Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy

  • 540 Replies
  • 14371 Views
*

Timeisup

  • 1080
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #480 on: February 08, 2020, 04:31:17 AM »
Infinite gravity would most likely lead to a singularity. The most obvious parallel is the creation of black holes.
But you have yet to show that an infinite plane of uniform surface density would have infinite gravity under Newtonian Gravitation. That was the original thought experiment!

Until you do that every other word you post is wasted!

Nobody is claiming it is reality but the maths, from three independent sources, is correct.

It wasnít the original experiment. Thatís utter bullshit.
. . . . . . . . .
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
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
There is no mention of GR and "the maths, from three independent sources" all used NewtonIan gravitation.
And more telling is that all you claimed was that the maths were "iffy" not that they all used NewtonIan gravitation.

You didn't even mention GR till much later!

So stop your silly attempts at self-justification and face the facts.

Then we might discuss "reality" and what is wrong with the infinite plane as a flat Earth model.

But you go on and on about our not facing reality when I and others have written this sort of thing "Nobody is claiming it is reality but the maths, from three independent sources, is correct."

You don't even read what is written!
Now show where the maths are "iffy" as you have repeatedly claimed or admit that you cannot!

You really are crackers. Tell me how any discussion about a relativistic object such as a black hole can be discussed without taking it for granted that itís a relativistic conversation? To claim otherwise is just plain stupid.

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 18446
  • Thread Janitor
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #481 on: February 08, 2020, 04:35:34 AM »
Tim is Heiwa's nephew.

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 5889
  • HAL 9000 is my friend.
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #482 on: February 08, 2020, 05:09:53 AM »
Tim is Heiwa's nephew.

Makes sense.  Although I would have expected him to start pimping his own website by now.


Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #483 on: February 08, 2020, 07:49:13 AM »
How about this angle:

An infinite mass would only mean an infinite gravitational pull if it did not diminish by distance following the inverse square law. The fact that it diminishes this way and that entirety of the mass is not localized means that you will never see the full gravitational pull of the infinite mass on any point. It would be finite; ∑1/n2 converges. Looking at the gravitational pull of any one "object" on all the other "objects" that comprise the plane, and treating its gravitational influence as 1 unit, so g = 1, we still see that ∑g/n2 converges.

Another angle: every point on the left side of this line that would influence another with gravity is counter-parted by one on the right side of this line:

< -- -c -- -b -- -a -- p -- a -- b -- c -->

Showing the plane in and of itself, and any point on this plane, has all influences to the left, right, etc are counter-balanced. a is pulling on b equal to -a but in the opposite direction; similarly for b and c. Objects outside this will feel a pull, and that should be easy to figure out using a bit of trig, or simply enough the math I posted above.

Maybe its easier to visualize.

I’m afraid your simplistic statement regarding forces to be counterbalanced is not actually the case. Read the paper, or go to paragraph 28 onwards.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0708.2906.pdf

Do you disagree? If so why?
It clearly states that under one solution, as it is an open one, the forces will be attractive and the and that two particles falling toward an infinite plane will converge.

Theyre not falling toward an inf plane.
They are on the inf plane.

You actually think that! Perhaps new reading glasses are in order:-

 Since Rx0x0 and Ry0y0 are non-vanishing this clearly gives fx = fy ̸= 0, implying the existence of forces that should
make two test particles with initial separations ∆x0 ̸= 0 and/or ∆y0 ̸= 0 approach each other as they fall toward the
plane. Such forces are, of course, completely absent in the case of the Newtonian plane.

I really do wonder about your comprehension, when it clearly says they are falling!

But knowing you you will probably make up some tripe turn it around and convince yourself I’m wrong!

I understand z=0 as no height off the plane.
If thats not what those letters mean then please elaborate.

Either way
For someone to post a pgs long thesis and expect everyone to "get their reading glasses out" your still havent explained how an inf plane decides where its center is.

So get your readig glasses out as my question was cleaely stated seveeal times.
Maybe we can make it clearer.


How can you assert a black hole theory, while hypocritcally trashing others for applying known conventional physics, that an infinite plane with no specific centrer, will collapse into a single center point?




Keep it up!


