be balanced: thereís the same amount of mass to each side, meaning a net force of zero.
The downwards force of gravity caused by an infinite plane is dependent solely on the depth of said plane. The thickness can be calculated, I believe, to be approximately 4,250km.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 19, 2020, 01:35:00 PM
Timmy, I don't know where you get the idea that John Davis believes in Universal Acceleration, but he does not.

https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/about-the-society/faq

Quote
Is The Earth Accelerating Upwards?

No. This is popular theory among some small groups to explain gravity, but it is problematic at best. The Earth Is Stationary. We are not whizzing about in space at 67,000 miles/hour or at speeds accelerating towards the speed of light.


If you'd like to read more about the math https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/infinite-flat-earth-mathematics

Gravity on an infinite plane:

Gravity on an Infinite Plane

One FE model features the Earth going on endlessly. While the part of the Earth that we live in is only some finite section, the matter of the Earth itself is endless.
In this case, the typical model of gravity, mass attracting mass, may apply.
There is no way for an infinite plane to be pulled into the shape of a ball. Similarly, the horizontal component of the pull of gravity on any object on the discís surface would be balanced: thereís the same amount of mass to each side, meaning a net force of zero.
The downwards force of gravity caused by an infinite plane is dependent solely on the depth of said plane. The thickness can be calculated, I believe, to be approximately 4,250km.

You have to admit its difficult to keep track of who believes in what when it comes to those who believe in the earth being flat.
Does he believe in this:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomy_is_a_Pseudoscience
If thats the case its difficult to know what he believes in!
Or how about this
https://wiki.tfes.org/Quotes_That_Tell_Us_We_Have_All_Been_Lied_To
So you are saying he parts company when it comes to this
https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration
I take it he believes in this as he wrote it
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/einsteins-relativity-proves-earth-flat
Its funny that the three links he provides as refrences, one warns the user that the site could fradulent, the other its a link to a BBC page and the other is dead!
Normally when one includes meaaningful refrences they generally have some underlying credibility.
Though I take it he still believes in an ice wall
https://thetab.com/uk/sussex/2016/05/11/spoke-people-still-believe-earth-flat-9548
Which is very strange as how does that square with the infinate plane? or do you have to climb the wall to get on to the plane OR is it an infinite ice wall?
You tell me.
Though apparently he still holds with the idea that moonlight is dangerous!
https://idobi.com/podcast/053-john-eric-davis-flat-earth-society/
Taking all what Ive gleaned from his seamingly random beliefs I think its safe to conclude that he rejects our current understanding of the laws of physics..
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 19, 2020, 01:58:44 PM
How about you offer up some proof, for both me being pretentious and that main stream physics has no problem with an infinite plane hypothetical or otherwise.
You mean like the proof that has already been provided, some of which you just dismissed as dubious, and others you just fled from and tried to change subject?

As for pretentious, your posts speaks for itself, as you pretend you have done almost know wrong and everyone else is just stupid and doesn't have any idea what they are talking about.

Perhaps you just cut the crap, go back to your original argument, and either defend it, or admit it is wrong?
After all, this is yet another distraction from that failure of yours.

As I pointed out based on how gravity works at the very very small, no one has a clear idea how it operates at the very very large let alone infinite
So why did you make the claim that an infinite Earth would collapse due to gravity?

You sure seemed to pretend to know just how gravity would behave for an infinite object.
So confidently in fact that you acted as if it firmly ruled out the possibility of Earth being an infinite plane.

So if you really want to go down the path of "no one knows" would you care to admit your initial is just wild speculation based upon nothing at all, and that you were completely wrong to conclude that gravity rules out an infinite plane?

Or would you prefer a shovel to help dig yourself down deeper?

Here are a few questions for you.
No, deal with the topic at hand first.

Do you think gravity would cause an infinite plane to have infinite gravity and collapse into a black hole?

I pointed out how flawed your logic was.
No, you repeatedly asserted it without any justification at all.
Again, more proof of you being pretentious, acting like you just claiming something somehow makes it true, all the while ignoring your contradictions.

Now you have two options, make your red text bigger or admit you used a very bad argument.
No, that would be you that has 2 options, which is really just 1.
Admit you made a bad argument by claiming gravity would cause an infinite plane to collapse into a black hole, as no one knows about how gravity acts at the infinite scale and thus there is no basis for your claim,
or admit you made a bad argument by acting like an infinite plane is just a very large finite plane and ignoring the fact that gravity (at least as it applies to small objects) would not cause the infinite plane to collapse.

Either way you made a bad argument.

Unless you would like to try for the impossible third:
Directly contradict your prior statement by saying that we do know how gravity would work for an infinite object, and then proceed to demonstrate clearly, from first principles, how the gravity from the infinite plane would cause it to collapse into a black hole.

But I suspect you will take the 4th.
Admit no wrong, try to distract and just dig yourself deeper.
Come on what proof.
I think you need to go look in a dictionary and read up the meaning of the word proof.

let's state some facts.
Nothing in this universe we live in has ever been observed that could be said to be infinite. Or are you disputing that? If so please provide proof.
The physics that relates to the scale we live in have little bearing on the quantum world, I don't see many entangled people walking around or popping in and out of existence. As no one has ever studied, observed anything infinite it is impossible to say how the laws of physics would operate under such incredibly extreme conditions. We are talking about the infinite you know, something unlike the quantum world we know nothing about!

The only 'evidence' and I use that word in the lightest way possible was a one-page piece of iffy maths, that if you care to go back to the original source stated the plane, if such a thing existed would have to be 'perfect' as any inconsistency in its makeup would cause a gravitational imbalance and the whole thing would come crashing down into a black hole, as that's what appears to happen in the real world to very large objects.  For infinite objects who can really tell, but that's what my thought experiment told me based on the real world. to imagine you know better about something no one really knows anything about just demonstrates what a total fool you are. I think that's what I originally said and I stand by it. Why you continue to ignore and pretend I've somehow evaded my original statement only speaks of problems with your own comprehension.
I provided numerous links from good research establishment that all tend to support my view. Have you read them?

OK clever clogs, you consider yourself smart.
Tell me how an infinite plane of the sort described by Davis would come about. Some proof would be nice.
Or do you subscribe to Mr Curiosity who imagines you could have a number of infinities of different sizes all coexisting in the real world?

I would really love to know what you think. You remind me of Bishop who loves to snip and snap but runs away when asked a direct question. Put your money where your mouth is and answer those questions, if you dare.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 19, 2020, 01:59:53 PM
For the one called Black.

This discussion leads me to some general considerations on the notion of infinity. I point out the risk of confusion that such a notion generates if we mistake limitations of our mind and our intelligence with properties of the natural world, or hints of the supernatural.
I point out the danger that is inherent when we try to fill up the mystery of the world with groundless solutions. In my opinion, uncertainty is preferable to unfounded certitudes.
Anthony Aguirre

https://www.edge.org/conversation/next-step-infinity
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Space Cowgirl on January 19, 2020, 02:13:36 PM

You have to admit its difficult to keep track of who believes in what when it comes to those who believe in the earth being flat.
Does he believe in this:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomy_is_a_Pseudoscience
If thats the case its difficult to know what he believes in!
Or how about this
https://wiki.tfes.org/Quotes_That_Tell_Us_We_Have_All_Been_Lied_To
So you are saying he parts company when it comes to this
https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration
I take it he believes in this as he wrote it
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/einsteins-relativity-proves-earth-flat
Its funny that the three links he provides as refrences, one warns the user that the site could fradulent, the other its a link to a BBC page and the other is dead!
Normally when one includes meaaningful refrences they generally have some underlying credibility.
Though I take it he still believes in an ice wall
https://thetab.com/uk/sussex/2016/05/11/spoke-people-still-believe-earth-flat-9548
Which is very strange as how does that square with the infinate plane? or do you have to climb the wall to get on to the plane OR is it an infinite ice wall?
You tell me.
Though apparently he still holds with the idea that moonlight is dangerous!
https://idobi.com/podcast/053-john-eric-davis-flat-earth-society/
Taking all what Ive gleaned from his seamingly random beliefs I think its safe to conclude that he rejects our current understanding of the laws of physics..

Your first three links are to tfes wiki, it's not our wiki. The Einstein article was posted in 2016, doesn't surprise me that the links are dead. Of course the Ice Wall exists on the infinite plane!

Moonlight is deadly.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: boydster on January 19, 2020, 02:46:12 PM
<So many words, mostly backpedaling>

It seems you a) can't actually refute the math you were shown, and b) can't defend your claims in your OP. Why are you still pretending you are on offense?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Curiouser and Curiouser on January 19, 2020, 04:27:17 PM
Let's remember what member Timeisup said:

Entertaining? Yes 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
We would not and never have existed due to the earth being a black hole

[snip]

ergo, in this universe the earth is not an infinite plane, flat or otherwise.

A thought experiment in which Timeisup imagines and stipulates for the purposes of the thought experiment (for the sake of attempting argument by reductio ad absurdum) that the earth is an infinite plane.

From which Timeisup makes the conclusion that an infinite plane must have infinite mass, and therefore infinite gravity.

And finally comes to the final conclusion that the earth cannot be an infinite plane because we have not collapsed to a black hole.

Notice that Timeisup's argument is proving that the earth cannot be an infinite plane, because we exist.

The fault in Timeisup's argument that is being argued is that given the premise of the thought experiment (the earth is a flat plane), the subsequent logical step (the earth has infinite gravity) is not correct.

Timeisup has ignored this, and has changed the argument and has spent considerable time arguing that infinite structures cannot exist.

This is irrelevant, as the thought experiment that Timeisup proposed assumed as a premise the existence of an infinite flat earth
.

Propositional logic does not demand that the premise be true, only that each step derived from the premise is valid. Timeisup states "infinite mass = infinite gravity". And even with a second visit with pal mathematician, and now a physicist, and a PhD cosmology student, never addressed the root issue (which any of the three of them should have been able to answer) "does an infinite uniform sheet of mass produce an infinite gravity field?"

When you next have coffee with your chappies, Timeisup, will you have the courage and intellectual honesty to ask that question?

Nice red text by the way.
Do you imagine it lends weight to your argument?

Not at all. But since you have some trouble reading, comprehending, and remembering the topic, I thought I'd help you out. It doesn't seem to have taken.

Iíve sure got your panties in a right old twist.

Don't flatter yourself. You have an overinflated sense of self-importance.

Here are a few questions for you.

How did your imaginary FE infinite plane come into existence?

Your infinite plane, not mine. Remember?
Entertaining? Yes 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 ...

How do you know how gravity will operate at the very very large?

You were the one who postulated an infinite plane and then insisted the way in which it should work.

Or should I say UA as Davis is a UA man and does not hold with gravity.

I'm not John Davis. You're saying my argument is faulty because of something someone else said? I feel sorry for your brain.

I pointed out how flawed your logic was.

Sorry, you did nothing of the sort.

Davis believes in very different physical laws so using regular laws for a FE situation is a bad argument. For a FE thought experiment you would have to use UA and not gravity.

I'm not John Davis and neither are you. And the thought experiment was yours. Why do you keep denying that?

Now you have two options, make your red text bigger or admit you used a very bad argument.

I'll take neither. I'll just remind you to go ask your uni buddies "does an infinite uniform sheet of mass produce an infinite gravity field?"
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: MouseWalker on January 19, 2020, 08:27:00 PM

You have to admit its difficult to keep track of who believes in what when it comes to those who believe in the earth being flat.
Does he believe in this:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomy_is_a_Pseudoscience
If thats the case its difficult to know what he believes in!
Or how about this
https://wiki.tfes.org/Quotes_That_Tell_Us_We_Have_All_Been_Lied_To
So you are saying he parts company when it comes to this
https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration
I take it he believes in this as he wrote it
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/einsteins-relativity-proves-earth-flat
Its funny that the three links he provides as refrences, one warns the user that the site could fradulent, the other its a link to a BBC page and the other is dead!
Normally when one includes meaaningful refrences they generally have some underlying credibility.
Though I take it he still believes in an ice wall
https://thetab.com/uk/sussex/2016/05/11/spoke-people-still-believe-earth-flat-9548
Which is very strange as how does that square with the infinate plane? or do you have to climb the wall to get on to the plane OR is it an infinite ice wall?
You tell me.
Though apparently he still holds with the idea that moonlight is dangerous!
https://idobi.com/podcast/053-john-eric-davis-flat-earth-society/
Taking all what Ive gleaned from his seamingly random beliefs I think its safe to conclude that he rejects our current understanding of the laws of physics..

Your first three links are to tfes wiki, it's not our wiki. The Einstein article was posted in 2016, doesn't surprise me that the links are dead. Of course the Ice Wall exists on the infinite plane!

Moonlight is deadly.
Where are the reports that shows. death by moonlight , I have yet to see a news report, of death by moonlight. Show me a death certificate, death by moonlight.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: JackBlack on January 19, 2020, 11:20:10 PM
Come on what proof.
I think you need to go look in a dictionary and read up the meaning of the word proof.
No, that would still be you.

Yet again, you run from the actual issue and try and hide behind other claims.

Your initial argument was a form of proof by contradiction.
It started with the assumption that the infinite flat Earth exists, in order to show that couldn't exist, on the basis of gravity.

Any attempts to appeal to the infinite being impossible in general and thus distractions from the total failure of your initial argument.

The only 'evidence' and I use that word in the lightest way possible was a one-page piece of iffy maths
And the arguments provided directly here.
This is evidence that you are wrong.
The only reason you are using it lightly is so you can just dismiss it.
Remember how you just dismissed the math as dubious or just outright ignored it?
Because you are completely unable to show any actual problem with it.

If you don't like it, clearly show what is wrong with the math.
If you can't, stop acting like there is a problem with it and admit you were wrong.

if such a thing existed would have to be 'perfect' as any inconsistency in its makeup would cause a gravitational imbalance and the whole thing would come crashing down into a black hole
No, that is just another of your baseless assertions that you are yet to justify in any way.

For infinite objects who can really tell, but that's what my thought experiment told me based on the real world. to imagine you know better about something no one really knows anything about just demonstrates what a total fool you are.
So is that an admission that you are a fool?
Every since it was brought up, by you, you have been acting like you know better than everyone else. That your entirely basless claims somehow magically disproves the infinite flat Earth on the basis of gravity alone.

If you truly believe that no one knows anything about how it should behave, then you should admit that your initial argument and thought experiment was nothing more than a pile of nonsense which proved absolutely nothing, i.e. it in no way shows that an infinite FE is impossible.

But instead of doing that, you seem to have taken option 4 from above and just keep digging yoruself deeper, claiming that you are correct, right after claiming that no one could possibly know.

Again, which is it?
Are you wrong because no one can know, or are you wrong, because people can know and the math shows you are wrong?

I provided numerous links from good research establishment that all tend to support my view. Have you read them?
Really?
Where?

I went over your links before. Did you ignore that?
Here is a link to where I discussed them.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84509.msg2229282#msg2229282
They in no way support your claim.

Tell me how an infinite plane of the sort described by Davis would come about. Some proof would be nice.
And there you go with even more avoidance.

Stop trying to run away from your initial failure, not unless you are willing to admit you were completely wrong.

I would really love to know what you think. You remind me of Bishop who loves to snip and snap but runs away when asked a direct question. Put your money where your mouth is and answer those questions, if you dare.
Good job projecting your own inadequacies onto others.
You have been provided plenty of evidence, which you just ignore.
You have been asked direct questions, which you just ignore.

If anyone here should be reminding you of Tom Bishop, it is yourself.
You ignore evidence that is provided, just dismissing it or ignoring it entirely.
You ignore or refuse to answer questions which show you to be wrong.
And you keep bringing up questions which are irrelevant to the actual discussion.

This is not a discussion on if the infinite is possible.
It is not a discussion on how an infinite plane could come to exist.

This is a discussion on if gravity would cause an infinite plane to collapse.

So far, to "support" the idea that an infinite plane has infinite gravity and would collapse into a black hole, we have your baseless assertions, backed up by nothing at all, and directly contradicted by your claims that we cannot know anything at all about how such an infinite system would behave.

Conversely, to refute your idea, we have your claims that we cannot know anything about how such an infinite system would behave, making your conclusion unfounded.
We also have simple questions, in form of thought experiments to show that your argument is wrong as it leads to nonsense.
We also have math based upon our current understanding of gravity, which shows that it would not collapse into a black hole and instead would be stable.

In my opinion, uncertainty is preferable to unfounded certitudes.
So why did you decide to go with unfounded certitudes by asserting that gravity would cause an infinite plane to collapse into a black hole?
Why didn't you go with the uncertainty of not knowing if it would?

Yet again, you are digging yourself deeper.

Now again, you have very few options:
1 - Admit that we cannot know how an infinite object would behave due to gravity and admit your argument was wrong as it relies upon knowledge that we cannot know.
2 - Admit that your argument is wrong, as the knowledge that we have shows that an infinite plane would be stable and not collapse.
3 - Do the impossible and prove that an infinite plane would collapse into a black hole. Not just baselessly assert it. Not just pretend it is a very large finite object. Not pretend it is a cloud of gas.
4 - Keep digging yourself deeper by failing to do one of the above 3, such as by claiming you are correct while also asserting we can't know, or just evading the issue.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 20, 2020, 12:16:51 AM
Come on what proof.
I think you need to go look in a dictionary and read up the meaning of the word proof.
No, that would still be you.

Yet again, you run from the actual issue and try and hide behind other claims.

Your initial argument was a form of proof by contradiction.
It started with the assumption that the infinite flat Earth exists, in order to show that couldn't exist, on the basis of gravity.

Any attempts to appeal to the infinite being impossible in general and thus distractions from the total failure of your initial argument.

The only 'evidence' and I use that word in the lightest way possible was a one-page piece of iffy maths
And the arguments provided directly here.
This is evidence that you are wrong.
The only reason you are using it lightly is so you can just dismiss it.
Remember how you just dismissed the math as dubious or just outright ignored it?
Because you are completely unable to show any actual problem with it.

If you don't like it, clearly show what is wrong with the math.
If you can't, stop acting like there is a problem with it and admit you were wrong.

if such a thing existed would have to be 'perfect' as any inconsistency in its makeup would cause a gravitational imbalance and the whole thing would come crashing down into a black hole
No, that is just another of your baseless assertions that you are yet to justify in any way.

For infinite objects who can really tell, but that's what my thought experiment told me based on the real world. to imagine you know better about something no one really knows anything about just demonstrates what a total fool you are.
So is that an admission that you are a fool?
Every since it was brought up, by you, you have been acting like you know better than everyone else. That your entirely basless claims somehow magically disproves the infinite flat Earth on the basis of gravity alone.

If you truly believe that no one knows anything about how it should behave, then you should admit that your initial argument and thought experiment was nothing more than a pile of nonsense which proved absolutely nothing, i.e. it in no way shows that an infinite FE is impossible.

But instead of doing that, you seem to have taken option 4 from above and just keep digging yoruself deeper, claiming that you are correct, right after claiming that no one could possibly know.

Again, which is it?
Are you wrong because no one can know, or are you wrong, because people can know and the math shows you are wrong?

I provided numerous links from good research establishment that all tend to support my view. Have you read them?
Really?
Where?

I went over your links before. Did you ignore that?
Here is a link to where I discussed them.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84509.msg2229282#msg2229282
They in no way support your claim.

Tell me how an infinite plane of the sort described by Davis would come about. Some proof would be nice.
And there you go with even more avoidance.

Stop trying to run away from your initial failure, not unless you are willing to admit you were completely wrong.

I would really love to know what you think. You remind me of Bishop who loves to snip and snap but runs away when asked a direct question. Put your money where your mouth is and answer those questions, if you dare.
Good job projecting your own inadequacies onto others.
You have been provided plenty of evidence, which you just ignore.
You have been asked direct questions, which you just ignore.

If anyone here should be reminding you of Tom Bishop, it is yourself.
You ignore evidence that is provided, just dismissing it or ignoring it entirely.
You ignore or refuse to answer questions which show you to be wrong.
And you keep bringing up questions which are irrelevant to the actual discussion.

This is not a discussion on if the infinite is possible.
It is not a discussion on how an infinite plane could come to exist.

This is a discussion on if gravity would cause an infinite plane to collapse.

So far, to "support" the idea that an infinite plane has infinite gravity and would collapse into a black hole, we have your baseless assertions, backed up by nothing at all, and directly contradicted by your claims that we cannot know anything at all about how such an infinite system would behave.

Conversely, to refute your idea, we have your claims that we cannot know anything about how such an infinite system would behave, making your conclusion unfounded.
We also have simple questions, in form of thought experiments to show that your argument is wrong as it leads to nonsense.
We also have math based upon our current understanding of gravity, which shows that it would not collapse into a black hole and instead would be stable.

In my opinion, uncertainty is preferable to unfounded certitudes.
So why did you decide to go with unfounded certitudes by asserting that gravity would cause an infinite plane to collapse into a black hole?
Why didn't you go with the uncertainty of not knowing if it would?

Yet again, you are digging yourself deeper.

Now again, you have very few options:
1 - Admit that we cannot know how an infinite object would behave due to gravity and admit your argument was wrong as it relies upon knowledge that we cannot know.
2 - Admit that your argument is wrong, as the knowledge that we have shows that an infinite plane would be stable and not collapse.
3 - Do the impossible and prove that an infinite plane would collapse into a black hole. Not just baselessly assert it. Not just pretend it is a very large finite object. Not pretend it is a cloud of gas.
4 - Keep digging yourself deeper by failing to do one of the above 3, such as by claiming you are correct while also asserting we can't know, or just evading the issue.

You sure have a problem.
Letís start with the page of iffy maths you appear to be so worked up about.
If you accept the workings and methodology of the person who produced it, possibly because it was posted on the internet, then you should accept all he says and not just the bits you like.

He says that his page of iffy maths only worked, in his opinion, for infinite planes that were of uniform density and form. He said any deviation form that would result in a gravitational instability and according to him his hypothetical infinite plane would collapse. He also said that no such thing could exist. If you remember this was a thought experiment, and what I thought was pretty much in line with the thoughts of the author of the page of iffy maths you keep banging on about. If you go along with this guy then you have to accept this:

Such a Flat Earth would not collapse into a sphere, theoretically. But this plane would not be stable. The slightest irregularities in the density would disturb the equilibrium and crunch the earth, except if it is infinitely rigid. An infinite plane would also mean an infinite mass for the earth.

.....I think thatís pretty much what I said originally!
Like Tom Bishop why do you keep avoiding answering the questions I put to you? Iíve explained quite clearly why you and the other bunch of halfwits are wrong, but you appear to be hell bent on distorting this pretty straight forward discussion into one where itís all about you getting me to admit Iím wrong when Iím totally right.
Here read if for yourself:-
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Gravity+on+an+infinite+Flat+Earth+Plane

There is no shame in being wrong, the shame only comes when you are too blind to admit it.

You have to remember that is just ones persons theory or what he thinks may happen on a fictional infinite plane itís not gospel. However if you agree with it then you have to go with it all and not cherry pick.
As we donít live on a uniform planet with uniform density and uniform gravity...etc...etc.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 20, 2020, 12:36:00 AM
As this discussion has veered off into a petty JackBlack vendetta letís bring it back and clarify a few points.

The original question:-

The question is can a flat earth thought experiment such as the Ďinfinite planeí have any logical or scientific validity? In all honesty Iím not sure, which is why I have asked the question.
My immediate thought is that such experiments would due to their initial starting premise fall under the reductio ad absurdum heading and be governed by the law of Law of noncontradiction and as such be null and void. I also thought that such an experiment would exist outside the recognised taxonomy of thought experiments but after thinking about it Iím now not sure. The question is, what do you think?


My answer was:-
Entertaining? Yes 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
We would not and never have existed due to the earth being a black hole


The assembled host as one appeared to go apoplectic saying I was wrong, basing all their combined rage on the musings of one person who produced this:-
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Gravity+on+an+infinite+Flat+Earth+Plane

In his mathematics ditty he said:-
If the earth were an infinite plane of a certain thickness b and homogeneous density ρ, you would get a homogeneous gravity field that acts perpendicular to the surface everywhere.
Such a Flat Earth would not collapse into a sphere, theoretically. But this plane would not be stable. The slightest irregularities in the density would disturb the equilibrium and crunch the earth, except if it is infinitely rigid. An infinite plane would also mean an infinite mass for the earth.


Which is pretty much what I said in my original answer!

He also said this, John Davis take note:-
So Gravity measurements falsify the hypothesis of an infinite Flat Earth plane. Observations of gravity on earth confirm a rotating ellipsoid.
   


So much for both the Davis plane, and the slavering hoard.
I think we can conclude that the  idea of an infinite flat earth is a fiction, and Jack Black, is wrong, again. Totally busted!
Jack Black, your Timeisup.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: rabinoz on January 20, 2020, 12:49:10 AM
Yet again, you are digging yourself deeper.

Now again, you have very few options:
1 - Admit that we cannot know how an infinite object would behave due to gravity and admit your argument was wrong as it relies upon knowledge that we cannot know.
2 - Admit that your argument is wrong, as the knowledge that we have shows that an infinite plane would be stable and not collapse.
3 - Do the impossible and prove that an infinite plane would collapse into a black hole. Not just baselessly assert it. Not just pretend it is a very large finite object. Not pretend it is a cloud of gas.
4 - Keep digging yourself deeper by failing to do one of the above 3, such as by claiming you are correct while also asserting we can't know, or just evading the issue.

You sure have a problem.
Letís start with the page of iffy maths you appear to be so worked up about.
If you accept the workings and methodology of the person who produced it, possibly because it was posted on the internet, then you should accept all he says and not just the bits you like.
No, but you "sure have a problem".

You start with "Letís start with the page of iffy maths".
The maths are not "iffy"! If you still disagree then you show exactly where they are wrong.

That is not affected by whether:
These are quite separate questions and I see other problems serious problems but that's a separate issue.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 20, 2020, 03:11:56 AM
Yet again, you are digging yourself deeper.

Now again, you have very few options:
1 - Admit that we cannot know how an infinite object would behave due to gravity and admit your argument was wrong as it relies upon knowledge that we cannot know.
2 - Admit that your argument is wrong, as the knowledge that we have shows that an infinite plane would be stable and not collapse.
3 - Do the impossible and prove that an infinite plane would collapse into a black hole. Not just baselessly assert it. Not just pretend it is a very large finite object. Not pretend it is a cloud of gas.
4 - Keep digging yourself deeper by failing to do one of the above 3, such as by claiming you are correct while also asserting we can't know, or just evading the issue.

You sure have a problem.
Letís start with the page of iffy maths you appear to be so worked up about.
If you accept the workings and methodology of the person who produced it, possibly because it was posted on the internet, then you should accept all he says and not just the bits you like.
No, but you "sure have a problem".

You start with "Letís start with the page of iffy maths".
The maths are not "iffy"! If you still disagree then you show exactly where they are wrong.

That is not affected by whether:
  • it does or does not represent reality,
  • whether it might or might not collapse if there are slight irregular or
  • whether there is or is not any way it could have originated.

These are quite separate questions and I see other problems serious problems but that's a separate issue.

You really need that explained!

Firstly the whole concept of an infinite plane is somewhat farfetched in the extreme (hence the thought experiment), and there exists no evidence, no observations and no science on the subject, for how can there be! There are no known infinities that exist in nature, and that is a fact. It, therefore, follows that any mathematics applied to such an unknown is pure entertaining speculation and should not be taken seriously. As the laws of physics at the very very very small appear to operate quite differently to our own scale, it may well follow that the laws of the super big also operate in different ways, who is to know? Do you? There are a couple of clues to make this a 'possibility' given the way that some stars behave in their orbits around their respective galactic centers. What is it that keeps them from flying off into the cosmos?

No one knows the physics of the infinite nor can they make any predictions that are any more than pure guesswork. That aside the chap who wrote that entertaining ditty agreed with me, so I'm not sure what your beef is? Or like Jack Black do you just hate being wrong?

You know what I think about this situation, but what do you think? or are you going to play the Bishop, refuse to answer then run away claiming victory?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: JackBlack on January 20, 2020, 03:17:58 AM
You know what I think about this situation, but what do you think? or are you going to play the Bishop, refuse to answer then run away claiming victory?
[/quote]quote author=Timeisup link=topic=84509.msg2230883#msg2230883 date=1579508211]
You sure have a problem.
[/quote]
Again, that would be you, not me.

Remember, you are the one contradicting yourself.

And again, you just attack the math as iffy rather than showing any actual problem with it.

If you accept the workings and methodology of the person who produced it, possibly because it was posted on the internet, then you should accept all he says and not just the bits you like.
Why?
That is like saying if someone says Earth is round, then you should accept everything he says.
So do you accept everything clickjamas says, including that rockets can't work in space and that Earth is stationary?

Back in reality, arguments stand on their own merit, not on the basis of who said them.
You can agree with something someone says, without agreeing with everything they say.

He said any deviation form that would result in a gravitational instability and according to him his hypothetical infinite plane would collapse.
I don't really care.
Is that backed up by anything at all?

Remember, I put forward my own arguments. The only way I have been "banging on about that math" is that you have not dealt with it at all, other than dismissing it as dubius.

what I thought was pretty much in line with the thoughts of the author of the page of iffy maths
It sure doesn't seem like it.
Your thoughts sure seemed to be that an infinite plane would collapse, regardless of if it was homogeneous or not as you made no mention of any irregularities causing it to collapse.
You even brought in arguments which worked for finite objects, which didn't focus on irregularities either.

If you wish to claim it does magically align, please clearly show where in your original argument from gravity you indicated that an infinite plane with irregularities would collapse, rather than an infinite plane in general.

Otherwise, it directly contradicts what you say, with the math clearly showing an infinite plane can be stable, and you saying it can't be.

If you go along with this guy then you have to accept this:
Good thing I'm not just going along with him.

There is no shame in being wrong, the shame only comes when you are too blind to admit it.
You mean like yourself? Where you still haven't admitted your initial argument was completely wrong?

So Gravity measurements falsify the hypothesis of an infinite Flat Earth plane. Observations of gravity on earth confirm a rotating ellipsoid.
Which is completely irrelevant to the argument you made.

Not once have I argued that such an infinite plane exists. Instead I have argued that your argument against it is fundamentally flawed.

Firstly the whole concept of an infinite plane is somewhat farfetched
Irrelavent. Your argument had nothing to do with it being farfetched or lacking evidence or anythign of the like.
It was entirely based upon gravity, with you claiming gravity would cause it to collapse into a black hole.

Again, quit with the pathetic distractions.

It, therefore, follows that any mathematics applied to such an unknown is pure entertaining speculation
No one knows the physics of the infinite nor can they make any predictions that are any more than pure guesswork.
Again, if you truly believe that admit your argument was pure speculation and shows absolutely nothing about if an infinite plane can or cannot exist.

so I'm not sure what your beef is
It is quite simple. You are spouting pure garbage and doubling down rather than admitting you are wrong.

If you had just admitted that you were wrong from the start, and that gravity would not cause an infinite plane to collapse into a black hole (or at least that we have no sound reason to believe it would), that would have been the end of it.

Like I said, you have 4 options:
1 - Admit that we cannot know how an infinite object would behave due to gravity and admit your argument was wrong as it relies upon knowledge that we cannot know.
2 - Admit that your argument is wrong, as the knowledge that we have shows that an infinite plane would be stable and not collapse.
3 - Do the impossible and prove that an infinite plane would collapse into a black hole. Not just baselessly assert it. Not just pretend it is a very large finite object. Not pretend it is a cloud of gas.
4 - Keep digging yourself deeper by failing to do one of the above 3, such as by claiming you are correct while also asserting we can't know, or just evading the issue.

How about this time you avoid option 4?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 20, 2020, 07:40:51 AM
Contradiction....what contradiction?
You really do have a problem accepting the truth.
I posted the page of mathematics that contained the comments that I referred to, you know the one that you are trying desperately to use to prove your point, that for some reason you are choosing to ignore the part I am referring to. I think that's called cherry-picking!

This whole thing arose from the Davis plane and his notion that we are living on an infinite plane. The infinite plane I was referring to is not a featureless smooth uniformly dense object, though I think it may well be a good description of you, rather the infinite plane I was referring to is composed in much the same as the planet we are living on, or is that too difficult a concept for you to grasp?

You say
...........as the knowledge that we have shows that an infinite plane would be stable and not collapse.

How do you know how something infinite would behave? How does anyone know how something infinite would behave? From the sources I've looked at no credible physicist believes anything infinite could exist where are your sources? In reality, no one has a clue about a physical infinity, how do you imagine that you do? Please share

You say I'm spouting pure garbage, you're making a dam fine job of it yourself. Can you be more precise and say which of my comments are garbage, as you're starting to sound like a desperate man clutching at straws, knows he is totally beaten and resorting to pathetic insults.

By the way, you may wish to adjust your shorts as judging by the tone of your posts they sound as though they could be infinitely tight.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Space Cowgirl on January 20, 2020, 08:01:25 AM
Where are the reports that shows. death by moonlight , I have yet to see a news report, of death by moonlight. Show me a death certificate, death by moonlight.

I suggest you research moon lunacy.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: MouseWalker on January 20, 2020, 09:07:28 AM
Where are the reports that shows. death by moonlight , I have yet to see a news report, of death by moonlight. Show me a death certificate, death by moonlight.

I suggest you research moon lunacy.

Then such claims, are definitely lunacy.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Unconvinced on January 20, 2020, 11:31:15 AM
There is a more serious problem for fervent believers in the lunar lunacy effect: no evidence that it exists. Florida International University psychologist James Rotton, Colorado State University astronomer Roger Culver and University of Saskatchewan psychologist Ivan W. Kelly have searched far and wide for any consistent behavioral effects of the full moon. In all cases, they have come up empty-handed. By combining the results of multiple studies and treating them as though they were one huge studyóa statistical procedure called  meta-analysisóthey have found that full moons are entirely unrelated to a host of events, including crimes, suicides, psychiatric problems and crisis center calls. In their 1985 review of 37 studies entitled ďMuch Ado about the Full Moon,Ē which appeared in one of psychologyís premier journals, Psychological Bulletin, Rotton and Kelly humorously bid adieu to the full-moon effect and concluded that further research on it was unnecessary.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lunacy-and-the-full-moon/
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: JackBlack on January 20, 2020, 12:02:48 PM
Contradiction....what contradiction?
Your initial argument was that gravity would cause an infinite plane to collapse.
This requires you to know how gravity behaves for an infinite object.
But you claim no one knows how gravity would cause an infinite object to behave.

That is where you have backed yourself into a corner.
Either you are wrong as you have no knowledge of how an infinite object would behave due to gravity and thus you have no justification for your claim that an infinite plane would collapse into a black hole.
Or you are wrong as we can have knowledge of how it works, or make conclusions based upon our current knowledge, and for added problems people (including me) have demonstrated that with our current understanding of gravity, that is not the case at all.

Doesn't that seem like a contradiction?
Your argument requires you to know how gravity works when you claim we don't know.

That is covered by options 1 and 2.

You really do have a problem accepting the truth.
Again, that would be you.
Refusing to accept that you have argued yourself into a corner where there is no way out without admitting you are wrong.


you know the one that you are trying desperately to use to prove your point
Again, I have not used that page.
Try again.

for some reason you are choosing to ignore the part I am referring to. I think that's called cherry-picking!
No, it isn't.
Even if I was using that page as evidence, it still wouldn't be.
It isn't a religious text spoken by a god.
It is a page written by some guy, which contains math which shows that an infinite plane wouldn't collapse along with some other statements.
You are referring to a baseless statement on the page as if it is magically proof of your claims, even though the page directly contradicts your claim.

The infinite plane I was referring to is not a featureless smooth uniformly dense object
That doesn't matter at all.
Your initial argument made no reference to ANY irregularities.
Instead all you appealed to was it being infinite.

How do you know how something infinite would behave?
Again, that is a question to ask yourself.
How do you know how something infinite would behave?
How do you know that an infinite plane would collapse?

Like I said, you have 4 options:
1 - Admit that we cannot know how an infinite object would behave due to gravity and admit your argument was wrong as it relies upon knowledge that we cannot know.
2 - Admit that your argument is wrong, as the knowledge that we have shows that an infinite plane would be stable and not collapse.
3 - Do the impossible and prove that an infinite plane would collapse into a black hole. Not just baselessly assert it. Not just pretend it is a very large finite object. Not pretend it is a cloud of gas.
4 - Keep digging yourself deeper by failing to do one of the above 3, such as by claiming you are correct while also asserting we can't know, or just evading the issue.

If you want to appeal to us not knowing how the infinite behave, you are limited to option 1 and 4. Either admit you are wrong because your argument relies upon knowing how the infinite behave, or just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper due to repeatedly contradicting yourself.
So what's it going to be?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 20, 2020, 11:47:39 PM
Why do you keep repeating the same thing over and over again. Iíve answered those questions!  What do you hope to achieve? For some bizarre reason you are unwilling to accept them, and that is your problem. Go and read my pervious post again, and who knows you may weíll see both the light and the error of your ways.

If you canít follow the logic presented here, then there is nothing I can do for you:-

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84509.msg2230887#msg2230887
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 21, 2020, 12:08:17 AM
We have an impasse.
Keeping saying Iím wrong without presenting an alternative is a waste of time.
If you care to look through all my posts you will see Iíve presented quite a number of pieces of credible evidence that supports my position. In my mind I think my logic is sound, you donít agree.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84509.msg2230887#msg2230887

You obviously donít like what Iíve presented so one way to resolve this is for the Jack that is Black, to present his alternative answer.
Over to you Jack.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: JackBlack on January 21, 2020, 12:51:00 AM
Why do you keep repeating the same thing over and over again.
Perhaps because you are repeatedly ignoring it.

Again, you claim that we cannot know how an infinite plane would behave under gravity. Yet you claim to know that an infinite plane would collapse due to gravity.

Do you not notice the direct contradiction there?

Again, deal with your initial argument before moving on.

Iíve presented quite a number of pieces of credible evidence that supports my position.

No you haven't.
You have presented literally nothing to support your position except a baseless claim and a baseless argument.

Meanwhile, plenty has been presented which refutes it.
I have already presented my alternative answer, in several different ways, and you just ignored it.

Now, perhaps we should start by dealing with your contradiction first.
Decide, can we know how an infinite plane would behave due to gravity?
If yes, then you repeatedly appealing to us allegedly not knowing is nonsense.
If no, then you argument is nonsense as it relies upon that knowledge.

So what will it be?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: rabinoz on January 21, 2020, 12:52:45 AM
We have an impasse.
. . . . . . .
Over to you Jack.
I'm not JackBlack and if you think that there's an impasse it's of your own making.

This is where you really start getting into trouble
An infinite plane would not inevitably collapse into a black hole. That's where your thought experiment breaks down. You can't introduce invalid assumptions and expect to arrive at a valid conclusion.


Thank you for bringing sense to an otherwise nonsensical argument.

Nonsensical argument! Itís a thought experiment, same as the one you were going on about on another thread.
What do you think would happen on an infinite earth with infinite mass and hence infinite gravity. I think the spacecraft you designed would have one hell of a job obtaining escape velocity. What would your calculated escape velocity be for an earth with infinite mass?
Did the spacecraft you designed not have to rely on gravity kicks to get them to their final destination? By virtue of that you must know quite a bit about orbital mechanics, so whatís your take on the local effect on the solar system if the earth was suddenly infinite?
Forget your "spacecraft" etc, etc they are quite irrelevant to the basic question.

Boydster's "An infinite plane would not inevitably collapse into a black hole" is quite correct and your attempts to claim otherwise are futile.

None of boydster, Curiouser and Curiouser, JackBlack or myself claim that the infinite plane represents reality just that the maths do show that infinite plane of finite thickness is stable and has a finite gravity.

You saw the maths in Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy ę Reply #36 on: January 11, 2020, 07:23:26 AM Ľ (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84509.msg2228926#msg2228926).
Now, no one has said it's realistic, just the maths work and the gravity above the surface is finite.

Any questions about whether it represents reality etc are separate questions.
You'll find that Boydster, Curiouser and Curiouser and JackBlack know a great deal more than you about maths and science.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 21, 2020, 12:55:14 AM
Why do you keep repeating the same thing over and over again.
Perhaps because you are repeatedly ignoring it.

Again, you claim that we cannot know how an infinite plane would behave under gravity. Yet you claim to know that an infinite plane would collapse due to gravity.

Do you not notice the direct contradiction there?

Again, deal with your initial argument before moving on.

