Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy

  • 540 Replies
  • 30794 Views
*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 20047
  • Standard Idiot
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #30 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.

Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #31 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.

*

sokarul

  • 18803
  • Extra Racist
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #32 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.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #33 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?"

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16851
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #34 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.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Timeisup

  • 2246
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #35 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. 

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16851
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #36 on: January 10, 2020, 01:23:26 PM »

It is clearly able to have a finite gravitational pull.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Timeisup

  • 2246
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #37 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.

*

Timeisup

  • 2246
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #38 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

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16851
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #39 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:

It is clearly able to have a finite gravitational pull.

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

*

Timeisup

  • 2246
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #40 on: January 10, 2020, 01:55:37 PM »

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?

*

Timeisup

  • 2246
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #41 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:

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?

*

Timeisup

  • 2246
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #42 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?

Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #43 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.

*

Timeisup

  • 2246
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #44 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?
« Last Edit: January 10, 2020, 02:16:37 PM by Timeisup »

Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #45 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.

Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #46 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

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.

*

Timeisup

  • 2246
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #47 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

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?

Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #48 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

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.


*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16851
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #49 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:

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.
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #50 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.

*

Timeisup

  • 2246
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #51 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

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?

*

Timeisup

  • 2246
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #52 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:

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?

*

Timeisup

  • 2246
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #53 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.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16851
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #54 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

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.
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #55 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

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.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2020, 06:11:52 PM by Curiouser and Curiouser »

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16851
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #56 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.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Macarios

  • 2083
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #57 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?" :)
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

*

Timeisup

  • 2246
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #58 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.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2020, 07:18:13 AM by Timeisup »

*

Timeisup

  • 2246
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #59 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

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.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2020, 07:29:35 AM by Timeisup »