*

Timeisup

  • 1080
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #484 on: February 08, 2020, 09:21:30 AM »
How many times and how many ways do you need to be told itís infinite there is no centre. The real question is why your so fixated on this 000? Your thinking is rooted in the finite, this discussion in case itís escaped you is to do with the infinite.

*

Timeisup

  • 1080
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #485 on: February 08, 2020, 09:23:58 AM »
Tim is Heiwa's nephew.

Makes sense.  Although I would have expected him to start pimping his own website by now.

Are you the light relief? The not so funny intermission comic. You and the Moose person could do a double act. How about  ĎCrap and Crappyí for a name.

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 18446
  • Thread Janitor
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #486 on: February 08, 2020, 09:58:08 AM »

 You and the Moose person could do a double act.

You are why I am Pro-Abortion.

Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #487 on: February 08, 2020, 12:08:11 PM »
How many times and how many ways do you need to be told it’s infinite there is no centre. The real question is why your so fixated on this 000? Your thinking is rooted in the finite, this discussion in case it’s escaped you is to do with the infinite.

Great

Then we re once again in agreement if theres no center it cant possibly collapse into a nonexistent center and you can stop comparing the infinite (INFINITE) plane to a finite (FINITE) galaxy collapsing into a  blackhole!

*

Timeisup

  • 1080
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #488 on: February 08, 2020, 01:18:01 PM »
How many times and how many ways do you need to be told itís infinite there is no centre. The real question is why your so fixated on this 000? Your thinking is rooted in the finite, this discussion in case itís escaped you is to do with the infinite.

Great

Then we re once again in agreement if theres no center it cant possibly collapse into a nonexistent center and you can stop comparing the infinite (INFINITE) plane to a finite (FINITE) galaxy collapsing into a  blackhole!

There you go again using your very limited thinking. Do you not get it that we are dealing with an infinite object, properties of which are unknown as is the way that gravity would interact with it. Ask any cosmologist they will say that how gravity acts when dealing with the mega large is unknown. How it would, therefore, act at the infinite is super unknown. Imagining you can use a page of very iffy maths to show how things would pan out is really laughable. Even those researchers/ mathematicians admit it an open question. How you bunch can say for sure that you know is the biggest joke yet. No one knows for sure and that's a fact. Another fact that neither you, the collective nor Crap and Crappy have a clue either.

*

Timeisup

  • 1080
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #489 on: February 08, 2020, 01:18:53 PM »

 You and the Moose person could do a double act.

You are why I am Pro-Abortion.
you're not a very nice person, are you?

Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #490 on: February 08, 2020, 01:36:54 PM »
You have a problem with academic references ?
No, we have been over this before.
I have a problem with you linking to a reference which does not support your claim.
You seem to want to just link to whatever you can find in the hopes that it will support you rather than actually defending your claims.

If you want to use a reference find one that states the infinite mass of an infinite plane will cause it to collapse into a black hole.
State explicitly where that is in the reference.
If you can't do that, then theses references are not backing you up.


If so could you elaborate on why forming an opinion based on best available evidence is in some way problematic.
Again, that would be your job. You are the one rejecting all available evidence and instead claiming pure nonsense which you are yet to defend in any way.

All the available evidence shows that you are wrong.

I really do wonder about your comprehension, when it clearly says they are falling!
Again, you should be questioning your own, as I already pointed out and you just ignored.

That is not talking about the forces on a particle in the plane.
It is talking about 2 particles falling towards the plane.

Guess what?
If you have 2 particles moving through empty space, they would accelerate towards each other as well.

That in no way relates to the forces on the plane itself.

It does not support your wild claims at all.

Tell me how any discussion about a relativistic object such as a black hole
You sure do love spouting nonsense don't you?
I already pointed out that people had been discussing black holes before relativity.

How many times and how many ways do you need to be told itís infinite there is no centre. The real question is why your so fixated on this 000?
Which has already been explained.
Any black hole will have a centre point. That centre point can thus be defined as 0,0,0. Without such a point, it can't be a black hole.
An infinite black hole makes no sense.
That would be an infinite expanse. If it is only infinite in 1D it would be an infinite line. If it was infinite in 2D it would be an infinite plane. and so on.

So are you saying that the infinite plane would collapse into an infinite plane?

That would mean it doesn't really collapse and instead remains an infinite plane.