Iíve presented quite a number of pieces of credible evidence that supports my position.

No you haven't.
You have presented literally nothing to support your position except a baseless claim and a baseless argument.

Meanwhile, plenty has been presented which refutes it.
I have already presented my alternative answer, in several different ways, and you just ignored it.

Now, perhaps we should start by dealing with your contradiction first.
Decide, can we know how an infinite plane would behave due to gravity?
If yes, then you repeatedly appealing to us allegedly not knowing is nonsense.
If no, then you argument is nonsense as it relies upon that knowledge.

So what will it be?

You are in repeat mode. I have dealt with your argument.
You are determined to prove I'm wrong, I get that, so how about showing me the correct answer?
Follow this logic.
You say I am wrong
It's now up to you to provide the correct answer.
Simple, over to you Jack.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 21, 2020, 12:57:21 AM
We have an impasse.
. . . . . . .
Over to you Jack.
I'm not JackBlack and if you think that there's an impasse it's of your own making.

This is where you really start getting into trouble
An infinite plane would not inevitably collapse into a black hole. That's where your thought experiment breaks down. You can't introduce invalid assumptions and expect to arrive at a valid conclusion.


Thank you for bringing sense to an otherwise nonsensical argument.

Nonsensical argument! Itís a thought experiment, same as the one you were going on about on another thread.
What do you think would happen on an infinite earth with infinite mass and hence infinite gravity. I think the spacecraft you designed would have one hell of a job obtaining escape velocity. What would your calculated escape velocity be for an earth with infinite mass?
Did the spacecraft you designed not have to rely on gravity kicks to get them to their final destination? By virtue of that you must know quite a bit about orbital mechanics, so whatís your take on the local effect on the solar system if the earth was suddenly infinite?
Forget your "spacecraft" etc, etc they are quite irrelevant to the basic question.

Boydster's "An infinite plane would not inevitably collapse into a black hole" is quite correct and your attempts to claim otherwise are futile.

None of boydster, Curiouser and Curiouser, JackBlack or myself claim that the infinite plane represents reality just that the maths do show that infinite plane of finite thickness is stable and has a finite gravity.

You saw the maths in Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy ę Reply #36 on: January 11, 2020, 07:23:26 AM Ľ (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84509.msg2228926#msg2228926).
Now, no one has said it's realistic, just the maths work and the gravity above the surface is finite.

Any questions about whether it represents reality etc are separate questions.
You'll find that Boydster, Curiouser and Curiouser and JackBlack know a great deal more than you about maths and science.

Here is the original maths, go read it. He agrees with me. Let's see if you can work it out. Mr. Black apparently has a blind spot.
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Gravity+on+an+infinite+Flat+Earth+Plane.

he says this:-
If the earth were an infinite plane of a certain thickness b and homogeneous density ρ, you would get a homogeneous gravity field that acts perpendicular to the surface everywhere.

"Such a Flat Earth would not collapse into a sphere, theoretically. But this plane would not be stable. The slightest irregularities in the density would disturb the equilibrium and crunch the earth, except if it is infinitely rigid. An infinite plane would also mean an infinite mass for the earth"

I honestly don't know how to convince people when it is right before them in black and white. If you choose to ignore it then so be it.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: JackBlack on January 21, 2020, 01:48:06 AM
You are in repeat mode. I have dealt with your argument.
No, you haven't you ignored it and brought up irrelevant crap.

You are determined to prove I'm wrong, I get that, so how about showing me the correct answer?
I have.

Remember back here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84509.msg2228972#msg2228972
Which you then just dismissed as "you know a lot about infinite planes".
Where was the refutation of that post of mine?
and here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84509.msg2229171#msg2229171
This time you dismissed it by saying I was wrong, and then running away from the topic.
You even appealed to infinite not just being a really big number, even though your argument relied upon it.
Then here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84509.msg2229206#msg2229206
And so on.

Here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84509.msg2229241#msg2229241
I even went to the trouble of actually explaining how the argument for finite objects work, and explaining why it doesn't work for an infinite object.

Follow this logic.
You say I am wrong
It's now up to you to provide the correct answer.
Not how the burden of proof works.
You made a claim, you need to justify it.
So justify your claim that gravity would cause an infinite plane to collapse into a black hole.
Remember, homogeneity being needed still means you are wrong.
You appealed to the infinite mass, not any irregularities.

Here is the original maths, go read it. He agrees with me.
You mean he directly contradicts you.
You claim an infinite plane would have infinite mass and thus collapse due to gravity.
He says an infinite plane would be stable, and provides the math to show that is the case.
The only part he seems to agree with you on is his baseless claim, which has no math to back it up.


I honestly don't know how to convince people when it is right before them in black and white. If you choose to ignore it then so be it.
How about first start by accepting that you were completely wrong and that an infinite plane and thus infinite mass doesn't mean it would collapse into a black hole?

How about providing the math which shows that any tiny irregularity would cause such an infinite plane to collapse into a black hole?

How about making up your mind on if we can know how the infinite will behave?
If we can't then admit you were wrong to conclude that an infinite plane would collapse due to gravity.

See, the simple reality you don't have it right before us in black and white, other than your baseless claims. We aren't choosing to ignore it, it simply isn't there.

What has been presented clearly in black and white, and you have even linked to it, is that an infinite plane would be stable and not collapse into a black hole.
So how should we convince you when it is right before you in black and white and you just choose to ignore it?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: rabinoz on January 21, 2020, 02:15:59 AM
We have an impasse.
. . . . . . .
Over to you Jack.
I'm not JackBlack and if you think that there's an impasse it's of your own making.

This is where you really start getting into trouble
An infinite plane would not inevitably collapse into a black hole. That's where your thought experiment breaks down. You can't introduce invalid assumptions and expect to arrive at a valid conclusion.


Thank you for bringing sense to an otherwise nonsensical argument.

Nonsensical argument! Itís a thought experiment, same as the one you were going on about on another thread.
What do you think would happen on an infinite earth with infinite mass and hence infinite gravity. I think the spacecraft you designed would have one hell of a job obtaining escape velocity. What would your calculated escape velocity be for an earth with infinite mass?
Did the spacecraft you designed not have to rely on gravity kicks to get them to their final destination? By virtue of that you must know quite a bit about orbital mechanics, so whatís your take on the local effect on the solar system if the earth was suddenly infinite?
Forget your "spacecraft" etc, etc they are quite irrelevant to the basic question.

Boydster's "An infinite plane would not inevitably collapse into a black hole" is quite correct and your attempts to claim otherwise are futile.

None of boydster, Curiouser and Curiouser, JackBlack or myself claim that the infinite plane represents reality just that the maths do show that infinite plane of finite thickness is stable and has a finite gravity.

You saw the maths in Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy ę Reply #36 on: January 11, 2020, 07:23:26 AM Ľ (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84509.msg2228926#msg2228926).
Now, no one has said it's realistic, just the maths work and the gravity above the surface is finite.

Any questions about whether it represents reality etc are separate questions.
You'll find that Boydster, Curiouser and Curiouser and JackBlack know a great deal more than you about maths and science.

Here is the original maths, go read it. He agrees with me. Let's see if you can work it out. Mr. Black apparently has a blind spot.
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Gravity+on+an+infinite+Flat+Earth+Plane.

he says this:-
If the earth were an infinite plane of a certain thickness b and homogeneous density ρ, you would get a homogeneous gravity field that acts perpendicular to the surface everywhere.

"Such a Flat Earth would not collapse into a sphere, theoretically. But this plane would not be stable. The slightest irregularities in the density would disturb the equilibrium and crunch the earth, except if it is infinitely rigid. An infinite plane would also mean an infinite mass for the earth"

I honestly don't know how to convince people when it is right before them in black and white. If you choose to ignore it then so be it.
Sorry, but it's not there in black and white. The thought experiment was:
"If the earth were an infinite plane of a certain thickness b and homogeneous density ρ, you would get a homogeneous gravity field that acts perpendicular to the surface everywhere."
So If the Earth were a uniform homogeneous infinite plane it would not collapse, end of story!

But Walter Bislins might be right about the slightest imperfection making it collapse but he did not prove that point.

So the original thought experiment is valid.

Now it might collapse due to slight irregularities and might not describe reality but that does not invalidate the original premise.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: boydster on January 21, 2020, 04:36:53 AM
I'm not even sure about the "slight imperfections making it collapse." I can't recall where I saw it, but I seem to remember there being an argument that if the imperfections were roughly evenly distributed (much like matter being pretty much evenly distributed in the universe, although there are obviously local places like galaxies with higher concentrations), small local variances wouldn't be a problem.

Regardless, I think the person claiming that a small imperfection would cause an infinite plane to collapse should actually demonstrate it. Burden of proof, and all that.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: John Davis on January 21, 2020, 08:00:01 AM
The gravitational stability of an infinite plane has been shown by Spitzer for the less stable state of gas.

It seems obvious at this point there's no gain in walking you through this.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 21, 2020, 11:43:39 PM
You are in repeat mode. I have dealt with your argument.
No, you haven't you ignored it and brought up irrelevant crap.

You are determined to prove I'm wrong, I get that, so how about showing me the correct answer?
I have.

Remember back here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84509.msg2228972#msg2228972
Which you then just dismissed as "you know a lot about infinite planes".
Where was the refutation of that post of mine?
and here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84509.msg2229171#msg2229171
This time you dismissed it by saying I was wrong, and then running away from the topic.
You even appealed to infinite not just being a really big number, even though your argument relied upon it.
Then here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84509.msg2229206#msg2229206
And so on.

Here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84509.msg2229241#msg2229241
I even went to the trouble of actually explaining how the argument for finite objects work, and explaining why it doesn't work for an infinite object.

Follow this logic.
You say I am wrong
It's now up to you to provide the correct answer.
Not how the burden of proof works.
You made a claim, you need to justify it.
So justify your claim that gravity would cause an infinite plane to collapse into a black hole.
Remember, homogeneity being needed still means you are wrong.
You appealed to the infinite mass, not any irregularities.

Here is the original maths, go read it. He agrees with me.
You mean he directly contradicts you.
You claim an infinite plane would have infinite mass and thus collapse due to gravity.
He says an infinite plane would be stable, and provides the math to show that is the case.
The only part he seems to agree with you on is his baseless claim, which has no math to back it up.


I honestly don't know how to convince people when it is right before them in black and white. If you choose to ignore it then so be it.
How about first start by accepting that you were completely wrong and that an infinite plane and thus infinite mass doesn't mean it would collapse into a black hole?

How about providing the math which shows that any tiny irregularity would cause such an infinite plane to collapse into a black hole?

How about making up your mind on if we can know how the infinite will behave?
If we can't then admit you were wrong to conclude that an infinite plane would collapse due to gravity.

See, the simple reality you don't have it right before us in black and white, other than your baseless claims. We aren't choosing to ignore it, it simply isn't there.

What has been presented clearly in black and white, and you have even linked to it, is that an infinite plane would be stable and not collapse into a black hole.
So how should we convince you when it is right before you in black and white and you just choose to ignore it?

If anyone cares to analyse your post as a response to my previous post, they will discover quite quickly its nothing more than a joke. You have no interest in approaching this from a scientific viewpoint. You constantly evade presenting your own answers backed by proper references. Iím not sure what your angle is but itís definitely not science.

Your own arguments unlike my own are based on nothing more than your own opinions!

No where have you attempted to offer an alternative.

You still still refuse to acknowledge that in the opinion of the author of the mathematics any infinite plane not uniform in form and density would as he says end up in a Big Crunch. Itís there in black and white but as it destroys your position you refuse to see it.

Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 21, 2020, 11:44:12 PM
The gravitational stability of an infinite plane has been shown by Spitzer for the less stable state of gas.

It seems obvious at this point there's no gain in walking you through this.

A link to that would be interesting.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 21, 2020, 11:54:20 PM
We have an impasse.
. . . . . . .
Over to you Jack.
I'm not JackBlack and if you think that there's an impasse it's of your own making.

This is where you really start getting into trouble
An infinite plane would not inevitably collapse into a black hole. That's where your thought experiment breaks down. You can't introduce invalid assumptions and expect to arrive at a valid conclusion.


Thank you for bringing sense to an otherwise nonsensical argument.

Nonsensical argument! Itís a thought experiment, same as the one you were going on about on another thread.
What do you think would happen on an infinite earth with infinite mass and hence infinite gravity. I think the spacecraft you designed would have one hell of a job obtaining escape velocity. What would your calculated escape velocity be for an earth with infinite mass?
Did the spacecraft you designed not have to rely on gravity kicks to get them to their final destination? By virtue of that you must know quite a bit about orbital mechanics, so whatís your take on the local effect on the solar system if the earth was suddenly infinite?
Forget your "spacecraft" etc, etc they are quite irrelevant to the basic question.

Boydster's "An infinite plane would not inevitably collapse into a black hole" is quite correct and your attempts to claim otherwise are futile.

None of boydster, Curiouser and Curiouser, JackBlack or myself claim that the infinite plane represents reality just that the maths do show that infinite plane of finite thickness is stable and has a finite gravity.

You saw the maths in Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy ę Reply #36 on: January 11, 2020, 07:23:26 AM Ľ (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84509.msg2228926#msg2228926).
Now, no one has said it's realistic, just the maths work and the gravity above the surface is finite.

Any questions about whether it represents reality etc are separate questions.
You'll find that Boydster, Curiouser and Curiouser and JackBlack know a great deal more than you about maths and science.

Here is the original maths, go read it. He agrees with me. Let's see if you can work it out. Mr. Black apparently has a blind spot.
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Gravity+on+an+infinite+Flat+Earth+Plane.

he says this:-
If the earth were an infinite plane of a certain thickness b and homogeneous density ρ, you would get a homogeneous gravity field that acts perpendicular to the surface everywhere.

"Such a Flat Earth would not collapse into a sphere, theoretically. But this plane would not be stable. The slightest irregularities in the density would disturb the equilibrium and crunch the earth, except if it is infinitely rigid. An infinite plane would also mean an infinite mass for the earth"

I honestly don't know how to convince people when it is right before them in black and white. If you choose to ignore it then so be it.
Sorry, but it's not there in black and white. The thought experiment was:
"If the earth were an infinite plane of a certain thickness b and homogeneous density ρ, you would get a homogeneous gravity field that acts perpendicular to the surface everywhere."
So If the Earth were a uniform homogeneous infinite plane it would not collapse, end of story!

But Walter Bislins might be right about the slightest imperfection making it collapse but he did not prove that point.

So the original thought experiment is valid.

Now it might collapse due to slight irregularities and might not describe reality but that does not invalidate the original premise.
The fact is none of it is proved! How can a page of numbers prove anything? It would have to be verified by observation or experimentation. The main problem is that there are no infinities in our universe. No one knows the physics of infinity, any thoughts on it would be no more than a stab in the dark. The fact that we are still unsure about aspects of gravity when dealing with large structures, how do you think that may translate to infinity?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 21, 2020, 11:56:27 PM
The gravitational stability of an infinite plane has been shown by Spitzer for the less stable state of gas.

It seems obvious at this point there's no gain in walking you through this.

I think you may Be misunderstanding what Spitzer said. I think there would be little to gain from explaining it to you.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IoO7a6G8gJYC&pg=PA356&lpg=PA356&dq=Spitzer+infinite+plane+stability&source=bl&ots=V4j14I0JnG&sig=ACfU3U3F7JrMA-TNndRGvUKcmJYrijKetw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjZjt2_25bnAhUCZcAKHQMmCScQ6AEwAHoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=Spitzer%20infinite%20plane%20stability&f=false
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 22, 2020, 12:03:26 AM
I'm not even sure about the "slight imperfections making it collapse." I can't recall where I saw it, but I seem to remember there being an argument that if the imperfections were roughly evenly distributed (much like matter being pretty much evenly distributed in the universe, although there are obviously local places like galaxies with higher concentrations), small local variances wouldn't be a problem.u

Regardless, I think the person claiming that a small imperfection would cause an infinite plane to collapse should actually demonstrate it. Burden of proof, and all that.

Burden of proof and all that, how about you prove an infinite plane could actually exist........or donít you realise all this discussion is hypothetical in the extreme as nothing infinite exists in the real physical world.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 22, 2020, 12:10:49 AM
Itís interesting to note that Spitzer, the one referred to by John Davis appears to have spent a great deal of his research life in looking at how massive clouds of interstellar gas and dust light years in size collapse locally due to gravitational instabilities to form stars. Itís interesting to note that Spitzer is not a flat earth advocate, anything but. What puzzles me is why John Davis would not reference a flat earth astronomer, rather than one who would disagree with anything He himself believes in?
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IoO7a6G8gJYC&pg=PA356&lpg=PA356&dq=Spitzer+infinite+plane+stability&source=bl&ots=V4j14I0JnG&sig=ACfU3U3F7JrMA-TNndRGvUKcmJYrijKetw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjZjt2_25bnAhUCZcAKHQMmCScQ6AEwAHoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=Spitzer%20infinite%20plane%20stability&f=false
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: rabinoz on January 22, 2020, 12:43:15 AM
Itís interesting to note that Spitzer, the one referred to by John Davis appears to have spent a great deal of his research life in looking at how massive clouds of interstellar gas and dust light years in size collapse locally due to gravitational instabilities to form stars. Itís interesting to note that Spitzer is not a flat earth advocate, anything but. What puzzles me is why John Davis would not reference a flat earth astronomer, rather than one who would disagree with anything He himself believes in?
All of which is quite irrelevant to the fact that the maths show that an infinite flat earth of uniforms mass/unit area is stable.

Whether it's practical, possible or sensitive to small irregularities are quite a separate matters.
Just face that and then debate the very real practical problems.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: JackBlack on January 22, 2020, 12:46:54 AM
If anyone cares to analyse your post as a response to my previous post, they will discover quite quickly its nothing more than a joke.
And again you spout a bunch of insults rather than defend your argument.

You constantly evade presenting your own answers backed by proper references. Iím not sure what your angle is but itís definitely not science.
Your own arguments unlike my own are based on nothing more than your own opinions!
And there you go projecting your own failures onto others.

No where have you even attempted to justify your argument.
Instead you dismissed or ignored the refutations, with no justification at all; then proceeded to repeatedly bring up completely different arguments; and then proceeded to pretend your argument was actually something different. And sprinkled through the latter 2 were direct contradictions where you claimed you were right, while also claiming you cannot possibly know that you are right.

You still still refuse to acknowledge that in the opinion of the author of the mathematics any infinite plane not uniform in form and density would as he says end up in a Big Crunch. Itís there in black and white but as it destroys your position you refuse to see it.
It is a baseless opinion, nothing more.
I don't care what his baseless opinion is.

Meanwhile, you completely ignore the math on that page which clearly shows an infinite plane is not inherently unstable.

No one knows the physics of infinity, any thoughts on it would be no more than a stab in the dark.
Which would mean that your argument is nothing more than a stab in the dark.
Again, this is refuting yourself.
You are indicating that your argument is unsound, that is pure guesswork.

Yet you still pretend you are correct.
Why?
Why do you admit you are correct while you also indicate your argument is pure guesswork?
You can't have it both ways.

Burden of proof and all that
Yes, Burden of proof and all that.
YOU made an argument. Not us, YOU DID!
The burden of proof is on YOU!
Not us, on YOU!

YOU need to defend your argument.
YOU need to provide proof (or evidence) to back up your argument.

So far all you have done is provide evidence that refutes it and claim that you could not possibly know that what you stated is correct, further damaging your argument.

When are you planning on meeting YOUR burden of proof?

Again, let me remind you of what your argument was:
Entertaining? Yes 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
We would not and never have existed due to the earth being a black hole
Notice how you are appealing to the infinite mass?
Notice how you claim this infinite mass results in infinite gravity which causes it to collapse into a black hole?
Notice how no where in there do you claim that it would collapse due to it being non-uniform.

The only reference which has been relevant to this discussion (rather than just gravity in general), is one that directly refutes your claim and shows that that is not the case at all.

So again?
Can you back up your argument?
Can you show any problem with the math which shows your argument to be wrong?
If not, can you admit it is wrong?

When you have either done the impossible and shown that an infinite plane is unstable just by being infinite, or you admit that you were wrong, then we can move on to other areas, such as what various irregularities would do.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 22, 2020, 12:54:40 AM
What this discussion has thrown up are some very interesting observations.
The infinite plane referred to in relativistic versions that Flat earthers like John Davis try to use to prop up his own ideas are not infinite flat versions of the earth we live on, but rather mathematical idealised perfect planes as explained in this quite interesting paper.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0708.2906.pdf

As I have said many times during this discussion the infinite plane referred to in all the mathematics on the subject is an ideal plane, and not an earth like plane complete with ice wall, as said by one of the moderators. This is a clear example of flat earthers highjacking a theoretical proposition and grafting it on to their own beliefs. The fact that the basis of such work is totally at odds with flat earth belief is something flat earthers like John Davis prefer to ignore.

Itís also interesting that most of the discoveries that feed into producing papers like the above have come from satellites like the spitzer space telescope!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spitzer_Space_Telescope
Satellites that flat earthers like John Davis maintain do not exist!

How can one believe in the results of work that has come from a source that, according to flat earthers, doesnít exist is very perplexing. Perhaps John Davis could explain this conundrum.

Jack Black may  also wish to read the above paper, even although it may stick in his craw!
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 22, 2020, 12:58:10 AM
If anyone cares to analyse your post as a response to my previous post, they will discover quite quickly its nothing more than a joke.
And again you spout a bunch of insults rather than defend your argument.

You constantly evade presenting your own answers backed by proper references. Iím not sure what your angle is but itís definitely not science.
Your own arguments unlike my own are based on nothing more than your own opinions!
And there you go projecting your own failures onto others.

No where have you even attempted to justify your argument.
Instead you dismissed or ignored the refutations, with no justification at all; then proceeded to repeatedly bring up completely different arguments; and then proceeded to pretend your argument was actually something different. And sprinkled through the latter 2 were direct contradictions where you claimed you were right, while also claiming you cannot possibly know that you are right.

You still still refuse to acknowledge that in the opinion of the author of the mathematics any infinite plane not uniform in form and density would as he says end up in a Big Crunch. Itís there in black and white but as it destroys your position you refuse to see it.
It is a baseless opinion, nothing more.
I don't care what his baseless opinion is.

Meanwhile, you completely ignore the math on that page which clearly shows an infinite plane is not inherently unstable.

No one knows the physics of infinity, any thoughts on it would be no more than a stab in the dark.
Which would mean that your argument is nothing more than a stab in the dark.
Again, this is refuting yourself.
You are indicating that your argument is unsound, that is pure guesswork.

Yet you still pretend you are correct.
Why?
Why do you admit you are correct while you also indicate your argument is pure guesswork?
You can't have it both ways.

Burden of proof and all that
Yes, Burden of proof and all that.
YOU made an argument. Not us, YOU DID!
The burden of proof is on YOU!
Not us, on YOU!

YOU need to defend your argument.
YOU need to provide proof (or evidence) to back up your argument.

So far all you have done is provide evidence that refutes it and claim that you could not possibly know that what you stated is correct, further damaging your argument.

When are you planning on meeting YOUR burden of proof?

Again, let me remind you of what your argument was:
Entertaining? Yes 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
We would not and never have existed due to the earth being a black hole
Notice how you are appealing to the infinite mass?
Notice how you claim this infinite mass results in infinite gravity which causes it to collapse into a black hole?
Notice how no where in there do you claim that it would collapse due to it being non-uniform.

The only reference which has been relevant to this discussion (rather than just gravity in general), is one that directly refutes your claim and shows that that is not the case at all.

So again?
Can you back up your argument?
Can you show any problem with the math which shows your argument to be wrong?
If not, can you admit it is wrong?

When you have either done the impossible and shown that an infinite plane is unstable just by being infinite, or you admit that you were wrong, then we can move on to other areas, such as what various irregularities would do.

Read this you may learn something.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0708.2906.pdf

Or will it be another example of pearls before swine? Only time will tell.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 22, 2020, 01:04:47 AM
Before Jack Black starts making more false accusation in relation to the definition of the infinite plane under discussion here, may I take him back to the beginning,

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84509.0

He is at liberty to start a new discussion on perfect infinite planes, this discussion was on infinite flat earth planes.

May I quote myself from an early point in the discussion
.

ďEntertaining? Yes I think that a thought experiment on the earth as an infinite plane could be said to be entertainingĒ
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 22, 2020, 01:15:44 AM
Now that I have a bit more time (and you don't seem interested in trying to justify your claims), I can explain more.

You say that it is a fact that objects over 600 km in size will collapse into a sphere, but provide absolutely no justification for why they do that.

This is a special case of the fact that there will be a limit to the height of any mountain due to gravity.
But that still doesn't tell us why, so lets consider what would happen if the mountain was higher, or just the general case of a tall mountain.

Well at the top, the land is just happy sitting there, being pulled down by gravity.
That applies a force to the ground below it, which applies a reactionary force to keep it up.
This means the layer below is under pressure.
This pressure is also transmitted to the next layer down, and so on.
However as well as that pressure it also has its own weight pushing down on the lower layer.
This means as you go further and further down, the pressure continues to increase.

Eventually you reach a threshold were the pressure increases to be greater than the yield stress of the material the mountain is made up of.
This means the base of the mountain will yield and spread outwards, with the rest of the mountain falling down.
It can also cause the ground around the mountain to rise up due to the yield strength being exceeded.

(There can also be some cases where a phase transformation is induced and that causes it to flow).

This means there will always be a limit to the height of a mountain.
For a very small object that height is larger than the object.
But for much larger objects, such as the 600 km cutoff, the height of the mountain is small compared to the size of the object, which means the object will be roughly spherical.


But what happens with infinite objects?
Well rather than just pretending infinity is a really big number and that the infinite plane is just a really big finite plane, we will actually treat it as an infinite plane.
So the first step was to start at the top of the mountain. Well if it was one sticking out of the plane, that would just cause it to go back to the plane. We need a mountain which sticks out in the direction of the plane.
But it is infinite, there is no edge to start from. So that kills is right there.

However, you can do the same with the finite case by starting anywhere. If you start inside the mountain, you still have the weight pushing down to the centre.
So lets try that with the infinite plane. We pick any random point in the infinite plane which is at the centre of the plane.
Well where is gravity pushing in this case?
NOWHERE.
In the plane, there is mass in all directions, an infinite mass in all directions which results in no net force due to gravity as the forces in each direction are cancelled by the force in the opposite direction.
This means there is no "down" for it. That means it isn't applying a force in any direction to increase the pressure in the object to exceed the yield stress.

That is why that argument does not work to show an infinite plane will collapse.

It relies upon the object being finite such that there is a direction of down towards the centre of the object such that there can be a pressure gradient to exceed the yield stress.
That does not apply for an infinite plane in the direction required.
It doesn't even work for an infinite rod.

So that "fact" of yours, when properly stated would be something more like this:

Any sufficiently large finite object acted on by gravity alone will collapse into a roughly spherical shape.

I think it would also need to have a finite thickness.
Yes certainly.
If it didn't it wouldn't be a plane, just a space. That would still be stable, we just couldn't live on it. (But as long as we don't make the voids to big, we could live in it).

Thank you for that, conclusive proof, according to you, an infinite flat earth could not exist.
You should really get to grips with the initial remit of the discussion, which was the infinite Davis plane.

You appear to have made up your mind that the discussion was on something else. Go read the starting posts for clarification.

Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: JackBlack on January 22, 2020, 01:59:05 AM
What this discussion has thrown up are some very interesting observations.
I wouldn't call you refusing to admit you are wrong an interesting observation.

As I have said many times during this discussion the infinite plane referred to in all the mathematics on the subject is an ideal plane
And as has been pointed out repeatedly, your initial argument made no mention of any impefections.
It appealed to the infinite mass.
If you would like to admit your initial was completely wrong and make a new one based upon the irregularities, go ahead.

The reason the math focuses on an ideal plane is because you can actually do the math for that. If it isn't ideal you need to know the density for every point and add them all up.

This doesn't make it at odds with a hypothetical flat Earth with irregularities.

Or will it be another example of pearls before swine? Only time will tell.
It sure seems to be pearls before swine. The problem is that you don't realise you are a swine.

Again, you have failed to justify your argument.
Don't just provide a link to a paper, you likely don't understand.
If you think it supports your case, clearly explain why. Better yet, provide the math here yourself.

Before Jack Black starts making more false accusation in relation to the definition of the infinite plane under discussion here, may I take him back to the beginning,
Or we can go back to where you actually presented your argument:
Yes 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
We would not and never have existed due to the earth being a black hole

Again, notice how in there you are appealing to infinite mass, not any irregularities.

Again, you are saying the infinite mass causes infinite gravity which light cannot escape which causes it to become a black hole.

If you wish to admit your argument was completely wrong and that you actually need irregularities to cause the collapse, then feel free to do so and make a new argument.

Thank you for that, conclusive proof, according to you, an infinite flat earth could not exist.
So you can't read at all?
That was conclusive proof that your argument applied to finite objects, not infinite ones.
So no, that is not proof that an infinite flat Earth could not exist.

Now I will ask again, do you actually have anything to back up your argument?
If you can't, admit it is wrong.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 22, 2020, 04:00:32 AM
What this discussion has thrown up are some very interesting observations.
I wouldn't call you refusing to admit you are wrong an interesting observation.

As I have said many times during this discussion the infinite plane referred to in all the mathematics on the subject is an ideal plane
And as has been pointed out repeatedly, your initial argument made no mention of any impefections.
It appealed to the infinite mass.
If you would like to admit your initial was completely wrong and make a new one based upon the irregularities, go ahead.

The reason the math focuses on an ideal plane is because you can actually do the math for that. If it isn't ideal you need to know the density for every point and add them all up.

This doesn't make it at odds with a hypothetical flat Earth with irregularities.

Or will it be another example of pearls before swine? Only time will tell.
It sure seems to be pearls before swine. The problem is that you don't realise you are a swine.

Again, you have failed to justify your argument.
Don't just provide a link to a paper, you likely don't understand.
If you think it supports your case, clearly explain why. Better yet, provide the math here yourself.

Before Jack Black starts making more false accusation in relation to the definition of the infinite plane under discussion here, may I take him back to the beginning,
Or we can go back to where you actually presented your argument:
Yes 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
We would not and never have existed due to the earth being a black hole

Again, notice how in there you are appealing to infinite mass, not any irregularities.

Again, you are saying the infinite mass causes infinite gravity which light cannot escape which causes it to become a black hole.

If you wish to admit your argument was completely wrong and that you actually need irregularities to cause the collapse, then feel free to do so and make a new argument.

Thank you for that, conclusive proof, according to you, an infinite flat earth could not exist.
So you can't read at all?
That was conclusive proof that your argument applied to finite objects, not infinite ones.
So no, that is not proof that an infinite flat Earth could not exist.

Now I will ask again, do you actually have anything to back up your argument?
If you can't, admit it is wrong.

What is your obsessive need to prove someone wrong? Why not just stick to the truth and the facts?
The terms of this discussion were very clear at the outset. Read the posts. For some reason only known to yourself, you have decided to alter them.
This forum is for discussion of issues relating to the Flat Earth, or haven't you noticed. In this case its the infinite flat earth.

This discussion is based on John Davis and his belief that the earth is an infinite plane? If you want to prove someone wrong have a go at him! This discussion was a thought experiment to see if there was a possibility if such a world could exist. Everything points to that being an impossibility for a whole host of reasons. Everyone, including yourself, latched on to second-hand extracts from reputable papers that were dealing with theoretical perfect infinite planes that had nothing whatsoever to do with the kind of infinite flat earth I was referring to at the outset. Every physicist knows that such a body is an impossibility.

The one really pathetic truth in all this is that you appear to think that you know something about infinity.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: boydster on January 22, 2020, 05:06:34 AM
I'm not even sure about the "slight imperfections making it collapse." I can't recall where I saw it, but I seem to remember there being an argument that if the imperfections were roughly evenly distributed (much like matter being pretty much evenly distributed in the universe, although there are obviously local places like galaxies with higher concentrations), small local variances wouldn't be a problem.u

Regardless, I think the person claiming that a small imperfection would cause an infinite plane to collapse should actually demonstrate it. Burden of proof, and all that.

Burden of proof and all that, how about you prove an infinite plane could actually exist........or donít you realise all this discussion is hypothetical in the extreme as nothing infinite exists in the real physical world.
A) The proof that an infinite plan could actually exist has been already provided to you
B) This was your thought experiment
C) I'm not sure you can back up your assertion that nothing infinite exists
D) I'm quite sure you can't demonstrate a proof of the claim regarding an infinite plane collapsing due to local irregularities, when overall it's still essentially homogeneous
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 22, 2020, 05:47:21 AM
I'm not even sure about the "slight imperfections making it collapse." I can't recall where I saw it, but I seem to remember there being an argument that if the imperfections were roughly evenly distributed (much like matter being pretty much evenly distributed in the universe, although there are obviously local places like galaxies with higher concentrations), small local variances wouldn't be a problem.u

Regardless, I think the person claiming that a small imperfection would cause an infinite plane to collapse should actually demonstrate it. Burden of proof, and all that.

Burden of proof and all that, how about you prove an infinite plane could actually exist........or donít you realise all this discussion is hypothetical in the extreme as nothing infinite exists in the real physical world.
A) The proof that an infinite plan could actually exist has been already provided to you
B) This was your thought experiment
C) I'm not sure you can back up your assertion that nothing infinite exists
D) I'm quite sure you can't demonstrate a proof of the claim regarding an infinite plane collapsing due to local irregularities, when overall it's still essentially homogeneous

There is no 'proof' to an infinite flat earth plane existing anywhere in anything I've provided. Such a thing doesn't exist so ergo there can be no proof. You have misunderstood, and that's your problem or prerogative. You are free to have a totally different take on things but please don't misquote me or try and distort what I have said for your own ends. That's not the way an honest discussion takes place.  The fact that mathematicians can theorize about an infinite plane or brane, has no bearing whatsoever on a flat earth infinite plane or any infinite plane for that matter existing in the real physical world. It baffling how none of you can understand that difference.

If you wish you could quote me where I have said any of the things you appear to believe I've said and I will correct you if you want.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: boydster on January 22, 2020, 06:53:56 AM
I'm not even sure about the "slight imperfections making it collapse." I can't recall where I saw it, but I seem to remember there being an argument that if the imperfections were roughly evenly distributed (much like matter being pretty much evenly distributed in the universe, although there are obviously local places like galaxies with higher concentrations), small local variances wouldn't be a problem.u

Regardless, I think the person claiming that a small imperfection would cause an infinite plane to collapse should actually demonstrate it. Burden of proof, and all that.

Burden of proof and all that, how about you prove an infinite plane could actually exist........or donít you realise all this discussion is hypothetical in the extreme as nothing infinite exists in the real physical world.
A) The proof that an infinite plan could actually exist has been already provided to you
B) This was your thought experiment
C) I'm not sure you can back up your assertion that nothing infinite exists
D) I'm quite sure you can't demonstrate a proof of the claim regarding an infinite plane collapsing due to local irregularities, when overall it's still essentially homogeneous

There is no 'proof' to an infinite flat earth plane existing anywhere in anything I've provided. Such a thing doesn't exist so ergo there can be no proof. You have misunderstood, and that's your problem or prerogative. You are free to have a totally different take on things but please don't misquote me or try and distort what I have said for your own ends. That's not the way an honest discussion takes place.  The fact that mathematicians can theorize about an infinite plane or brane, has no bearing whatsoever on a flat earth infinite plane or any infinite plane for that matter existing in the real physical world. It baffling how none of you can understand that difference.

If you wish you could quote me where I have said any of the things you appear to believe I've said and I will correct you if you want.
Sure. let's go in order. Beginning with part A: Literally in the quote tree already here is this particular gem from you (emphasis mine): "...prove an infinite plane could actually exist."
It's been demonstrated mathematically, which is the very definition of proof, that one could exist, despite your repeated assertion otherwise.

Part B: See your OP.

Part C: Again, in the quote tree already here, you stated: "nothing infinite exists in the real physical world." That's not a misquote. Can you demonstrate that your assertion is correct?

Part D: In this post of yours (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84509.msg2231067#msg2231067), you quoted someone as saying the following: "The slightest irregularities in the density would disturb the equilibrium and crunch the earth" which you also later acknowledge was an opinion. Could you show a proof that such a plane as I described, with small local variations in density while still being homogeneous in general (again, the simile would be how matter is distributed in our own universe) would collapse? My presumption is that you can't. I'd be happy to be shown to be wrong about that.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Themightykabool on January 22, 2020, 07:34:43 AM
No
An inf plane of relatively finite thickness would have the same gravity everywhere at every distance from the plane.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 22, 2020, 08:14:16 AM
I'm not even sure about the "slight imperfections making it collapse." I can't recall where I saw it, but I seem to remember there being an argument that if the imperfections were roughly evenly distributed (much like matter being pretty much evenly distributed in the universe, although there are obviously local places like galaxies with higher concentrations), small local variances wouldn't be a problem.u

Regardless, I think the person claiming that a small imperfection would cause an infinite plane to collapse should actually demonstrate it. Burden of proof, and all that.

Burden of proof and all that, how about you prove an infinite plane could actually exist........or donít you realise all this discussion is hypothetical in the extreme as nothing infinite exists in the real physical world.
A) The proof that an infinite plan could actually exist has been already provided to you
B) This was your thought experiment
C) I'm not sure you can back up your assertion that nothing infinite exists
D) I'm quite sure you can't demonstrate a proof of the claim regarding an infinite plane collapsing due to local irregularities, when overall it's still essentially homogeneous

There is no 'proof' to an infinite flat earth plane existing anywhere in anything I've provided. Such a thing doesn't exist so ergo there can be no proof. You have misunderstood, and that's your problem or prerogative. You are free to have a totally different take on things but please don't misquote me or try and distort what I have said for your own ends. That's not the way an honest discussion takes place.  The fact that mathematicians can theorize about an infinite plane or brane, has no bearing whatsoever on a flat earth infinite plane or any infinite plane for that matter existing in the real physical world. It baffling how none of you can understand that difference.

If you wish you could quote me where I have said any of the things you appear to believe I've said and I will correct you if you want.
Sure. let's go in order. Beginning with part A: Literally in the quote tree already here is this particular gem from you (emphasis mine): "...prove an infinite plane could actually exist."
It's been demonstrated mathematically, which is the very definition of proof, that one could exist, despite your repeated assertion otherwise.

Part B: See your OP.

Part C: Again, in the quote tree already here, you stated: "nothing infinite exists in the real physical world." That's not a misquote. Can you demonstrate that your assertion is correct?

Part D: In this post of yours (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84509.msg2231067#msg2231067), you quoted someone as saying the following: "The slightest irregularities in the density would disturb the equilibrium and crunch the earth" which you also later acknowledge was an opinion. Could you show a proof that such a plane as I described, with small local variations in density while still being homogeneous in general (again, the simile would be how matter is distributed in our own universe) would collapse? My presumption is that you can't. I'd be happy to be shown to be wrong about that.

Its been proved mathematically and by observation and a combination there of:
Gravity exists and fluctuates over the surface of the globe
Satellites exist
The sun is 149 million km away give or take and is over 1.2million km in diameter give or take.
The moon is 48000km away give or take and is 3,500 km in diameter give or take
The earth is a sphere
There is no dome
space flight is possible and has been carried out hundreds of times, possibly thousand come to think of it
Rockets can fly in the vacuum of space
There s no such thing as the aether
landings have been made on the moon, mars other planets and comets
I could go on, but I hope you get the point that playing the proof card is rather ironic here on the FES forum.
Proof as far as flat earth believers go is a very movable feast, in that they appear to make it up as they go along.
If you would like to play the proof game go ahead.
It's not my problem that you cant differentiate actual facts from hypothetical mathematical blue sky thinking. Regardless of how you would like to distort this discussion, there is no evidence ever published by a reputable scientific source here on earth that offers any proof for a physical infinite plane made form whatever material you would like to choose.
Let me put this another way, there is no such thing as an infinity in our physical world. In mathematics or philosophy or metaphysics, yes, but in the real world no.
If you care to believe otherwise there is that is your choice but please leave the word proof out of it.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 22, 2020, 08:18:41 AM
No
An inf plane of relatively finite thickness would have the same gravity everywhere at every distance from the plane.