Again, you are the one who has been treating the infinite as finite, this entire time.

Ask any cosmologist they will say that how gravity acts when dealing with the mega large is unknown
Again, this means your argument was nothing more than wild speculation based upon nothing.

If you want to appeal to ignorance that means that you need to admit your argument is pure garbage.

You cannot appeal to ignorance to try and refute others while pretending or ignoring the fact that it completely destroys your argument.

Now again, are you actually going to try and defend your BS?
So far all you have done to do so is pretend it is just a really large finite object.

Appealing to ignorance is not defending your argument. It is showing it is BS.

If you can't defend your BS, are you going to admit your argument is garbage which in no way shows that Earth can't be an infinite plane?

*

rabinoz

  • 26296
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #491 on: February 08, 2020, 02:01:38 PM »

There is no mention of GR and "the maths, from three independent sources" all used NewtonIan gravitation.
And more telling is that all you claimed was that the maths were "iffy" not that they all used NewtonIan gravitation.

You didn't even mention GR till much later!

So stop your silly attempts at self-justification and face the facts.

Then we might discuss "reality" and what is wrong with the infinite plane as a flat Earth model.

But you go on and on about our not facing reality when I and others have written this sort of thing "Nobody is claiming it is reality but the maths, from three independent sources, is correct."

You don't even read what is written!
Now show where the maths are "iffy" as you have repeatedly claimed or admit that you cannot!

You really are crackers. Tell me how any discussion about a relativistic object such as a black hole can be discussed without taking it for granted that itís a relativistic conversation? To claim otherwise is just plain stupid.
Well then, why did you not mention GR until days after the maths were presented all did was to claim that the maths were "iffy".

And your Independent sources are what?
So you didn't even bother to read them before calling them "iffy"?

1) Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy ę Reply #36 on: January 11, 2020, 07:23:26 AM Ľ

2) An Infinite Wall: What is the gravitational field of an infinite flat plane?

3) StackExchange, Physics: Gravitational force when standing on an infinite disc

Now they all come to the same conclusion.
If you think that the maths is wrong it's up to you to show exactly where it is wrong.


Now either show exactly where the maths were "iffy" or admit that your claim was quite wrong - maybe the real issue is that you know nothing about maths and refuse to admit it.

When we see one or the other we might go on to seriously consider "reality" and GR - until then forget it.

But you might think on this: If this infinite plane does collapse into a black hole exactly where will that black-hole be?
Will it be at this arbitrary (0, 0, 0) - where we are - or at (106, 106, 106) km or maybe at (106, 106, 106) ly?

Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #492 on: February 08, 2020, 04:51:25 PM »
How many times and how many ways do you need to be told it’s infinite there is no centre. The real question is why your so fixated on this 000? Your thinking is rooted in the finite, this discussion in case it’s escaped you is to do with the infinite.

Great

Then we re once again in agreement if theres no center it cant possibly collapse into a nonexistent center and you can stop comparing the infinite (INFINITE) plane to a finite (FINITE) galaxy collapsing into a  blackhole!

There you go again using your very limited thinking. Do you not get it that we are dealing with an infinite object, properties of which are unknown as is the way that gravity would interact with it. Ask any cosmologist they will say that how gravity acts when dealing with the mega large is unknown. How it would, therefore, act at the infinite is super unknown. Imagining you can use a page of very iffy maths to show how things would pan out is really laughable. Even those researchers/ mathematicians admit it an open question. How you bunch can say for sure that you know is the biggest joke yet. No one knows for sure and that's a fact. Another fact that neither you, the collective nor Crap and Crappy have a clue either.

So how can YOU claim it will collapse into a black hole using the example that galaxys collapse into black holes therfore an inf plane would collaspe jnto a black hole?
« Last Edit: February 08, 2020, 05:11:41 PM by Themightykabool »

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 18446
  • Thread Janitor
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #493 on: February 08, 2020, 09:29:29 PM »

 You and the Moose person could do a double act.

You are why I am Pro-Abortion.

you're not a very nice person, are you?

no

*

Timeisup

  • 1080
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #494 on: February 09, 2020, 04:23:40 AM »
You have a problem with academic references ?
No, we have been over this before.
I have a problem with you linking to a reference which does not support your claim.
You seem to want to just link to whatever you can find in the hopes that it will support you rather than actually defending your claims.

If you want to use a reference find one that states the infinite mass of an infinite plane will cause it to collapse into a black hole.
State explicitly where that is in the reference.
If you can't do that, then theses references are not backing you up.


If so could you elaborate on why forming an opinion based on best available evidence is in some way problematic.
Again, that would be your job. You are the one rejecting all available evidence and instead claiming pure nonsense which you are yet to defend in any way.

All the available evidence shows that you are wrong.

I really do wonder about your comprehension, when it clearly says they are falling!
Again, you should be questioning your own, as I already pointed out and you just ignored.

That is not talking about the forces on a particle in the plane.
It is talking about 2 particles falling towards the plane.

Guess what?
If you have 2 particles moving through empty space, they would accelerate towards each other as well.

That in no way relates to the forces on the plane itself.

It does not support your wild claims at all.

Tell me how any discussion about a relativistic object such as a black hole
You sure do love spouting nonsense don't you?
I already pointed out that people had been discussing black holes before relativity.

How many times and how many ways do you need to be told itís infinite there is no centre. The real question is why your so fixated on this 000?
Which has already been explained.
Any black hole will have a centre point. That centre point can thus be defined as 0,0,0. Without such a point, it can't be a black hole.
An infinite black hole makes no sense.
That would be an infinite expanse. If it is only infinite in 1D it would be an infinite line. If it was infinite in 2D it would be an infinite plane. and so on.

So are you saying that the infinite plane would collapse into an infinite plane?

That would mean it doesn't really collapse and instead remains an infinite plane.

Again, you are the one who has been treating the infinite as finite, this entire time.

Ask any cosmologist they will say that how gravity acts when dealing with the mega large is unknown
Again, this means your argument was nothing more than wild speculation based upon nothing.

If you want to appeal to ignorance that means that you need to admit your argument is pure garbage.

You cannot appeal to ignorance to try and refute others while pretending or ignoring the fact that it completely destroys your argument.

Now again, are you actually going to try and defend your BS?
So far all you have done to do so is pretend it is just a really large finite object.

Appealing to ignorance is not defending your argument. It is showing it is BS.

If you can't defend your BS, are you going to admit your argument is garbage which in no way shows that Earth can't be an infinite plane?

You have serious comprehension problems. If you looked at the evidence I have supplied you if you had a mind to, would discover that it completely disagrees with the iffy maths you cling to and which you appear to be basing your argument on. This subject about which only speculation exists is not a black and white situation, unlike the shape of the earth. Here we are dealing with pure hypothetical 'what if' for which no hard and fast answer exists. All the evidence I've come across and posted here Supports the possible position I've taken. Other than the iffy maths I have seen no credible evidence that you have provided that in any way clarifies your position. I think what you are the other members of the collective are forgetting is that, in the case of your iffy simplified mathematics, is that in order for the mathematical principles to be easily understood the situation has been drastically simplified. This is often the case in an educational situation, weightless beams, ignoring wind resistance and friction etc...and all the other things that are done to make the mathematics easy to follow. Your iffy maths is a classic case of that, tet you fail to take that on board and try to see the bigger picture. This situation without reference to GR is meaningless, just as your page of iffy maths is.

*

Timeisup

  • 1080
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #495 on: February 09, 2020, 04:40:19 AM »
How many times and how many ways do you need to be told itís infinite there is no centre. The real question is why your so fixated on this 000? Your thinking is rooted in the finite, this discussion in case itís escaped you is to do with the infinite.

Great

Then we re once again in agreement if theres no center it cant possibly collapse into a nonexistent center and you can stop comparing the infinite (INFINITE) plane to a finite (FINITE) galaxy collapsing into a  blackhole!

There you go again using your very limited thinking. Do you not get it that we are dealing with an infinite object, properties of which are unknown as is the way that gravity would interact with it. Ask any cosmologist they will say that how gravity acts when dealing with the mega large is unknown. How it would, therefore, act at the infinite is super unknown. Imagining you can use a page of very iffy maths to show how things would pan out is really laughable. Even those researchers/ mathematicians admit it an open question. How you bunch can say for sure that you know is the biggest joke yet. No one knows for sure and that's a fact. Another fact that neither you, the collective nor Crap and Crappy have a clue either.