Only in a theoretical universe far far away for a plane/brane of pure perfection, but not in the physical real world. If you don't believe that's fine, but before you react, go and read and understand the research. Others have read it but not understood it and somehow image it gives them carte blanch for dreaming up infinite world with ice walls and an earth that stretches off into infinity.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: boydster on January 22, 2020, 08:40:05 AM
I'm not even sure about the "slight imperfections making it collapse." I can't recall where I saw it, but I seem to remember there being an argument that if the imperfections were roughly evenly distributed (much like matter being pretty much evenly distributed in the universe, although there are obviously local places like galaxies with higher concentrations), small local variances wouldn't be a problem.u

Regardless, I think the person claiming that a small imperfection would cause an infinite plane to collapse should actually demonstrate it. Burden of proof, and all that.

Burden of proof and all that, how about you prove an infinite plane could actually exist........or donít you realise all this discussion is hypothetical in the extreme as nothing infinite exists in the real physical world.
A) The proof that an infinite plan could actually exist has been already provided to you
B) This was your thought experiment
C) I'm not sure you can back up your assertion that nothing infinite exists
D) I'm quite sure you can't demonstrate a proof of the claim regarding an infinite plane collapsing due to local irregularities, when overall it's still essentially homogeneous

There is no 'proof' to an infinite flat earth plane existing anywhere in anything I've provided. Such a thing doesn't exist so ergo there can be no proof. You have misunderstood, and that's your problem or prerogative. You are free to have a totally different take on things but please don't misquote me or try and distort what I have said for your own ends. That's not the way an honest discussion takes place.  The fact that mathematicians can theorize about an infinite plane or brane, has no bearing whatsoever on a flat earth infinite plane or any infinite plane for that matter existing in the real physical world. It baffling how none of you can understand that difference.

If you wish you could quote me where I have said any of the things you appear to believe I've said and I will correct you if you want.
Sure. let's go in order. Beginning with part A: Literally in the quote tree already here is this particular gem from you (emphasis mine): "...prove an infinite plane could actually exist."
It's been demonstrated mathematically, which is the very definition of proof, that one could exist, despite your repeated assertion otherwise.

Part B: See your OP.

Part C: Again, in the quote tree already here, you stated: "nothing infinite exists in the real physical world." That's not a misquote. Can you demonstrate that your assertion is correct?

Part D: In this post of yours (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84509.msg2231067#msg2231067), you quoted someone as saying the following: "The slightest irregularities in the density would disturb the equilibrium and crunch the earth" which you also later acknowledge was an opinion. Could you show a proof that such a plane as I described, with small local variations in density while still being homogeneous in general (again, the simile would be how matter is distributed in our own universe) would collapse? My presumption is that you can't. I'd be happy to be shown to be wrong about that.

Its been proved mathematically and by observation and a combination there of:
Gravity exists and fluctuates over the surface of the globe
Satellites exist
The sun is 149 million km away give or take and is over 1.2million km in diameter give or take.
The moon is 48000km away give or take and is 3,500 km in diameter give or take
The earth is a sphere
There is no dome
space flight is possible and has been carried out hundreds of times, possibly thousand come to think of it
Rockets can fly in the vacuum of space
There s no such thing as the aether
landings have been made on the moon, mars other planets and comets
I could go on, but I hope you get the point that playing the proof card is rather ironic here on the FES forum.
Proof as far as flat earth believers go is a very movable feast, in that they appear to make it up as they go along.
If you would like to play the proof game go ahead.
It's not my problem that you cant differentiate actual facts from hypothetical mathematical blue sky thinking. Regardless of how you would like to distort this discussion, there is no evidence ever published by a reputable scientific source here on earth that offers any proof for a physical infinite plane made form whatever material you would like to choose.
Let me put this another way, there is no such thing as an infinity in our physical world. In mathematics or philosophy or metaphysics, yes, but in the real world no.
If you care to believe otherwise there is that is your choice but please leave the word proof out of it.
You are dancing around so much itís kind of amazing. You are the one who started this thought experiment out, and you started making arguments that didnít follow from your initial conditions. Then you started adding so much more word salad. I guess you have some sort of way to prove that the universe isnít infinite in expanse, yes? Since thereís no such thing as infinity in the realm of physical things?

Leaving that aside, you didnít deal with anything in my post that you replied to. I listed 4 things, you told me I was putting words in your mouth or whatever, so I went back and showed you that I wasnít, and now you want to move the goalposts again? Doesnít this get tiresome for you? Why canít you just own being wrong about something?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Themightykabool on January 22, 2020, 09:05:59 AM
No
An inf plane of relatively finite thickness would have the same gravity everywhere at every distance from the plane.

Only in a theoretical universe far far away for a plane/brane of pure perfection, but not in the physical real world. If you don't believe that's fine, but before you react, go and read and understand the research. Others have read it but not understood it and somehow image it gives them carte blanch for dreaming up infinite world with ice walls and an earth that stretches off into infinity.

Well as it stands yes - theoretically.
That was my point.
So everything between the ground and the sky would fall at 9.8m/s/s.
Everything.
There then now creates a new problem where the fe's need to figure out how these things staying up.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 22, 2020, 10:10:00 AM
No
An inf plane of relatively finite thickness would have the same gravity everywhere at every distance from the plane.

Only in a theoretical universe far far away for a plane/brane of pure perfection, but not in the physical real world. If you don't believe that's fine, but before you react, go and read and understand the research. Others have read it but not understood it and somehow image it gives them carte blanch for dreaming up infinite world with ice walls and an earth that stretches off into infinity.

Well as it stands yes - theoretically.
That was my point.
So everything between the ground and the sky would fall at 9.8m/s/s.
Everything.
There then now creates a new problem where the fe's need to figure out how these things staying up.
The problem is ...in theory.
As you doubt know gravity behaves very differently at the very very small, ask anyone who is involved in work at the quantum level and they will tell you.
Gravity may well act differently at the very very large. There are some clues as to how stars orbiting around galactic centers move at speeds that don't conform to our current understanding hence the appearance of dark matter. As the infinite is something we have no real-world experience in its all just conjecture.
However, there is no such thing in our physical universe that is infinite, it's just something that theorists play with, regardless of what Bullwinkle likes to think.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: boydster on January 22, 2020, 10:27:16 AM
However, there is no such thing in our physical universe that is infinite, it's just something that theorists play with, regardless of what Bullwinkle likes to think.
Again, has nothing to do with the thought experiment where the initial condition was that an infinite plan did. Also, the universe itself may very well be infinite, so again again, your assertions are basically meaningless because you donít seem to understand how to construct an argument at a fundamental level. Or maybe you donít understand the material you are arguing about. Or maybe all of the above. Hard to tell, honestly.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Themightykabool on January 22, 2020, 11:04:34 AM
Times is very angry today.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 22, 2020, 11:38:03 AM
However, there is no such thing in our physical universe that is infinite, it's just something that theorists play with, regardless of what Bullwinkle likes to think.
Again, has nothing to do with the thought experiment where the initial condition was that an infinite plan did. Also, the universe itself may very well be infinite, so again again, your assertions are basically meaningless because you donít seem to understand how to construct an argument at a fundamental level. Or maybe you donít understand the material you are arguing about. Or maybe all of the above. Hard to tell, honestly.
Do you have proof of the universe being infinite? Please share, the burden of proof and all that, I think that's what you said, so how about some?
If we look at the facts, with the Universe seemingly expanding I think that points to it not being infinite, just pretty big. The oldest light we have detected is just over 13 billion years old, now thats old but a long way from being infinite, so just how can you assert that the universe may be infinite?
With it also being aroun13.8 billion years old, that's hardly an infinite age is with which to expand into an infinite size.
If you think I can't structure an argument, how about you show me, give me a lesson, over to you.


Jack Black failed to do this so let's see how you do. How about YOU provide some proof for some of the assertions YOU have made
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 22, 2020, 11:39:32 AM
Times is very angry today.
And what makes you think that? You appear to make a habit of making statements based on no more than the voices in your head.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: John Davis on January 22, 2020, 11:40:49 AM
However, there is no such thing in our physical universe that is infinite, it's just something that theorists play with, regardless of what Bullwinkle likes to think.
Again, has nothing to do with the thought experiment where the initial condition was that an infinite plan did. Also, the universe itself may very well be infinite, so again again, your assertions are basically meaningless because you donít seem to understand how to construct an argument at a fundamental level. Or maybe you donít understand the material you are arguing about. Or maybe all of the above. Hard to tell, honestly.
Do you have proof of the universe being infinite? Please share, the burden of proof and all that, I think that's what you said, so how about some?
If we look at the facts, with the Universe seemingly expanding I think that points to it not being infinite, just pretty big. The oldest light we have detected is just over 13 billion years old, now thats old but a long way from being infinite, so just how can you assert that the universe may be infinite?
With it also being aroun13.8 billion years old, that's hardly an infinite age is with which to expand into an infinite size.
If you think I can't structure an argument, how about you show me, give me a lesson, over to you.


Jack Black failed to do this so let's see how you do. How about YOU provide some proof for some of the assertions YOU have made
Can you back up your assertion that since the Universe is expanding it is not infinite?

Can you back up your assertion that the Universe is expanding when experts in the field disagree on this point?

Can you back up your assertion that the Universe is 13.8 billion years old? Can you back up your assertion that this age somehow is mutually exclusive to an infinite size?

Times is very angry today.
And what makes you think that? You appear to make a habit of making statements based on no more than the voices in your head.
Well, insulting his sanity for one... Post frequency and tone and content for another.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 22, 2020, 11:48:18 AM
However, there is no such thing in our physical universe that is infinite, it's just something that theorists play with, regardless of what Bullwinkle likes to think.
Again, has nothing to do with the thought experiment where the initial condition was that an infinite plan did. Also, the universe itself may very well be infinite, so again again, your assertions are basically meaningless because you donít seem to understand how to construct an argument at a fundamental level. Or maybe you donít understand the material you are arguing about. Or maybe all of the above. Hard to tell, honestly.
Do you have proof of the universe being infinite? Please share, the burden of proof and all that, I think that's what you said, so how about some?
If we look at the facts, with the Universe seemingly expanding I think that points to it not being infinite, just pretty big. The oldest light we have detected is just over 13 billion years old, now thats old but a long way from being infinite, so just how can you assert that the universe may be infinite?
With it also being aroun13.8 billion years old, that's hardly an infinite age is with which to expand into an infinite size.
If you think I can't structure an argument, how about you show me, give me a lesson, over to you.


Jack Black failed to do this so let's see how you do. How about YOU provide some proof for some of the assertions YOU have made
Can you back up your assertion that since the Universe is expanding it is not infinite?

Can you back up your assertion that the Universe is expanding when experts in the field disagree on this point?

Can you back up your assertion that the Universe is 13.8 billion years old? Can you back up your assertion that this age somehow is mutually exclusive to an infinite size?

Times is very angry today.
And what makes you think that? You appear to make a habit of making statements based on no more than the voices in your head.
Well, insulting his sanity for one... Post frequency and tone and content for another.

Can you back up your assertions that it's not? You know as well as I do, or I hope you do you being a scientist, that this has been known since your countryman Hubble peeked through his telescope back in the 1920s so its hardly hot news.

Can you provide information or proof that it is infinite?

If its not 13.8 billion years or so, how old do you think it is.

Again all the things I quoted are not news, its out there on the web if you care to look. However, what not on the web is what you think, so how about sharing and we can all have a good think about what you put forward.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 22, 2020, 11:52:18 AM
However, there is no such thing in our physical universe that is infinite, it's just something that theorists play with, regardless of what Bullwinkle likes to think.
Again, has nothing to do with the thought experiment where the initial condition was that an infinite plan did. Also, the universe itself may very well be infinite, so again again, your assertions are basically meaningless because you donít seem to understand how to construct an argument at a fundamental level. Or maybe you donít understand the material you are arguing about. Or maybe all of the above. Hard to tell, honestly.
Do you have proof of the universe being infinite? Please share, the burden of proof and all that, I think that's what you said, so how about some?
If we look at the facts, with the Universe seemingly expanding I think that points to it not being infinite, just pretty big. The oldest light we have detected is just over 13 billion years old, now thats old but a long way from being infinite, so just how can you assert that the universe may be infinite?
With it also being aroun13.8 billion years old, that's hardly an infinite age is with which to expand into an infinite size.
If you think I can't structure an argument, how about you show me, give me a lesson, over to you.


Jack Black failed to do this so let's see how you do. How about YOU provide some proof for some of the assertions YOU have made
Can you back up your assertion that since the Universe is expanding it is not infinite?

Can you back up your assertion that the Universe is expanding when experts in the field disagree on this point?

Can you back up your assertion that the Universe is 13.8 billion years old? Can you back up your assertion that this age somehow is mutually exclusive to an infinite size?

Times is very angry today.
And what makes you think that? You appear to make a habit of making statements based on no more than the voices in your head.
Well, insulting his sanity for one... Post frequency and tone and content for another.

It's hardly insulting his sanity!  Voices in one's head are quite normal or so I'm told. I never told him I was angry so the only other source he could have got if from was himself, ergo a voice in his head. If I was being insulting, which I was not not, I would have said out his backside. But I didn't say that.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: JackBlack on January 22, 2020, 12:11:38 PM
What is your obsessive need to prove someone wrong? Why not just stick to the truth and the facts?
What is your obsessive need to pretend you are right?
I am sticking to the truth and facts.
The truth is that gravity would not necessarily cause an infinite plane to collapse.
Your argument was wrong.

Yet you keep pretending it was right.
Even when you claim that we cannot possibly know, you still claim that you are right.

The terms of this discussion were very clear at the outset.
Yes, such as when you made your argument.
That argument made no appeal to any irregularities.
Instead it appealed to the infinite mass of the infinite plane.

We can also it by subsequent arguments, where again you just appealed to mass/size, and again ignored irregularities.

Yet now that you know you cannot justify that argument, you run from it and want to pretend you meant something else.
All so you can cover up the fact that you were completely wrong.

If you want to prove someone wrong have a go at him!
He isn't the one claiming that an infinite plane has infinite mass and thus would collapse due to gravity.
So I will keep "having a go" at you.
Unless you are ready to admit your argument was wrong.

Everyone, including yourself, latched on to second-hand extracts
No, they didn't.
I did it all by myself, without any need for other sources.

The one really pathetic truth in all this is that you appear to think that you know something about infinity.
And agian, that describes yourself as well.
You claim that infinity can't exist.
You claim that gravity would cause an infinite plane to collapse.

So again, who is the one is claiming to know something about infinity?

Again, if we can't know anything about infinity, your argument is nothing more than baseless wild speculation.
So are you going to admit that, or are you going to keep on pretending that you know something about infinity and that your argument is correct?

Its been proved mathematically and by observation and a combination there of:
And these have nothing to do with the hypothetical possibility of an infinite plane existing.
They have nothing to do with if gravity would cause an infinite plane to collapse.

They are entirely separate arguments which have nothing to do with your thought experiment.
Again, if you wish to appeal to them, then admit your thought experiment was completely wrong, and then we can move on.

Jack Black failed to do this so let's see how you do. How about YOU provide some proof for some of the assertions YOU have made
Again, I'm not the one with the burden of proof here.
You are the one who presented an argument which claimed that the infinite mass of an infinite plane would result in it collapsing into a black hole.
You are yet to justify that argument at all.
Instead you have repeatedly contradicted it.

Stop trying to shift your burden of proof onto others just because you know you cannot justify your claims.
You are the one who needs to justify your claims.

So how about YOU provide some proof for some of the assertions YOU have made, or admit they are wrong?

Again, do you have any proof that the infinite mass of an infinite plane would cause it to collapse into a black hole?
If not, can you admit it is wrong?
Then if you want you can try to justify your claim that an infinite plane with some irregularities would collapse.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 22, 2020, 01:21:54 PM
What is your obsessive need to prove someone wrong? Why not just stick to the truth and the facts?
What is your obsessive need to pretend you are right?
I am sticking to the truth and facts.
The truth is that gravity would not necessarily cause an infinite plane to collapse.
Your argument was wrong.

Yet you keep pretending it was right.
Even when you claim that we cannot possibly know, you still claim that you are right.

The terms of this discussion were very clear at the outset.
Yes, such as when you made your argument.
That argument made no appeal to any irregularities.
Instead it appealed to the infinite mass of the infinite plane.

We can also it by subsequent arguments, where again you just appealed to mass/size, and again ignored irregularities.

Yet now that you know you cannot justify that argument, you run from it and want to pretend you meant something else.
All so you can cover up the fact that you were completely wrong.

If you want to prove someone wrong have a go at him!
He isn't the one claiming that an infinite plane has infinite mass and thus would collapse due to gravity.
So I will keep "having a go" at you.
Unless you are ready to admit your argument was wrong.

Everyone, including yourself, latched on to second-hand extracts
No, they didn't.
I did it all by myself, without any need for other sources.

The one really pathetic truth in all this is that you appear to think that you know something about infinity.
And agian, that describes yourself as well.
You claim that infinity can't exist.
You claim that gravity would cause an infinite plane to collapse.

So again, who is the one is claiming to know something about infinity?

Again, if we can't know anything about infinity, your argument is nothing more than baseless wild speculation.
So are you going to admit that, or are you going to keep on pretending that you know something about infinity and that your argument is correct?

Its been proved mathematically and by observation and a combination there of:
And these have nothing to do with the hypothetical possibility of an infinite plane existing.
They have nothing to do with if gravity would cause an infinite plane to collapse.

They are entirely separate arguments which have nothing to do with your thought experiment.
Again, if you wish to appeal to them, then admit your thought experiment was completely wrong, and then we can move on.

Jack Black failed to do this so let's see how you do. How about YOU provide some proof for some of the assertions YOU have made
Again, I'm not the one with the burden of proof here.
You are the one who presented an argument which claimed that the infinite mass of an infinite plane would result in it collapsing into a black hole.
You are yet to justify that argument at all.
Instead you have repeatedly contradicted it.

Stop trying to shift your burden of proof onto others just because you know you cannot justify your claims.
You are the one who needs to justify your claims.

So how about YOU provide some proof for some of the assertions YOU have made, or admit they are wrong?

Again, do you have any proof that the infinite mass of an infinite plane would cause it to collapse into a black hole?
If not, can you admit it is wrong?
Then if you want you can try to justify your claim that an infinite plane with some irregularities would collapse.
I'm not pretending, I just don't happen to agree with you.
What makes you think you are right on a subject no one has any real evidence on. If you have please share it, there could be a Nobel prize in it.
You say you're sticking to the truth and facts, well that's a matter of opinion.
You do realize that this is beyond hypothetical, or do you imagine that a physical infinity exists?
An infinite plane by virtue of it being infinite would have infinite mass, have you not been paying attention?
You did it all by yourself, well clever you. Tell me how you found out all about physical infinities all on your own that should make a grand story?
I say physical infinities don't exist as that is what is currently believed by most if not all physicists in the world if you don't like it blame them.
You are free to move on whenever you wish, nothing is preventing you apart from your own belligerence.
The burden of proof is on everyone, don't you know that?
Look back at my posts and read the links and reference I have provided, there is plenty there to keep you busy for a while and you never know you might just learn something.
Whats this craving you have for an admission of being wrong, I'll tell you now on this occasion that will never happen. I have no problem with admitting I've made a mistake and owning up. As a former professional one had to own up if one had made a mistake as often there were millions riding on views and opinions I had presented. There was no room for being precious about it. On this occasion, I am not wrong. You are welcome to think I'm wrong as that's your prerogative. Though why you are obsessed with getting admission is something I don't understand. I've not asked for admission, what's the point? I think your craving for one may suggest a problem, one I certainly won't satisfy. Keep asking as long as you like. Over to you.


Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: boydster on January 22, 2020, 01:24:28 PM
However, there is no such thing in our physical universe that is infinite, it's just something that theorists play with, regardless of what Bullwinkle likes to think.
Again, has nothing to do with the thought experiment where the initial condition was that an infinite plan did. Also, the universe itself may very well be infinite, so again again, your assertions are basically meaningless because you donít seem to understand how to construct an argument at a fundamental level. Or maybe you donít understand the material you are arguing about. Or maybe all of the above. Hard to tell, honestly.
Do you have proof of the universe being infinite? Please share, the burden of proof and all that, I think that's what you said, so how about some?
Thatís not my burden of proof. The mere possibility that it could be infinite is sufficient to dispel with your assertion that you know there is nothing infinite in this universe.

Quote
If we look at the facts, with the Universe seemingly expanding I think that points to it not being infinite, just pretty big. The oldest light we have detected is just over 13 billion years old, now thats old but a long way from being infinite, so just how can you assert that the universe may be infinite? With it also being aroun13.8 billion years old, that's hardly an infinite age is with which to expand into an infinite size.
You are demonstrating your lack of understanding about infinity again. Why canít an infinite universe expand? And why canít a universe be infinite from the moment it comes into being? Letís start there.

Quote
How about YOU provide some proof for some of the assertions YOU have made
You are the one making assertions here. You are making them left and right, with no foundation laid for them at all. Every time you get called out for a poor argument, you dig deeper and shift over to a new argument based on more assertions that you havenít given any support for. Iím not sure how to help you here. Itís a bit of a runaway train. I suggest you return to your original thought experiment and try and figure out where you went wrong. We can unpack all the rest if and when we get through that first thing.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 22, 2020, 01:56:14 PM
However, there is no such thing in our physical universe that is infinite, it's just something that theorists play with, regardless of what Bullwinkle likes to think.
Again, has nothing to do with the thought experiment where the initial condition was that an infinite plan did. Also, the universe itself may very well be infinite, so again again, your assertions are basically meaningless because you donít seem to understand how to construct an argument at a fundamental level. Or maybe you donít understand the material you are arguing about. Or maybe all of the above. Hard to tell, honestly.
Do you have proof of the universe being infinite? Please share, the burden of proof and all that, I think that's what you said, so how about some?
Thatís not my burden of proof. The mere possibility that it could be infinite is sufficient to dispel with your assertion that you know there is nothing infinite in this universe.

Quote
If we look at the facts, with the Universe seemingly expanding I think that points to it not being infinite, just pretty big. The oldest light we have detected is just over 13 billion years old, now thats old but a long way from being infinite, so just how can you assert that the universe may be infinite? With it also being aroun13.8 billion years old, that's hardly an infinite age is with which to expand into an infinite size.
You are demonstrating your lack of understanding about infinity again. Why canít an infinite universe expand? And why canít a universe be infinite from the moment it comes into being? Letís start there.

Quote
How about YOU provide some proof for some of the assertions YOU have made
You are the one making assertions here. You are making them left and right, with no foundation laid for them at all. Every time you get called out for a poor argument, you dig deeper and shift over to a new argument based on more assertions that you havenít given any support for. Iím not sure how to help you here. Itís a bit of a runaway train. I suggest you return to your original thought experiment and try and figure out where you went wrong. We can unpack all the rest if and when we get through that first thing.

Letís start by you telling me how you know the universe is infinite. And then you can explain how something physically infinite would expand. Again burden of proof.
You say Iím wrong but not once have you offered any real corroborated evidence to support your own opinions. That leads me to believe you have none and all you are doing is offering your own Unsupported opinion that you are welcome to. Though itís pretty ironic that here you are on a flat earth forum asking for proof from other people.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Themightykabool on January 22, 2020, 01:58:48 PM
The distance between objects expands... To infinity and beyond!
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 22, 2020, 01:58:59 PM
I think people need to go back and read the original heading as there  is a clue in the title.
Why did I put Taxonomy there?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Themightykabool on January 22, 2020, 01:59:44 PM
If you dont know theres an end, then its assumed it goes on forver.... infinite.
Else youre assuming an end.
So then proove theres an end.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 22, 2020, 02:01:31 PM
The distance between objects expands... To infinity and beyond!
Now that is interesting. While in number theory infinities can come in different sizes, but can this apply to the physical world?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: JackBlack on January 22, 2020, 02:02:55 PM
I'm not pretending, I just don't happen to agree with you.
You certainly are pretending, and outright contradicting yourself.

What makes you think you are right on a subject no one has any real evidence on.
Do you not realise your own hypocrisy?
You claim you are correct, that your argument shows an infinite plane cannot exist, and that gravity would cause it to collapse.
Regardless of if this is meant to be for an ideal or irregular plane, that requires you to know how such an infinite plane would behave.

If we cannot know how the infinite would behave your argument is nothing more than wild speculation. It is entirely baseless.
Yet you refuse to admit that. Instead you continue to pretend you are correct.

So what is it?
Can we know about the infinite (and thus you are wrong about that), or is your argument wild speculation?

You do realize that this is beyond hypothetical, or do you imagine that a physical infinity exists?
So you don't understand what hypothetical means?
Something doesn't need to exist to discuss what would hypothetically happen.

An infinite plane by virtue of it being infinite would have infinite mass, have you not been paying attention?
And just what is this meant to be dealing with?
You just ignoring what I said?
Again, I said you were appealing to this infinite mass to say it would have infinite gravity so light couldn't escape so it would collapse into a black hole.

I was showing that that was what you were appealing to, not any irregularities.
i.e. your argument applied to a perfect, ideal plane, not just an irregular one.

The burden of proof is on everyone, don't you know that?
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
You made the claim so the burden of proof is on you.

I'll tell you now on this occasion that will never happen. I have no problem with admitting I've made a mistake and owning up.
And there you go contradicting yourself yet again.
You have made many mistakes and directly contradicted yourself, yet you refuse to admit it and own up.
Instead after realising there was no hope for you salvaging your argument you just pretended you meant something significantly different.
And then go and outright contradict yourself.

If you actually had no problem with admitting you made a mistake and owning up you would have done so already.

I just want the admission before moving on, because far too often people on these forums just spout pure nonsense and they try to change the subject to pretend they weren't wrong, only to bring up the old nonsense again later on.
If you don't want to admit you are wrong, then fine, defend your nonsense rather than trying to change the subject.

I'm fine with moving on from a perfectly regular plane to one with irregularities. I can happily show your argument there isn't sound either.
But again, before moving on, I want you to realise and accept that your initial argument was completely wrong, as was the justification you tried to use to prop it up. They both relied upon treating an infinite object as if it was a very large finite object.

Again your original argument made no appeal to any irregularities and if it was sound would also apply to a regular, perfect, ideal infinite plane.
Likewise you argument that any object above a certain size would collapse into a sphere had no requirement for any irregularities other than it not being a sphere, as such, if sound it would also apply to a regular, perfect, ideal infinite plane.

This was the argument you presented and the "evidence" or "justification" you tried to use to prop it up.

This means you were arguing against a regular, perfect, ideal infinite plane.

Now can you show that such a plane is inherently unstable and would collapse into a black hole?
If not, can you admit your mistake and own up?

Again, if you wish to appeal to us not being able to know about how the infinite would behave, that would also mean admitting your mistake and owning up as your argument relies upon knowing how the infinite would behave.

Why did I put Taxonomy there?
Because you wanted to sound fancy?
Are you now going to try and say you were just providing an example on one type of thought experiment, a type which is clearly flawed where pretend to know things they don't to argue for a conclusion which is not actually supported?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Themightykabool on January 22, 2020, 02:03:29 PM
Both jackb (re) and boyd (fe) have agreed and pointed out you are wrong in premise and your bad premise, as pointed out, is their evidence of it.

Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 22, 2020, 02:05:18 PM
If you dont know theres an end, then its assumed it goes on forver.... infinite.
Else youre assuming an end.
So then proove theres an end.

Thatís just the point. If there were an edge it would not be infinite. Having an edge is a property of the finite. Thatís why an expanding infinity makes no sense as itís already infinite.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Themightykabool on January 22, 2020, 02:09:23 PM
...
Lets say you have infinite balls lined up, all touching, infinitely in a straight line.
You push two balls appart.
So that the balls start rolling away from each other from that point.
Infinitely left.   
Infinitely right.
Is it expanding in terms of the gap?
Is it still infinite?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 22, 2020, 02:11:28 PM
Both jackb (re) and boyd (fe) have agreed and pointed out you are wrong in premise and your bad premise, as pointed out, is their evidence of it.
They have agreed, what do you think that proves?
Like yourself they  appear to think And say some odd things.
For example Jack B thinks an infinite plane would have finite mass, while The flying pig person thinks the universe is infinite, but wonít disclose how old he thinks it is. While you imagine a physical infinity can expand! And you think Iím wrong!
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Themightykabool on January 22, 2020, 02:12:36 PM
If you dont know theres an end, then its assumed it goes on forver.... infinite.
Else youre assuming an end.
So then proove theres an end.

Thatís just the point. If there were an edge it would not be infinite. Having an edge is a property of the finite. Thatís why an expanding infinity makes no sense as itís already infinite.

Also
Specifically to this point was regards to burden of proof.
You have issue proving infinity.
But if the edge is finitely away but reeeeeeaaaaaly far away.
How then would you be able to prove theres an end?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 22, 2020, 02:13:34 PM
...
Lets say you have infinite balls lined up, all touching, infinitely in a straight line.
You push two balls appart.
So that the balls start rolling away from each other from that point.
Infinitely left.   
Infinitely right.
Is it expanding in terms of the gap?
Is it still infinite?
Are we speaking about the physical world here?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 22, 2020, 02:15:44 PM
If you dont know theres an end, then its assumed it goes on forver.... infinite.
Else youre assuming an end.
So then proove theres an end.

Thatís just the point. If there were an edge it would not be infinite. Having an edge is a property of the finite. Thatís why an expanding infinity makes no sense as itís already infinite.

Also
Specifically to this point was regards to burden of proof.
You have issue proving infinity.
But if the edge is finitely away but reeeeeeaaaaaly far away.
How then would you be able to prove theres an end?

Exactly, infinite means infinite no edge exists as itís infinite.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 22, 2020, 02:21:26 PM
Iím regard to your touching infinite line of balls all touching. If that were the case I imagine you would not be a able to move them as you would be pushing against infinite mass.
Thought experiments of the entertainment variety are just that, entertaining and should not be taken too seriously. What has emerged is that people donít really have a grasp of what a physical infinity really is abc means.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: JackBlack on January 22, 2020, 02:35:38 PM
Thatís why an expanding infinity makes no sense as itís already infinite.
And there you go not understanding infinity again.

Note: Assuming it is infinite.
Yes, it is already infinite.
Yes, after expanding it will still be infinite.
What you are ignoring is the finite distance between 2 objects.
After expanding this finite distance will increase.

A simple example is the number line, where you focus on all the integers.
If you expand by a factor of 10, you instead have all the multiples of 10.
It expanded but it was and still is infinite.

It isn't the edge is moving further away. It is that EVERYTHING is moving further away from everything else.

For example Jack B thinks an infinite plane would have finite mass
So now you resort to blatantly lying about what I have said?
Where have I said an infinite plane has finite mass?

I have said it has a finite gravitational field, in the sense that the value for the field at any point is finite.

I pointed out that you were appealing to the infinite mass and infinite size and thus your argument would apply to any object with infinite mass and size, not needing any irregularities.

I also pointed out that you were treating this infinite plane as if it was just a very large finite object.
But I don't recall ever claiming that it has finite mass.

What has emerged is that people donít really have a grasp of what a physical infinity really is abc means.
You especially.
As your argument against it relied upon treating it as if it was just a very large finite object.

So how about you stop blatantly lying about what people have said, stop pretending your argument was something it was not and either defend your argument or admit it was wrong.

Remember, saying we don't know how the infinite behaves is not defending your argument, it is attacking it and thus if you truly believe that you should admit your argument is baseless (i.e. wrong).

Also note that saying the argument is wrong doesn't mean the conclusion is. It means the conclusion is not supported by that argument, either due to problems with the logic of the argument, or problems with the premises.

This also means that otherwise defending your conclusion is not defending your argument.

Now again, can you explain why the infinite mass will result in infinite gravity which would cause the plane to collapse into a black hole?
If not, can you admit your mistake and own up, either by saying you were wrong because we know how it would behave, and even with infinite mass, there is no reason for it to collapse or by saying you cannot possibly know how such an infinite mass would behave and thus were wrong to make such a conclusion?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: boydster on January 22, 2020, 02:49:41 PM
Letís start by you telling me how you know the universe is infinite.

I never said it was. I said it could very well be. A flat universe, as opposed to an open or closed one, would theoretically extend infinitely.

Quote
And then you can explain how something physically infinite would expand.
Weren't you the one that brought up the Hilbert Hotel example before? That exemplifies the answer you are looking for. And funny enough, also indicates you aren't considering the fact that there different types of infinities - infinity is not a singular concept.

Quote
Again burden of proof.
You say Iím wrong but not once have you offered any real corroborated evidence to support your own opinions. That leads me to believe you have none and all you are doing is offering your own Unsupported opinion that you are welcome to. Though itís pretty ironic that here you are on a flat earth forum asking for proof from other people.
YOU made the positive claims here, which places the burden of proof squarely on your shoulders. That's how it works.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Themightykabool on January 22, 2020, 02:56:56 PM
Both jackb (re) and boyd (fe) have agreed and pointed out you are wrong in premise and your bad premise, as pointed out, is their evidence of it.
They have agreed, what do you think that proves?
Like yourself they  appear to think And say some odd things.
For example Jack B thinks an infinite plane would have finite mass, while The flying pig person thinks the universe is infinite, but won’t disclose how old he thinks it is. While you imagine a physical infinity can expand! And you think I’m wrong!

Dafuq you on about, man?
Theyre not thinking anything other than you made a bad premise.
And by your bad requirement for them to prove against your bad premise.
i conclude the same.
They dont need to proove themseleves   rightper se, just that what you said is wrong.
Think peer reviewwd scientific journals.
A fellow peer doesnt need to solve the problem, just verify or dispute the journal istelf
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: boydster on January 22, 2020, 02:59:49 PM
Both jackb (re) and boyd (fe) have agreed and pointed out you are wrong in premise and your bad premise, as pointed out, is their evidence of it.
They have agreed, what do you think that proves?
Like yourself they  appear to think And say some odd things.
For example Jack B thinks an infinite plane would have finite mass, while The flying pig person thinks the universe is infinite, but wonít disclose how old he thinks it is. While you imagine a physical infinity can expand! And you think Iím wrong!
You are fucking bonkers, dude! Everything about what you said here is a gross mischaracterization of what has transpired. I don't even know how you arrived at this post. JackBlack didn't say what you said he did, I didn't say what your said I did, I didn't refuse to answer anything regarding the age of the universe (which, tangentially, has literally nothing to do with this conversation anyway), and there is absolutely no reason that something infinite in expanse cannot still expand. None of this is controversial. Why you think so is a mystery to me.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 22, 2020, 03:00:32 PM
Both jackb (re) and boyd (fe) have agreed and pointed out you are wrong in premise and your bad premise, as pointed out, is their evidence of it.
They have agreed, what do you think that proves?
Like yourself they  appear to think And say some odd things.
For example Jack B thinks an infinite plane would have finite mass, while The flying pig person thinks the universe is infinite, but wonít disclose how old he thinks it is. While you imagine a physical infinity can expand! And you think Iím wrong!

Dafuq you on about, man?
Theyre not thinking anything other than you made a bad premise.
And by your bad requirement for them to prove against your bad premise.
i conclude the same.
They dont need to proove themseleves   rightper se, just that what you said is wrong.

Only in their opinion. It just so happens I disagree with them.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: boydster on January 22, 2020, 03:03:58 PM
You aren't entitled to you own facts, sir.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 22, 2020, 03:08:40 PM
Both jackb (re) and boyd (fe) have agreed and pointed out you are wrong in premise and your bad premise, as pointed out, is their evidence of it.
They have agreed, what do you think that proves?
Like yourself they  appear to think And say some odd things.
For example Jack B thinks an infinite plane would have finite mass, while The flying pig person thinks the universe is infinite, but wonít disclose how old he thinks it is. While you imagine a physical infinity can expand! And you think Iím wrong!
You are fucking bonkers, dude! Everything about what you said here is a gross mischaracterization of what has transpired. I don't even know how you arrived at this post. JackBlack didn't say what you said he did, I didn't say what your said I did, I didn't refuse to answer anything regarding the age of the universe (which, tangentially, has literally nothing to do with this conversation anyway), and there is absolutely no reason that something infinite in expanse cannot still expand. None of this is controversial. Why you think so is a mystery to me.
Thatís a bit uncalled for what with you a moderator. I just donít agree with you. Whatís your problem? Is disagreement not allowed? Do you have a monopoly on being right? Many of the things you have said are either unfounded or just plain wrong in my opinion. The fact that you have to resort to abusive language really speaks volumes.
Ok what do you think the age of the universe is?
You honestly think that a physical infinity can expand? Where did you come by that? Or do you just happen to think it? As Iíve said different sized infinities can exist in the world of maths but not in the physical world. Now you can choose to disagree, but not claim to be right.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 22, 2020, 03:09:46 PM
You aren't entitled to you own facts, sir.
Nothing you have said about physical infinities can be said to be facts.
The only fact is they donít exist.
Read this
https://philpapers.org/archive/SEWTCA
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: boydster on January 22, 2020, 03:17:37 PM
The only fact is they donít exist.
That's an assertion you haven't demonstrated to be true. You don't just get cry that everyone else is wrong because you are the arbiter of truth, and anything you say should be left unquestioned. You have made the positive assertions in this thread, you have been unable to actually back them up, you have been the one moving the goalposts, and you are the one refusing to own up to being wrong. That's not on anyone else here.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: boydster on January 22, 2020, 03:23:19 PM
(this was added after the fact...)
https://philpapers.org/archive/SEWTCA
It's a nice opinion piece. Not really much more than that.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Themightykabool on January 22, 2020, 04:11:38 PM
...
Lets say you have infinite balls lined up, all touching, infinitely in a straight line.
You push two balls appart.
So that the balls start rolling away from each other from that point.
Infinitely left.   
Infinitely right.
Is it expanding in terms of the gap?
Is it still infinite?
Are we speaking about the physical world here?

Its a thought experiemnt about hypothetical.
Go look up hypothetical definition.

The analogy was to show how infinity can expand.
Not about the practicality of placing inf balls of greater than zero mass in a row and being able to push them.
Seriously.
Relax.
Maybe you put on your underwear backwards this morning.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Themightykabool on January 22, 2020, 04:13:10 PM
If you dont know theres an end, then its assumed it goes on forver.... infinite.
Else youre assuming an end.
So then proove theres an end.

Thatís just the point. If there were an edge it would not be infinite. Having an edge is a property of the finite. Thatís why an expanding infinity makes no sense as itís already infinite.

Also
Specifically to this point was regards to burden of proof.
You have issue proving infinity.
But if the edge is finitely away but reeeeeeaaaaaly far away.
How then would you be able to prove theres an end?

Exactly, infinite means infinite no edge exists as itís infinite.

Right
Prove its infinite.
If you cant.
Prove its not infinite.
If you cant.
Then boyd is right - bad premise.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Themightykabool on January 22, 2020, 04:21:34 PM
Both jackb (re) and boyd (fe) have agreed and pointed out you are wrong in premise and your bad premise, as pointed out, is their evidence of it.
They have agreed, what do you think that proves?
Like yourself they  appear to think And say some odd things.
For example Jack B thinks an infinite plane would have finite mass, while The flying pig person thinks the universe is infinite, but wonít disclose how old he thinks it is. While you imagine a physical infinity can expand! And you think Iím wrong!
You are fucking bonkers, dude! Everything about what you said here is a gross mischaracterization of what has transpired. I don't even know how you arrived at this post. JackBlack didn't say what you said he did, I didn't say what your said I did, I didn't refuse to answer anything regarding the age of the universe (which, tangentially, has literally nothing to do with this conversation anyway), and there is absolutely no reason that something infinite in expanse cannot still expand. None of this is controversial. Why you think so is a mystery to me.
Thatís a bit uncalled for what with you a moderator. I just donít agree with you. Whatís your problem? Is disagreement not allowed? Do you have a monopoly on being right? Many of the things you have said are either unfounded or just plain wrong in my opinion. The fact that you have to resort to abusive language really speaks volumes.
Ok what do you think the age of the universe is?
You honestly think that a physical infinity can expand? Where did you come by that? Or do you just happen to think it? As Iíve said different sized infinities can exist in the world of maths but not in the physical world. Now you can choose to disagree, but not claim to be right.

Nope
I said dafuq you on about.
He called you bonkrrs.
And ol man jackB is whining about his integrity being called into question.
At pg7 you have definitely tried our patience short of ALL CAPSing you rants.
Keep calm and carry on, in a much more calmer calm, because your current verbage is coming across as very not calm.
Uncalm.
Discalm.
Anticalm.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: rabinoz on January 22, 2020, 04:24:10 PM
For example Jack B thinks an infinite plane would have finite mass!
Where exactly did JackBlack say he "thinks an infinite plane would have finite mass"?