So how can YOU claim it will collapse into a black hole using the example that galaxys collapse into black holes therfore an inf plane would collaspe jnto a black hole?

The first problem you and your palls have is not being able to see beyond that page of iffy maths and WHY it is iffy. The reason why it is iffy is that it has been so sanitized and simplified that it is less than worthless in helping to see what might happen in this extreme hypothetical situation. Flat earther like Davis has, of course, latched on to it but it does in no way give an indication of what would take place in the event of an infinite plane existing.
The first problem is that it does not take into account the central issue of GR. Ignoring GR in this situation renders that page of iffy maths totally meaningless.
The second problem is how gravity acts in situations where the masses involved are galactic in size is currently unknown I forget what the exact figure is. Ask any astronomer or just look it up. The thing is it is unknown! This situation is dealing with an infinite object, so how gravity behaves under that situation is up for grabs. One thing is for sure it will not behave in that simplistic Newtonian way according to your iffy maths. Why you people are unable to process that is really beyond me.

*

rabinoz

  • 26296
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #496 on: February 09, 2020, 04:46:54 AM »
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
You have serious comprehension problems. If you looked at the evidence I have supplied you if you had a mind to, would discover that it completely disagrees with the iffy maths you cling to and which you appear to be basing your argument on.
You have said that the maths are "iffy" - prove it and you might find that suddenly everybody's attitude changes.

PS The maths are NOT "iffy"! The maths are quite correct.


*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 18446
  • Thread Janitor
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #497 on: February 09, 2020, 04:51:53 AM »

The second problem is how gravity acts in situations where the masses involved are galactic in size is currently unknown I forget what the exact figure is. Ask any astronomer or just look it up. The thing is it is unknown!

The exact figure is unknown, but you used to know it, you just forgot?


*

Timeisup

  • 1080
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #498 on: February 09, 2020, 04:54:47 AM »

There is no mention of GR and "the maths, from three independent sources" all used NewtonIan gravitation.
And more telling is that all you claimed was that the maths were "iffy" not that they all used NewtonIan gravitation.

You didn't even mention GR till much later!

So stop your silly attempts at self-justification and face the facts.

Then we might discuss "reality" and what is wrong with the infinite plane as a flat Earth model.

But you go on and on about our not facing reality when I and others have written this sort of thing "Nobody is claiming it is reality but the maths, from three independent sources, is correct."

You don't even read what is written!
Now show where the maths are "iffy" as you have repeatedly claimed or admit that you cannot!

You really are crackers. Tell me how any discussion about a relativistic object such as a black hole can be discussed without taking it for granted that itís a relativistic conversation? To claim otherwise is just plain stupid.
Well then, why did you not mention GR until days after the maths were presented all did was to claim that the maths were "iffy".

And your Independent sources are what?
So you didn't even bother to read them before calling them "iffy"?

1) Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy ę Reply #36 on: January 11, 2020, 07:23:26 AM Ľ

2) An Infinite Wall: What is the gravitational field of an infinite flat plane?

3) StackExchange, Physics: Gravitational force when standing on an infinite disc

Now they all come to the same conclusion.
If you think that the maths is wrong it's up to you to show exactly where it is wrong.


Now either show exactly where the maths were "iffy" or admit that your claim was quite wrong - maybe the real issue is that you know nothing about maths and refuse to admit it.

When we see one or the other we might go on to seriously consider "reality" and GR - until then forget it.

But you might think on this: If this infinite plane does collapse into a black hole exactly where will that black-hole be?
Will it be at this arbitrary (0, 0, 0) - where we are - or at (106, 106, 106) km or maybe at (106, 106, 106) ly?
The first thing putting up anything presented by john Davis is just a joke.

The second thing is you have not quite understood is the scope of the iffy maths that ignore GR you have presented. As I have mentioned in another post simplified calculations like this are often used in education to put over points of principle, but they in no way reflect the real world.

Did you actually read this?:-
https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath530/kmath530.htm

The fundamental difficulty in constructing a truly uniform gravitational field over an extended region can be seen by considering several equally spaced rockets along the x axis in Minkowski spacetime, each undergoing the same constant proper acceleration. The spacing between the rockets remains constant with respect to the original rest frame, but with respect to each rocket's co-moving inertial rest frames the spacing increases continuously.