The exact words, thank you!
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Themightykabool on January 22, 2020, 04:50:28 PM
Do a search here.
I had a discussion with jane once.
Im sure others have gone over the topic as well.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 22, 2020, 11:35:28 PM
(this was added after the fact...)
https://philpapers.org/archive/SEWTCA
It's a nice opinion piece. Not really much more than that.

All I can say itís a lot more coherent and substantial that the nil references you have presented. Much as you donít like it my opinions are based on the current belief out there among professional Physicists, while your ideas and views come from where?
And youíve still not provided your take on the age of the universe and how you arrived at it.
Reminds me of The Bishop moon distance secret.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 22, 2020, 11:40:26 PM
Both jackb (re) and boyd (fe) have agreed and pointed out you are wrong in premise and your bad premise, as pointed out, is their evidence of it.

I really have to refer to this again. I present information based on current papers produced by professional researchers/physicists yet you would choose to believe the opinions of two people because they agree with each other! Thatís a very dubious way of forming opinions, but each to his own.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 22, 2020, 11:45:45 PM
For example Jack B thinks an infinite plane would have finite mass!
Where exactly did JackBlack say he "thinks an infinite plane would have finite mass"?

The exact words, thank you!

If you want to trawl through the incoherent ravings of mr Black then be my guest, you want it go find it.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 22, 2020, 11:52:32 PM
You aren't entitled to you own facts, sir.

You speak about facts. You speak about burden of proof. In this whole discussion your facts all appear to be based on ONE link you posted. One link to this very website!
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: rabinoz on January 23, 2020, 12:15:46 AM
Where exactly did JackBlack say he "thinks an infinite plane would have finite mass"?

The exact words, thank you!

If you want to trawl through the incoherent ravings of mr Black then be my guest, you want it go find it.
You made the accusation so the onus is on you to provide evidence supporting your accusation.
So, "The exact words, thank you!".
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: JackBlack on January 23, 2020, 12:39:14 AM
Only in their opinion. It just so happens I disagree with them.
No, not just only in our opinion.
On a factual basis.
You disagreeing with facts doesn't magically make them just opinion.

You have set yourself up so you MUST be wrong about at least some of what you have said.

I just donít agree with you.
No, you are making claims of fact which are false.
You are blatantly lying, and repeatedly insulting people.
And you insist that you are correct, not just in your opinion.
That is not just simple disagreement.

As Iíve said
And that is the problem. You just say things. You don't bother justifying them.

See when rational mature adults disagree they don't repeatedly claim that they are correct and the other people just have opinions and repeatedly insult the other people, all while refusing to back up their claims.
There are a few things they can do, such as openly admit that what they are presenting is just their opinion and that they may in fact be wrong.
Or they could actually defend their claims. And no, demanding people prove you wrong is not defending your claims.

Now you can choose to disagree, but not claim to be right.
No, as we can actually explain what is wrong with your argument, there is no reason for us to not claim to be right.
Meanwhile, as you refuse to provide any justification for your claims, it is you who has no basis to claim they are right.

So if you want to disagree, how about you try to defend your position?
Clearly explain how we can know that the infinite mass of an infinite plane would cause it to collapse into a black hole.
Especially considering you also claim we couldn't possibly know how such an infinite object would behave.

Nothing you have said about physical infinities can be said to be facts.
The only fact is they donít exist.
Again, PROVE IT! (Actually, not yet, wait until you either admit that your initial argument was wrong, or actually defend it).
Especially note that you have said that we cannot know anything about them. So how can we know that they don't exist?
As boydster asked, can you show that the universe is not infinite?

Also, the paper you are providing is just more baseless claims, where it even goes as far as saying that the set of all integers is not infinite, which is pure nonsense.

And youíve still not provided your take on the age of the universe and how you arrived at it.
Reminds me of The Bishop moon distance secret.
Really?
It should more remind you of Tom Bishop's deflection tactics where he does all he can to avoid the issues.
After all, that is exactly what you are doing.

I really have to refer to this again. I present information based on current papers produced by professional researchers/physicists
You mean you misrepresent them.
Again, nothing there backs up your argument.
As already pointed out, some directly contradicts your argument.
That is a very dubious ways of pretending your baseless opinion is justified.
Literally taking things that show you are wrong, to pretend you are correct, or just completely misapplying them.

Do you even understand your own references?
Or do you just look for whatever you think can back you up?

you want it go find it.
So yet again you refuse to back up your claims.

If you claim someone has said something, the burden is on you to show that.

Now again, can you actually back up your argument?
Can you show the infinite mass of an infinite plane will cause it to collapse into a black hole?
Or now that there isn't millions of dollars on the line and instead it is just your ego are you unable to admit your mistakes and own up?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 23, 2020, 02:06:27 AM
Where exactly did JackBlack say he "thinks an infinite plane would have finite mass"?

The exact words, thank you!

If you want to trawl through the incoherent ravings of mr Black then be my guest, you want it go find it.
You made the accusation so the onus is on you to provide evidence supporting your accusation.
So, "The exact words, thank you!".

This is a long discussion, if you really need to read something then go find it yourself. 
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 23, 2020, 02:12:12 AM
Only in their opinion. It just so happens I disagree with them.
No, not just only in our opinion.
On a factual basis.
You disagreeing with facts doesn't magically make them just opinion.

You have set yourself up so you MUST be wrong about at least some of what you have said.

I just donít agree with you.
No, you are making claims of fact which are false.
You are blatantly lying, and repeatedly insulting people.
And you insist that you are correct, not just in your opinion.
That is not just simple disagreement.

As Iíve said
And that is the problem. You just say things. You don't bother justifying them.

See when rational mature adults disagree they don't repeatedly claim that they are correct and the other people just have opinions and repeatedly insult the other people, all while refusing to back up their claims.
There are a few things they can do, such as openly admit that what they are presenting is just their opinion and that they may in fact be wrong.
Or they could actually defend their claims. And no, demanding people prove you wrong is not defending your claims.

Now you can choose to disagree, but not claim to be right.
No, as we can actually explain what is wrong with your argument, there is no reason for us to not claim to be right.
Meanwhile, as you refuse to provide any justification for your claims, it is you who has no basis to claim they are right.

So if you want to disagree, how about you try to defend your position?
Clearly explain how we can know that the infinite mass of an infinite plane would cause it to collapse into a black hole.
Especially considering you also claim we couldn't possibly know how such an infinite object would behave.

Nothing you have said about physical infinities can be said to be facts.
The only fact is they donít exist.
Again, PROVE IT! (Actually, not yet, wait until you either admit that your initial argument was wrong, or actually defend it).
Especially note that you have said that we cannot know anything about them. So how can we know that they don't exist?
As boydster asked, can you show that the universe is not infinite?

Also, the paper you are providing is just more baseless claims, where it even goes as far as saying that the set of all integers is not infinite, which is pure nonsense.

And youíve still not provided your take on the age of the universe and how you arrived at it.
Reminds me of The Bishop moon distance secret.
Really?
It should more remind you of Tom Bishop's deflection tactics where he does all he can to avoid the issues.
After all, that is exactly what you are doing.

I really have to refer to this again. I present information based on current papers produced by professional researchers/physicists
You mean you misrepresent them.
Again, nothing there backs up your argument.
As already pointed out, some directly contradicts your argument.
That is a very dubious ways of pretending your baseless opinion is justified.
Literally taking things that show you are wrong, to pretend you are correct, or just completely misapplying them.

Do you even understand your own references?
Or do you just look for whatever you think can back you up?

you want it go find it.
So yet again you refuse to back up your claims.

If you claim someone has said something, the burden is on you to show that.

Now again, can you actually back up your argument?
Can you show the infinite mass of an infinite plane will cause it to collapse into a black hole?
Or now that there isn't millions of dollars on the line and instead it is just your ego are you unable to admit your mistakes and own up?

Ok you say what you presented was based on facts.
Here is your chance to prove me wrong.
Present your facts with links to show or prove their authenticity.
Iím not prepared to just take your word for it.
The problem is the facts I have come across are from researchers, based at universities around the world. I can check the validity of their credentials. The other problem what they say is at odds with what you say.
What we can then do is compare, your facts V my facts.
How about it?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: JackBlack on January 23, 2020, 02:20:42 AM
This is a long discussion, if you really need to read something then go find it yourself.
It isn't a matter of us needing to read something.
It is entirely due to you blatantly lying and again refusing to back up your claims.
But again, you wont admit mistake and own up.

Ok you say what you presented was based on facts.
Here is your chance to prove me wrong.
I have already have proven you wrong. You ignoring that doesn't change that fact.

In order for you to not be wrong, you need to prove your argument is correct.
You are yet to do so. Instead you have used a link which shows you are wrong, and you have stated that you couldn't possibly know anyway.

The problem is the facts I have come across are from researchers, based at universities around the world. I can check the validity of their credentials. The other problem what they say is at odds with what you say.
No, they are not at odds with what I say.
They do not support you at all.
Most are entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
The only thing which directly discussed your argument clearly demonstrated it was wrong.

Now again, stop trying to shift the burden of proof.
It rests entirely upon you.

You need to show that your argument is correct.
You are yet to do so. Unless you can do so, you will remain wrong.

Now again, can you justify your claim that the gravity due to the infinite mass of an infinite plane would cause it to collapse into a black hole?
If not, you are wrong.

If you can, then that shows that we can know about the infinite, and again you are wrong.
Either way, you are wrong.

Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Bullwinkle on January 23, 2020, 02:20:55 AM

The problem is the facts I have come across are from researchers, based at universities around the world.

I agree.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 23, 2020, 03:35:23 AM
This is a long discussion, if you really need to read something then go find it yourself.
It isn't a matter of us needing to read something.
It is entirely due to you blatantly lying and again refusing to back up your claims.
But again, you wont admit mistake and own up.

Ok you say what you presented was based on facts.
Here is your chance to prove me wrong.
I have already have proven you wrong. You ignoring that doesn't change that fact.

In order for you to not be wrong, you need to prove your argument is correct.
You are yet to do so. Instead you have used a link which shows you are wrong, and you have stated that you couldn't possibly know anyway.

The problem is the facts I have come across are from researchers, based at universities around the world. I can check the validity of their credentials. The other problem what they say is at odds with what you say.
No, they are not at odds with what I say.
They do not support you at all.
Most are entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
The only thing which directly discussed your argument clearly demonstrated it was wrong.

Now again, stop trying to shift the burden of proof.
It rests entirely upon you.

You need to show that your argument is correct.
You are yet to do so. Unless you can do so, you will remain wrong.

Now again, can you justify your claim that the gravity due to the infinite mass of an infinite plane would cause it to collapse into a black hole?
If not, you are wrong.

If you can, then that shows that we can know about the infinite, and again you are wrong.
Either way, you are wrong.

Why do you keep repeating the same thing over and over again? What do you hope to gain?
Here was a golden opportunity for you to nail me down with your superior facts.

So, in other words, reading between your lines, you're not up for presenting your facts on which you based your argument. You prefer to keep them a secret. What I wonder is why are you shying away from that opportunity? It tends to make me suspicious. I'm well up for presenting and standing by my facts as given the various academic sources from which they came I think they are pretty robust. No flat earth forum link insight, unlike the flying pig person! I  would have imagined it would have given you an ideal opportunity to demonstrate that your facts were superior to mine, but alas no, you would just rather repeat yourself.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: JackBlack on January 23, 2020, 03:44:01 AM
Why do you keep repeating the same thing over and over again?
Why do you keep refusing to back up your argument in any way?
Just what do you hope to gain with all the deflections?

Stop projecting your own inadequecies onto others and try to meet your burden of proof.

I have already presented a disproof, which you just ignored.
You were unable to point out a single issue with it.

I'm well up for presenting and standing by my facts
That clearly isn't the case at all.
You are yet to present anything which backs up your argument.
You have been asked for this repeatedly, yet you continue to just deflect and throw insults.

Again, can you justify your argument?
Can you show how gravity would cause the infinite mass to collapse into a black hole?
You are yet to present anything which supports that in any way.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 23, 2020, 04:09:14 AM
Why do you keep repeating the same thing over and over again?
Why do you keep refusing to back up your argument in any way?
Just what do you hope to gain with all the deflections?

Stop projecting your own inadequecies onto others and try to meet your burden of proof.

I have already presented a disproof, which you just ignored.
You were unable to point out a single issue with it.

I'm well up for presenting and standing by my facts
That clearly isn't the case at all.
You are yet to present anything which backs up your argument.
You have been asked for this repeatedly, yet you continue to just deflect and throw insults.

Again, can you justify your argument?
Can you show how gravity would cause the infinite mass to collapse into a black hole?
You are yet to present anything which supports that in any way.

So you're going to keep the sources that support all your claims a secret?
Insults what insults, you're the one along with your flying pig pal who was dishing out the insults. Let's be accurate and stick to the facts.
Who was it who resorted to using profanities? answer that clever clogs.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: boydster on January 23, 2020, 04:14:28 AM
I present information based on current papers produced by professional researchers/physicists ...
The resource you shared most recently was a philosophy paper. Did you not realize that??

You can link to all the papers in the world, and it still won't mean you have made a cogent argument.

Why do you keep repeating the same thing over and over again?
Why do you keep refusing to back up your argument in any way?
Just what do you hope to gain with all the deflections?

Stop projecting your own inadequecies onto others and try to meet your burden of proof.

I have already presented a disproof, which you just ignored.
You were unable to point out a single issue with it.

I'm well up for presenting and standing by my facts
That clearly isn't the case at all.
You are yet to present anything which backs up your argument.
You have been asked for this repeatedly, yet you continue to just deflect and throw insults.

Again, can you justify your argument?
Can you show how gravity would cause the infinite mass to collapse into a black hole?
You are yet to present anything which supports that in any way.

So you're going to keep the sources that support all your claims a secret?
Insults what insults, you're the one along with your flying pig pal who dishing out the insults.
Who was it who resorted to using profanities? answer that clever clogs.

YOU have made the claims in this thread. Stop telling other people to back up whatever you think the opposing sides to your claims are. You haven't been able to make a case for pretty much anything you've said yet, but you are persistently on attack mode.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 23, 2020, 04:24:33 AM
What can one do?
You offer a person the way out this morass by offering a comparison of supported facts rather than an unsupported opinion which is worth next to nothing.
He says and I quote:

"You are yet to present anything which backs up your argument"


http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Gravity+on+an+infinite+Flat+Earth+Plane
https://www.edge.org/conversation/next-step-infinity
https://philpapers.org/archive/SEWTCA
Lagrange Lecture: Methodology of Numerical Computations with Infinities and Infinitesimals.Yaroslav Sergeyev - 2010 - Rendiconti Del Seminario Matematico dell'Universitŗ E Del Politecnico di Torino68 (2):95Ė113.
Philosophy and Cosmology 2012 (The Journal of International Society of Philosophy and Cosmology (ISPC) ).Oleg Bazaluk (ed.) - 2012 - ISPC
Part IV. Perspectives on Infinity From Physics and Cosmology : 7. Some Considerations on Infinity in Physics / Carlo Rovelli ; 8. Cosmological Intimations of Infinity / Anthony Aguirre ; 9. Infinity and the Nostalgia of the Stars/ Marco Bersanelli ; 10. Infinities in Cosmology. [REVIEW]Michael Heller - 2011 - In Michał Heller & W. H. Woodin (eds.), Infinity: New Research Frontiers. Cambridge University Press.
Actual Versus Potential Infinity (BPhil Manuscript.).Anne Newstead - 1997 - Dissertation, University of Oxford
The Case Against Infinity.Kip Sewell - manuscript
The Universe Around Them: Cosmology and Cosmic Renewal in Indianized South-East Asia.H. G. Quaritch Wales - 1977 - A. Probsthain.
Theism and Physical Cosmology.Hans Halvorson - 2010 - In Charles Taliaferro, Victoria Harrison & Stewart Goetz (eds.), Routledge Companion to Theism.
Infinity: New Research Frontiers.Michał Heller & W. H. Woodin (eds.) - 2011 - Cambridge University Press.
Cosmic Agnosticism.Timothy E. Eastman - 2007 - Process Studies 36 (2):181-197.
The Harmony of the Spheres: Speculations on Western Man's Ever-Changing Views of the Cosmos, From Hesiod (700 B.C.) to Newton (1650 A.D.). [REVIEW]Robert Navon - 1991 - Selene Books.
Philosophy and Cosmology 2008 (The Journal of International Society of Philosophy and Cosmology (ISPC) ).Oleg Bazaluk (ed.) - 2008 - ISPC.
Philosophy and Cosmology 2011 (The Journal of International Society of Philosophy and Cosmology (ISPC) ).Oleg Bazaluk (ed.) - 2011 - ISPC.
On Describing the Total Universe as the Non-Self-Similar Fractal (NSSF) Set.Tim Crowther - manuscript
Cosmology and Political Culture in Early China.Aihe Wang - 2000 - Cambridge University Press

I could have presented more but thought it would be overkill. I think this is the best of them. I wonder if Mr Black has read it
Infinity: New Research Frontiers.Michał Heller & W. H. Woodin (eds.) - 2011 - Cambridge University Press.

here is a summary
'The infinite! No other question has ever moved so profoundly the spirit of man; no other idea has so fruitfully stimulated his intellect; yet no other concept stands in greater need of clarification than that of the infinite.' David Hilbert (1862-1943). This interdisciplinary study of infinity explores the concept through the prism of mathematics and then offers more expansive investigations in areas beyond mathematical boundaries to reflect the broader, deeper implications of infinity for human intellectual thought. More than a dozen world-renowned researchers in the fields of mathematics, physics, cosmology, philosophy, and theology offer a rich intellectual exchange among various current viewpoints, rather than a static picture of accepted views on infinity. The book starts with a historical examination of the transformation of infinity from a philosophical and theological study to one dominated by mathematics. It then offers technical discussions on the understanding of mathematical infinity. Following this, the book considers the perspectives of physics and cosmology: Can infinity be found in the real universe? Finally, the book returns to questions of philosophical and theological aspects of infinity"--Provided by publisher.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: boydster on January 23, 2020, 04:31:26 AM
Le sigh. Again, YOU designed your thought experiment, and YOU were demonstrably wrong, and YOU are looking for a way to deflect here. It's abundantly clear.

I'm not even sure about the "slight imperfections making it collapse." I can't recall where I saw it, but I seem to remember there being an argument that if the imperfections were roughly evenly distributed (much like matter being pretty much evenly distributed in the universe, although there are obviously local places like galaxies with higher concentrations), small local variances wouldn't be a problem.u

Regardless, I think the person claiming that a small imperfection would cause an infinite plane to collapse should actually demonstrate it. Burden of proof, and all that.

Burden of proof and all that, how about you prove an infinite plane could actually exist........or donít you realise all this discussion is hypothetical in the extreme as nothing infinite exists in the real physical world.
A) The proof that an infinite plan could actually exist has been already provided to you
B) This was your thought experiment
C) I'm not sure you can back up your assertion that nothing infinite exists
D) I'm quite sure you can't demonstrate a proof of the claim regarding an infinite plane collapsing due to local irregularities, when overall it's still essentially homogeneous
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: totallackey on January 23, 2020, 04:43:15 AM
the earth by implication would have to collapse into a black hole to obey the laws of physics
We would not and never have existed due to the earth being a black hole

If a thought experiment is to have any ultimate logical scientific credibility at some time it has to engage with known scientific truths. In this instance we can see through just thinking about it the earth could never be an infinite plane in this universe obeying its rules. An infinite earth could only exist in another universe with very different laws or exist in someoneís imagination.

ergo, in this universe the earth is not an infinite plane, flat or otherwise.
I wonder why you would post a link http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Gravity+on+an+infinite+Flat+Earth+Plane (http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Gravity+on+an+infinite+Flat+Earth+Plane) (which you claim supports this post of yours), that contains the following statement:

"Such a Flat Earth would not collapse into a sphere, theoretically."
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: rabinoz on January 23, 2020, 04:49:14 AM
the earth by implication would have to collapse into a black hole to obey the laws of physics
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ergo, in this universe the earth is not an infinite plane, flat or otherwise.
I wonder why you would post a link http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Gravity+on+an+infinite+Flat+Earth+Plane (http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Gravity+on+an+infinite+Flat+Earth+Plane) (which you claim supports this post of yours), that contains the following statement:

"Such a Flat Earth would not collapse into a sphere, theoretically."
That's the simple point that Timeisup seems unable to grasp and it hinges on that word "theoretically".

If he accepted that then he could debate about all the points he sees wrong as much as he liked with no complaint.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Bullwinkle on January 23, 2020, 05:14:53 AM
Tim Eisup is tenacious.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: JackBlack on January 23, 2020, 12:27:36 PM
So you're going to keep the sources that support all your claims a secret?
Again, do you bother reading what has been said?
I have already provided arguments which show you to be wrong, which you were unable to refute and instead just dismissed or ignored.
You provided a link to a page which has more complex math which clearly shows you are wrong.

Yet you still refuse to admit it.

Again, can you actually back up your argument?

So far you have made an argument, then just dismissed anyone who showed it was wrong.
Tried to back it up with more failed argument, which were also refuted.
You linked to a bunch of irrelevant "evidence".
You then realised you were completely wrong, but rather than admit it decided to just pretend you meant something else all along, and provided a link which also refuted you, but which also contained a statement with absolutely no backing which you decided to latch on to and pretend you were arguing all along.
Meanwhile you also repeatedly tried to change the subject to completely different arguments against an infinite plane, several of which had nothing at all to do with gravity, and tried to dismiss refutations of your claims by saying we can't possibly know anything about how the infinite would behave, which would refute your argument.

He says and I quote:
"You are yet to present anything which backs up your argument"
Yes, because you haven't.

Skipping this large dump of references that you clearly haven't bothered reading, these are the links you have posted:
https://www.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/nvmm-math-fallingbodies/galileos-falling-bodies/#.XhbxOcqnyhA - A simple discussion of gravity with no mention of any infinite plane or its stability.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1829-4 - Observation of a distant galaxy with nothing to do with the gravitational stability of an infinite plane.
https://www.astro.uu.se/~hoefner/astro/teach/apd_files/apd_collapse.pdf - A discussion of an infinite expanse of gas, which relies upon the gas having a density that is proportional to pressure and a yield strength of 0, and thus not relevant to the discussion.
https://www.edge.org/conversation/next-step-infinity - Nothing at all to do with the gravitational stability of an infinite plane.
https://philpapers.org/archive/SEWTCA - Nothing at all to do with the gravitational stability of an infinite plane.
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Gravity+on+an+infinite+Flat+Earth+Plane - Finally, one which actually deals with the topic at hand. This shows that based upon our current understanding of gravity, an infinite plane would be stable and not collapse. The only thing which even comes close to supporting you is the baseless claim that any irregularity would cause it to collapse. Note that this statement, unlike the rest, is supported by literally nothing. I don't care who says it. A statement with no support is baseless. But also quite important, that doesn't back up your argument. Again, your argument made no mention of any irregularities. You appealed to the infinite which you claim would result in infinite gravity and thus cause it to collapse into a black hole. Likewise elsewhere you appealed to the size being above a certain limit. Your argument applies equally to a perfect infinite plane. This reference clearly shows you are wrong, and that there is no basis for your claim that such a plane would collapse.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IoO7a6G8gJYC&pg=PA356&lpg=PA356&dq=Spitzer+infinite+plane+stability&source=bl&ots=V4j14I0JnG&sig=ACfU3U3F7JrMA-TNndRGvUKcmJYrijKetw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjZjt2_25bnAhUCZcAKHQMmCScQ6AEwAHoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=Spitzer%20infinite%20plane%20stability&f=false - Discusses a plane of gas, and thus is not applicable to our discussion.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0708.2906.pdf - While this does discuss an infinite plane, it doesn't indicate it would collapse.


That is why I say you are yet to present anything which backs up your argument.
You have presented a bunch of irrelevant links, and a link which refutes you, nothing to back up your claim.

And now you just post a bunch of references, which likely also don't support your claim.

If you want to even bother with any of them, clearly explain exactly what each one is discussing and how it backs up your argument.

Otherwise, justify your argument HERE without any links to anywhere else, as you seem to be using the same tactic as Sandy, completely ignoring what has been said and posting link to some reference as if it supports your claim when it does not.

Now again, can you actually justify your argument that gravity along with the infinite mass of the infinite plane would cause it to collapse into a black hole?
If not, can you own and admit your mistake?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Macarios on January 23, 2020, 10:02:53 PM
Ok, even if infinite structure will have infinite gravity and will collapse, it will take infinite time to do it.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Stash on January 24, 2020, 12:18:08 AM
Ok, even if infinite structure will have infinite gravity and will collapse, it will take infinite time to do it.

Ad infinitum!
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on January 24, 2020, 07:26:32 AM

Can you provide information or proof that it is infinite?


Poor argument. 

While you can't prove either, stating that it is finite is unwise.

What you can state is that the known universe ends at the furthest known galaxies.  Those galaxies are a relatively set distance away, but not always that set distance.  Galaxies are not stationary, but their movements are small enough where distances don't really change between galaxies, at least not in the short time frame we have been tracking them.

Additionally, the known universe is believed to be expanding, although there are theories that it is shrinking.

If you believe in the BBT, and have a basic understand of physics, you would know that an object in motion stays in motion unless enacted upon by another force.  From the BB, galaxies would be moving away from the epicenter, ie expanding.  An expanding universe is not finite as the limits are always changing.  So unless there is something that is physically preventing the universe from expanding, it can't be finite.

As well, the emptiness (space) beyond the furthest known galaxies could continue on for ever.  We don't know where that emptiness ends.  We know that the emptiness exists, therefore we can conclude it is known and part of the universe.

If there is no known limits, it is safer to assume that the universe is infinite.



Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Themightykabool on January 24, 2020, 09:56:27 AM
Two key things for timeie to note:

Marcos says inf.
Notsoskep say epicenter.

An infinite plane of infinite thickness would have infinite gravity.
So for this discussuion it must be an inf plane with finite thickness.
It would not collapse into a center because where would the center be?
Its inf in all directions.
It would have a constant perpendicular gravity at any distance from the surface.

My balls (BALLS!) example had a starting point (epicenter if you will) where they started separating from.

Hope that clears it up.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 24, 2020, 03:09:22 PM

Can you provide information or proof that it is infinite?


Poor argument. 

While you can't prove either, stating that it is finite is unwise.

What you can state is that the known universe ends at the furthest known galaxies.  Those galaxies are a relatively set distance away, but not always that set distance.  Galaxies are not stationary, but their movements are small enough where distances don't really change between galaxies, at least not in the short time frame we have been tracking them.

Additionally, the known universe is believed to be expanding, although there are theories that it is shrinking.

If you believe in the BBT, and have a basic understand of physics, you would know that an object in motion stays in motion unless enacted upon by another force.  From the BB, galaxies would be moving away from the epicenter, ie expanding.  An expanding universe is not finite as the limits are always changing.  So unless there is something that is physically preventing the universe from expanding, it can't be finite.

As well, the emptiness (space) beyond the furthest known galaxies could continue on for ever.  We don't know where that emptiness ends.  We know that the emptiness exists, therefore we can conclude it is known and part of the universe.

If there is no known limits, it is safer to assume that the universe is infinite.

While what you say is interesting, though itís clear that you donít really have a firm grasp on infinity of the physical.
In terms of what we have observed rather than what we imagine there is currently no indication that the universe in which we live is infinite. No proof of that exists. I think we would all agree that it is pretty big. Even if the universe were a Googolplex lightyears across that is still a long long long way off from being infinite. Though in reality the farthest thing we have observed is just over 13 billion light years away that compared to a googleplex light years is almost nothing?
The fact that we are finite beings does not really equip us for thinking about infinity.
Infinity is not just a big number, itís infinity.
For an infinite object to exist in our universe as claimed by some people, the universe itself would also have to be infinite to accommodate it. As for many things claimed by people on this forum, an infinite plane is no more that wishful thinking.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 24, 2020, 03:11:13 PM
Ok, even if infinite structure will have infinite gravity and will collapse, it will take infinite time to do it.

How so?
Iím not saying you are incorrect but wondering what your statement is based on.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 24, 2020, 03:12:44 PM
the earth by implication would have to collapse into a black hole to obey the laws of physics
We would not and never have existed due to the earth being a black hole

If a thought experiment is to have any ultimate logical scientific credibility at some time it has to engage with known scientific truths. In this instance we can see through just thinking about it the earth could never be an infinite plane in this universe obeying its rules. An infinite earth could only exist in another universe with very different laws or exist in someoneís imagination.

ergo, in this universe the earth is not an infinite plane, flat or otherwise.
I wonder why you would post a link http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Gravity+on+an+infinite+Flat+Earth+Plane (http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Gravity+on+an+infinite+Flat+Earth+Plane) (which you claim supports this post of yours), that contains the following statement:

"Such a Flat Earth would not collapse into a sphere, theoretically."

Read the rest rather than just cherry pick like many people on this forum tend to do.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 24, 2020, 03:15:07 PM
Two key things for timeie to note:

Marcos says inf.
Notsoskep say epicenter.

An infinite plane of infinite thickness would have infinite gravity.
So for this discussuion it must be an inf plane with finite thickness.
It would not collapse into a center because where would the center be?
Its inf in all directions.
It would have a constant perpendicular gravity at any distance from the surface.

My balls (BALLS!) example had a starting point (epicenter if you will) where they started separating from.

Hope that clears it up.
An infinite plane of any thickness would have infinite mass and infinite gravity. Infinite is infinite.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: boydster on January 24, 2020, 03:51:19 PM
An infinite plane of any thickness would have infinite mass and infinite gravity. Infinite is infinite.
Welcome back. I see you didn't do much learning while you were gone. As has been shown to you already, and as is confirmed in some of the sources you linked (apparently without reading), the gravity at the surface of an infinite plane with finite thickness is also finite.

Can we get back to the heart of the matter though?
Le sigh. Again, YOU designed your thought experiment, and YOU were demonstrably wrong, and YOU are looking for a way to deflect here. It's abundantly clear.

I'm not even sure about the "slight imperfections making it collapse." I can't recall where I saw it, but I seem to remember there being an argument that if the imperfections were roughly evenly distributed (much like matter being pretty much evenly distributed in the universe, although there are obviously local places like galaxies with higher concentrations), small local variances wouldn't be a problem.u

Regardless, I think the person claiming that a small imperfection would cause an infinite plane to collapse should actually demonstrate it. Burden of proof, and all that.

Burden of proof and all that, how about you prove an infinite plane could actually exist........or donít you realise all this discussion is hypothetical in the extreme as nothing infinite exists in the real physical world.
A) The proof that an infinite plan could actually exist has been already provided to you
B) This was your thought experiment
C) I'm not sure you can back up your assertion that nothing infinite exists
D) I'm quite sure you can't demonstrate a proof of the claim regarding an infinite plane collapsing due to local irregularities, when overall it's still essentially homogeneous
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on January 24, 2020, 03:56:49 PM

Can you provide information or proof that it is infinite?


Poor argument. 

While you can't prove either, stating that it is finite is unwise.

What you can state is that the known universe ends at the furthest known galaxies.  Those galaxies are a relatively set distance away, but not always that set distance.  Galaxies are not stationary, but their movements are small enough where distances don't really change between galaxies, at least not in the short time frame we have been tracking them.

Additionally, the known universe is believed to be expanding, although there are theories that it is shrinking.

If you believe in the BBT, and have a basic understand of physics, you would know that an object in motion stays in motion unless enacted upon by another force.  From the BB, galaxies would be moving away from the epicenter, ie expanding.  An expanding universe is not finite as the limits are always changing.  So unless there is something that is physically preventing the universe from expanding, it can't be finite.

As well, the emptiness (space) beyond the furthest known galaxies could continue on for ever.  We don't know where that emptiness ends.  We know that the emptiness exists, therefore we can conclude it is known and part of the universe.

If there is no known limits, it is safer to assume that the universe is infinite.

While what you say is interesting, though itís clear that you donít really have a firm grasp on infinity of the physical.
In terms of what we have observed rather than what we imagine there is currently no indication that the universe in which we live is infinite. No proof of that exists. I think we would all agree that it is pretty big. Even if the universe were a Googolplex lightyears across that is still a long long long way off from being infinite. Though in reality the farthest thing we have observed is just over 13 billion light years away that compared to a googleplex light years is almost nothing?
The fact that we are finite beings does not really equip us for thinking about infinity.
Infinity is not just a big number, itís infinity.
For an infinite object to exist in our universe as claimed by some people, the universe itself would also have to be infinite to accommodate it. As for many things claimed by people on this forum, an infinite plane is no more that wishful thinking.

Did you even read what I wrote?

You should go back and read where the quote was pulled from.  It was nothing about an infinite object.  The quote was in regards to an infinite universe.  The universe comprises of more than just the earth.

Here is more of the quote I was responding to with context, since you couldn't figure it out. 


Can you back up your assertion that since the Universe is expanding it is not infinite?

Can you back up your assertion that the Universe is expanding when experts in the field disagree on this point?

Can you back up your assertion that the Universe is 13.8 billion years old? Can you back up your assertion that this age somehow is mutually exclusive to an infinite size?

Can you back up your assertions that it's not? You know as well as I do, or I hope you do you being a scientist, that this has been known since your countryman Hubble peeked through his telescope back in the 1920s so its hardly hot news.

Can you provide information or proof that it is infinite?

If its not 13.8 billion years or so, how old do you think it is.

Again all the things I quoted are not news, its out there on the web if you care to look. However, what not on the web is what you think, so how about sharing and we can all have a good think about what you put forward.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Themightykabool on January 24, 2020, 04:28:22 PM
Two key things for timeie to note:

Marcos says inf.
Notsoskep say epicenter.

An infinite plane of infinite thickness would have infinite gravity.
So for this discussuion it must be an inf plane with finite thickness.
It would not collapse into a center because where would the center be?
Its inf in all directions.
It would have a constant perpendicular gravity at any distance from the surface.

My balls (BALLS!) example had a starting point (epicenter if you will) where they started separating from.

Hope that clears it up.
An infinite plane of any thickness would have infinite mass and infinite gravity. Infinite is infinite.

https://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae544.cfm

Math would suggest otherwise
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Themightykabool on January 24, 2020, 04:31:36 PM

Can you provide information or proof that it is infinite?


Poor argument. 

While you can't prove either, stating that it is finite is unwise.

What you can state is that the known universe ends at the furthest known galaxies.  Those galaxies are a relatively set distance away, but not always that set distance.  Galaxies are not stationary, but their movements are small enough where distances don't really change between galaxies, at least not in the short time frame we have been tracking them.

Additionally, the known universe is believed to be expanding, although there are theories that it is shrinking.

If you believe in the BBT, and have a basic understand of physics, you would know that an object in motion stays in motion unless enacted upon by another force.  From the BB, galaxies would be moving away from the epicenter, ie expanding.  An expanding universe is not finite as the limits are always changing.  So unless there is something that is physically preventing the universe from expanding, it can't be finite.

As well, the emptiness (space) beyond the furthest known galaxies could continue on for ever.  We don't know where that emptiness ends.  We know that the emptiness exists, therefore we can conclude it is known and part of the universe.

If there is no known limits, it is safer to assume that the universe is infinite.

While what you say is interesting, though itís clear that you donít really have a firm grasp on infinity of the physical.
In terms of what we have observed rather than what we imagine there is currently no indication that the universe in which we live is infinite. No proof of that exists. I think we would all agree that it is pretty big. Even if the universe were a Googolplex lightyears across that is still a long long long way off from being infinite. Though in reality the farthest thing we have observed is just over 13 billion light years away that compared to a googleplex light years is almost nothing?
The fact that we are finite beings does not really equip us for thinking about infinity.
Infinity is not just a big number, itís infinity.
For an infinite object to exist in our universe as claimed by some people, the universe itself would also have to be infinite to accommodate it. As for many things claimed by people on this forum, an infinite plane is no more that wishful thinking.

You havent proved space is finite and you havent proved its not finite.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: rabinoz on January 24, 2020, 04:41:00 PM
An infinite plane of any thickness would have infinite mass
Yes.

Quote from: Timeisup
and infinite gravity.
No!

If you won't believe anyone here read what MathPages has to say
Quote
An Infinite Wall: What is the gravitational field of an infinite flat plane? (https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath530/kmath530.htm)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Integrating from R = 0 to , we find that the total force experienced by the particle is

(https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath530/kmath530_files/image004.gif)
Thus the force exerted on the particle is independent of the distance h from the wall. In other words, there is a constant uniform acceleration field extending to infinity on both sides of the wall.

Quote from: Timeisup
Infinite is infinite.
No! There are numerous cases where an integral from say 0 to  yields a finite answer.

Like Oscar Wilde, I'm 'not young enough to know everything' but apparently you are.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Space Cowgirl on January 24, 2020, 05:36:53 PM
Listen everyone, Timmy will never admit that he doesn't understand any of this. He probably expected all RE to agree with him because FE BAD... but anyway this has been one of the most interesting threads we've had around here for a long time.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Unconvinced on January 24, 2020, 07:37:11 PM
An infinite plane of any thickness would have infinite mass
Yes.

Quote from: Timeisup
and infinite gravity.
No!

If you won't believe anyone here read what MathPages has to say
Quote
An Infinite Wall: What is the gravitational field of an infinite flat plane? (https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath530/kmath530.htm)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Integrating from R = 0 to , we find that the total force experienced by the particle is

(https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath530/kmath530_files/image004.gif)
Thus the force exerted on the particle is independent of the distance h from the wall. In other words, there is a constant uniform acceleration field extending to infinity on both sides of the wall.

Quote from: Timeisup
Infinite is infinite.
No! There are numerous cases where an integral from say 0 to yields a finite answer.

Like Oscar Wilde, I'm 'not young enough to know everything' but apparently you are.

Interesting that a regular maths website actually went through this very specific problem.

Have to say though that everyone seems to bandying around words like ďfactĒ and ďproofĒ.  Itís a thought experiment of a very hypothetical situation.  Facts and proofs have no place in this discussion.  All we can do is look at the logic and maths given various assumptions.

So assuming the basic law of gravitation works like it does in the real world, then a uniform finite gravitational field seems right. 

Please note, Timeisup, that none of this means it should be considered as a potential view of the earth/universe.  Thereís more reasons to dismiss it as actual reality than I count.  No one here (I think) is arguing that it might be possible, or defending this flat earther idea.

Itís a purely mathematical problem.  ie.  we can imagine this fantasy flat plane, so what happens when we plug the numbers in?  That is all.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: JackBlack on January 24, 2020, 10:58:54 PM
In terms of what we have observed rather than what we imagine there is currently no indication that the universe in which we live is infinite.
Nor is there any indication that it is finite. We know that there is a limit to how far we can see due to the expansion of the universe, but we do not know what is beyond the edge of the visible universe.

The fact that there is no indication it is infinite is not grounds to conclude it is finite.

In fact, we don't even know if it is flat or round.

But again, all this is just a distraction from your initial failure.

An infinite plane of any thickness would have infinite mass and infinite gravity. Infinite is infinite.
Again, that depends heavily on what you mean by gravity. Do you mean its field will stretch out infinitely?
If so, that likewise applies for finite objects.
Did you mean the potential well was infinite?
Or did you mean what most people would think, that the gravitational acceleration is infinite?
If the latter, that is wrong.

So most people would say that even though it has infinite mass it would not have infinite gravity.

Now again, can you either admit your initial argument was wrong so we can move on, or actually defend it by showing that an infinite plane would have infinite gravity due to its infinite mass which would cause it to collapse into a black hole?

So far the only reference you have provided which is relevant shows that your argument is wrong and you even claim that you couldn't possibly know how the infinite would behave making your argument nothing more than wild speculation.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 25, 2020, 01:03:58 AM
In terms of what we have observed rather than what we imagine there is currently no indication that the universe in which we live is infinite.
Nor is there any indication that it is finite. We know that there is a limit to how far we can see due to the expansion of the universe, but we do not know what is beyond the edge of the visible universe.

The fact that there is no indication it is infinite is not grounds to conclude it is finite.

In fact, we don't even know if it is flat or round.

But again, all this is just a distraction from your initial failure.

An infinite plane of any thickness would have infinite mass and infinite gravity. Infinite is infinite.
Again, that depends heavily on what you mean by gravity. Do you mean its field will stretch out infinitely?
If so, that likewise applies for finite objects.
Did you mean the potential well was infinite?
Or did you mean what most people would think, that the gravitational acceleration is infinite?
If the latter, that is wrong.