The other main problem is authenticity. All the evidence I linked to were named and verified papers.  To give a John Davis link in support of an argument does your case little good and really does show how you have had to scrape beyond the bottom of the barrel.

*

Timeisup

  • 1080
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #499 on: February 09, 2020, 05:04:51 AM »
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
You have serious comprehension problems. If you looked at the evidence I have supplied you if you had a mind to, would discover that it completely disagrees with the iffy maths you cling to and which you appear to be basing your argument on.
You have said that the maths are "iffy" - prove it and you might find that suddenly everybody's attitude changes.

PS The maths are NOT "iffy"! The maths are quite correct.

Do you still not get it...Its simplified to such an extent ( ignoring GR) that it does not actually mean anything. Im not sure how else I can say this.

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 18446
  • Thread Janitor
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #500 on: February 09, 2020, 05:12:20 AM »

 Im not sure how else I can say this.

That won't stop you.

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 5889
  • HAL 9000 is my friend.
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #501 on: February 09, 2020, 05:37:34 AM »

 You and the Moose person could do a double act.

You are why I am Pro-Abortion.

Pro Post-Birth Abortion?

Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #502 on: February 09, 2020, 06:25:00 AM »
Wow
So much whining while ignoring the fact that he himself (timies) hypocritically did the same thing we did but came to his incorrect conclusion.

Gtfo already.
Youve done nothing but cry and whine.
Listen here.
Theres only three issues
1. You claim an inf plane will behave the same as a finite galxay.
2. You claim it will collapse into a singularity - a 0-0-0.
3.   You claim.our assumptions are wrong because we are using the only possibly assumptions available.
 But that is as most here agree, because there is no inf plane to actually measure to obtain such data - so no sht sherlock - its a thought experiemtn.

So.
Your unwilling to address or accept puts you in the bucket with dannag and scepti.
And you attemtps to show irrrelevant math papers and misqiote them puts you in with sando and tomB.

Maybe this last rant will get cut out and moved to AR.

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 18446
  • Thread Janitor
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #503 on: February 09, 2020, 06:32:08 AM »

 You and the Moose person could do a double act.

You are why I am Pro-Abortion.

Pro Post-Birth Abortion?

Up to the 54th trimester.

Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #504 on: February 09, 2020, 10:42:09 AM »

*

Timeisup

  • 1080
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #505 on: February 09, 2020, 11:52:59 AM »
Wow
So much whining while ignoring the fact that he himself (timies) hypocritically did the same thing we did but came to his incorrect conclusion.

Gtfo already.
Youve done nothing but cry and whine.
Listen here.
Theres only three issues
1. You claim an inf plane will behave the same as a finite galxay.
2. You claim it will collapse into a singularity - a 0-0-0.
3.   You claim.our assumptions are wrong because we are using the only possibly assumptions available.
 But that is as most here agree, because there is no inf plane to actually measure to obtain such data - so no sht sherlock - its a thought experiemtn.

So.
Your unwilling to address or accept puts you in the bucket with dannag and scepti.
And you attemtps to show irrrelevant math papers and misqiote them puts you in with sando and tomB.

Maybe this last rant will get cut out and moved to AR.

 I claimed it would collapse, true, but never said how. It was you who put forward the 000 thing, not me.

Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #506 on: February 09, 2020, 12:11:51 PM »
Your claim was inferred from inf gravity.
However
Besidss that point
It doesnt matter.

Definition

For it to collapse into a singularity.
It must collapse into a 0-0-0 point.



*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16496
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #507 on: February 09, 2020, 12:18:59 PM »
How about this angle:

An infinite mass would only mean an infinite gravitational pull if it did not diminish by distance following the inverse square law. The fact that it diminishes this way and that entirety of the mass is not localized means that you will never see the full gravitational pull of the infinite mass on any point. It would be finite; ∑1/n2 converges. Looking at the gravitational pull of any one "object" on all the other "objects" that comprise the plane, and treating its gravitational influence as 1 unit, so g = 1, we still see that ∑g/n2 converges.