So most people would say that even though it has infinite mass it would not have infinite gravity.

Now again, can you either admit your initial argument was wrong so we can move on, or actually defend it by showing that an infinite plane would have infinite gravity due to its infinite mass which would cause it to collapse into a black hole?

So far the only reference you have provided which is relevant shows that your argument is wrong and you even claim that you couldn't possibly know how the infinite would behave making your argument nothing more than wild speculation.

You just repeating that if it makes you happy.
I think your post just demonstrates just how uninformed your opinions are which calls into question much of what you say.
Do you have any supporting evidence for any of what you have said or is it just more thoughts from the ĎJack Black book of speculationí?
How old would you say the universe is?
If you imagine itís infinite has it always been so?
If it was finite at some stage in its evolution how do you think it made the transition from finite  to infinite?
What happens at this point of transition from finite to infinite to enable it to be classed as such?
As to the shape of the universe there has been many astronomers working on that very question and current research points to it being flat. By the way thatís an example of informed opinion. Observations made measurements taken then an opinion formed based on the best available evidence.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 25, 2020, 01:16:58 AM
Listen everyone, Timmy will never admit that he doesn't understand any of this. He probably expected all RE to agree with him because FE BAD... but anyway this has been one of the most interesting threads we've had around here for a long time.

While youíre welcome to your own opinion I have to disagree based on the best available evidence.
Everything I have said is based on ideas from researchers from the world of astronomy and physics. While most of what your pals have said appears to be based on nothing more than their own opinions.
If you think that makes for a stronger case, well thatís up to you.
You can come out and make fun of me, abuse me as your moderator did, but that  has no bearing on the facts that my opinions are based on, which is the best possible science available. Heaven only knows what your own are formed from. While Ad hominem appears to form the basis of the debating strategy of most of your forum pals it hardly helps to reveal the truth. I would have to conclude that possibly the truth is of little value around here.
Would you rather have the truth or are you happy with uninformed opinion?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 25, 2020, 01:39:46 AM
An infinite plane of any thickness would have infinite mass
Yes.

Quote from: Timeisup
and infinite gravity.
No!

If you won't believe anyone here read what MathPages has to say
Quote
An Infinite Wall: What is the gravitational field of an infinite flat plane? (https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath530/kmath530.htm)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Integrating from R = 0 to , we find that the total force experienced by the particle is

(https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath530/kmath530_files/image004.gif)
Thus the force exerted on the particle is independent of the distance h from the wall. In other words, there is a constant uniform acceleration field extending to infinity on both sides of the wall.

Quote from: Timeisup
Infinite is infinite.
No! There are numerous cases where an integral from say 0 to yields a finite answer.

Like Oscar Wilde, I'm 'not young enough to know everything' but apparently you are.

Interesting that a regular maths website actually went through this very specific problem.

Have to say though that everyone seems to bandying around words like ďfactĒ and ďproofĒ.  Itís a thought experiment of a very hypothetical situation.  Facts and proofs have no place in this discussion.  All we can do is look at the logic and maths given various assumptions.

So assuming the basic law of gravitation works like it does in the real world, then a uniform finite gravitational field seems right. 

Please note, Timeisup, that none of this means it should be considered as a potential view of the earth/universe.  Thereís more reasons to dismiss it as actual reality than I count.  No one here (I think) is arguing that it might be possible, or defending this flat earther idea.

Itís a purely mathematical problem.  ie.  we can imagine this fantasy flat plane, so what happens when we plug the numbers in?  That is all.

The word is assumption.
Just as gravity works very differently at the quantum scale, and observations tend to show that something is not quite right with gravity at the cosmic scale, itís not a big leap to imagine it may be very different at the infinite scale. Every one appears to be ignoring these very relevant facts. You can correct me if Iím wrong.

This whole argument revolves around one calculation that appears to have been done for fun. This calculation makes the major assumption that gravity will behave the same at infinity as it does at our scale. Iím not sure what evidence the mathematician had for this.

The other posters on this forum are more focused on proving me wrong rather than trying to get near the truth.

As I said Iím basing my arguments on science rather than opinion. If Jack Black and the others had spent a bit more time researching rather than trying to prove me wrong he/they wouldnít have ended up looking so foolish.

https://www.icg.port.ac.uk/cosmological-tests-of-gravity/
https://www.nature.com/articles/464172a
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-probe-validity-of-einsteins-gravity-on-cosmic-scales/

Gravity has only ever been tested at finite scales and NOT at infinite scales, far from it. Therefore any calculations done at infinite scales are nothing more than pure speculation and guesswork.

Now what do you think? Iíve been saying this very thing almost from the start.
Want to admit you were wrong Jack Black.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 25, 2020, 01:41:42 AM
The irony in all this is the fact that this whole argument revolves around the behaviour of gravity at infinity, a force that flat earth advocates donít actually believe in!
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: rabinoz on January 25, 2020, 01:53:00 AM
Listen everyone, Timmy will never admit that he doesn't understand any of this. He probably expected all RE to agree with him because FE BAD... but anyway this has been one of the most interesting threads we've had around here for a long time.

While youíre welcome to your own opinion I have to disagree based on the best available evidence.
Everything I have said is based on ideas from researchers from the world of astronomy and physics. While most of what your pals have said appears to be based on nothing more than their own opinions.
The only points are whether or not an infinite plane of finite thickness will collapse and whether or not its gravity is finite.

Anything about reality or possibility is quite irrelevant. Remember it is a "Thought Experiment".

This is not my opinion and I'd believe MathPages before you anyday:
If you won't believe anyone here read what MathPages has to say
Quote
An Infinite Wall: What is the gravitational field of an infinite flat plane? (https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath530/kmath530.htm)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Integrating from R = 0 to , we find that the total force experienced by the particle is

(https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath530/kmath530_files/image004.gif)
Thus the force exerted on the particle is independent of the distance h from the wal. In other words, there is a constant uniform acceleration field extending to infinity on both sides of the wall.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 25, 2020, 02:03:58 AM
Listen everyone, Timmy will never admit that he doesn't understand any of this. He probably expected all RE to agree with him because FE BAD... but anyway this has been one of the most interesting threads we've had around here for a long time.

While youíre welcome to your own opinion I have to disagree based on the best available evidence.
Everything I have said is based on ideas from researchers from the world of astronomy and physics. While most of what your pals have said appears to be based on nothing more than their own opinions.
The only points are whether or not an infinite plane of finite thickness will collapse and whether or not its gravity is finite.

Anything about reality or possibility is quite irrelevant. Remember it is a "Thought Experiment".

This is not my opinion and I'd believe MathPages before you anyday:
If you won't believe anyone here read what MathPages has to say
Quote
An Infinite Wall: What is the gravitational field of an infinite flat plane? (https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath530/kmath530.htm)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Integrating from R = 0 to , we find that the total force experienced by the particle is

(https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath530/kmath530_files/image004.gif)
Thus the force exerted on the particle is independent of the distance h from the wal. In other words, there is a constant uniform acceleration field extending to infinity on both sides of the wall.

Will you believe the current research on gravity?
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104423?journalCode=astro

What you are failing to understand is that the calculation you present is based on an assumption that is not supported by science. Iíve provided links from all the major publishers of science that all agree with the point Iíve been making all along. The point being that no data exists ithat describes how gravity will manifest itself at the infinite scale. And that is a fact.

If no data is available any calculation done is not worth the paper itís written on. That fact renders your argument null and void. To quote you, I would rather believe current cosmological research than your uninformed opinions.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 25, 2020, 02:12:31 AM
Some informed opinions to add to the mix
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2079495-explanimator-does-infinity-exist-in-the-real-world/
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21929300-700-infinitys-end-time-to-ditch-the-never-ending-story/
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: JackBlack on January 25, 2020, 02:45:43 AM
I think your post just demonstrates just how uninformed your opinions are which calls into question much of what you say.
No, but your posts demonstrate your inability to rationally defend your position or own up to your mistakes.

I have provided rational arguments which show that you are wrong and you just ignored them.
You have literally nothing which actually backs up your argument.
The only relevant link clearly shows you are wrong.

You needing to repeatedly run away from your initial argument and instead continually try for distractions shows you know you have no case.
You trying bringing up completely different arguments, pretend you said something else, say things which contradict your argument, try and shift the burden of proof, or just go straight to insulting.

While youíre welcome to your own opinion I have to disagree based on the best available evidence.
The problem is that the best available evidence shows you are wrong.
What you are saying (your initial argument) is not based upon what the evidence says at all. Instead it directly contradicts it.
Yet you refuse to admit that.

You are welcome to your own opinion, but don't go pretending it is true when you repeatedly refuse to back it up in any way.
Don't go lying and say that your opinions are based upon fact.
Don't go lying and say that our "opinions" are just speculation from ourselves, when you are yet to show a single problem with it and instead it is based upon the laws of physics.

You are the one rejecting science and evidence, not us.

The word is assumption.
And that is exactly what your argument is based upon, an entirely baseless asusmption that the infinite mass of an infinite plane would cause it to collapse into a black hole due to gravity.
You have literally nothing to back that up.
Our current understanding of gravity indicates that is completely wrong.

Needing to appeal to the unknown is wild speculation from which you cannot rationally conclude anything.

Likewise, the "argument" you presented to try and justify it relies upon the non-nonsensical assumption that an infinite plane would behave as a very large finite plane.

The other posters on this forum are more focused on proving me wrong rather than trying to get near the truth.
Because we care about the truth, and will still object to false arguments.
We aren't discussing if Earth is an infinite plane, we are discussing if your argument is sound.

Again, you are yet to back it up with anything at all, and instead repeatedly argue against every time you say we cannot possibly know how the infinite would behave.

Yet you cling to it as if you have said nothing wrong.

he/they wouldnít have ended up looking so foolish.
You are the foolish one here, especially as you seem to repeatedly ignore every time you show your argument is unfounded nonsense.

Gravity has only ever been tested at finite scales and NOT at infinite scales, far from it. Therefore any calculations done at infinite scales are nothing more than pure speculation and guesswork.
Likewise any argument about how an infinite object would behave is nothing more than pure speculation and guesswork.

Now what do you think? Iíve been saying this very thing almost from the start.
Want to admit you were wrong Jack Black.
No, you were not saying that.
Do I need to remind you of what you were saying?
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
We would not and never have existed due to the earth being a black hole
Does this sound anything at all like saying we have no idea how gravity will behave at the infinite scale?
NO!
It sounds like you think you know exactly how it would behave.

Here is how it would go if you actually were saying that we don't know how gravity would behave:
Quote
the earth is an infinite plane it would therefore follow;
the earth would have infinite mass
We would have no idea if the earth would have infinite gravity or finite gravity as a result of the infinite mass
Thus we would have no idea if light would or would not not be able to escape the unknown gravitational field
the earth by implication may or may not collapse into a black hole to obey the laws of physics
So we may have been able to exist on this stable plane all along or it we may have never been able to exist due to it being a black hole

Notice how this version isn't making any conclusions, because without the knowledge of how gravity behaves for infinite objects you cannot determine any of what you claim other than the infinite mass part.

Again, you are saying that your argument is nothing more than wild speculation and thus is wrong. Yet you still want to pretend you were right and blatantly lie about what you have said.

Any reference you provide that says we cannot know how gravity will behave at the infinite scale is a reference saying you are wrong.

Try to find a single valid reference which claims an infinite plane will collapse due to gravity and its infinite mass, one which actually a justification rather than a baseless claim.

So no, I won't be admitting I am wrong.
At least not until you admit that your argument is pure nonsense.
Either because it is wrong based upon our current understanding of gravity, or because you have no idea what you are talking about and couldn't possibly know how gravity would cause an infinite plane to behave.

Again, quit with the distractions. Focus on your initial argument, and once you have either justified it or admitted it was wrong we can move on.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: rabinoz on January 25, 2020, 02:47:51 AM
Listen everyone, Timmy will never admit that he doesn't understand any of this. He probably expected all RE to agree with him because FE BAD... but anyway this has been one of the most interesting threads we've had around here for a long time.

While youíre welcome to your own opinion I have to disagree based on the best available evidence.
Everything I have said is based on ideas from researchers from the world of astronomy and physics. While most of what your pals have said appears to be based on nothing more than their own opinions.
The only points are whether or not an infinite plane of finite thickness will collapse and whether or not its gravity is finite.

Anything about reality or possibility is quite irrelevant. Remember it is a "Thought Experiment".

This is not my opinion and I'd believe MathPages before you anyday:
If you won't believe anyone here read what MathPages has to say
Quote
An Infinite Wall: What is the gravitational field of an infinite flat plane? (https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath530/kmath530.htm)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Integrating from R = 0 to , we find that the total force experienced by the particle is

(https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath530/kmath530_files/image004.gif)
Thus the force exerted on the particle is independent of the distance h from the wal. In other words, there is a constant uniform acceleration field extending to infinity on both sides of the wall.
Will you believe the current research on gravity?
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104423?journalCode=astro
Sure! I "believe the current research on gravity" and possibly have a better understanding of General Relativity than you.

But that is quite irrelevant!

Quote from: Timeisup
What you are failing to understand is that the calculation you present is based on an assumption that is not supported by science.
Remember that you claimed this:
An infinite plane of any thickness would have infinite mass and infinite gravity. Infinite is infinite.
It would have infinite mass but it wouldn't have infinite gravity!
If you think that the mathematics that show that are wrong, please point out exactly where.

But what you are failing to understand is that all you claims about "an assumption that is not supported by science" etc are quite irrelevant to:
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 25, 2020, 03:17:39 AM
Sure! I "believe the current research on gravity" and possibly have a better understanding of General Relativity than you.

But that is quite irrelevant!


Now that is a good start. You say you agree with the current research and then dismiss it as irrelevant. Would you not say thatís a tad illogical?

Correct me if Iím wrong;
You appear to base your current position on this one page of iffy maths that you appear to be very fond of, and nothing else. I have pointed out that the person in doing his/her calculation have made wild unfounded assumptions about how gravity and everything else for that matter would operate at the infinite  scale. Iíve presented you with a number of sources that ALL say that how gravity works at large cosmic scales is unknown. They make no mention of infinite scales as that is well out-with any possible scientific research. Iíve also presented links from reputable sources that for a number of reasons would like to ditch infinity from cosmic calculations as it tends to mess things up.
Everyone including you has been hell bent on proving me wrong rather than looking and dealing with the facts Iíve presented. Itís not me you should be bothered about but rather the wealth of facts I have put forward. Why you feel you need to point out that you know more about relativity is a bit puzzling. Not only is it irrelevant but it interestingly points toward a possible insecurity you may have. Itís also a rather childish ďmine is bigger than yoursĒ jibe.
Letís stick to the facts.the facts as I presented then tend to point to your single page of iffy maths being wrong as itís based of a unproven, untested and not very scientific premise.

Rather than screaming at me ďyou are wrongĒ look at the facts I have presented and tell me where all those cosmologists, astronomers and physicists have gone wrong.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: JackBlack on January 25, 2020, 03:27:51 AM
Rather than screaming at me ďyou are wrongĒ look at the facts I have presented and tell me where all those cosmologists, astronomers and physicists have gone wrong.
They haven't gone wrong.
You have.

Stop being like Sandy and pretending all these scientists just magically agree with you when you have literally nothing to indicate that.

Again, lets look at your argument.
Lets focus on this key part:
"the earth would have infinite gravity as a result of the infinite mass"

How do you know this?
What facts and evidence do you have from science to support this?
When answering remember that you claim that we cannot possibly know about how gravity would behave for infinite objects.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 25, 2020, 03:31:13 AM
I think your post just demonstrates just how uninformed your opinions are which calls into question much of what you say.
No, but your posts demonstrate your inability to rationally defend your position or own up to your mistakes.

I have provided rational arguments which show that you are wrong and you just ignored them.
You have literally nothing which actually backs up your argument.
The only relevant link clearly shows you are wrong.

You needing to repeatedly run away from your initial argument and instead continually try for distractions shows you know you have no case.
You trying bringing up completely different arguments, pretend you said something else, say things which contradict your argument, try and shift the burden of proof, or just go straight to insulting.

While youíre welcome to your own opinion I have to disagree based on the best available evidence.
The problem is that the best available evidence shows you are wrong.
What you are saying (your initial argument) is not based upon what the evidence says at all. Instead it directly contradicts it.
Yet you refuse to admit that.

You are welcome to your own opinion, but don't go pretending it is true when you repeatedly refuse to back it up in any way.
Don't go lying and say that your opinions are based upon fact.
Don't go lying and say that our "opinions" are just speculation from ourselves, when you are yet to show a single problem with it and instead it is based upon the laws of physics.

You are the one rejecting science and evidence, not us.

The word is assumption.
And that is exactly what your argument is based upon, an entirely baseless asusmption that the infinite mass of an infinite plane would cause it to collapse into a black hole due to gravity.
You have literally nothing to back that up.
Our current understanding of gravity indicates that is completely wrong.

Needing to appeal to the unknown is wild speculation from which you cannot rationally conclude anything.

Likewise, the "argument" you presented to try and justify it relies upon the non-nonsensical assumption that an infinite plane would behave as a very large finite plane.

The other posters on this forum are more focused on proving me wrong rather than trying to get near the truth.
Because we care about the truth, and will still object to false arguments.
We aren't discussing if Earth is an infinite plane, we are discussing if your argument is sound.

Again, you are yet to back it up with anything at all, and instead repeatedly argue against every time you say we cannot possibly know how the infinite would behave.

Yet you cling to it as if you have said nothing wrong.

he/they wouldnít have ended up looking so foolish.
You are the foolish one here, especially as you seem to repeatedly ignore every time you show your argument is unfounded nonsense.

Gravity has only ever been tested at finite scales and NOT at infinite scales, far from it. Therefore any calculations done at infinite scales are nothing more than pure speculation and guesswork.
Likewise any argument about how an infinite object would behave is nothing more than pure speculation and guesswork.

Now what do you think? Iíve been saying this very thing almost from the start.
Want to admit you were wrong Jack Black.
No, you were not saying that.
Do I need to remind you of what you were saying?
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
We would not and never have existed due to the earth being a black hole
Does this sound anything at all like saying we have no idea how gravity will behave at the infinite scale?
NO!
It sounds like you think you know exactly how it would behave.

Here is how it would go if you actually were saying that we don't know how gravity would behave:
Quote
the earth is an infinite plane it would therefore follow;
the earth would have infinite mass
We would have no idea if the earth would have infinite gravity or finite gravity as a result of the infinite mass
Thus we would have no idea if light would or would not not be able to escape the unknown gravitational field
the earth by implication may or may not collapse into a black hole to obey the laws of physics
So we may have been able to exist on this stable plane all along or it we may have never been able to exist due to it being a black hole

Notice how this version isn't making any conclusions, because without the knowledge of how gravity behaves for infinite objects you cannot determine any of what you claim other than the infinite mass part.

Again, you are saying that your argument is nothing more than wild speculation and thus is wrong. Yet you still want to pretend you were right and blatantly lie about what you have said.

Any reference you provide that says we cannot know how gravity will behave at the infinite scale is a reference saying you are wrong.

Try to find a single valid reference which claims an infinite plane will collapse due to gravity and its infinite mass, one which actually a justification rather than a baseless claim.

So no, I won't be admitting I am wrong.
At least not until you admit that your argument is pure nonsense.
Either because it is wrong based upon our current understanding of gravity, or because you have no idea what you are talking about and couldn't possibly know how gravity would cause an infinite plane to behave.

Again, quit with the distractions. Focus on your initial argument, and once you have either justified it or admitted it was wrong we can move on.

Ok
Give me one example not based on your own opinion but rather one that is backed by credible scientific facts that supports your position, whatever that may be and we can examine them.

Form my understanding from trying to understand your rants, you appear to basing your current stance on this much quoted page of iffy maths. Is that correct?

I have clearly demonstrated that the maths in question is wrong. Itís wrong because itís starting premise is wrong. Why is that?

How gravity behaves at the truly cosmic scale is unknown. Do you agree?
Gravity and how it would behave at the invite scale is also unknown. Do you agree

If you disagree with either of the above statement please provide credible science and not just opinion.

The fact that how anything operates at the infinite leaves us in a position where we are left to speculate. I speculated. You didnít like my speculation, which is fine. What the problem is you then tried to prove my speculation wrong by saying your unfounded and unscientific speculation was better than mine!

I keep coming back to this point. Provide me with some good strong evidence that you know how physics would operate at the infinity scale, then I might take you seriously. Up until now all youíve been obsessed with is proving me wrong rather than dealing with the facts.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 25, 2020, 03:35:18 AM
Rather than screaming at me ďyou are wrongĒ look at the facts I have presented and tell me where all those cosmologists, astronomers and physicists have gone wrong.
They haven't gone wrong.
You have.

Stop being like Sandy and pretending all these scientists just magically agree with you when you have literally nothing to indicate that.

Again, lets look at your argument.
Lets focus on this key part:
"the earth would have infinite gravity as a result of the infinite mass"

How do you know this?
What facts and evidence do you have from science to support this?
When answering remember that you claim that we cannot possibly know about how gravity would behave for infinite objects.

Read what they have said! Thatís what Iíve used. Iíve not done the research they have!
They say how gravity works at truly cosmic scales is unknown. Iíve just repeated that.
Would you agree on that point or disagree?

Please donít invoke Sandokhan to prove your own point, that is a very weak argumentí and just demonstrates how wobbly  your position is.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Themightykabool on January 25, 2020, 04:53:05 AM
Timeie
Wtf are you on about man!?

Youre all in a big huff about a THOUGHT experiemtn about a HYPOTHETICAL situation.

You argue there is no scienticific backing and then when we give you, you say "one can never know".
Well
We dont know otherwise so based on assumption = xyz.
Thats how it works.
Theres no possible way to test it is there...by definition.

If you claim science needs to test it, well how do you prove the universe is not infinite?
How do you prove its finite?
No, you can only assume based on that 13bly visible light value.

The point is, youre changing the goal posts, misrepresenting your research sources, and outright ignoring counterpoints in a very very TomB FE fashion.
As far as SCGs "pals" go, we re a mix of RE and FE that have discussed this very thought experiment before.
Crushing into a ball is NOT what debunks the inf idea because by all current understanding, does not.
Uniform downwards accelleration at any distance above, does.
You need to stfu while the grown ups do the talking.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: rabinoz on January 25, 2020, 05:04:26 AM
Sure! I "believe the current research on gravity" and possibly have a better understanding of General Relativity than you.

But that is quite irrelevant!


Now that is a good start. You say you agree with the current research and then dismiss it as irrelevant. Would you not say thatís a tad illogical?

Correct me if Iím wrong;
You appear to base your current position on this one page of iffy maths that you appear to be very fond of, and nothing else.
You are wrong! The maths are not "iffy"! I asked you to show where there is any problem with the maths and so far you have refused to do that!

Remember that you claimed this:
An infinite plane of any thickness would have infinite mass and infinite gravity. Infinite is infinite.
It would have infinite mass but it wouldn't have infinite gravity!
If you think that the mathematics are wrong then show that they are wrong, point out exactly where.
It's time to put up or shut up!

Sorry about the missed typos in the last post - was hurrying too much, like now!
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 25, 2020, 05:10:19 AM
Timeie
Wtf are you on about man!?

Youre all in a big huff about a THOUGHT experiemtn about a HYPOTHETICAL situation.

You argue there is no scienticific backing and then when we give you, you say "one can never know".
Well
We dont know otherwise so based on assumption = xyz.
Thats how it works.
Theres no possible way to test it is there...by definition.

If you claim science needs to test it, well how do you prove the universe is not infinite?
How do you prove its finite?
No, you can only assume based on that 13bly visible light value.

The point is, youre changing the goal posts, misrepresenting your research sources, and outright ignoring counterpoints in a very very TomB FE fashion.
As far as SCGs "pals" go, we re a mix of RE and FE that have discussed this very thought experiment before.
Crushing into a ball is NOT what debunks the inf idea because by all current understanding, does not.
Uniform downwards accelleration at any distance above, does.
You need to stfu while the grown ups do the talking.

Have ou actually read any of the links Iíve provided?
Do you think stfu is a way to carry out a debate?
My position is logical and based on science.
You say your the one who is behaving like a grown up? Tell me why the tone and nature of you posts contradicts that.
The fact you appear not to be able to take on board is the physics of the infinite does not exist. Would you agree or not?
If you agree then any ideas people put forward, including you and your non pals are no more than unprovable suppositions. Would you agree or not?
Therefore I am as likely to be right as is any other person who presents an idea about an unknown situation for which no data exists.

However if you have some please present it.
While youíre at it you can also show which of the sources I have used that have been misrepresented.

While you are at it you could also present your own sources so I can see if you have misrepresented yours. Fair is fair, though fairness appears to be lacking somewhat in this discussion.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 25, 2020, 05:10:56 AM
Sure! I "believe the current research on gravity" and possibly have a better understanding of General Relativity than you.

But that is quite irrelevant!


Now that is a good start. You say you agree with the current research and then dismiss it as irrelevant. Would you not say thatís a tad illogical?

Correct me if Iím wrong;
You appear to base your current position on this one page of iffy maths that you appear to be very fond of, and nothing else.
You are wrong! The maths are not "iffy"! I asked you to show where there is any problem with the maths and so far you have refused to do that!

Remember that you claimed this:
An infinite plane of any thickness would have infinite mass and infinite gravity. Infinite is infinite.
It would have infinite mass but it wouldn't have infinite gravity!
If you think that the mathematics are wrong then show that they are wrong, point out exactly where.
It's time to put up or shut up!

Sorry about the missed typos in the last post - was hurrying too much, like now!

Do you not read my posts?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84509.msg2231878#msg2231878

A calculation is only as good as the theory that supports it.

Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Themightykabool on January 25, 2020, 05:15:48 AM
If everything is unknown and unknowable then your who point is meaningless.
So you cant prove yourself right and you cant prove us wrong.
Thanks for coming out.
10pg of nothing.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Space Cowgirl on January 25, 2020, 07:34:27 AM
The irony in all this is the fact that this whole argument revolves around the behaviour of gravity at infinity, a force that flat earth advocates donít actually believe in!

That is not the irony in this thread.

Gravity is part of the infinite plane theory. You've seen the math that shows the infinite plane wouldn't collapse because of gravity. If gravity was not part of the theory, it would not be part of the math.

If the math is bad, show us where it goes wrong. Linking to pages you haven't even read is not helping your case. JackBlack actually read all your links, and explained why they are not relevant.

If everything is unknown and unknowable then your who point is meaningless.
So you cant prove yourself right and you cant prove us wrong.
Thanks for coming out.
10pg of nothing.

I disagree about 10 pages of nothing. This is my favorite thread right now. It's all very interesting and I feel like I am learning something.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Themightykabool on January 25, 2020, 07:59:06 AM
I agree
WE (minus one) all learned something.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: JackBlack on January 25, 2020, 01:13:03 PM
Give me one example not based on your own opinion but rather one that is backed by credible scientific facts that supports your position, whatever that may be and we can examine them.
Again, stop trying to shift the burden of proof.
The burden rests entirely upon you.
You need to back up your argument.

If you want to deal with what I have said which refutes your argument, go ahead.

Stop just repeatedly asserting the same garbage.
And remember, I made arguments myself, not appealing to that page of math.

How gravity behaves at the truly cosmic scale is unknown. Do you agree?
Gravity and how it would behave at the invite scale is also unknown. Do you agree
Do you agree?
If so, how can you claim that an infinite plane with infinite mass would have infinite gravity?
How can you claim to know how such an infinite plane would behave and that it would collapse?

Again, you are just your argument is pure garbage.

The fact that how anything operates at the infinite leaves us in a position where we are left to speculate. I speculated.
Your speculation was based upon nothing. Not even the known laws of physics. It is only now that you are claiming it is based upon wild speculation.

But again, you directly contradict yourself.
Here you are saying you were speculating, but just below you claim your argument is based upon science. Which is it?
You aren't even willing to admit that all those people claiming we don't know are contradicting your argument which relies upon knowing.

So are you going to admit your argument (the initial one you presented) is entirely baseless and in no way shows that an infinite plane would collapse into a black hole or that it is impossible?

you then tried to prove my speculation wrong by saying your unfounded and unscientific speculation was better than mine!
Except my "speculation" wasn't actually that at all. Instead it asked simple question to show it made no sense for an infinite plane to collapse into a black hole and showed that your argument was treating the infinite as just a very large finite object.

You can show it wouldn't collapse into a black hole based upon symmetry alone.
Again, dealing with a perfectly homogeneous plane as that is what your argument applied to.
This has infinite rotational symmetry about the axis perpendicular to the plane at any point on the plane, translational symmetry about any translation in the plane, mirror symmetry about an infinite number of mirror planes which are perpendicular to the plane, centre of inversions for every point along the centre of the plane, as well as a mirror plane which is the centre of the plane, and 2 fold rotational symmetry about an axis parallel to the plane, along the centre of the plane.

Now what does this mean?
Well lets say at some point on the plane we have a gravitational acceleration in some direction. This can be decomposed into 2 components, one perpendicular to the plane and one parallel to it. It is the one parallel to it which is important, as that is the one that is required to form a black hole, so I will focus on that.

Now the rotational symmetry and mirror symmetry means that this acceleration parallel to the plane must be the same in every direction. But the only way for that to happen is for the acceleration to be 0.
That means that there can be no acceleration in the direction parallel to the plane, and thus there is no force to cause it to collapse into a black hole.

Instead the only unknown would be if the gravitational acceleration perpendicular to the plane will be finite or not. If it is infinite, then instead of collapsing into a black hole, it collapses into an infinitely thin plane.

The page of you math repeatedly insult is likewise not unscientific. It is based upon the known laws of physics. It extrapolates those known laws to the infinite. Yes, it may be wrong, but it is far better than your wild speculation based upon literally nothing.


I keep coming back to this point.
And I keep coming back to this point:
Stop with the lies.
Stop with the distractions.
Stop with the insults.
Focus on your initial argument.
Can you justify it? If not, can you admit it is wrong, either because it is wrong based upon the known laws of physics or that it is wrong because it is wild speculation?

Read what they have said! Thatís what Iíve used.
Again, I have read what they have said. They do not back you up.

They say how gravity works at truly cosmic scales is unknown. Iíve just repeated that.
Would you agree on that point or disagree?
Again, it is quite obvious that that is wrong. You have not just repeated that. If anything you have directly contradicted that and acted like you have knowledge of how the infinite would behave.
So no, you are not just repeating what they have said.

You are to produce a single reference which says that an infinite plane would have infinite gravity.

Please donít invoke Sandokhan to prove your own point
Then perhaps stop acting like him.
You seemed to have no problem of accusing me of acting like Tom Bishop.

Stop posting a bunch of references which in no way back up your argument.
Stop trying to avoid the failure of your initial argument by bringing up completely separate arguments.
Deal with your argument directly, clearly defending your position.
Or admitting your argument is wrong.

Therefore I am as likely to be right as is any other person who presents an idea about an unknown situation for which no data exists.
No, not how it works.
Or do you think you are just as likely to be right (and no more) as someone who claims that the gravity will convert the infinite plane into milk?

Not knowing doesn't mean nonsense wild speculation is just as right as reasoned arguments.

But again, that ignores the burden of proof.
You made an argument which was completely wrong.

So again, going to admit your argument was wrong and that you have no basis at all for concluding that an infinite plane would collapse into a black hole?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: rabinoz on January 25, 2020, 02:00:29 PM
Sure! I "believe the current research on gravity" and possibly have a better understanding of General Relativity than you.

But that is quite irrelevant!


Now that is a good start. You say you agree with the current research and then dismiss it as irrelevant. Would you not say thatís a tad illogical?

Correct me if Iím wrong;
You appear to base your current position on this one page of iffy maths that you appear to be very fond of, and nothing else.
You are wrong! The maths are not "iffy"! I asked you to show where there is any problem with the maths and so far you have refused to do that!

Remember that you claimed this:
An infinite plane of any thickness would have infinite mass and infinite gravity. Infinite is infinite.
It would have infinite mass but it wouldn't have infinite gravity!
If you think that the mathematics are wrong then show that they are wrong, point out exactly where.
It's time to put up or shut up!

Sorry about the missed typos in the last post - was hurrying too much, like now!

Do you not read my posts?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84509.msg2231878#msg2231878
Yes and they are mainly irrelevant to the basic questions so I repeat:
Remember that you claimed this:
An infinite plane of any thickness would have infinite mass and infinite gravity. Infinite is infinite.
It would have infinite mass but it would not have infinite gravity!
If you think that the mathematics are wrong then show that they are wrong, point out exactly where.

Quote from: Timeisup
A calculation is only as good as the theory that supports it.
Yes and the theory behind that calculation in MathPages is quite correct. If you disagree show exactly where it is incorrect.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Unconvinced on January 25, 2020, 02:29:03 PM

Quote
Interesting that a regular maths website actually went through this very specific problem.

Have to say though that everyone seems to bandying around words like ďfactĒ and ďproofĒ.  Itís a thought experiment of a very hypothetical situation.  Facts and proofs have no place in this discussion.  All we can do is look at the logic and maths given various assumptions.

So assuming the basic law of gravitation works like it does in the real world, then a uniform finite gravitational field seems right. 

Please note, Timeisup, that none of this means it should be considered as a potential view of the earth/universe.  Thereís more reasons to dismiss it as actual reality than I count.  No one here (I think) is arguing that it might be possible, or defending this flat earther idea.

Itís a purely mathematical problem.  ie.  we can imagine this fantasy flat plane, so what happens when we plug the numbers in?  That is all.

The word is assumption.

Of course it is. This isnít the real world, so all we can do is see what might happen in a fictional universe assuming whatever rules we think should apply.

Quote
Just as gravity works very differently at the quantum scale, and observations tend to show that something is not quite right with gravity at the cosmic scale, itís not a big leap to imagine it may be very different at the infinite scale. Every one appears to be ignoring these very relevant facts. You can correct me if Iím wrong.

Facts in the real universe are not facts in this fictional universe.  There are no facts here, itís made up.

Quote
This whole argument revolves around one calculation that appears to have been done for fun. This calculation makes the major assumption that gravity will behave the same at infinity as it does at our scale. Iím not sure what evidence the mathematician had for this.

What else do you expect?  No oneís going to put serious research into an infinite plane that doesnít exist.  And thereís no evidence anyone could use, because it doesnít exist.

As for the calculation, gravity has a basic inverse square relationship to distance between two points.  Iím not aware of any research at any scale that casts doubt on that.  Sure thereís things we donít fully understand about the cosmological constant, hypothetical dark matters and energy, etc.  but I donít see anything changing the basic relationship that much.

Quote
The other posters on this forum are more focused on proving me wrong rather than trying to get near the truth.

There is no truth.  Itís a thought experiment about something that isnít real.

Quote
As I said Iím basing my arguments on science rather than opinion. If Jack Black and the others had spent a bit more time researching rather than trying to prove me wrong he/they wouldnít have ended up looking so foolish.

https://www.icg.port.ac.uk/cosmological-tests-of-gravity/
https://www.nature.com/articles/464172a
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-probe-validity-of-einsteins-gravity-on-cosmic-scales/

Gravity has only ever been tested at finite scales and NOT at infinite scales, far from it. Therefore any calculations done at infinite scales are nothing more than pure speculation and guesswork.

Those articles are about the real universe.  Hypothetical infinite plane universe exists only in our imaginations.  And the rules are whatever we say they are.  If we apply gravity as we currently understand it, we get a finite gravitational field.  Thatís just doing the maths on our fantasy scenario.

If you say we just donít know what the rules are, then we canít even conduct a thought experiment on it in the first place.

Of course itís speculation.  What else could it be?

Quote
Now what do you think? Iíve been saying this very thing almost from the start.
Want to admit you were wrong Jack Black.

I am not Jack.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Themightykabool on January 25, 2020, 03:07:11 PM
Of course youre (uncon) not.
Rab is jackB.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 26, 2020, 01:09:53 PM
The irony in all this is the fact that this whole argument revolves around the behaviour of gravity at infinity, a force that flat earth advocates donít actually believe in!

That is not the irony in this thread.

Gravity is part of the infinite plane theory. You've seen the math that shows the infinite plane wouldn't collapse because of gravity. If gravity was not part of the theory, it would not be part of the math.

If the math is bad, show us where it goes wrong. Linking to pages you haven't even read is not helping your case. JackBlack actually read all your links, and explained why they are not relevant.

If everything is unknown and unknowable then your who point is meaningless.
So you cant prove yourself right and you cant prove us wrong.
Thanks for coming out.
10pg of nothing.

I disagree about 10 pages of nothing. This is my favorite thread right now. It's all very interesting and I feel like I am learning something.

Is that the calculation that states it only applies to an ideal plane of uniform density and possibly infinite  rigidity, and not the kind of structure we happen to live on!, with mountains, seas, lakes, etc.

That aside the person who did the calculation made a huge assumption on how gravity would behave at the infinite. Cosmologists admit they donít know how it behaves at scales way way way less that the infinite. How you and others can cling on to that calculation is a demonstration of blinkered thinking, seeing only what you want to see, rather than dealing with the facts.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 26, 2020, 01:43:49 PM
Give me one example not based on your own opinion but rather one that is backed by credible scientific facts that supports your position, whatever that may be and we can examine them.
Again, stop trying to shift the burden of proof.
The burden rests entirely upon you.
You need to back up your argument.

If you want to deal with what I have said which refutes your argument, go ahead.

Stop just repeatedly asserting the same garbage.
And remember, I made arguments myself, not appealing to that page of math.

How gravity behaves at the truly cosmic scale is unknown. Do you agree?
Gravity and how it would behave at the invite scale is also unknown. Do you agree
Do you agree?
If so, how can you claim that an infinite plane with infinite mass would have infinite gravity?
How can you claim to know how such an infinite plane would behave and that it would collapse?

Again, you are just your argument is pure garbage.

The fact that how anything operates at the infinite leaves us in a position where we are left to speculate. I speculated.
Your speculation was based upon nothing. Not even the known laws of physics. It is only now that you are claiming it is based upon wild speculation.

But again, you directly contradict yourself.
Here you are saying you were speculating, but just below you claim your argument is based upon science. Which is it?
You aren't even willing to admit that all those people claiming we don't know are contradicting your argument which relies upon knowing.

So are you going to admit your argument (the initial one you presented) is entirely baseless and in no way shows that an infinite plane would collapse into a black hole or that it is impossible?

you then tried to prove my speculation wrong by saying your unfounded and unscientific speculation was better than mine!
Except my "speculation" wasn't actually that at all. Instead it asked simple question to show it made no sense for an infinite plane to collapse into a black hole and showed that your argument was treating the infinite as just a very large finite object.

You can show it wouldn't collapse into a black hole based upon symmetry alone.
Again, dealing with a perfectly homogeneous plane as that is what your argument applied to.
This has infinite rotational symmetry about the axis perpendicular to the plane at any point on the plane, translational symmetry about any translation in the plane, mirror symmetry about an infinite number of mirror planes which are perpendicular to the plane, centre of inversions for every point along the centre of the plane, as well as a mirror plane which is the centre of the plane, and 2 fold rotational symmetry about an axis parallel to the plane, along the centre of the plane.

Now what does this mean?
Well lets say at some point on the plane we have a gravitational acceleration in some direction. This can be decomposed into 2 components, one perpendicular to the plane and one parallel to it. It is the one parallel to it which is important, as that is the one that is required to form a black hole, so I will focus on that.

Now the rotational symmetry and mirror symmetry means that this acceleration parallel to the plane must be the same in every direction. But the only way for that to happen is for the acceleration to be 0.
That means that there can be no acceleration in the direction parallel to the plane, and thus there is no force to cause it to collapse into a black hole.

Instead the only unknown would be if the gravitational acceleration perpendicular to the plane will be finite or not. If it is infinite, then instead of collapsing into a black hole, it collapses into an infinitely thin plane.

The page of you math repeatedly insult is likewise not unscientific. It is based upon the known laws of physics. It extrapolates those known laws to the infinite. Yes, it may be wrong, but it is far better than your wild speculation based upon literally nothing.


I keep coming back to this point.
And I keep coming back to this point:
Stop with the lies.
Stop with the distractions.
Stop with the insults.
Focus on your initial argument.
Can you justify it? If not, can you admit it is wrong, either because it is wrong based upon the known laws of physics or that it is wrong because it is wild speculation?

Read what they have said! Thatís what Iíve used.
Again, I have read what they have said. They do not back you up.