Another angle: every point on the left side of this line that would influence another with gravity is counter-parted by one on the right side of this line:

< -- -c -- -b -- -a -- p -- a -- b -- c -->

Showing the plane in and of itself, and any point on this plane, has all influences to the left, right, etc are counter-balanced. a is pulling on b equal to -a but in the opposite direction; similarly for b and c. Objects outside this will feel a pull, and that should be easy to figure out using a bit of trig, or simply enough the math I posted above.

Maybe its easier to visualize.

Iím afraid your simplistic statement regarding forces to be counterbalanced is not actually the case. Read the paper, or go to paragraph 28 onwards.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0708.2906.pdf

Do you disagree? If so why?
It clearly states that under one solution, as it is an open one, the forces will be attractive and the and that two particles falling toward an infinite plane will converge.

Your claim has nothing to do with refutation of my analogy. I see no reason to bother reading the support for your argument as its content is non sequitur.

Everytime you post here you look ignorant; you lessen the gap between those reasonable round earthers and us flat earthers. Thank you for your service to help The Flat Earth Society.
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #508 on: February 09, 2020, 01:10:42 PM »
You have serious comprehension problems.
No, that would still be you.
You keep providing references which you pretend back you up, even though no where in them do we find that the infinite mass would cause it to have infinite gravity and collapse into a black hole.

Your references in no way back you up.

You even keep acting like I am trying to use that page of math you dismiss as iffy, even though I pointed out that my argument is based upon mainly symmetry.

You even tried to use an article saying that 2 objects falling towards the plane will attract each other, to pretend that the plane will experience a sideways force/acceleration.

Do you understand English at all?

Do you understand logic at all?

Your argument relies upon knowing how the infinite would behave.
Every time you wish to appeal to ignorance of the infinite you are indicating your argument is pure garbage.

Meanwhile, all my argument requires is that gravity remains isotropic. If it is isotropic, then as I have pointed out and as John Davis has pointed out, if you consider any point on a hypothetical uniform infinite plane, there cannot be any sideways force.
If you need a more rigorous explanation of why (as I'm not sure if I have already provided it), here you go:
Consider any point literally anywhere in this space (where this space just contains the infinite plane). Consider the gravitational acceleration at this point, lets call it a.
Now a can be broken into 2 components, a vertical component (av) perpendicular to the plane and a horizontal component (ah) parallel to the plane.

Now there is also a lot of symmetry. Some key ones is the mirror symmetry about any plane perpendicular to the infinite plane and infinite-fold rotational symmetry about any axis perpendicular to the plane. So we can either pick a mirror plane perpendicular to the plane and ah, or just rotate by 180 degrees about the vertical axis. Either way, the vector we obtain is -ah.

That means the gravitational acceleration at this point in the horizontal direction is ah=-ah. The only way for that to be possible is if ah=0.
That means the infinite plane cannot create any horizontal acceleration.

Without this horizontal acceleration there is no way for the plane to collapse into a black hole. It will remain infinite in extent.

Now, are you going to admit your argument is pure garbage which proves absolutely nothing about the existence of an infinite plane or lack thereof?

If not, are you going to actually try defending your BS?
Telling us how you know that the infinite mass will cause it to have infinite gravity and cause it to collapse into a black hole?
Telling us how the infinite magically manages to violate symmetry?

*

rabinoz

  • 26296
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #509 on: February 09, 2020, 02:59:37 PM »
You have said that the maths are "iffy" - prove it and you might find that suddenly everybody's attitude changes.

Do you still not get it...Its simplified to such an extent ( ignoring GR) that it does not actually mean anything. Im not sure how else I can say this.
No, you still don't get it!
The maths are NOT "iffy"! The maths are quite correct.

And if you considered that "ignoring GR" was relevant why did YOU not explicitly say so until well AFTER you said that the maths were "iffy"?

You introduced your "thought experiment" on January 09, 2020 and you first explicit reference to General Relativity was here, in quote of MY post:
Sure! I "believe the current research on gravity" and possibly have a better understanding of General Relativity than you.
My words, not yours!

Now ponder on these things. If this infinite plane of finite thickness collapses in a black hole:
  • Where would this black hole be located?
  • How big would this black hole be - its Schwarzschild radius?
  • How long would this infinite plane of finite thickness take to collapse?
I'll await you answer.