They say how gravity works at truly cosmic scales is unknown. Iíve just repeated that.
Would you agree on that point or disagree?
Again, it is quite obvious that that is wrong. You have not just repeated that. If anything you have directly contradicted that and acted like you have knowledge of how the infinite would behave.
So no, you are not just repeating what they have said.

You are to produce a single reference which says that an infinite plane would have infinite gravity.

Please donít invoke Sandokhan to prove your own point
Then perhaps stop acting like him.
You seemed to have no problem of accusing me of acting like Tom Bishop.

Stop posting a bunch of references which in no way back up your argument.
Stop trying to avoid the failure of your initial argument by bringing up completely separate arguments.
Deal with your argument directly, clearly defending your position.
Or admitting your argument is wrong.

Therefore I am as likely to be right as is any other person who presents an idea about an unknown situation for which no data exists.
No, not how it works.
Or do you think you are just as likely to be right (and no more) as someone who claims that the gravity will convert the infinite plane into milk?

Not knowing doesn't mean nonsense wild speculation is just as right as reasoned arguments.

But again, that ignores the burden of proof.
You made an argument which was completely wrong.

So again, going to admit your argument was wrong and that you have no basis at all for concluding that an infinite plane would collapse into a black hole?

Try this on for size.
Throughout this sorry affair I have tried throughout present links to scientific papers that back up what I have said. You on the other hand sail along powered by nothing more than your own opinions, and just repeating the same old things over and over again.
What is it you are actually trying to prove?

The aim of this was in some way to examine the possibility of the Davis plane existing that is based on nothing more than some iffy maths that for some inexplicable you all appear to be treating as some sacrosanct holly grail.
The fact that my thought experiment  said:
Infinite flat earth with Infinite gravity and Infinite mass would be unstable and collapse forming a black hole.
You didnít like this, not because it conflicted with any known science, rather because you didnít like it.

The killer here is how gravity would behave under these circumstances is NOT known according to any cosmologist you may ask. As a result the sorry page of maths that you all hang your hats on is not based on known science. Show me some links to some good hard proven science obtained through experimentation and observation that has been peer reviewed that proves unequivocally how an infinite object in our universe would behave and you can have your pound of flesh.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Themightykabool on January 26, 2020, 01:45:46 PM
Does your "collapse into a ball" use regular gravity?

What variance of percentage of mountain height and ocean depth vs estimated mantel thickness?
(3,000km vs 9km everest and 11km marianna trench)
Should that statistically factor for something that is infinitely wide?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Themightykabool on January 26, 2020, 01:47:15 PM
Inf plane would collpase into a singularity, eh?
Where would said center be i wonder.

And the derivision of the electric charge and inf gravity is the same.
R cancels out.
So the function of "force" is irreelvant as the FACTOR R is not present.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: JackBlack on January 26, 2020, 01:57:18 PM
Is that the calculation that states it only applies to an ideal plane of uniform density and possibly infinite  rigidity
No infinite rigidity is required. If it was going to appeal to that, no calculation would be needed.

But yes, it was a calculation which applied to a homogeneous plane, a plane with infinite mass and larger than 600 km, so your failed argument applies equally to it as to one with irregularities.

How you and others can cling on to that calculation is a demonstration of blinkered thinking, seeing only what you want to see, rather than dealing with the facts.
Meanwhile, look at yourself.
You cling to your argument which requires knowing how gravity would work at the infinite, even though you admit you cannot possibly know, and that your argument is entirely baseless, and you completely ignore those calculations and arguments which aren't based upon calculations.
All so you can see what you want to see, rather than dealing with the facts.

Throughout this sorry affair I have tried throughout present links to scientific papers that back up what I have said.
If you were honestly trying, you completely failed.
It seems far more likely that you were just providing you thought you could pretend backs you up.
I have already explained how they don't back you up at all.

Yet you completely ignore that and go on pretending that you are backed by science.
Just like Sandy would.

You on the other hand sail along powered by nothing more than your own opinions, and just repeating the same old things over and over again.
No, that would be you.
You started with nothing more than your baseless opinion, asserting that an infinite plane would have infinite gravity and that that would case it to collapse into a black hole. These opinions were based upon nothing. You then tried to back it up by applying a rule for finite objects onto an infinite object.

Meanwhile, I presented arguments based upon logic to show that you were wrong, to show that the infinite plane would not collapse into a black hole.
I provided the argument for the finite object, clearly explaining each step (but without the math) and explaining why it works for a finite object and not an infinite object.
You then completely ignored that, and instead just power on as if you are the only one who is correct here.

Likewise, you just dismiss the math that shows you are wrong as "dubious" and now as "iffy".

So no, it is you who is arguing with nothing more than opinion.
Logic and the known laws of physics are against you.

The fact that my thought experiment  said:
Infinite flat earth with Infinite gravity and Infinite mass would be unstable and collapse forming a black hole.
You didnít like this, not because it conflicted with any known science, rather because you didnít like it.
No, I objected to it because it directly conflicts with known science.
I explained that. Yet you keep ignoring that and pretending you are the only one here who cares about the truth, while the majority of people here saying you are wrong completely reject the flat Earth and are just pointing out that your argument is pure nonsense.

The killer here is how gravity would behave under these circumstances is NOT known
Which makes your argument pure nonsense.

This means you have 2 options (if you want to be rational and honest anyway):
1- Accept that your argument is pure nonsense, based upon nothing more than wild speculation and your opinion and has absolutely nothing to do with science and in no way shows that an infinite flat Earth cannot exist.
2 - Accept that your argument is pure nonsense, based upon the known laws of physics which indicates that such a plane would be stable, or other arguments which show that it would be stable/not collapse.

Now then, are you just going to keep repeating the same pathetic insults while completely ignoring what has been said?
Or do the impossible and actually explain why the arguments presented are wrong (and remember, if you want to appeal to not knowing how gravity works that means admitting your argument is pure nonsense).
Or will you own up and admit your mistake?

Then if you like we can discuss what the known laws of physics would do to a plane with irregularities.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: boydster on January 26, 2020, 02:02:05 PM
Let's remember, he keeps running away from not only defending the things that were wrong with his original thought experiment (points A & B below), but also (and especially) points C & D below.
Le sigh. Again, YOU designed your thought experiment, and YOU were demonstrably wrong, and YOU are looking for a way to deflect here. It's abundantly clear.

I'm not even sure about the "slight imperfections making it collapse." I can't recall where I saw it, but I seem to remember there being an argument that if the imperfections were roughly evenly distributed (much like matter being pretty much evenly distributed in the universe, although there are obviously local places like galaxies with higher concentrations), small local variances wouldn't be a problem.u

Regardless, I think the person claiming that a small imperfection would cause an infinite plane to collapse should actually demonstrate it. Burden of proof, and all that.

Burden of proof and all that, how about you prove an infinite plane could actually exist........or donít you realise all this discussion is hypothetical in the extreme as nothing infinite exists in the real physical world.
A) The proof that an infinite plan could actually exist has been already provided to you
B) This was your thought experiment
C) I'm not sure you can back up your assertion that nothing infinite exists
D) I'm quite sure you can't demonstrate a proof of the claim regarding an infinite plane collapsing due to local irregularities, when overall it's still essentially homogeneous
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 26, 2020, 02:07:13 PM

Quote
Interesting that a regular maths website actually went through this very specific problem.

Have to say though that everyone seems to bandying around words like ďfactĒ and ďproofĒ.  Itís a thought experiment of a very hypothetical situation.  Facts and proofs have no place in this discussion.  All we can do is look at the logic and maths given various assumptions.

So assuming the basic law of gravitation works like it does in the real world, then a uniform finite gravitational field seems right. 

Please note, Timeisup, that none of this means it should be considered as a potential view of the earth/universe.  Thereís more reasons to dismiss it as actual reality than I count.  No one here (I think) is arguing that it might be possible, or defending this flat earther idea.

Itís a purely mathematical problem.  ie.  we can imagine this fantasy flat plane, so what happens when we plug the numbers in?  That is all.

The word is assumption.

Of course it is. This isnít the real world, so all we can do is see what might happen in a fictional universe assuming whatever rules we think should apply.

Quote
Just as gravity works very differently at the quantum scale, and observations tend to show that something is not quite right with gravity at the cosmic scale, itís not a big leap to imagine it may be very different at the infinite scale. Every one appears to be ignoring these very relevant facts. You can correct me if Iím wrong.

Facts in the real universe are not facts in this fictional universe.  There are no facts here, itís made up.

Quote
This whole argument revolves around one calculation that appears to have been done for fun. This calculation makes the major assumption that gravity will behave the same at infinity as it does at our scale. Iím not sure what evidence the mathematician had for this.

What else do you expect?  No oneís going to put serious research into an infinite plane that doesnít exist.  And thereís no evidence anyone could use, because it doesnít exist.

As for the calculation, gravity has a basic inverse square relationship to distance between two points.  Iím not aware of any research at any scale that casts doubt on that.  Sure thereís things we donít fully understand about the cosmological constant, hypothetical dark matters and energy, etc.  but I donít see anything changing the basic relationship that much.

Quote
The other posters on this forum are more focused on proving me wrong rather than trying to get near the truth.

There is no truth.  Itís a thought experiment about something that isnít real.

Quote
As I said Iím basing my arguments on science rather than opinion. If Jack Black and the others had spent a bit more time researching rather than trying to prove me wrong he/they wouldnít have ended up looking so foolish.

https://www.icg.port.ac.uk/cosmological-tests-of-gravity/
https://www.nature.com/articles/464172a
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-probe-validity-of-einsteins-gravity-on-cosmic-scales/

Gravity has only ever been tested at finite scales and NOT at infinite scales, far from it. Therefore any calculations done at infinite scales are nothing more than pure speculation and guesswork.

Those articles are about the real universe.  Hypothetical infinite plane universe exists only in our imaginations.  And the rules are whatever we say they are.  If we apply gravity as we currently understand it, we get a finite gravitational field.  Thatís just doing the maths on our fantasy scenario.

If you say we just donít know what the rules are, then we canít even conduct a thought experiment on it in the first place.

Of course itís speculation.  What else could it be?

Quote
Now what do you think? Iíve been saying this very thing almost from the start.
Want to admit you were wrong Jack Black.

I am not Jack.

I honestly donít understand your logic. For a thought experiment to have any small validity, and it was my experiment after all, it had, according to me to adhere to some basic known rules, otherwise whatís the point. My argument was based on what we do know.
What we know is large masses over a particular size collapse inward due to the huge gravitational forces involved. That appears to happen when black holes are formed. It is  noted that all these masses are all spherical bar none.

Cosmologists have tested gravity only up to certain cosmological scales that in no way approach infinity by a long chalk, nothing like it. The page of iffy maths makes no allowance for infinity and treats the behaviour  of gravity as though it was on our scale, which of course it is not. In my opinion that renders that calculation null and void. It also adds a rider that it only applies to a perfect infinite plane and not an earth like one. It also notes that for an imperfect plane it would most likely collapse!

I canít for the life of me see what the issue is, other than the mob wanting me to admit I am wrong, which of course I am not, not through any great intellect I may have I hasten to add, but by sticking to what is known and provable.

I fail to see how this simple though experiment has stirred up the proverbial hornets nest!

I am not Spartacus.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 26, 2020, 02:09:08 PM
Let's remember, he keeps running away from not only defending the things that were wrong with his original thought experiment (points A & B below), but also (and especially) points C & D below.
Le sigh. Again, YOU designed your thought experiment, and YOU were demonstrably wrong, and YOU are looking for a way to deflect here. It's abundantly clear.

I'm not even sure about the "slight imperfections making it collapse." I can't recall where I saw it, but I seem to remember there being an argument that if the imperfections were roughly evenly distributed (much like matter being pretty much evenly distributed in the universe, although there are obviously local places like galaxies with higher concentrations), small local variances wouldn't be a problem.u

Regardless, I think the person claiming that a small imperfection would cause an infinite plane to collapse should actually demonstrate it. Burden of proof, and all that.

Burden of proof and all that, how about you prove an infinite plane could actually exist........or donít you realise all this discussion is hypothetical in the extreme as nothing infinite exists in the real physical world.
A) The proof that an infinite plan could actually exist has been already provided to you
B) This was your thought experiment
C) I'm not sure you can back up your assertion that nothing infinite exists
D) I'm quite sure you can't demonstrate a proof of the claim regarding an infinite plane collapsing due to local irregularities, when overall it's still essentially homogeneous

There is no proof in existence that an infinite plane could exist.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: boydster on January 26, 2020, 02:17:09 PM
It's already been shown to you. You have quoted sources that confirm it. This is a riot!
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: JackBlack on January 26, 2020, 02:19:50 PM
For a thought experiment to have any small validity, and it was my experiment after all, it had, according to me to adhere to some basic known rules, otherwise whatís the point. My argument was based on what we do know.
Except it was wrong. Based upon what we know about gravity, it is wrong.

What we know is large masses over a particular size collapse inward due to the huge gravitational forces involved.
No, what we know is how the laws of physics work at known scales.
These cause a large finite object to collapse, but that same argument does not work for the infinite as I have already explained.

Stop acting like all we know is that large masses collapse.

In my opinion that renders that calculation null and void.
So you don't want to deal with what we know and assume it works?
Again, do you not notice the massive contradiction here?

You want to work with what we "know" when it suits you and supports you, but when it shows you are completely wrong, you dismiss it as "we couldn't possibly know".

Make up your mind, do you want to have it based upon the absolute truth, which we do not know, making your argument pure garbage, or do you want to base it on the known laws of physics, making your argument pure garbage?

It also notes that for an imperfect plane it would most likely collapse!
Which was nothing more than a baseless claim, supported by literally nothing.

Like I said, if you want to discuss how an irregular plane would behave under the known laws of physics, admit your argument is garbage and in no way disproves an infinite plane and we can move on.

I canít for the life of me see what the issue is
Only because you are choosing not to.
It is really quite simple, your argument was pure garbage. Rather than admit that you insist on acting like you were correct, even though the known laws of physics indicates you are wrong, and if we don't know how the infinite would behave then your argument is wild speculation and thus not correct. And then you have the audacity to repeatedly insult people for showing you are wrong.

That is the issue, you pretending you are correct when it is quite clear you are not.

There is no proof in existence that an infinite plane could exist.
And again you try and shift the burden of proof.
You were claiming they can't exist. The burden is on you to prove that.

Now again, are you going to actually try to defend your argument and show how the known laws of physics cause the infinite plane to have infinite gravity due to its infinite mass, especially when the page of math you repeatedly dismiss as iffy or dubious shows that isn't the case at all?
Or will you finally own up and admit your mistake and admit your argument is pure garbage?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: rabinoz on January 26, 2020, 02:46:49 PM
So again, going to admit your argument was wrong and that you have no basis at all for concluding that an infinite plane would collapse into a black hole?

Try this on for size.
Throughout this sorry affair I have tried throughout present links to scientific papers that back up what I have said. You on the other hand sail along powered by nothing more than your own opinions, and just repeating the same old things over and over again.
What is it you are actually trying to prove?
I'm not JackBlack but we "are actually trying to prove" that your whole premise is wrong!
YOU are the only one making it a "sorry affair" and all your links are undoubtedly sound but quite irrelevant to the basic questions, which are:
Will a uniform finite thickness plane of infinite extent be stable and will it have a finite surface gravity?

Quote from: Timeisup
The aim of this was in some way to examine the possibility of the Davis plane existing that is based on nothing more than some iffy maths.
You just do not get the point that it is NOT based on "some iffy maths." DO you remember:
A calculation is only as good as the theory that supports it.
Yes and the theory behind that calculation in MathPages is quite correct. If you disagree show exactly where it is incorrect.
[/quote]
So if you think it's based on "some iffy maths" WHY do you refuse point-blank to point out any errors in the maths?

Quote from: Timeisup
The fact that my thought experiment  said:
Infinite flat earth with Infinite gravity and Infinite mass would be unstable and collapse forming a black hole.
And that is quite incorrect because, as has been proven by that math, that the "Infinite flat earth" (with finite thickness) will not have "Infinite gravity" and nor will it "collapse forming a black hole".

So, I repeat, WHY do you refuse to show where the maths are wrong? If you can't do that you have no case!

Quote from: Timeisup
You didnít like this, not because it conflicted with any known science, rather because you didnít like it.
But you have never shown where it conflicts with known science and it nothing to do with our not liking it.

And you might read this StackExchange, Physics: Gravitational force when standing on an infinite disc (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/264306/gravitational-force-when-standing-on-an-infinite-disc)

Quote from: Timeisup
The killer here is how gravity would behave under these circumstances is NOT known according to any cosmologist you may ask.
Where have YOU ever asked "any cosmologist" to make such a bold claim?

Look, the total mass of ordinary matter in the universe is about 1.5 ◊ 1053 kg. In my book that's large enough to be called infinite in this context.

But on Earth, we do not experience anything approaching infinite gravity from this unimaginably large mass. Why not?
Here on Earth, even the effects of Moon do nothing more than cause the tides due to minuscule tidal effects of the Moo and the Sun.

Quote from: Timeisup
As a result the sorry page of maths
It is not a "sorry page of maths"! The maths are quite correct and you've never shown otherwise! I'll ignore the rest of your little rant!

Look! A hypothetical object of infinite mass but of finite size will produce infinite gravity but if it is an infinite uniform plane it will not collapse and will have a uniform and finite surface gravity.
You seem to forget that the distance is squared in the expression for the gravitational acceleration - and that beats the extra mass.

I'm fully aware that objects larger than even a few hundred km in "size" tend to collapse into a sphere.
The minor planet Ceres is only945 km diameter yet look how near a sphere it is:
(https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/system/feature_items/images/141_PIA21906_800w.jpg)

Now either show where the maths are wrong or run away - your choice!
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 26, 2020, 03:14:49 PM
It's already been shown to you. You have quoted sources that confirm it. This is a riot!

Why not for fun post it again, go on, you know you want to.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 26, 2020, 03:18:55 PM
For a thought experiment to have any small validity, and it was my experiment after all, it had, according to me to adhere to some basic known rules, otherwise whatís the point. My argument was based on what we do know.
Except it was wrong. Based upon what we know about gravity, it is wrong.

What we know is large masses over a particular size collapse inward due to the huge gravitational forces involved.
No, what we know is how the laws of physics work at known scales.
These cause a large finite object to collapse, but that same argument does not work for the infinite as I have already explained.

Stop acting like all we know is that large masses collapse.

In my opinion that renders that calculation null and void.
So you don't want to deal with what we know and assume it works?
Again, do you not notice the massive contradiction here?

You want to work with what we "know" when it suits you and supports you, but when it shows you are completely wrong, you dismiss it as "we couldn't possibly know".

Make up your mind, do you want to have it based upon the absolute truth, which we do not know, making your argument pure garbage, or do you want to base it on the known laws of physics, making your argument pure garbage?

It also notes that for an imperfect plane it would most likely collapse!
Which was nothing more than a baseless claim, supported by literally nothing.

Like I said, if you want to discuss how an irregular plane would behave under the known laws of physics, admit your argument is garbage and in no way disproves an infinite plane and we can move on.

I canít for the life of me see what the issue is
Only because you are choosing not to.
It is really quite simple, your argument was pure garbage. Rather than admit that you insist on acting like you were correct, even though the known laws of physics indicates you are wrong, and if we don't know how the infinite would behave then your argument is wild speculation and thus not correct. And then you have the audacity to repeatedly insult people for showing you are wrong.

That is the issue, you pretending you are correct when it is quite clear you are not.

There is no proof in existence that an infinite plane could exist.
And again you try and shift the burden of proof.
You were claiming they can't exist. The burden is on you to prove that.

Now again, are you going to actually try to defend your argument and show how the known laws of physics cause the infinite plane to have infinite gravity due to its infinite mass, especially when the page of math you repeatedly dismiss as iffy or dubious shows that isn't the case at all?
Or will you finally own up and admit your mistake and admit your argument is pure garbage?

You do have to remember that all you say is just your opinion, that has as much chance of being right as a fly in the air. Unless you prove otherwise, talking of which......
I gave you a very clear and direct option of how you can claim victory, and you decided not to take it, I wonder why.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: boydster on January 26, 2020, 03:28:23 PM
Why can't you actually deal with making a case for your own argument? That's kinda weird, isn't it?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: boydster on January 26, 2020, 03:30:48 PM
Appealing to actual mathematics as it's applied to known physical models rises a bit above opinion. Do you realize that? And can you show a problem with any of the arguments made against you yet? Let's go ahead and assume a mathematical problem, just for the sake of clarity. Can you?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 26, 2020, 03:31:50 PM
So again, going to admit your argument was wrong and that you have no basis at all for concluding that an infinite plane would collapse into a black hole?

Try this on for size.
Throughout this sorry affair I have tried throughout present links to scientific papers that back up what I have said. You on the other hand sail along powered by nothing more than your own opinions, and just repeating the same old things over and over again.
What is it you are actually trying to prove?
I'm not JackBlack but we "are actually trying to prove" that your whole premise is wrong!
YOU are the only one making it a "sorry affair" and all your links are undoubtedly sound but quite irrelevant to the basic questions, which are:
Will a uniform finite thickness plane of infinite extent be stable and will it have a finite surface gravity?

Quote from: Timeisup
The aim of this was in some way to examine the possibility of the Davis plane existing that is based on nothing more than some iffy maths.
You just do not get the point that it is NOT based on "some iffy maths." DO you remember:
A calculation is only as good as the theory that supports it.
Yes and the theory behind that calculation in MathPages is quite correct. If you disagree show exactly where it is incorrect.
So if you think it's based on "some iffy maths" WHY do you refuse point-blank to point out any errors in the maths?

Quote from: Timeisup
The fact that my thought experiment  said:
Infinite flat earth with Infinite gravity and Infinite mass would be unstable and collapse forming a black hole.
And that is quite incorrect because, as has been proven by that math, that the "Infinite flat earth" (with finite thickness) will not have "Infinite gravity" and nor will it "collapse forming a black hole".

So, I repeat, WHY do you refuse to show where the maths are wrong? If you can't do that you have no case!

Quote from: Timeisup
You didnít like this, not because it conflicted with any known science, rather because you didnít like it.
But you have never shown where it conflicts with known science and it nothing to do with our not liking it.

And you might read this StackEexchange, Physics: Gravitational force when standing on an infinite disc (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/264306/gravitational-force-when-standing-on-an-infinite-disc)

Quote from: Timeisup
The killer here is how gravity would behave under these circumstances is NOT known according to any cosmologist you may ask.
Where have YOU ever asked "any cosmologist" to make such a bold claim?

Look, the total mass of ordinary matter in the universe is about 1.5 ◊ 1053 kg. In my book that's large enough to be called infinite in this context.

But on Earth, we do not experience anything approaching infinite gravity from this unimaginably large mass. Why not?
Here on Earth, even the effects of Moon do nothing more than cause the tides due to minuscule tidal effects of the Moo and the Sun.

Quote from: Timeisup
As a result the sorry page of maths
It is not a "sorry page of maths"! The maths are quite correct and you've never shown otherwise! I'll ignore the rest of your little rant!

Look! A hypothetical object of infinite mass but of finite size will produce infinite gravity but if it is an infinite uniform plane it will not collapse and will have a uniform and finite surface gravity.
You seem to forget that the distance is squared in the expression for the gravitational acceleration - and that beats the extra mass.

I'm fully aware that objects larger than even a few hundred km in "size" tend to collapse into a sphere.
The minor planet Ceres is only945 km diameter yet look how near a sphere it is:
(https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/system/feature_items/images/141_PIA21906_800w.jpg)

Now either show where the maths are wrong or run away - your choice!
[/quote]

Stack exchange mathematics, are you serious?
I present papers supporting my argument from the leading universities in the world, and you quote Stack exchange mathematics!
World like, scrape, barrel, bottom spring to mind. Nice try but please be serious.

Iíll give it one last go. If the premise on which a calculation is based is flawed then any answer that calculation provides is also flawed. Science says, that how gravity works at Cosmic scales is unknown. It must therefore follow that at infinite scales it is also unknown. With that said any calculation that deals with an infinite physical situation by dealing with gravity as if operates at our own scale is flawed.
If you are unable to follow that logic then there is nothing more I can do.
Show me a paper, not from stack physics please, that proves how gravity functions at the infinite then Iíll eat all three of my hats. I actually have four, but want to keep one just in case.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 26, 2020, 03:47:38 PM
Appealing to actual mathematics as it's applied to known physical models rises a bit above opinion. Do you realize that? And can you show a problem with any of the arguments made against you yet? Let's go ahead and assume a mathematical problem, just for the sake of clarity. Can you?

You actually believe that?
If thatís the case then it puts everyone of the flat earth beliefs on very sticky wickets by your own admission!
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 26, 2020, 03:51:50 PM
Where have YOU ever asked "any cosmologist" to make such a bold claim?

From earlier on, I hope that satisfies my bold claim. I could post more it you wish.

https://www.icg.port.ac.uk/cosmological-tests-of-gravity/
https://www.nature.com/articles/464172a
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-probe-validity-of-einsteins-gravity-on-cosmic-scales/


Ps.
Sorry they are not from ĎScales Physicsí, but from Nature and Scientific American. I know how you put so much store  in those fringe websites.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: JackBlack on January 26, 2020, 03:58:02 PM
You do have to remember that all you say is just your opinion
No, I don't.
I have presented rational arguments based upon logic which you are yet to refute.
As such, it isn't just my opinion.

All the available evidence and rational thought shows you are wrong.

The one just spouting opinion here is you.

I present papers supporting my argument
Stop lying.
You present papers which are irrelevant to the argument.
In no way do they support your argument.

Again, your argument was that the infinite mass of an infinite plane would cause it to have infinite gravity and cause it to collapse into a black hole.
You are yet to present a single thing which backs up that claim.

Science says, that how gravity works at Cosmic scales is unknown. It must therefore follow that at infinite scales it is also unknown.
Yet your argument pretends that you know.

So are you going to admit your argument is a pile of garbage which in no way refutes the possibility of an infinite plane?
If not, stop bringing it up.

Again, we have your argument based upon nothing more than wild speculation and your own baseless opinion, vs our current understanding of how the universe works and rational arguments which show your claim to be wrong.

Now, are you going to start acting like a rational adult and either defend your argument or admit it was completely wrong?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 26, 2020, 04:07:34 PM
You do have to remember that all you say is just your opinion
No, I don't.
I have presented rational arguments based upon logic which you are yet to refute.
As such, it isn't just my opinion.

All the available evidence and rational thought shows you are wrong.

The one just spouting opinion here is you.

I present papers supporting my argument
Stop lying.
You present papers which are irrelevant to the argument.
In no way do they support your argument.

Again, your argument was that the infinite mass of an infinite plane would cause it to have infinite gravity and cause it to collapse into a black hole.
You are yet to present a single thing which backs up that claim.

Science says, that how gravity works at Cosmic scales is unknown. It must therefore follow that at infinite scales it is also unknown.
Yet your argument pretends that you know.

So are you going to admit your argument is a pile of garbage which in no way refutes the possibility of an infinite plane?
If not, stop bringing it up.

Again, we have your argument based upon nothing more than wild speculation and your own baseless opinion, vs our current understanding of how the universe works and rational arguments which show your claim to be wrong.

Now, are you going to start acting like a rational adult and either defend your argument or admit it was completely wrong?

No
All you ever keep giving is your unfounded opinion. I keep saying provide me with good quality evidence that supports your position, and you never do, for one key reason, and that is you canít, as none exists. If it did exist you would have used it before now rather than relying on no more than bluff and bluster.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 26, 2020, 04:11:26 PM
Stop lying.
You present papers which are irrelevant to the argument.
In no way do they support your argument.


https://www.icg.port.ac.uk/cosmological-tests-of-gravity/
https://www.nature.com/articles/464172a
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-probe-validity-of-einsteins-gravity-on-cosmic-scales/

Lying! I donít think so! Do these papers not support my view that we have a limited understanding of gravity at Cosmic scales, yes or no.

The problem for you is there is nothing you can present to support your own unsupported views. 

Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Space Cowgirl on January 26, 2020, 04:13:04 PM
Can you quote from those sources where it says an infinite plane would collapse into a black hole?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: rabinoz on January 26, 2020, 05:24:55 PM
Can you quote from those sources where it says an infinite plane would collapse into a black hole?
You must admit that Timeisup was quite correct on one score. He did say: "Yes I think that a thought experiment on the earth as an infinite plane could be said to be entertaining."
He might have been wrong about some other things but he got that bit spot on ;D!
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: rabinoz on January 26, 2020, 06:14:29 PM
Stop lying.
You present papers which are irrelevant to the argument.
In no way do they support your argument.


https://www.icg.port.ac.uk/cosmological-tests-of-gravity/
https://www.nature.com/articles/464172a
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-probe-validity-of-einsteins-gravity-on-cosmic-scales/

Lying! I donít think so! Do these papers not support my view that we have a limited understanding of gravity at Cosmic scales, yes or no.
Please show where any "limited understanding of gravity at Cosmic scales" might be relevant here.
Many flat-Earthers don't believe that the Earth could be more than say 10,000 years and 10,000 light-years doesn't get us 10% across our own Galaxy.

In any case Einstein's General Relativity seems to be amazingly accurate but look at YOUR papers:
Quote
Cosmological Tests of Gravity (https://www.icg.port.ac.uk/cosmological-tests-of-gravity/)
Gravity is an essential force in the Universe, governing the dynamics of planets, stars and galaxies. The law of gravity is tested accurately at scales between 10-4m in laboratories and 1014m in the solar system. However, it is untested both on small and large scales by conventional methods. The Universe we live is expanding: the size of the Universe was tiny, as small as 10-35m, in the beginning of the Universe but its size today reaches 1026m. Thus Cosmology provides a means to test the nature of gravity on both tiny and massive scales.

The standard model of cosmology assumes Einsteinís General Relativity (GR) as a theory to describe gravity on all scales. According to GR, the expansion of the Universe must be slowing down now. In 1998, astronomers made a surprising discovery that the expansion of the Universe was indeed accelerating not slowing down. This discovery was the subject of the Nobel Prize in Physics 2011. This late-time acceleration of the Universe has become the most challenging problem in theoretical physics.
Quote
Gravity tested on cosmic scales by J. Anthony Tyson Nature volume 464, pages172Ė173(2010) (https://www.nature.com/articles/464172a)
Einstein's theory of general relativity has been tested ó and confirmed ó on scales far beyond those of our Solar System. But the results don't exclude all alternative theories of gravity.
Quote
Physicists Probe Validity Of Einsteinís Gravity On Cosmic Scales (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-probe-validity-of-einsteins-gravity-on-cosmic-scales/)
New tests could verify the general theory of relativity, or find flaws.
A century ago, Albert Einstein became famous.
Sure, he was already well-known among physicists. But the world at large learned his name only after November 1919, when news broke that his theory of gravity had been confirmedóto the dismay of many fans of Isaac Newton.

ďLights All Askew in the HeavensĒ shouted the headline in the New York Times. ďEinstein Theory Triumphs,Ē a subhead added. As the article recounted, an observation of stars near the sun during a solar eclipse found their apparent position shifted just as Einstein had predicted. Newtonís law of gravity, considered inviolable for over two centuries, had been repealed.
Those fans of Isaac Newton need not have been dismayed because Einstein, himself, said that the Laws of Isaac Newton were amazingly at the speeds and mass withing the Solar System and astronomers commonly use Newtonian physics where applicable.
So that "Newtonís law of gravity, considered inviolable for over two centuries, had been repealed" from the New York Times was far from accurate!

Look just face the real issue fair and square! It was a thought experiment and as such the only things relevant are the premises in that thought experiment.

This is your initial thought experiment:
Entertaining? Yes 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
We would not and never have existed due to the earth being a black hole
So breaking it down:
"the earth is an infinite plane it would therefore follow:"
Quote from: Timeisup
The problem for you is there is nothing you can present to support your own unsupported views.
No,Timeisup, the problem is that YOU are not prepared to accept the maths of experts and physicists who obviously know far more than you.
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? (https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath530/kmath530.htm)
        StackExchange, Physics: Gravitational force when standing on an infinite disc (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/264306/gravitational-force-when-standing-on-an-infinite-disc)



Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Themightykabool on January 26, 2020, 06:21:05 PM


I honestly don’t understand your logic. For a thought experiment to have any small validity, and it was my experiment after all, it had, according to me to adhere to some basic known rules, otherwise what’s the point. My argument was based on what we do know.
What we know is large masses over a particular size collapse inward due to the huge gravitational forces involved
[/i][/b]That appears to happen when black holes are formed. It is  noted that all these masses are all spherical bar none.

Cosmologists have tested gravity only up to certain cosmological scales that in no way approach infinity by a long chalk, nothing like it. The page of iffy maths makes no allowance for infinity and treats the behaviour  of gravity as though it was on our scale, which of course it is not. In my opinion that renders that calculation null and void. It also adds a rider that it only applies to a perfect infinite plane and not an earth like one. It also notes that for an imperfect plane it would most likely collapse!

I can’t for the life of me see what the issue is
, other than the mob wanting me to admit I am wrong, which of course I am not, not through any great intellect I may have I hasten to add, but by sticking to what is known and provable.

I fail to see how this simple though experiment has stirred up the proverbial hornets nest!

I am not Spartacus.


Interesting you feel you need to ebdlessly battle jackB and scg on thebopinion of whos right and wrong amd yet fail to address quite simply boyd and my very specific issues of contention with your arguement.
Pulling a real scepi here.


What part of the below are you unable to answer?
Or are you purposefully unwilling to acknowledge?
Because its very quite clear.



Premise that it will collapse - wheres the center on an inf plane?


Does your "collapse into a ball" use regular gravity?

What variance of percentage of mountain height and ocean depth vs estimated mantel thickness?
(3,000km vs 9km everest and 11km marianna trench)
Should that statistically factor for something that is infinitely wide?


Inf plane would collpase into a singularity, eh?
Where would said center be i wonder.

And the derivision of the electric charge and inf gravity is the same.
R cancels out.
So the function of "force" is irreelvant as the FACTOR R is not present.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: JackBlack on January 26, 2020, 06:45:11 PM
All you ever keep giving is your unfounded opinion.
Again, that would be you. All you have provided to back up your argument is your unfounded opinion.

Meanwhile I have provided arguments to show why your opinion is unfounded and arguments which show that an infinite plane would not collapse into a black hole.
The latter is an argument which does not depend on how gravity behaves at infinite scales.

I have provided an argument in the form of simple questions which reveal your claims to be nonsense.
I provided an argument showing how the finite case works and explaining why it wouldn't work for the infinite.
I have provided an argument based upon symmetry, similar in intention to the simple questions, which shows that an infinite plane wouldn't collapse into a black hole.

And what has been your wonderful response?
Dismissal, providing a link which in no way deals with the issue, pathetic insults, ignoring it entirely, or just claiming it is opinion.

Can you in any way address those arguments?
If not, stop acting like it is just opinion.

I keep saying provide me with good quality evidence
Yes, you keep trying to shift the burden of proof. It really is quite pathetic.
How about you provide evidence which supports your position or actually deal with the arguments presented which refutes it.

Lying! I donít think so!
That's nice, what you think doesn't change reality.
You are yet to provide a single source which shows that the infinite mass of an infinite plane would result in infinite gravity which would cause it to collapse into a black hole.
Until you present such evidence, your claim that you are providing sources which back you up will remain a lie.

Sources which state that we do not know how gravity would behave at the scale of an infinite object does not back you up. Instead, it indicates your argument is wrong as your argument relies upon such knowledge.

So you have provided sources which show you are wrong, you haven't provided any which show you are correct.

Stop trying to change your argument. If you want to do so, admit your initial argument was pure garbage.

Also, if you were giving it one last go, why are you back?

Now again, are you going to back up your argument?
I don't mean your pathetic distraction to avoid admitting your initial argument is pure nonsense.
I mean your initial argument. Your argument which appealed to the infinite mass of an infinite plane, baselessly claiming it would have infinite gravity which would cause it to collapse into a black hole.
Can you back up that argument? If not, can you admit it is baseless garbage which in no way refutes or even remotely challenges the existence of an infinite plane?

Again, saying we can't possibly know how an infinite plane would behave due to gravity is indicating that argument is garbage. So instead of just skirting or outright lying and pretending that is what you were saying from the start, admit that it is garbage.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 27, 2020, 12:43:50 AM
Can you quote from those sources where it says an infinite plane would collapse into a black hole?

I think Madame you need to keep up, the point at issue here was Mr Blacksís assertion that I was lying regarding having good supporting scientific  references. I was pointing out the error of his ways. You may wish to read them as it knocks many of your own flat earth views on the head.

Can you quote from sources other than flat earth ones that show an infinite plane would exist in the first instance?
While you were at it you could also provide sources that show how gravity would manifest itself on the invite scale.
The problem is your argument is based on a zero information standpoint.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 27, 2020, 12:57:31 AM
Can you quote from those sources where it says an infinite plane would collapse into a black hole?
You must admit that Timeisup was quite correct on one score. He did say: "Yes I think that a thought experiment on the earth as an infinite plane could be said to be entertaining."
He might have been wrong about some other things but he got that bit spot on ;D!

Entertaining itís a hoot watching people pontificating about an impossibility they know nothing about. Itís particularly entertaining watching the flying pig man tie himself up in cherry picking knots, and Jack  Black carrying on as though he knows something about infinite structures that no one else on our planet has the slightest idea about, and pretend at the same time heís being both logical and scientific. Most of all itís entertaining watching unscientific flat earth believers cherry pick bits of science here and there imaging they support their impossible idea of an impossible infinite plane.

Fact one, no one knows how infinite structures would behave, thatís aside such a structure existing being an impossibility in the first instance. The reason being no one knows how gravity would operate in such bizarre infinite circumstances, not even The Black Jack. The science proves this.

Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 27, 2020, 01:07:59 AM


I honestly donít understand your logic. For a thought experiment to have any small validity, and it was my experiment after all, it had, according to me to adhere to some basic known rules, otherwise whatís the point. My argument was based on what we do know.
What we know is large masses over a particular size collapse inward due to the huge gravitational forces involved
[/i][/b]That appears to happen when black holes are formed. It is  noted that all these masses are all spherical bar none.

Cosmologists have tested gravity only up to certain cosmological scales that in no way approach infinity by a long chalk, nothing like it. The page of iffy maths makes no allowance for infinity and treats the behaviour  of gravity as though it was on our scale, which of course it is not. In my opinion that renders that calculation null and void. It also adds a rider that it only applies to a perfect infinite plane and not an earth like one. It also notes that for an imperfect plane it would most likely collapse!

I canít for the life of me see what the issue is
, other than the mob wanting me to admit I am wrong, which of course I am not, not through any great intellect I may have I hasten to add, but by sticking to what is known and provable.

I fail to see how this simple though experiment has stirred up the proverbial hornets nest!

I am not Spartacus.


Interesting you feel you need to ebdlessly battle jackB and scg on thebopinion of whos right and wrong amd yet fail to address quite simply boyd and my very specific issues of contention with your arguement.
Pulling a real scepi here.


What part of the below are you unable to answer?
Or are you purposefully unwilling to acknowledge?
Because its very quite clear.



Premise that it will collapse - wheres the center on an inf plane?


Does your "collapse into a ball" use regular gravity?

What variance of percentage of mountain height and ocean depth vs estimated mantel thickness?
(3,000km vs 9km everest and 11km marianna trench)
Should that statistically factor for something that is infinitely wide?


Inf plane would collpase into a singularity, eh?
Where would said center be i wonder.

And the derivision of the electric charge and inf gravity is the same.
R cancels out.
So the function of "force" is irreelvant as the FACTOR R is not present.

You are missing the point totally. While Jack Black is completely and utterly wrong, that does not make me right, how could I or any one else be right on this hypothetical impossible situation?
We are dealing with a mythical situation in a mythical universe that in all honesty we know zero about. How could it be otherwise?. The flat earthers latched on to that entertaining piece of pop maths as though they had discovered the missing gospel. John Davis built his Davis plane around it not noticing one of the massive flaws in his thinking. Itís a great example of how flat earth people will cherry pick little bits of science here and there not realising the knock on implications.
What Iím right in is the various scientific papers Iíve used and quoted to back up just some of the things I have said.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 27, 2020, 01:27:55 AM
All you ever keep giving is your unfounded opinion.
Again, that would be you. All you have provided to back up your argument is your unfounded opinion.

Meanwhile I have provided arguments to show why your opinion is unfounded and arguments which show that an infinite plane would not collapse into a black hole.
The latter is an argument which does not depend on how gravity behaves at infinite scales.

I have provided an argument in the form of simple questions which reveal your claims to be nonsense.
I provided an argument showing how the finite case works and explaining why it wouldn't work for the infinite.
I have provided an argument based upon symmetry, similar in intention to the simple questions, which shows that an infinite plane wouldn't collapse into a black hole.

And what has been your wonderful response?
Dismissal, providing a link which in no way deals with the issue, pathetic insults, ignoring it entirely, or just claiming it is opinion.

Can you in any way address those arguments?
If not, stop acting like it is just opinion.

I keep saying provide me with good quality evidence
Yes, you keep trying to shift the burden of proof. It really is quite pathetic.
How about you provide evidence which supports your position or actually deal with the arguments presented which refutes it.

Lying! I donít think so!
That's nice, what you think doesn't change reality.
You are yet to provide a single source which shows that the infinite mass of an infinite plane would result in infinite gravity which would cause it to collapse into a black hole.
Until you present such evidence, your claim that you are providing sources which back you up will remain a lie.

Sources which state that we do not know how gravity would behave at the scale of an infinite object does not back you up. Instead, it indicates your argument is wrong as your argument relies upon such knowledge.

So you have provided sources which show you are wrong, you haven't provided any which show you are correct.

Stop trying to change your argument. If you want to do so, admit your initial argument was pure garbage.

Also, if you were giving it one last go, why are you back?

Now again, are you going to back up your argument?
I don't mean your pathetic distraction to avoid admitting your initial argument is pure nonsense.
I mean your initial argument. Your argument which appealed to the infinite mass of an infinite plane, baselessly claiming it would have infinite gravity which would cause it to collapse into a black hole.
Can you back up that argument? If not, can you admit it is baseless garbage which in no way refutes or even remotely challenges the existence of an infinite plane?

Again, saying we can't possibly know how an infinite plane would behave due to gravity is indicating that argument is garbage. So instead of just skirting or outright lying and pretending that is what you were saying from the start, admit that it is garbage.

Have you now?
You say:

I provided an argument showing how the finite case works and explaining why it wouldn't work for the infinite.
I have provided an argument based upon symmetry, similar in intention to the simple questions, which shows that an infinite plane wouldn't collapse into a black hole.


If you have then there will be a Nobel prize in it, picture on the front of Time, fame! The way you infinitely flatter your own ego is indeed a wonder. Neither you or anyone else knows how physics would operate where infinite structures are concerned to do so only shows  a delusional mind in operation.
My thought experiment on the subject is therefore as valid as anyone elseís. The fact that you appear to have taken this as a real world situation and one you though you knew something about is staggering.
Here is your opportunity to tell the world how you came by your knowledge on the infinite.

Keep Going the Jack Black fame awaits.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: rabinoz on January 27, 2020, 01:32:58 AM
Can you quote from those sources where it says an infinite plane would collapse into a black hole?
You must admit that Timeisup was quite correct on one score. He did say: "Yes I think that a thought experiment on the earth as an infinite plane could be said to be entertaining."
He might have been wrong about some other things but he got that bit spot on ;D!
Entertaining itís a hoot watching people pontificating about an impossibility they know nothing about.
It sure is but it's you who refuse to face the basic issue.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 27, 2020, 01:41:51 AM
Can you quote from those sources where it says an infinite plane would collapse into a black hole?
You must admit that Timeisup was quite correct on one score. He did say: "Yes I think that a thought experiment on the earth as an infinite plane could be said to be entertaining."
He might have been wrong about some other things but he got that bit spot on ;D!
Entertaining itís a hoot watching people pontificating about an impossibility they know nothing about.
It sure is but it's you who refuse to face the basic issue.

Please tell me what that basic issue is that I am allegedly  refusing.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: rabinoz on January 27, 2020, 01:55:33 AM
You are missing the point totally. While Jack Black is completely and utterly wrong, that does not make me right, how could I or any one else be right on this hypothetical impossible situation?
No, it's you who are missing the point entirely.
It sure is but it's you who refuse to face the basic issue.
Please tell me what that basic issue is.
I have done that numerous times but you take no notice! Here it is again.
So read this and explain where the maths in the thought experiment are wrong.  If you can't, you have no case.

Look just face the real issue fair and square! It was a thought experiment and as such the only things relevant are the premises in that thought experiment.

This is your initial thought experiment:
Entertaining? Yes 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
We would not and never have existed due to the earth being a black hole
So breaking it down:
"the earth is an infinite plane it would therefore follow:"
  • "the earth would have infinite mass" - [i]Yes, it would.[/i]
  • "the earth would have infinite gravity as a result of the infinite mass" - No, it would not have infinite gravity!
  • "the earth by implication would have to collapse into a black hole to obey the laws of physics" - No, it would not! and
  • "We would not and never have existed due to the earth being a black hole" - No, it would not!
Quote from: Timeisup
The problem for you is there is nothing you can present to support your own unsupported views.
No,Timeisup, the problem is that YOU are not prepared to accept the maths of experts and physicists who obviously know far more than you.
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? (https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath530/kmath530.htm)
        StackExchange, Physics: Gravitational force when standing on an infinite disc (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/264306/gravitational-force-when-standing-on-an-infinite-disc)
Now neither I nor JackBlack think for one second that an infinite flat Earth is feasible or realistic but that is quite a separate issue.

A uniform infinite flat earth of finite thickness does not collapse and does have a finite gravity.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 27, 2020, 02:06:07 AM
Stop lying.
You present papers which are irrelevant to the argument.
In no way do they support your argument.


https://www.icg.port.ac.uk/cosmological-tests-of-gravity/
https://www.nature.com/articles/464172a
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-probe-validity-of-einsteins-gravity-on-cosmic-scales/

Lying! I donít think so! Do these papers not support my view that we have a limited understanding of gravity at Cosmic scales, yes or no.
Please show where any "limited understanding of gravity at Cosmic scales" might be relevant here.
Many flat-Earthers don't believe that the Earth could be more than say 10,000 years and 10,000 light-years doesn't get us 10% across our own Galaxy.

In any case Einstein's General Relativity seems to be amazingly accurate but look at YOUR papers:
Quote
Cosmological Tests of Gravity (https://www.icg.port.ac.uk/cosmological-tests-of-gravity/)
Gravity is an essential force in the Universe, governing the dynamics of planets, stars and galaxies. The law of gravity is tested accurately at scales between 10-4m in laboratories and 1014m in the solar system. However, it is untested both on small and large scales by conventional methods. The Universe we live is expanding: the size of the Universe was tiny, as small as 10-35m, in the beginning of the Universe but its size today reaches 1026m. Thus Cosmology provides a means to test the nature of gravity on both tiny and massive scales.

The standard model of cosmology assumes Einsteinís General Relativity (GR) as a theory to describe gravity on all scales. According to GR, the expansion of the Universe must be slowing down now. In 1998, astronomers made a surprising discovery that the expansion of the Universe was indeed accelerating not slowing down. This discovery was the subject of the Nobel Prize in Physics 2011. This late-time acceleration of the Universe has become the most challenging problem in theoretical physics.
Quote
Gravity tested on cosmic scales by J. Anthony Tyson Nature volume 464, pages172Ė173(2010) (https://www.nature.com/articles/464172a)
Einstein's theory of general relativity has been tested ó and confirmed ó on scales far beyond those of our Solar System. But the results don't exclude all alternative theories of gravity.
Quote
Physicists Probe Validity Of Einsteinís Gravity On Cosmic Scales (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-probe-validity-of-einsteins-gravity-on-cosmic-scales/)
New tests could verify the general theory of relativity, or find flaws.
A century ago, Albert Einstein became famous.
Sure, he was already well-known among physicists. But the world at large learned his name only after November 1919, when news broke that his theory of gravity had been confirmedóto the dismay of many fans of Isaac Newton.

ďLights All Askew in the HeavensĒ shouted the headline in the New York Times. ďEinstein Theory Triumphs,Ē a subhead added. As the article recounted, an observation of stars near the sun during a solar eclipse found their apparent position shifted just as Einstein had predicted. Newtonís law of gravity, considered inviolable for over two centuries, had been repealed.
Those fans of Isaac Newton need not have been dismayed because Einstein, himself, said that the Laws of Isaac Newton were amazingly at the speeds and mass withing the Solar System and astronomers commonly use Newtonian physics where applicable.
So that "Newtonís law of gravity, considered inviolable for over two centuries, had been repealed" from the New York Times was far from accurate!

Look just face the real issue fair and square! It was a thought experiment and as such the only things relevant are the premises in that thought experiment.

This is your initial thought experiment:
Entertaining? Yes 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
We would not and never have existed due to the earth being a black hole
So breaking it down:
"the earth is an infinite plane it would therefore follow:"
  • "the earth would have infinite mass" - Yes, it would.
  • "the earth would have infinite gravity as a result of the infinite mass" - No, it would not have infinite gravity!
  • "the earth by implication would have to collapse into a black hole to obey the laws of physics" - No, it would not! and
  • "We would not and never have existed due to the earth being a black hole" - No. it would not!
Quote from: Timeisup
The problem for you is there is nothing you can present to support your own unsupported views.
No,Timeisup, the problem is that YOU are not prepared to accept the maths of experts and physicists who obviously know far more than you.
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? (https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath530/kmath530.htm)
        StackExchange, Physics: Gravitational force when standing on an infinite disc (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/264306/gravitational-force-when-standing-on-an-infinite-disc)

I think what flat earthers believe is neither here nor there when it comes to science. Letís be honest they believe in small moon and small sun and a world where easily observed satellites donít exist! And I thought we were speaking about the validity of evidence.

Tell me why you think the physics of an infinite structure, something you have zero data on, would  behave in the way you imagine? What verifiable information do you possess that leads you to believe that infinite mass would not result in infinite gravity?

This has been the problem from the outset, the mob imagining they know something conclusive about the nature of structures at the infinite level. Itís been a problem from the start and itís still a problem now, you and all the others fooling themselves that they know something about the unknowable.

I never said I was right about my though experiment, but Iím certainly not wrong! The people who are wrong are those who imagine they know something about the infinite.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: JackBlack on January 27, 2020, 02:11:01 AM
I think Madame you need to keep up, the point at issue here was Mr Blacksís assertion that I was lying regarding having good supporting scientific  references.
You mean the fact that you are lying and claiming that you present papers supporting your argument.
The fact is that those papers are irrelevant to your argument.
You were just lying again to try and cover it up.
Again, no where in those references does it indicate that the infinite mass of an infinite plane results in infinite gravity and that it would collapse into a black hole.
That was your argument which you are yet to support.

Again, quit with the pathetic distractions and deal with your argument.

Entertaining itís a hoot watching people pontificating about an impossibility they know nothing about.
I think it's more pathetic watching you do that.

Fact one, no one knows how infinite structures would behave
Again, that would mean your argument is pure garbage.
Willing to admit that yet?

While Jack Black is completely and utterly wrong
If that was the case why have you been completely unable to provide a single problem with the arguments I have presented?
Why do you instead just ignore them or dismiss them?

that does not make me right
So why do you keep making demands for other people to prove you wrong instead of backing your argument?

how could I or any one else be right on this hypothetical impossible situation?
Then why don't you admit your argument was pure garbage?

What Iím right in is the various scientific papers Iíve used and quoted to back up just some of the things I have said.
Things which in no way support your argument.
You may as well provide a citation which says Earth exists. It doesn't help your case at all.

Have you now?
Yes, I have. If you wish to disagree, then actually deal with the arguments presented rather than repeatedly ignoring them or dismissing them or just insulting me?

If you have then there will be a Nobel prize in it, picture on the front of Time, fame!
Why?
There is literally no reason to think such a thing.

Again, rather than even attempting to deal with the argument, you just resorts to insults and other pathetic distractions.

My thought experiment on the subject is therefore as valid as anyone elseís.
No it isn't.
Your thought experiment is based upon nothing more than your baseless opinion.
The known laws of physics shows you are wrong, as do my simple arguments.

Again, if you wish to disagree, actually deal with them.

The fact that you appear to have taken this as a real world situation
Says who?
I took it as a hypothetical thought experiment, used as a completely failed argument to try and refute an infinite plane.

Again, you are continuing with pathetic distractions to avoid owning and admitting your mistake and admitting your argument is nothing more than pure garbage which in no way refutes the existence of an infinite plane.

This has been the problem from the outset, the mob imagining they know something conclusive about the nature of structures at the infinite level.
Yes, that was the problem from the outset. You imagining you knew how the infinite would behave, and then your ego preventing you from admitting you were completely wrong.

I never said I was right about my though experiment, but Iím certainly not wrong! The people who are wrong are those who imagine they know something about the infinite.
I.e. people like you, who claim to know that an infinite plane would have infinite gravity.

You have repeatedly indicated that you think you are right. (Just what do you think claiming that you're not wrong would mean?) But now you are trying to deflect yet again.

Again, why not own up and admit your mistake?
Admit your thought was completely wrong and in no way disproves an infinite flat Earth?

Now again, can you refute my arguments at all?
Can you defend your arguments at all?
Or can you finally act like a rational adult, own up and admit your mistake, and admit your argument is nothing more than pure garbage which in no way refutes the possibility nor existence of an infinite plane?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 27, 2020, 02:11:54 AM
You are missing the point totally. While Jack Black is completely and utterly wrong, that does not make me right, how could I or any one else be right on this hypothetical impossible situation?
No, it's you who are missing the point entirely.
It sure is but it's you who refuse to face the basic issue.
Please tell me what that basic issue is.
I have done that numerous times but you take no notice! Here it is again.
So read this and explain where the maths in the thought experiment are wrong.  If you can't, you have no case.

Look just face the real issue fair and square! It was a thought experiment and as such the only things relevant are the premises in that thought experiment.

This is your initial thought experiment:
Entertaining? Yes 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
We would not and never have existed due to the earth being a black hole
So breaking it down:
"the earth is an infinite plane it would therefore follow:"
  • "the earth would have infinite mass" - [i]Yes, it would.[/i]
  • "the earth would have infinite gravity as a result of the infinite mass" - No, it would not have infinite gravity!
  • "the earth by implication would have to collapse into a black hole to obey the laws of physics" - No, it would not! and
  • "We would not and never have existed due to the earth being a black hole" - No, it would not!
Quote from: Timeisup
The problem for you is there is nothing you can present to support your own unsupported views.
No,Timeisup, the problem is that YOU are not prepared to accept the maths of experts and physicists who obviously know far more than you.
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? (https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath530/kmath530.htm)
        StackExchange, Physics: Gravitational force when standing on an infinite disc (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/264306/gravitational-force-when-standing-on-an-infinite-disc)
Now neither I nor JackBlack think for one second that an infinite flat Earth is feasible or realistic but that is quite a separate issue.

A uniform infinite flat earth of finite thickness does not collapse and does have a finite gravity.

You know this based on what experimentation or observations? Donít tell me itís that page of iffy maths your pinning you hopes on? Have I not clearly explained how that is flawed at the very basic level.
Unless you have some new evidence, a thing really lacking on your side of the argument I will consider what you have to say as being no more than your opinion, which Iím at liberty to not agree with.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 27, 2020, 02:16:38 AM
I think Madame you need to keep up, the point at issue here was Mr Blacksís assertion that I was lying regarding having good supporting scientific  references.
You mean the fact that you are lying and claiming that you present papers supporting your argument.
The fact is that those papers are irrelevant to your argument.
You were just lying again to try and cover it up.
Again, no where in those references does it indicate that the infinite mass of an infinite plane results in infinite gravity and that it would collapse into a black hole.
That was your argument which you are yet to support.

Again, quit with the pathetic distractions and deal with your argument.

Entertaining itís a hoot watching people pontificating about an impossibility they know nothing about.
I think it's more pathetic watching you do that.

Fact one, no one knows how infinite structures would behave
Again, that would mean your argument is pure garbage.
Willing to admit that yet?

While Jack Black is completely and utterly wrong
If that was the case why have you been completely unable to provide a single problem with the arguments I have presented?
Why do you instead just ignore them or dismiss them?

that does not make me right
So why do you keep making demands for other people to prove you wrong instead of backing your argument?

how could I or any one else be right on this hypothetical impossible situation?
Then why don't you admit your argument was pure garbage?

What Iím right in is the various scientific papers Iíve used and quoted to back up just some of the things I have said.
Things which in no way support your argument.
You may as well provide a citation which says Earth exists. It doesn't help your case at all.

Have you now?
Yes, I have. If you wish to disagree, then actually deal with the arguments presented rather than repeatedly ignoring them or dismissing them or just insulting me?

If you have then there will be a Nobel prize in it, picture on the front of Time, fame!
Why?
There is literally no reason to think such a thing.

Again, rather than even attempting to deal with the argument, you just resorts to insults and other pathetic distractions.

My thought experiment on the subject is therefore as valid as anyone elseís.
No it isn't.
Your thought experiment is based upon nothing more than your baseless opinion.
The known laws of physics shows you are wrong, as do my simple arguments.

Again, if you wish to disagree, actually deal with them.

The fact that you appear to have taken this as a real world situation
Says who?
I took it as a hypothetical thought experiment, used as a completely failed argument to try and refute an infinite plane.

Again, you are continuing with pathetic distractions to avoid owning and admitting your mistake and admitting your argument is nothing more than pure garbage which in no way refutes the existence of an infinite plane.

This has been the problem from the outset, the mob imagining they know something conclusive about the nature of structures at the infinite level.
Yes, that was the problem from the outset. You imagining you knew how the infinite would behave, and then your ego preventing you from admitting you were completely wrong.

I never said I was right about my though experiment, but Iím certainly not wrong! The people who are wrong are those who imagine they know something about the infinite.
I.e. people like you, who claim to know that an infinite plane would have infinite gravity.

You have repeatedly indicated that you think you are right. (Just what do you think claiming that you're not wrong would mean?) But now you are trying to deflect yet again.

Again, why not own up and admit your mistake?
Admit your thought was completely wrong and in no way disproves an infinite flat Earth?

Now again, can you refute my arguments at all?
Can you defend your arguments at all?
Or can you finally act like a rational adult, own up and admit your mistake, and admit your argument is nothing more than pure garbage which in no way refutes the possibility nor existence of an infinite plane?

Have you ever watched Groundhog Day?
Still banging away on the same old evidence free tack. Keep going the more you do you may even end up convincing yourself. Iím another matter as I think both your position and argument suck big time.

Iím amazed that you consider both Scientific American and Nature to be liars!
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: rabinoz on January 27, 2020, 03:04:24 AM
You know this based on what experimentation or observations?
That's where you totally  miss the point!
A thought experiment is not necessarily based on "experimentation or observations".
I could show you some of Albert Einstein's thought experiments that could not be based on "experimentation or observations" but, of course, you'd claim he was wrong too!

Quote from: Timeisup
Donít tell me itís that page of iffy maths your pinning you hopes on?
They are not "iffy maths"! Those maths are quite correct and the authors of mathpages and the physicists answering on Physics StackExchange are far better qualified than you!

As I've said so many times that I'm sick of saying it, if you think that maths are iffy, you show where they are wrong!

Quote from: Timeisup
Have I not clearly explained how that is flawed at the very basic level.
But as I've explained numerous times YOU are wrong!

Quote from: Timeisup
Unless you have some new evidence, a thing really lacking on your side of the argument I will consider what you have to say as being no more than your opinion, which Iím at liberty to not agree with.
I need no "new evidence" just your willingness to face the central issue.

This is your initial thought experiment:
Entertaining? Yes 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
We would not and never have existed due to the earth being a black hole

And this shows where you are wrong:
"the earth is an infinite plane it would therefore follow:"
And here are two quite reliable sources of the justification of that:
        An Infinite Wall: What is the gravitational field of an infinite flat plane? (https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath530/kmath530.htm)
        StackExchange, Physics: Gravitational force when standing on an infinite disc (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/264306/gravitational-force-when-standing-on-an-infinite-disc)

Now, neither I nor JackBlack think for one second that an infinite flat Earth is feasible or realistic but that is quite a separate issue.
And neither of us would have any issue with your references but they are quite irrelevant to your thought experiment!
But a uniform infinite flat earth of finite thickness would not collapse and would have a finite gravity.
If you insist of disagreeing with those far better qualified than you, prove your case or run away.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: JackBlack on January 27, 2020, 03:17:30 AM
Still banging away on the same old evidence free tack. Keep going the more you do you may even end up convincing yourself. Iím another matter as I think both your position and argument suck big time.

Iím amazed that you consider both Scientific American and Nature to be liars!
Good job projecting yet again.
You are the one who is yet to present any evidence to back up your argument.
The journals you are referencing do not back up your argument.
You claiming they do is lying.

That doesn't mean the references are lying, just that you are lying as they do not back up your argument.
But of course, admitting that would mean dealing with the fact that you have no evidence.
So you continue to act like Sandy and proudly promote these references and think anyone who doesn't agree with you is disagreeing with those references.

If you want to claim that they back up your argument, clearly indicate where they show that the infinite mass of an infinite plane would result in it having infinite gravity which would result in it collapsing into a black hole.
Unless they indicate that, they are not backing up your argument and you claiming that they do is nothing more than a pathetic lie.

Your argument is pure garbage. You even claim that you cannot possibly know. Yet you refuse to admit that it is pure garbage which is no way refutes an infinite plane. Why?
Is it because your ego doesn't allow you to?

Again, I have presented arguments which clearly show that your argument is garbage. Arguments you are yet to even attempt to deal with.
Again, why?
Is it because your ego wont let you? You know you cannot refute it so you just continue with pathetic dismissal to pretend you have done no wrong?

Again, can you actually defend your argument? Can you show anything wrong with the arguments I presented?
Or can you act rational for once and admit your argument was pure garbage?

Or will you continue pretending you are right even though nothing backs you up?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Themightykabool on January 27, 2020, 05:13:40 AM
Please tell me what that basic issue is that I am allegedly  refusing.


There is no proof in existence that an infinite plane could exist.

You are missing the point totally. While Jack Black is completely and utterly wrong, that does not make me right, how could I or any one else be right on this hypothetical impossible situation?
We are dealing with a mythical situation in a mythical universe that in all honesty we know zero about.



carrying on as though he knows something about infinite structures that no one else on our planet has the slightest idea about, and pretend at the same time he’s being both logical and scientific.


Fact one, no one knows how infinite structures would behave, that’s aside such a structure existing being an impossibility in the first instance. The reason being no one knows how gravity would operate in such bizarre infinite circumstances, not even The Black Jack. The science proves this.





The irony and totally frustating part is your hypocritical thinking that you can wave away our argument while at the same time using it in your insistence of your outcome.

Understand this, and i even bolddd it earlirr, which you seem to blindly ignorr - your premise is that using the assumed std gravity models, a HYPOTHETICAL inf earth wohld collapse to a magical 0-0-0 singularity.

1.
As rab pointed out this HYPOTHETICAL is theoretical in nature and CANT be EXPERIMENTAL.
Did you know theres a field of science called THEORETICAL PHYSICS?
The great hawkins, einstein and such fall into until proven.
2.
You havent proven inf exists.
And you havent proven inf doesnt exist.
There is not a question to the RE side that the earth is a ball and not an inf plane.
3.
We ve listed our assumptoons logically why your assertion - there is a MIDDLE in an inf plane and that R doesnt exist in a force formula of an inf plane.

Feel free to address as per ground hog day jackB.
Because you continue to avoid to address.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 28, 2020, 12:15:18 AM

Please tell me what that basic issue is that I am allegedly  refusing.


There is no proof in existence that an infinite plane could exist.

You are missing the point totally. While Jack Black is completely and utterly wrong, that does not make me right, how could I or any one else be right on this hypothetical impossible situation?
We are dealing with a mythical situation in a mythical universe that in all honesty we know zero about.



carrying on as though he knows something about infinite structures that no one else on our planet has the slightest idea about, and pretend at the same time heís being both logical and scientific.


Fact one, no one knows how infinite structures would behave, thatís aside such a structure existing being an impossibility in the first instance. The reason being no one knows how gravity would operate in such bizarre infinite circumstances, not even The Black Jack. The science proves this.





The irony and totally frustating part is your hypocritical thinking that you can wave away our argument while at the same time using it in your insistence of your outcome.

Understand this, and i even bolddd it earlirr, which you seem to blindly ignorr - your premise is that using the assumed std gravity models, a HYPOTHETICAL inf earth wohld collapse to a magical 0-0-0 singularity.

1.
As rab pointed out this HYPOTHETICAL is theoretical in nature and CANT be EXPERIMENTAL.
Did you know theres a field of science called THEORETICAL PHYSICS?
The great hawkins, einstein and such fall into until proven.
2.
You havent proven inf exists.
And you havent proven inf doesnt exist.
There is not a question to the RE side that the earth is a ball and not an inf plane.
3.
We ve listed our assumptoons logically why your assertion - there is a MIDDLE in an inf plane and that R doesnt exist in a force formula of an inf plane.

Feel free to address as per ground hog day jackB.
Because you continue to avoid to address.

Run away, I donít think so. What Iím finding is that your take on this theoretical infinite flat earth is far too simplistic and has blinded and prevented you from really seeking the Ďtheoretical truthí. I think your collective smugness has not helped your position either.
What Iíve found most puzzling is your constant insistence that you are correct without providing good data to back it up. I think I have found the reason for this. Any modest digging around on theoretical scientific papers on this subject yield a picture that is not as simple as you would like to present, nor does it tend to agree with your position. I think that is why you have collectively cherry picked your way around this discussion.
All I will say is watch this space and hope you all like pie.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Themightykabool on January 28, 2020, 12:26:03 AM
Still avoiding where 0-0-0 happens to be and why you hypocritically think it would collapse.
I ddint cherry pick anything but have contunued to ask specifically to your
premise.
whereas youve yet to address.


Also
I see i forgot to quotes you in previous.
I have added them
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: rabinoz on January 28, 2020, 01:18:21 AM
Run away, I donít think so. What Iím finding is that your take on this theoretical infinite flat earth is far too simplistic and has blinded and prevented you from really seeking the Ďtheoretical truthí. I think your collective smugness has not helped your position either.
Stop behaving like a recalcitrant child! Read this again and if you think the maths are wrong either show exactly where or admit that you have nothing!

This is your initial thought experiment:
Yes 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
We would not and never have existed due to the earth being a black hole

And this shows where you are wrong:
"the earth is an infinite plane it would therefore follow:"
And here are two quite reliable sources of the justification of that:
        An Infinite Wall: What is the gravitational field of an infinite flat plane? (https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath530/kmath530.htm)
        StackExchange, Physics: Gravitational force when standing on an infinite disc (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/264306/gravitational-force-when-standing-on-an-infinite-disc)

Now either you are wrong or the maths are wrong.
If you cannot show where the maths are wrong I suggest you admit you were wrong.

Then we can proceed to rationally debate what is wrong with the infinite plane as a flat-Earth model
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: JackBlack on January 28, 2020, 03:26:23 AM
What Iím finding is that your take on this theoretical infinite flat earth is far too simplistic and has blinded and prevented you from really seeking the Ďtheoretical truthí.
And you would be projecting again.
You came here and treated the infinite plane as just a very large finite object, completely ignoring any complication it being infinite would bring.
Your ego then prevents you from admitting your mistake.

What Iíve found most puzzling is your constant insistence that you are correct without providing good data to back it up.
And projecting again. You are the one who is yet to present any data to back up your argument.
Meanwhile we have presented data, data you are unable to show a single problem with other than using 1 method, which only deals with some of what has been presented to refute you, which also refutes you.

Any modest digging around on theoretical scientific papers on this subject yield a picture that is not as simple as you would like to present, nor does it tend to agree with your position.
And projecting again. You sure do seem to love projecting your own inadequacies onto others.

Again, where are the papers which indicate that the infinite mass of an infinite plane would cause it to have infinite gravity and cause it to collapse into a black hole?
Any modest digging around will clearly show that is completely unsubstantiated.

Again, can you back up your argument, either by presenting evidence or rational arguments which support your position or by actually dealing with the counter arguments presented which show your argument to be nonsense?

If not, can you admit your argument was nothing more than baseless garbage which in no way refutes the possibility of an infinite plane?

Continuing to ignore this and instead just spouting irrelevancies and other deflections is as good as running away.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on January 28, 2020, 05:37:39 AM

And this shows where you are wrong:
"the earth is an infinite plane it would therefore follow:"
  • "the earth would have infinite mass" - Yes, it would.
  • [/color]
  • "the earth would have infinite gravity as a result of the infinite mass" - No, it would not have infinite gravity!
  • "the earth by implication would have to collapse into a black hole to obey the laws of physics" - No, it would not! and
  • "We would not and never have existed due to the earth being a black hole" - No, it would not!
This sounds wrong, until I took a little time to think about it.


So I can understand why people get confused by this


Infinite mass localized at a single point = black hole (not even sure about infinite gravity then)
Infinite mass spread over a infinite plane = possibly normal earth gravity if the plane was only a few 1000 km deep.


Infinite plane means that there is always another point pulling gravity away from a central point. So there could theoretically then be no point to pull the whole thing together though.


That said, this would be a very unstable structure, and any disturbance in the gravitational field (such as a mountain or ant hill) will pull the structure apart over time. Probably not to one spot, but to infinite amount of blobs of mass scattered through the infinite universe, orbiting each other. (also, all those blobs would be round)

Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: NotSoSkeptical on January 28, 2020, 06:36:23 AM

And this shows where you are wrong:
"the earth is an infinite plane it would therefore follow:"
  • "the earth would have infinite mass" - Yes, it would.
  • [/color]
  • "the earth would have infinite gravity as a result of the infinite mass" - No, it would not have infinite gravity!
  • "the earth by implication would have to collapse into a black hole to obey the laws of physics" - No, it would not! and
  • "We would not and never have existed due to the earth being a black hole" - No, it would not!
This sounds wrong, until I took a little time to think about it.


So I can understand why people get confused by this


Infinite mass localized at a single point = black hole (not even sure about infinite gravity then)
Infinite mass spread over a infinite plane = possibly normal earth gravity if the plane was only a few 1000 km deep.


Infinite plane means that there is always another point pulling gravity away from a central point. So there could theoretically then be no point to pull the whole thing together though.


That said, this would be a very unstable structure, and any disturbance in the gravitational field (such as a mountain or ant hill) will pull the structure apart over time. Probably not to one spot, but to infinite amount of blobs of mass scattered through the infinite universe, orbiting each other. (also, all those blobs would be round)

I had similar thoughts.

The key is the thickness/depth of the plane.  Gravity in relation to earth, and more specifically in the relation to a flat earth, would be the result of the mass directly underneath the point of measurement.  The more mass directly underneath you, the more gravity acting on you without a cancelling affect. The gravitational pull from the sides are canceled out as each side is pulling equally thus the net pull is zero.  There is no or very little mass/gravity pulling you upward so the mass beneath you is unbalanced and has the greater pull.  So an infinite plane with a finite thickness would have a specific gravity.  Infinite thickness would create infinite gravity.

That's how I see it.  Of course my understanding could be off.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Themightykabool on January 28, 2020, 06:39:15 AM
Thats why i specified a inf plane of finite thickness.
It would have inf mass, but all parallel, any mountains and valleys are negligible wjen considering the massiveness, the parallel affects on people and things would all cancel out.
And math shows at perpendicular, regardless of the force function, the distance R cancels out.

Why would it be instable?
Instability is only introduced if forces are imbalanced.
And that would require a massive force to fold an inf plane in half.
THe plane would have to be accelerating perpendicular in a direction to break up (because all parallel would cancel out).
Think flowing river and ice build up.

Still the issue with timeies premise is
Wheres 0-0-0 point?
If he wanted to expand the thought experiment , he could have.
But he chose to dig in.

Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: JackBlack on January 28, 2020, 11:45:53 AM
That said, this would be a very unstable structure, and any disturbance in the gravitational field (such as a mountain or ant hill) will pull the structure apart over time. Probably not to one spot, but to infinite amount of blobs of mass scattered through the infinite universe, orbiting each other. (also, all those blobs would be round)
It would actually depend on the size of the disturbances and how far apart they are, and the material properties of the substance making up the plane.
If it was made of gas with no yield strength, then it would result in the structure being pulled apart into dense points. But if it was a more rigid material like rock, then a small disturbance wouldn't be able to break it apart or collapse it.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 28, 2020, 12:52:52 PM
Run away, I donít think so. What Iím finding is that your take on this theoretical infinite flat earth is far too simplistic and has blinded and prevented you from really seeking the Ďtheoretical truthí. I think your collective smugness has not helped your position either.
Stop behaving like a recalcitrant child! Read this again and if you think the maths are wrong either show exactly where or admit that you have nothing!

This is your initial thought experiment:
Yes 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
We would not and never have existed due to the earth being a black hole

And this shows where you are wrong:
"the earth is an infinite plane it would therefore follow:"
  • "the earth would have infinite mass" - Yes, it would.
  • "the earth would have infinite gravity as a result of the infinite mass" - No, it would not have infinite gravity!
  • "the earth by implication would have to collapse into a black hole to obey the laws of physics" - No, it would not! and
  • "We would not and never have existed due to the earth being a black hole" - No, it would not!
And here are two quite reliable sources of the justification of that:
        An Infinite Wall: What is the gravitational field of an infinite flat plane? (https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath530/kmath530.htm)
        StackExchange, Physics: Gravitational force when standing on an infinite disc (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/264306/gravitational-force-when-standing-on-an-infinite-disc)

Now either you are wrong or the maths are wrong.
If you cannot show where the maths are wrong I suggest you admit you were wrong.

Then we can proceed to rationally debate what is wrong with the infinite plane as a flat-Earth model

Hold on boy, there you go shooting your mouth of before Iíve even presented my findings. Rather than going off on yet another Groundhog Day rant why donít you wait to see what the Cornell University Portal has provided, or would you consider both them and their repository of scientific information liars? It looks like my hats are safe.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: rabinoz on January 28, 2020, 12:58:52 PM
This sort of interesting discussion can follow once the initial hang-up of the theoretical infinite plane is overcome.

That said, this would be a very unstable structure, and any disturbance in the gravitational field (such as a mountain or ant hill) will pull the structure apart over time.
But would it?
In the Earth's surface gravitational field irregularities such as mountains can be little higher above the surrounding terrain than Mount Mount Everest or better Mauna Kea.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-pyTTlUxNaZY/WVqR2HKHbAI/AAAAAAAAM0Y/8aa9XZv6CusoN-BJHWH7_QACSnBn7P_FACLcBGAs/s640/Mount%2BEverest%2Bis%2BNOT%2BThe%2BTallest%2BMountain%2Bin%2BThe%2BWorld.png)
From: Geology: Mount Everest is NOT The Tallest Mountain in The World (http://www.geologyin.com/2017/07/mount-everest-is-not-tallest-mountain.html)
See: LiveScience: Why Don't Mountains Grow Forever? By Yasemin Saplakoglu (https://www.livescience.com/how-tall-can-mountains-get.html)
But "irregularities" like Mauna Keaand Olympus Mons, at 24 km on Mars, are at roughly the theoretical limits.

I don't see why the same would not apply on this hypothetical infinite plane earth and similar irregularities be stable.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf
Probably not to one spot, but to infinite amount of blobs of mass scattered through the infinite universe, orbiting each other. (also, all those blobs would be round)
As in the original analysis this cumulative effect has to be weighted by a 1/d2 factor.
I don't yet know any definitive answer and won't lose any sleep over it but it's an interesting exercise.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: rabinoz on January 28, 2020, 01:03:12 PM
Run away, I donít think so. What Iím finding is that your take on this theoretical infinite flat earth is far too simplistic and has blinded and prevented you from really seeking the Ďtheoretical truthí. I think your collective smugness has not helped your position either.
Stop behaving like a recalcitrant child! Read this again and if you think the maths are wrong either show exactly where or admit that you have nothing!

And this shows where you are wrong:
"the earth is an infinite plane it would therefore follow:"
  • "the earth would have infinite mass" - Yes, it would.
  • "the earth would have infinite gravity as a result of the infinite mass" - No, it would not have infinite gravity!
  • "the earth by implication would have to collapse into a black hole to obey the laws of physics" - No, it would not! and
  • "We would not and never have existed due to the earth being a black hole" - No, it would not!
And here are two quite reliable sources of the justification of that:
        An Infinite Wall: What is the gravitational field of an infinite flat plane? (https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath530/kmath530.htm)
        StackExchange, Physics: Gravitational force when standing on an infinite disc (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/264306/gravitational-force-when-standing-on-an-infinite-disc)

Now either you are wrong or the maths are wrong.
If you cannot show where the maths are wrong I suggest you admit you were wrong.

Then we can proceed to rationally debate what is wrong with the infinite plane as a flat-Earth model

Hold on boy, there you go shooting your mouth of before Iíve even presented my findings. Rather than going off on yet another Groundhog Day rant why donít you wait to see what the Cornell University Portal has provided, or would you consider both them and their repository of scientific information liars? It looks like my hats are safe.
Because it might affect a realistic situation but does it invalidate the theoretical analysis of the hypothetical situation?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Themightykabool on January 28, 2020, 01:04:32 PM
Run away, I donít think so. What Iím finding is that your take on this theoretical infinite flat earth is far too simplistic and has blinded and prevented you from really seeking the Ďtheoretical truthí. I think your collective smugness has not helped your position either.
Stop behaving like a recalcitrant child! Read this again and if you think the maths are wrong either show exactly where or admit that you have nothing!

This is your initial thought experiment:
Yes 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
We would not and never have existed due to the earth being a black hole

And this shows where you are wrong:
"the earth is an infinite plane it would therefore follow:"
  • "the earth would have infinite mass" - Yes, it would.
  • "the earth would have infinite gravity as a result of the infinite mass" - No, it would not have infinite gravity!
  • "the earth by implication would have to collapse into a black hole to obey the laws of physics" - No, it would not! and
  • "We would not and never have existed due to the earth being a black hole" - No, it would not!
And here are two quite reliable sources of the justification of that:
        An Infinite Wall: What is the gravitational field of an infinite flat plane? (https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath530/kmath530.htm)
        StackExchange, Physics: Gravitational force when standing on an infinite disc (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/264306/gravitational-force-when-standing-on-an-infinite-disc)

Now either you are wrong or the maths are wrong.
If you cannot show where the maths are wrong I suggest you admit you were wrong.

Then we can proceed to rationally debate what is wrong with the infinite plane as a flat-Earth model

Hold on boy, there you go shooting your mouth of before Iíve even presented my findings. Rather than going off on yet another Groundhog Day rant why donít you wait to see what the Cornell University Portal has provided, or would you consider both them and their repository of scientific information liars? It looks like my hats are safe.

Still avoiding my point, or lack thereof how and where infinity will decide to collapse into said point.
Keep avoiding it.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Themightykabool on January 28, 2020, 01:05:41 PM
That may be too much for him.

Let's try this . . .

There is no center point on an infinite plane.

An excellent point.

Or another way, "If your infinite plane collapses to a black hole, where is the black hole, and why is it there rather than somewhere else?"

Here it is again, 10pg earlier.
Let us know.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 28, 2020, 01:11:56 PM
Itís 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 Einsteinís 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.

Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 28, 2020, 01:12:46 PM
Run away, I donít think so. What Iím finding is that your take on this theoretical infinite flat earth is far too simplistic and has blinded and prevented you from really seeking the Ďtheoretical truthí. I think your collective smugness has not helped your position either.
Stop behaving like a recalcitrant child! Read this again and if you think the maths are wrong either show exactly where or admit that you have nothing!

This is your initial thought experiment:
Yes 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
We would not and never have existed due to the earth being a black hole

And this shows where you are wrong:
"the earth is an infinite plane it would therefore follow:"
  • "the earth would have infinite mass" - Yes, it would.
  • "the earth would have infinite gravity as a result of the infinite mass" - No, it would not have infinite gravity!
  • "the earth by implication would have to collapse into a black hole to obey the laws of physics" - No, it would not! and
  • "We would not and never have existed due to the earth being a black hole" - No, it would not!
And here are two quite reliable sources of the justification of that:
        An Infinite Wall: What is the gravitational field of an infinite flat plane? (https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath530/kmath530.htm)
        StackExchange, Physics: Gravitational force when standing on an infinite disc (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/264306/gravitational-force-when-standing-on-an-infinite-disc)

Now either you are wrong or the maths are wrong.
If you cannot show where the maths are wrong I suggest you admit you were wrong.

Then we can proceed to rationally debate what is wrong with the infinite plane as a flat-Earth model

Hold on boy, there you go shooting your mouth of before Iíve even presented my findings. Rather than going off on yet another Groundhog Day rant why donít you wait to see what the Cornell University Portal has provided, or would you consider both them and their repository of scientific information liars? It looks like my hats are safe.

Still avoiding my point, or lack thereof how and where infinity will decide to collapse into said point.
Keep avoiding it.
Not avoided no it at all, be patient.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Themightykabool on January 28, 2020, 01:20:33 PM
That nonanswer is very Sceppy of you.
Maybe not whine so much in between now and when you ddcide to finally address the probelm of where the hole is.
Ol man Jackb is very sensitive.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: JackBlack on January 28, 2020, 01:43:01 PM
Hold on boy, there you go shooting your mouth of before Iíve even presented my findings.
Because you have clearly shown that you have absolutely no interest in presenting your "findings" and instead just want to repeatedly assert that you are correct and do whatever you can to avoid admitting you were wrong.

Rather than repeatedly insulting us and deflecting, why don't you actually start addressing the issues.
Or shall we call you Sandy from now on?

see what the Cornell University Portal has provided, or would you consider both them and their repository of scientific information liars?
Again, where do they indicate that the infinite mass of an infinite plane would result in infinite gravity and thus cause the infinite plane to collapse into a black hole?
Unless they do, we aren't calling them liars. Just you, who is lying by saying it would and then lying by claiming to have backed up your argument with scientific references.

Again, you are ignoring the fact that these references do not back up your argument at all.

Itís amazing how peoples opinions on this very complex subject appear to be based on no more than speculation.
Yes, like you.
The person who started this entire discussion by asserting that the infinite mass of an infinite plane would result in infinite gravity which would cause it to collapse into a black hole.
Something which is nothing more than wild speculation, opposed by the known understanding of gravity, and symmetry.

Not avoided no it at all, be patient.
You have had ample opportunity to defend your nonsense or admit it is pure nonsense.
So it is clearly not a matter of us not being patient.
It is a matter of you doing whatever you can to avoid admitting you were wrong.

So don't tell us to be patient. Don't lie by saying you aren't avoiding it.
Provide the backing of your argument or admit it is garbage which in no way refutes an infinite plane.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: boydster on January 28, 2020, 01:52:18 PM
He's clearly just searching for papers anywhere and everywhere he can, looking for ones that he thinks support his argument, while lacking the background to even fathom whether the papers he links to are actually bolstering his position.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: rabinoz on January 28, 2020, 01:56:39 PM
Itís 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:
Which is all completely irrelevant to the original thought experiment based on a hypothetical situation and using Newtonian gravitation.

Here is what their Wiki says about "infinite flat earth theory".
Quote from: The Flat Earth Society Wiki
Infinite Flat Earth (https://theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Infinite+Flat+Earth&highlight=infinite%20flat%20earth)
The infinite flat earth theory has been talked about by writers such as Samuel Rowbotham, Voliva and Shenton. It is a stationary geocentric earth model.

Gravitational Theory
Gravity is caused by mass and creates a finite pull.

Infinite Finite Gravitational Pull and Gauss' Law
American Flat Earth President John Davis and forum administrator jroa came up with the formulation of the gravitational pull of an infinite plane. It follows Gauss's Law for gravitation which states that an infinite slab or plane will have a finite gravitational pull equal to 2piGph where G is the gravitational constant, p is density, and h is the depth of the slab. As we can see horizontal forces "cancel" out and we are left with a converging sum for vertical components.
You are debating on a Flat Earth Forum!
If you think that you can convince John Davis, jroa or any 'deep down the rabbit hole' flat-Earther' of the validity of Einstein's GR you need your head read.
So are wasting your time and everyone else's by appealing to GR etc!

Face the facts and then we can go on to rationally discuss reason's why the infinite flat plane fails completely as a valid flat-Earth model.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on January 29, 2020, 03:17:25 AM
This sort of interesting discussion can follow once the initial hang-up of the theoretical infinite plane is overcome.

That said, this would be a very unstable structure, and any disturbance in the gravitational field (such as a mountain or ant hill) will pull the structure apart over time.
But would it?
In the Earth's surface gravitational field irregularities such as mountains can be little higher above the surrounding terrain than Mount Mount Everest or better Mauna Kea.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-pyTTlUxNaZY/WVqR2HKHbAI/AAAAAAAAM0Y/8aa9XZv6CusoN-BJHWH7_QACSnBn7P_FACLcBGAs/s640/Mount%2BEverest%2Bis%2BNOT%2BThe%2BTallest%2BMountain%2Bin%2BThe%2BWorld.png)

I still think the infinite plane would be unstable.

The infinite plane cancels out the gravitational effect from the sides because both sides have the same mass (infinite)
Which means that the forces are symmetrical. Both left and right.
But the forces have to be symmetrical in all directions for this to work. Meaning up and down as well.

This however can only work if the plane is PERFECTLY flat. If there is a curve in it, even if the curve has a radius of a few 10's of thousands or even millions of km in it, the gravity will start to pull the plane apart.

The issue is however, that gravity is stronger the closer you are to the mass and exponentially drops off over distance. meaning a mountain that is tall enough will over time gravitation-ally attract the surrounding plane to curve towards it. This will happen slowly at first, but as a curve gets introduced, the effect will grow stronger.
Unless there is a balancing force, such as a similar mountain on the "bottom" of the plane, the whole thing will collapse.

My view is, that over time the infinite plane would collapse, and look like a trillion polystyrene balls floating in a pool of water. Each ball being truely massive. Maybe even black holes, because the infinite flat plane universe has a LOT of mass in it.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: JackBlack on January 29, 2020, 12:07:31 PM
This however can only work if the plane is PERFECTLY flat. If there is a curve in it, even if the curve has a radius of a few 10's of thousands or even millions of km in it, the gravity will start to pull the plane apart.
Yes, if instead of an infinite plane you have a curved surface the arguments won't apply.
Even if you have a radius of less than that of Jupiter, to less than that of beetle juice.
But those curved surfaces are not infinite planes.

The issue is however, that gravity is stronger the closer you are to the mass and exponentially drops off over distance. meaning a mountain that is tall enough will over time gravitation-ally attract the surrounding plane to curve towards it.
The issue is if it can start it curving in the first place.

If you put a single grain of sand on top of a perfect infinite plane the gravitational attraction from it is not enough to overcome the strength of the material making up the plane. Instead you need a large enough mountain to break the plane.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Themightykabool on January 29, 2020, 12:12:39 PM
That mountain argument also dossnt work on regular round earth.
Some fe have "reasoned" if gravity existed, we should be falling sideways towards mountains.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Curiouser and Curiouser on January 29, 2020, 09:06:10 PM
Itís 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 Einsteinís 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

Yes. Thank you for sharing that you lack the ability to read with any comprehension. In the second sentence after the one you quote, the paper states its purpose: "In this paper we want to illustrate some curious features of gravitation by means of a simple solution: the gravitational field of a static plane symmetric relativistic perfect incompressible fluid with positive density located below z = 0."

Please note a key word. Fluid.

Let's review that again. Fluid.

And once more. Fluid.

This paper is deriving calculated results based on initial assumptions. One of the key assumptions is that the matter used in the calculation is a fluid. Just to make sure, look at the very next sentence "Because of the symmetry required, the exterior gravitational field turns out to be Taubís plane vacuum solution[1]. The internal solution was also found by Taub [2]"

Checking reference [2] A. H. Taub, Phys. Rev.103454, (1956) one reads that the very first sentence of the abstract starts "Use is made of a form of the stress energy tensor of a perfect fluid ..."

Your reference to this paper is not relevant; no one has suggested that the infinite plane being discussed is a fluid.

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.

Yes, it is interesting, especially if one does the first thing that comes to mind when plugging in values, which is to check if the units work out, i.e., to do a dimensional analysis.

Do the equation's dimensions make sense?

The equation states that the square root of inverse density equals length. This is clearly not true. Formally:

The units of density in SI are [kg] * [m]^-3
[SQRT ( constant / constant ([kg] * [m]^-3) )] = [kg]^(-1/2) * [m]^(3/2)
which does not equal [m].

The statement as written is nonsense.

Please feel free to explain this discrepancy, or to show what "sickness" you calculated.

This should be fun.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 30, 2020, 01:08:18 AM
From my recent research looking through papers published on the subject of infinite planes or slabs it is very clear even with the most cursory glance that this topic is far more complex than anyone has previously admitted to. The notion that anyone who has posted on this topic fully understands the complexities of the mathematics involved would be very unlikely. That anyone has produced an actual accurate theoretical mathematical model of how an infinite flat earth would behave is so far unproven, though the mob is at liberty to find one and post it.

General coordinate invariance is a powerful, yet tricky, feature of general relativity. Nowhere is this clearer than in solving the gravitational field equations under assumed conditions of symmetry.

The iffy page of simplistic mathematics referred to earlier in this discussion, and cling to like grim death by the mob can no more be taken seriously than the notion that the earth in flat. For the mob to prove their point that they know what the theoretical outcome would be to if an infinite flat earth came into existence would require them to produce a peer reviewed paper on the subject. This particular paper:-

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0031-8949/90/8/088006/ampdf

that was published in 2015 gives a good insight into both the complexities of the various theories involved and the mathematics required to solve an idealised flat plane let alone a very variable one with a composition as that of the earth. Even in this solution the initial scenario has had to be idealised to enable the mathematics to be carried out:

We assume either an idealized matter source confined to a plane z = 0 or a nonsingular source confined to a layer |z| < z0 . The matter distribution is in- variant under translations, rotations, and reflections in the x-y plane and under time translations and time reversal. We consider only solutions of the Einstein field equation that share these symmetries.

This paper if read fully supports my earlier statement that under certain circumstances as described in this paper a singularity is a possible outcome.

Unfortunately, it is not clear how restrictive one can allow ďlocal physicsĒ
to be in such a highly anisotropic scenario as we have committed to in this
project. Cosmologically, normal matter is unlikely to condense into a stable
slab.


If the the slab is thick, the pressure in the center might well become ďrelativisticallyĒ large because of gravitational compression, as in a massive star.

The author of this paper acknowledges how complex this matter is by saying this in his conclusion

Further investigation will require numerical calculations beyond the scope of this paper.

Due to this and other papers published on this complex subject, I feel vindicated that my original statement on how a theoretical infinite flat earth may behave is well within the limits as predicted by current theory, as no definitive answer is possible due to the inherent complexities and of course the unknowable behaviour of gravity at infinity.
While we are on this topic John Davis May wish to read this:-

http://steve-patterson.com/infinite-things-do-not-exist/

Other interesting refrences

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009IJMPA..24.5381G/abstract

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.0766.pdf
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 30, 2020, 01:15:10 AM
Itís 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 Einsteinís 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

Yes. Thank you for sharing that you lack the ability to read with any comprehension. In the second sentence after the one you quote, the paper states its purpose: "In this paper we want to illustrate some curious features of gravitation by means of a simple solution: the gravitational field of a static plane symmetric relativistic perfect incompressible fluid with positive density located below z = 0."

Please note a key word. Fluid.

Let's review that again. Fluid.

And once more. Fluid.

This paper is deriving calculated results based on initial assumptions. One of the key assumptions is that the matter used in the calculation is a fluid. Just to make sure, look at the very next sentence "Because of the symmetry required, the exterior gravitational field turns out to be Taubís plane vacuum solution[1]. The internal solution was also found by Taub [2]"

Checking reference [2] A. H. Taub, Phys. Rev.103454, (1956) one reads that the very first sentence of the abstract starts "Use is made of a form of the stress energy tensor of a perfect fluid ..."

Your reference to this paper is not relevant; no one has suggested that the infinite plane being discussed is a fluid.

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.

Yes, it is interesting, especially if one does the first thing that comes to mind when plugging in values, which is to check if the units work out, i.e., to do a dimensional analysis.

Do the equation's dimensions make sense?

The equation states that the square root of inverse density equals length. This is clearly not true. Formally:

The units of density in SI are [kg] * [m]^-3
[SQRT ( constant / constant ([kg] * [m]^-3) )] = [kg]^(-1/2) * [m]^(3/2)
which does not equal [m].

The statement as written is nonsense.

Please feel free to explain this discrepancy, or to show what "sickness" you calculated.

This should be fun.

Since when did a fluid stop being a state of matter? Why do you think an ideal fluid was chosen for that particular example? Why have you latched on to it?  I think this just demonstrates that rather than try to get to grips with and really understand the theory all you and the mob are interested in is trying to prove me wrong, which is an exercise in futility as I am in no way wrong. You really donít care about the science, all you care about is trying to prove a rather pathetic and small minded point.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Themightykabool on January 30, 2020, 01:15:18 AM
Wow
Quite the sando nonanswer there.

Can you simply just answer where the 0-0-0 point of an inf plane is?
Thanks.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 30, 2020, 01:27:34 AM
Wow
Quite the sando nonanswer there.

Can you simply just answer where the 0-0-0 point of an inf plane is?
Thanks.

Go and read the paper I just posted.
Why is it Iím the only one around here actually presenting real science? All you along with the mob appear to be contributing is copious amounts of bile?

Why do you think a fluid was chosen? Why do you imagine I was unaware of this? Why did you leap on this as though it was some oversight on my part?

Why is it you appear to care little about the actual science and only appear to care about proving me wrong? A rather pathetic and small minded position you appear to have adopted.

How about you present your own evidence that Ďprovesí Iím wrong rather than your constant nit picking!
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: rabinoz on January 30, 2020, 01:33:26 AM
Since when did a fluid stop being a state of matter? Why do you think an ideal fluid was chosen for that particular example? Why have you latched on to it?  I think this just demonstrates that rather than try to get to grips with and really understand the theory all you and the mob are interested in is trying to prove me wrong, which is an exercise in futility as I am in no way wrong. You really donít care about the science, all you care about is trying to prove a rather pathetic and small minded point.
I see that you either didn't see this part of Curiouser and Curiouser's answer or more likely couldn't understand it!
Yes, it is interesting, especially if one does the first thing that comes to mind when plugging in values, which is to check if the units work out, i.e., to do a dimensional analysis.

Do the equation's dimensions make sense?

The equation states that the square root of inverse density equals length. This is clearly not true. Formally:

The units of density in SI are [kg] * [m]^-3
[SQRT ( constant / constant ([kg] * [m]^-3) )] = [kg]^(-1/2) * [m]^(3/2)
which does not equal [m].

The statement as written is nonsense.

Please feel free to explain this discrepancy, or to show what "sickness" you calculated.

This should be fun.
Try again!
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: JackBlack on January 30, 2020, 01:39:55 AM
From my recent research looking through papers published on the subject of infinite planes or slabs it is very clear even with the most cursory glance that this topic is far more complex than anyone has previously admitted to.
It is certainly more complex than you presented it.
Are you going to admit your argument is a pile of garbage which proves absolutely nothing about the existence of an infinite plane?

Or are you just planning on continuing to insult everyone?

This paper if read fully supports my earlier statement that under certain circumstances as described in this paper a singularity is a possible outcome.
And there you go lying yet again (or at the very least being extremely dishonest).
You didn't appeal to any circumstances. All you appealed to was the infinite mass magically causing infinite gravity.

What you are doing now would be akin to first claiming that Earth can't be a sphere with gravity because gravity would cause it to collapse into a black hole, and then citing a paper about black holes to show that in certain circumstances spherical objects collapse into black holes, to pretend you were correct.

But it is even worse than that, as it doesn't actually state it will collapse into a black hole, just that the pressure at the centre can become relativistically large. It even compares it to the core of a star, not to a black hole.

So yet again, you act like Sandy and blatantly misrepresent both your argument and the science.

Why is it Iím the only one around here actually presenting real science?
You mean blatantly lying about it?
I wouldn't call that presenting.

Now again, how about you actually back up your argument including by actually defending it with actual arguments or evidence and by refuting the counter arguments provided including those which rely on symmetry and simple questions which you have repeatedly ignored.

Or stop acting like Sandy and finally admit that your argument is pure garbage, backed up by nothing, which proves absolutely nothing?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 30, 2020, 01:57:09 AM
From my recent research looking through papers published on the subject of infinite planes or slabs it is very clear even with the most cursory glance that this topic is far more complex than anyone has previously admitted to.
It is certainly more complex than you presented it.
Are you going to admit your argument is a pile of garbage which proves absolutely nothing about the existence of an infinite plane?

Or are you just planning on continuing to insult everyone?

This paper if read fully supports my earlier statement that under certain circumstances as described in this paper a singularity is a possible outcome.
And there you go lying yet again (or at the very least being extremely dishonest).
You didn't appeal to any circumstances. All you appealed to was the infinite mass magically causing infinite gravity.

What you are doing now would be akin to first claiming that Earth can't be a sphere with gravity because gravity would cause it to collapse into a black hole, and then citing a paper about black holes to show that in certain circumstances spherical objects collapse into black holes, to pretend you were correct.

But it is even worse than that, as it doesn't actually state it will collapse into a black hole, just that the pressure at the centre can become relativistically large. It even compares it to the core of a star, not to a black hole.

So yet again, you act like Sandy and blatantly misrepresent both your argument and the science.

Why is it Iím the only one around here actually presenting real science?
You mean blatantly lying about it?
I wouldn't call that presenting.

Now again, how about you actually back up your argument including by actually defending it with actual arguments or evidence and by refuting the counter arguments provided including those which rely on symmetry and simple questions which you have repeatedly ignored.

Or stop acting like Sandy and finally admit that your argument is pure garbage, backed up by nothing, which proves absolutely nothing?

You really have a rather pathetic single-track mind that has one interest only and that is to somehow prove me wrong at all costs rather than being openminded and interested in looking for the truth.  While you may not like it, or possibly understand it, go and read the last paper I quoted from.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 30, 2020, 02:03:28 AM
Wow
Quite the sando nonanswer there.

Can you simply just answer where the 0-0-0 point of an inf plane is?
Thanks.

Resorting to poking fun at typos is just about your level. Understandable as the science I'm quoting is as cast iron as is possible. If you really cared about the truth you will see that the maximum depth of an ideal infinite plane is revealed in the paper I quoted from. Are you saying you disagree with the equation? If so why? Why not get in touch with the author and point out the errors! If you are so great at maths how about you produce your own paper on the subject
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 30, 2020, 02:08:51 AM
He's clearly just searching for papers anywhere and everywhere he can, looking for ones that he thinks support his argument, while lacking the background to even fathom whether the papers he links to are actually bolstering his position.

You think! Papers from leading researchers in the field I think are very relevant. If you disagree state your reason.  How you can mock searching for the truth says a lot about you. The difference between myself and you chum is that I care about the truth and not being right. I think the mob around here like yourself have little interest in the truth and only care about poking fun and cheap jibes. None of your posts have contributed anything positive to this discussion and you reveal yourself to be a very shallow individual.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: JackBlack on January 30, 2020, 02:18:02 AM
You really have a rather pathetic single-track mind that has one interest only
You mean I like honest debates, where you present your argument and then either honestly and rationally support it or admit it is completely wrong, rather than using so many pathetic distractions and insults and not even attempting to deal with the refutations of the argument.


And you say that like it's a bad thing.

Pulling a Sandy and blatantly misrepresenting the science doesn't help your case at all.

The papers you link to do not support your argument at all, yet you keep dishonestly linking to them and acting like they make you right.
You either have no idea what they are talking about and are just presenting them in the hopes that you can fool others into thinking they support you, or you are knowingly being extremely dishonest by pretending they support you even though you know they don't.

I'm not the pathetic one here.

Resorting to poking fun at typos is just about your level.
That is nothing like what he did.
Again, why the pathetic distractions? Why not actually deal with what has been said?

If you really cared about the truth you will see that the maximum depth of an ideal infinite plane is revealed in the paper I quoted from
Is this an admission that your argument is pure garbage and that the plane would need to meet certain criteria to collapse, and that the infinite mass alone wouldn't be enough?

If not, I don't care, because it doesn't support your argument.

Papers from leading researchers in the field I think are very relevant. If you disagree state your reason. How you can mock searching for the truth says a lot about you.
That has already been stated plenty of times.
They do not support your argument at all.
No where do they indicate that the infinite mass of an infinite plane would cause it to have infinite gravity, nor do they state that this infinite mass would cause it to collapse into a black hole.

You may as well present a paper saying chlorophyl is green, it is just as relevant.

You are not searching for the truth. You are doing best to bury it by deflecting so much.
If you actually cared about the truth rather than being right you would have admitted that your argument is pure garbage which proves nothing rather than just dismissing arguments, blatantly lying about what you said and presenting references as if they back up your argument, when they do no such thing.
Stop it Sandy, no one is buying it.

Again, justify your argument, or show what is wrong with mine; or admit your argument is pure garbage which proves nothing.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 30, 2020, 02:25:20 AM
Maths lesson for the not so mighty kabool or whatever.
in the paper by:
Ricardo E. Gamboa Sarav ́ı∗ Departamento de F ́ısica, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Universidad Nacional de La Plata,
and IFLP, CONICET.
C.C. 67, 1900 La Plata, Argentina

they have shown that the maximal sickness ('thickness' a typo in the original paper that Mr Mighty found so amusing!) is the square root of Pi over 24x the slab density. As I said if you input the numbers and put in a density you are happy with as there appears to be some variability in the accepted value. The resulting value should be of interest. If you don't like the maths take it up with those that wrote the paper.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234529392_The_mean_density_of_the_Earth


Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 30, 2020, 02:30:32 AM
You really have a rather pathetic single-track mind that has one interest only
You mean I like honest debates, where you present your argument and then either honestly and rationally support it or admit it is completely wrong, rather than using so many pathetic distractions and insults and not even attempting to deal with the refutations of the argument.


And you say that like it's a bad thing.

Pulling a Sandy and blatantly misrepresenting the science doesn't help your case at all.

The papers you link to do not support your argument at all, yet you keep dishonestly linking to them and acting like they make you right.
You either have no idea what they are talking about and are just presenting them in the hopes that you can fool others into thinking they support you, or you are knowingly being extremely dishonest by pretending they support you even though you know they don't.

I'm not the pathetic one here.

Resorting to poking fun at typos is just about your level.
That is nothing like what he did.
Again, why the pathetic distractions? Why not actually deal with what has been said?

If you really cared about the truth you will see that the maximum depth of an ideal infinite plane is revealed in the paper I quoted from
Is this an admission that your argument is pure garbage and that the plane would need to meet certain criteria to collapse, and that the infinite mass alone wouldn't be enough?

If not, I don't care, because it doesn't support your argument.

Papers from leading researchers in the field I think are very relevant. If you disagree state your reason. How you can mock searching for the truth says a lot about you.
That has already been stated plenty of times.
They do not support your argument at all.
No where do they indicate that the infinite mass of an infinite plane would cause it to have infinite gravity, nor do they state that this infinite mass would cause it to collapse into a black hole.

You may as well present a paper saying chlorophyl is green, it is just as relevant.

You are not searching for the truth. You are doing best to bury it by deflecting so much.
If you actually cared about the truth rather than being right you would have admitted that your argument is pure garbage which proves nothing rather than just dismissing arguments, blatantly lying about what you said and presenting references as if they back up your argument, when they do no such thing.
Stop it Sandy, no one is buying it.

Again, justify your argument, or show what is wrong with mine; or admit your argument is pure garbage which proves nothing.

Now you are talking rubbish. I have presented a clear argument with supporting scientific peer-reviewed papers that support my case while you have presented nothing more than your own narrow-minded views.
I will only take what you say seriously if you can present references that back them up. To date, you have presented nothing. The papers I presented, if you care to read them, do not support your views, but rather support my own. I realize that will be a hard one for you to swallow but spend some time looking for the truth rather than being driven by your rabid desire to prove me wrong.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: rabinoz on January 30, 2020, 02:39:36 AM
Now you are talking rubbish. I have presented a clear argument with supporting scientific peer-reviewed papers that support my case while you have presented nothing more than your own narrow-minded views.
I will only take what you say seriously if you can present references that back them up. To date, you have presented nothing. The papers I presented, if you care to read them, do not support your views, but rather support my own. I realize that will be a hard one for you to swallow but spend some time looking for the truth rather than being driven by your rabid desire to prove me wrong.
You still ignore this! Why?
Since when did a fluid stop being a state of matter? Why do you think an ideal fluid was chosen for that particular example? Why have you latched on to it?  I think this just demonstrates that rather than try to get to grips with and really understand the theory all you and the mob are interested in is trying to prove me wrong, which is an exercise in futility as I am in no way wrong. You really donít care about the science, all you care about is trying to prove a rather pathetic and small minded point.
I see that you either didn't see this part of Curiouser and Curiouser's answer or more likely couldn't understand it!
Yes, it is interesting, especially if one does the first thing that comes to mind when plugging in values, which is to check if the units work out, i.e., to do a dimensional analysis.

Do the equation's dimensions make sense?

The equation states that the square root of inverse density equals length. This is clearly not true. Formally:

The units of density in SI are [kg] * [m]^-3
[SQRT ( constant / constant ([kg] * [m]^-3) )] = [kg]^(-1/2) * [m]^(3/2)
which does not equal [m].

The statement as written is nonsense.

Please feel free to explain this discrepancy, or to show what "sickness" you calculated.

This should be fun.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: JackBlack on January 30, 2020, 03:02:18 AM
Now you are talking rubbish.
No, that would still be you, and you talk more with each and every post you make.

Your initial argument, the one which people objected to, was that an infinite would have infinite mass and this infinite mass results in infinite gravity which would cause the plane to collapse into a black hole.

You are yet to present a single thing which backs that up. Instead what you have presented has either been irrelevant or has shown you to be wrong. Myself and others have also shown that you are wrong.

Yet rather than even attempt to refute what i have said you just keep up the pathetic insults.

Again, you are acting just like Sandy, where you pretend science is backing you up when you are yet to present a single thing which actually backs up your argument.

If you wish to claim you have provided references which back you up, take a screenshot of the reference you are using, clearly highlighting where it says the infinite mass of an infinite plane results in infinite gravity which causes it to collapse into a black hole, because none of your references indicate that.

That means you are the one who has literally nothing except your own opinion.

Now, can you actually refute my argument and back up your own?

If not, can you act like a rational adult and admit you were completely wrong and that your argument is nothing more than garbage which proves nothing.

Or, like I said, do you not actually give a damn about the truth and are far more interested in pretending you are right?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: rabinoz on January 30, 2020, 03:27:25 AM
<< ignored >>
Now answer this!
YOU show where the maths in these are wrong:
        An Infinite Wall: What is the gravitational field of an infinite flat plane? (https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath530/kmath530.htm)
        StackExchange, Physics: Gravitational force when standing on an infinite disc (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/264306/gravitational-force-when-standing-on-an-infinite-disc)
Why do you refuse to say where the maths or logic in the above links is incorrect?

I guess the reason is simply that you can't do it because the maths is quite correct.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: boydster on January 30, 2020, 03:49:03 AM
He's clearly just searching for papers anywhere and everywhere he can, looking for ones that he thinks support his argument, while lacking the background to even fathom whether the papers he links to are actually bolstering his position.

You think! Papers from leading researchers in the field I think are very relevant. If you disagree state your reason.  How you can mock searching for the truth says a lot about you. The difference between myself and you chum is that I care about the truth and not being right. I think the mob around here like yourself have little interest in the truth and only care about poking fun and cheap jibes. None of your posts have contributed anything positive to this discussion and you reveal yourself to be a very shallow individual.
Your first paper was from a philosopher. Memba? Not even one with a doctorate. Hardly a leading researcher in the field of physics. Another stated explicitly that am infinite plane could exist (which, if you recall, is how your thought experiment begun). Another was about how a fluid, not a solid, infinite plane would behave.

So yes. It's obvious you are desperately searching for papers that you think might help you, in an attempt to appeal to authority, instead of using your own words, understanding, and logic to figure out that you simply messed up earlier. (By the way, that's confirmation bias of the worst kind ;))
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 30, 2020, 03:55:57 AM
<< ignored >>
Now answer this!
YOU show where the maths in these are wrong:
        An Infinite Wall: What is the gravitational field of an infinite flat plane? (https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath530/kmath530.htm)
        StackExchange, Physics: Gravitational force when standing on an infinite disc (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/264306/gravitational-force-when-standing-on-an-infinite-disc)
Why do you refuse to say where the maths or logic in the above links is incorrect?

I guess the reason is simply that you can't do it because the maths is quite correct.

It depends on who you wish to believe, some unknown on a popular website or the findings of a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Each to his own but I know which I would rather believe.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 30, 2020, 03:57:41 AM
He's clearly just searching for papers anywhere and everywhere he can, looking for ones that he thinks support his argument, while lacking the background to even fathom whether the papers he links to are actually bolstering his position.

You think! Papers from leading researchers in the field I think are very relevant. If you disagree state your reason.  How you can mock searching for the truth says a lot about you. The difference between myself and you chum is that I care about the truth and not being right. I think the mob around here like yourself have little interest in the truth and only care about poking fun and cheap jibes. None of your posts have contributed anything positive to this discussion and you reveal yourself to be a very shallow individual.
Your first paper was from a philosopher. Memba? Not even one with a doctorate. Hardly a leading researcher in the field of physics. Another stated explicitly that am infinite plane could exist (which, if you recall, is how your thought experiment begun). Another was about how a fluid, not a solid, infinite plane would behave.

So yes. It's obvious you are desperately searching for papers that you think might help you, in an attempt to appeal to authority, instead of using your own words, understanding, and logic to figure out that you simply messed up earlier. (By the way, that's confirmation bias of the worst kind ;))
No desperation. You have obviously for good reason ignored the other papers I have posted. It's strange that I find no supporting references that you have provided, I wonder why?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 30, 2020, 04:02:07 AM
Now you are talking rubbish.
No, that would still be you, and you talk more with each and every post you make.

Your initial argument, the one which people objected to, was that an infinite would have infinite mass and this infinite mass results in infinite gravity which would cause the plane to collapse into a black hole.

You are yet to present a single thing which backs that up. Instead what you have presented has either been irrelevant or has shown you to be wrong. Myself and others have also shown that you are wrong.

Yet rather than even attempt to refute what i have said you just keep up the pathetic insults.

Again, you are acting just like Sandy, where you pretend science is backing you up when you are yet to present a single thing which actually backs up your argument.

If you wish to claim you have provided references which back you up, take a screenshot of the reference you are using, clearly highlighting where it says the infinite mass of an infinite plane results in infinite gravity which causes it to collapse into a black hole, because none of your references indicate that.

That means you are the one who has literally nothing except your own opinion.

Now, can you actually refute my argument and back up your own?

If not, can you act like a rational adult and admit you were completely wrong and that your argument is nothing more than garbage which proves nothing.

Or, like I said, do you not actually give a damn about the truth and are far more interested in pretending you are right?

Rather than ranting why not back up what you say with some evidence rather than a continual stream of hot air.
Nowhere have I said I am right, I'm just no wrong as you claim. There is no definitive right answer as I have explained. You complete close-minded prejudice is preventing you from looking at the evidence I have provided in a calm and dispassionate way, such is your childish desire to prove me wrong. Rear the papers, that's all you have to do!
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 30, 2020, 04:07:32 AM
Now you are talking rubbish. I have presented a clear argument with supporting scientific peer-reviewed papers that support my case while you have presented nothing more than your own narrow-minded views.
I will only take what you say seriously if you can present references that back them up. To date, you have presented nothing. The papers I presented, if you care to read them, do not support your views, but rather support my own. I realize that will be a hard one for you to swallow but spend some time looking for the truth rather than being driven by your rabid desire to prove me wrong.
You still ignore this! Why?
Since when did a fluid stop being a state of matter? Why do you think an ideal fluid was chosen for that particular example? Why have you latched on to it?  I think this just demonstrates that rather than try to get to grips with and really understand the theory all you and the mob are interested in is trying to prove me wrong, which is an exercise in futility as I am in no way wrong. You really donít care about the science, all you care about is trying to prove a rather pathetic and small minded point.
I see that you either didn't see this part of Curiouser and Curiouser's answer or more likely couldn't understand it!
Yes, it is interesting, especially if one does the first thing that comes to mind when plugging in values, which is to check if the units work out, i.e., to do a dimensional analysis.

Do the equation's dimensions make sense?

The equation states that the square root of inverse density equals length. This is clearly not true. Formally:

The units of density in SI are [kg] * [m]^-3
[SQRT ( constant / constant ([kg] * [m]^-3) )] = [kg]^(-1/2) * [m]^(3/2)
which does not equal [m].

The statement as written is nonsense.

Please feel free to explain this discrepancy, or to show what "sickness" you calculated.

This should be fun.
If you actually think he has a point, please explain. Do you think the authors of the paper have made a blunder doing this? As I asked him what was the perfect fluid used for the calculation? If you are unable to work that out then there is no hope for you or him.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: boydster on January 30, 2020, 04:10:07 AM
He's clearly just searching for papers anywhere and everywhere he can, looking for ones that he thinks support his argument, while lacking the background to even fathom whether the papers he links to are actually bolstering his position.

You think! Papers from leading researchers in the field I think are very relevant. If you disagree state your reason.  How you can mock searching for the truth says a lot about you. The difference between myself and you chum is that I care about the truth and not being right. I think the mob around here like yourself have little interest in the truth and only care about poking fun and cheap jibes. None of your posts have contributed anything positive to this discussion and you reveal yourself to be a very shallow individual.
Your first paper was from a philosopher. Memba? Not even one with a doctorate. Hardly a leading researcher in the field of physics. Another stated explicitly that am infinite plane could exist (which, if you recall, is how your thought experiment begun). Another was about how a fluid, not a solid, infinite plane would behave.

So yes. It's obvious you are desperately searching for papers that you think might help you, in an attempt to appeal to authority, instead of using your own words, understanding, and logic to figure out that you simply messed up earlier. (By the way, that's confirmation bias of the worst kind ;))
No desperation. You have obviously for good reason ignored the other papers I have posted. It's strange that I find no supporting references that you have provided, I wonder why?
You are ignoring the fact that every paper I have looked at, and every paper anyone else has looked at, of the many you posted after an apparently heated session of looking for anything you could find to help bolster your argument, has resulted in seeing that the papers don't actually support the things you have suggested. Why should I bother going through every single one, considering you've made it obvious you don't actually read and understand the content of your references before posting them and asserting they back you up?

Also, appealing to authority isn't exactly a strong debate tactic. Maybe use your words, instead of spamming links.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: rabinoz on January 30, 2020, 04:12:14 AM
<< Nothing doing until you answer the question below >>
Answer this or run away!
<< ignored >>
Now answer this!
YOU show where the maths in these are wrong:
        An Infinite Wall: What is the gravitational field of an infinite flat plane? (https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath530/kmath530.htm)
        StackExchange, Physics: Gravitational force when standing on an infinite disc (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/264306/gravitational-force-when-standing-on-an-infinite-disc)
Why do you refuse to say where the maths or logic in the above links is incorrect?

I guess the reason is simply that you can't do it because the maths is quite correct.

It depends on who you wish to believe, some unknown on a popular website or the findings of a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Each to his own but
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: rabinoz on January 30, 2020, 04:16:50 AM
<< ignored >>
Now answer this!
YOU show where the maths in these are wrong:
        An Infinite Wall: What is the gravitational field of an infinite flat plane? (https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath530/kmath530.htm)
        StackExchange, Physics: Gravitational force when standing on an infinite disc (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/264306/gravitational-force-when-standing-on-an-infinite-disc)
Why do you refuse to say where the maths or logic in the above links is incorrect?

I guess the reason is simply that you can't do it because the maths is quite correct.

It depends on who you wish to believe, some unknown on a popular website or the findings of a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Each to his own but I know which I would rather believe.
It's not a matter of believing anything!
Stop making excuses and quoting irelevant papers that you cannot understand. You show what is wrong with the maths.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 30, 2020, 04:19:28 AM
This discussion is no longer about the 'truth' as regards the behavior of a theoretical infinite earthlike plane its now more a witch hunt. I get the impression that the mob have spent so much time discussing the flat-earth that any objectivity you once possessed has been eroded. The papers I have posted present current thinking, the most recent being 2015, around theoretical infinite planes. If people are unwilling to accept their findings due to no more than a desire to prove me wrong then so be it. If you disagree with the scientific papers then provide some good scientific evidence to say why. I think there is little more I can say on this as the evidence I have provided speaks for itself.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 30, 2020, 04:21:52 AM
He's clearly just searching for papers anywhere and everywhere he can, looking for ones that he thinks support his argument, while lacking the background to even fathom whether the papers he links to are actually bolstering his position.

You think! Papers from leading researchers in the field I think are very relevant. If you disagree state your reason.  How you can mock searching for the truth says a lot about you. The difference between myself and you chum is that I care about the truth and not being right. I think the mob around here like yourself have little interest in the truth and only care about poking fun and cheap jibes. None of your posts have contributed anything positive to this discussion and you reveal yourself to be a very shallow individual.
Your first paper was from a philosopher. Memba? Not even one with a doctorate. Hardly a leading researcher in the field of physics. Another stated explicitly that am infinite plane could exist (which, if you recall, is how your thought experiment begun). Another was about how a fluid, not a solid, infinite plane would behave.

So yes. It's obvious you are desperately searching for papers that you think might help you, in an attempt to appeal to authority, instead of using your own words, understanding, and logic to figure out that you simply messed up earlier. (By the way, that's confirmation bias of the worst kind ;))
No desperation. You have obviously for good reason ignored the other papers I have posted. It's strange that I find no supporting references that you have provided, I wonder why?
You are ignoring the fact that every paper I have looked at, and every paper anyone else has looked at, of the many you posted after an apparently heated session of looking for anything you could find to help bolster your argument, has resulted in seeing that the papers don't actually support the things you have suggested. Why should I bother going through every single one, considering you've made it obvious you don't actually read and understand the content of your references before posting them and asserting they back you up?

Also, appealing to authority isn't exactly a strong debate tactic. Maybe use your words, instead of spamming links.

How about quoting some references?  You're not doing that as you cant as what your saying is false.  Spamming links, and which might those be?
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 30, 2020, 04:23:26 AM
<< ignored >>
Now answer this!
YOU show where the maths in these are wrong:
        An Infinite Wall: What is the gravitational field of an infinite flat plane? (https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath530/kmath530.htm)
        StackExchange, Physics: Gravitational force when standing on an infinite disc (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/264306/gravitational-force-when-standing-on-an-infinite-disc)
Why do you refuse to say where the maths or logic in the above links is incorrect?

I guess the reason is simply that you can't do it because the maths is quite correct.

It depends on who you wish to believe, some unknown on a popular website or the findings of a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Each to his own but I know which I would rather believe.
It's not a matter of believing anything!
Stop making excuses and quoting irelevant papers that you cannot understand. You show what is wrong with the maths.

You are a broken record, keeping repeating the same old thing. no more than hot air.  Demonstrate what is wrong with the findings in the papers I have presented.
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Timeisup on January 30, 2020, 04:25:27 AM
<< Nothing doing until you answer the question below >>
Answer this or run away!
<< ignored >>
Now answer this!
YOU show where the maths in these are wrong:
        An Infinite Wall: What is the gravitational field of an infinite flat plane? (https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath530/kmath530.htm)
        StackExchange, Physics: Gravitational force when standing on an infinite disc (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/264306/gravitational-force-when-standing-on-an-infinite-disc)
Why do you refuse to say where the maths or logic in the above links is incorrect?

I guess the reason is simply that you can't do it because the maths is quite correct.

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

Calm down...go read the papers. a)  you might learn something     b) you may change your mind.

Why you imagine the validity of the iffy maths you cling to trumps what I have presented is beyond me!
Title: Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
Post by: Themightykabool on January 30, 2020, 05:10:02 AM
Wah wah wah.
A whole pg of crying and whining.
Great debate we got here!

1.
A "serious" paper has a serious typo that i ddint point out (im not curiouser, hes much smarter than me).
Possibly it was someones thesis.
We should find out what their grade turned out to be.
2.
Brkoen record becausw you refuse to answer the basic quesrion laid out to you 10pg ago.
Possibly you didnt understand the challenge to your point - that an infinite plane (clarified with finite thickness) you claim would collapse into the center.
If something stretched east west north south to infinity - how do you know where the center is?
Is New york the center?
Is alaska the center?
Is Sydney the center?
Possibly your asshole the center due to its disproportionately sized ego?
Why would the plane collapse if it is equally pulled in all (parallel) directions euqally?

Quit crying.
A