Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy

  • 540 Replies
  • 38313 Views
*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 17212
  • Mebs!
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #90 on: January 11, 2020, 06:32:10 PM »
I'd like to take a second to thank our new friend Timeisup. He has united both FE and RE, and in bringing us all together, has also done a great service for this fine community. Cheers, Tim. You may be wrong, but you are accomplishing something so right for this world!

*

JackBlack

  • 17021
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #91 on: January 11, 2020, 06:50:22 PM »
Now that I have a bit more time (and you don't seem interested in trying to justify your claims), I can explain more.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

I think it would also need to have a finite thickness.
Yes certainly.
If it didn't it wouldn't be a plane, just a space. That would still be stable, we just couldn't live on it. (But as long as we don't make the voids to big, we could live in it).

Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #92 on: January 11, 2020, 08:17:47 PM »
I'd like to take a second to thank our new friend Timeisup. He has united both FE and RE, and in bringing us all together, has also done a great service for this fine community. Cheers, Tim. You may be wrong, but you are accomplishing something so right for this world!

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

But ironically what I like about this site is that I've actually learned quite a lot by getting into daft debates.  One thing Flat Earther's are right about is that there's a lot of stuff we're taught early on that we take for granted.  Now I've looked more into how we know a lot of those things and understand them much better.

Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #93 on: January 11, 2020, 08:19:32 PM »
You continue to be wrong in your assertions. Please justify the following statement: "this flat plane would have to be of absolute uniform density and thickness, like float glass, containing no irregularities possibly with infinite rigidity."

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

*moot*


*

Stash

  • 9673
  • I am car!
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #94 on: January 11, 2020, 08:39:43 PM »
One thing Flat Earther's are right about is that there's a lot of stuff we're taught early on that we take for granted.  Now I've looked more into how we know a lot of those things and understand them much better.

Couldn't agree more with this. The "What if it actually worked like this..." or the "How do you know it works like that..." are immensely powerful learning jumping off points. Makes you think, research, understand, actually comprehend the how and why, not just the 'is'.
"Corn grows without tossing a girl down the well?"
"Oh, that makes sense." . . . . .
. . . . . "Turns out, it's the god of rain that's in charge."

*

Timeisup

  • 2620
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #95 on: January 12, 2020, 12:13:19 AM »
This is turning out to be quite a laugh watching people wrestle with the concept of physical infinity. To Jack Black, regarding the sphericalisation of large objects either look at the paper I provided a link for, full of good hard maths you can chew on for ages, or go look it up! Itís basic physics or do you want me to hold your hand. I think people all need to go look up physical infinities and really get to grip with the implications. There really has not been much work done on this particular area. I wonder why?
Mr Curiosity and his half filled infinite plane inside an infinity was a total hoot. I think he should stick to making satellites.
I do feel sorry for the avatar swooping mod as he is obviously having an identity crisis, but most of all for Mr Davis and his totally busted Davis plane. However you do have to wonder about people who think moonlight is dangerous! Iím off on a photography trip so have fun in my absence and donít miss me too much.
Love and kisses
What a laugh!!!

*

JackBlack

  • 17021
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #96 on: January 12, 2020, 03:21:27 AM »
This is turning out to be quite a laugh watching people wrestle with the concept of physical infinity.
Yes, you especially.
Coming in treating it as if it is just a massive finite object, then complaining when people show you are wrong, and not even bothering with your own hypocrisy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, can you actually justify any of your claims or deal with the refutations of them?

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #97 on: January 12, 2020, 03:30:41 AM »
This is turning out to be quite a laugh watching people wrestle with the concept of physical infinity.
You seem the only one wrestling! JackBlack was not supporting the "infinite flat-Earth" in any shape or form.
He and others were just showing that the maths are correct and an infinite plane of finite thickness has finite gravity that does NOT change with distance above the plane.

<< Oops, I left out a very vital "NOT" - sorry about that. >>
« Last Edit: January 12, 2020, 12:54:48 PM by rabinoz »

*

JackBlack

  • 17021
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #98 on: January 12, 2020, 11:55:47 AM »
He and others were just showing that the maths are correct and an infinite plane of finite thickness has finite gravity that does change with distance above the plane.
Not the last part.
For an infinite plane the gravitational acceleration would be constant, regardless of how far you are away from the plane.
It only varies when you start going inside the plane (as then you effectively have a plane above and below both attracting you).

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #99 on: January 12, 2020, 12:57:03 PM »
He and others were just showing that the maths are correct and an infinite plane of finite thickness has finite gravity that does NOT :( change with distance above the plane.
Not the last part.
For an infinite plane the gravitational acceleration would be constant, regardless of how far you are away from the plane.
It only varies when you start going inside the plane (as then you effectively have a plane above and below both attracting you).
You're right, of course. I made an embarrassing :( omission!.

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 17212
  • Mebs!
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #100 on: January 12, 2020, 03:14:44 PM »
It would have been a lot of fun waiting for Timeisup to realize that, though ;D (or admit things quickly got over his head...)

Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #101 on: January 12, 2020, 04:41:29 PM »
He and others were just showing that the maths are correct and an infinite plane of finite thickness has finite gravity that does NOT :( change with distance above the plane.
Not the last part.
For an infinite plane the gravitational acceleration would be constant, regardless of how far you are away from the plane.
It only varies when you start going inside the plane (as then you effectively have a plane above and below both attracting you).
You're right, of course. I made an embarrassing :( omission!.
and you it, forming the imbalance creating the collapsed to a black hole.
can there be tides on a infinite plane caused by a moon above the plane?
Another imbalance!
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 17212
  • Mebs!
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #102 on: January 12, 2020, 05:02:52 PM »
I do believe local imbalances are just fine on an infinite plane, much like they would be in an infinite universe, so long as things are homogeneous on the grander scheme of things. Of course, I defer to Timeisup's great wisdom on the matter.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #103 on: January 12, 2020, 05:25:04 PM »
He and others were just showing that the maths are correct and an infinite plane of finite thickness has finite gravity that does NOT :( change with distance above the plane.
Not the last part.
For an infinite plane the gravitational acceleration would be constant, regardless of how far you are away from the plane.
It only varies when you start going inside the plane (as then you effectively have a plane above and below both attracting you).
You're right, of course. I made an embarrassing :( omission!.
and you it, forming the imbalance creating the collapsed to a black hole.
I don't think a small imbalance would have more than a local effect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Too complicated! I'll stick with the far more easily understood Heliocentric Solar system.

Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #104 on: January 12, 2020, 05:36:24 PM »
... regarding the sphericalisation of large objects either look at the paper I provided a link for, full of good hard maths you can chew on for ages, or go look it up! Itís basic physics or do you want me to hold your hand.

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

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

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


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

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

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

Always.

and donít miss me too much.

Not a chance.

*

Timeisup

  • 2620
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #105 on: January 18, 2020, 01:29:36 PM »
This discussion leads me to some general considerations on the notion of infinity. I point out the risk of confusion that such a notion generates if we mistake limitations of our mind and our intelligence with properties of the natural world, or hints of the supernatural.
I point out the danger that is inherent when we try to fill up the mystery of the world with groundless solutions. In my opinion, uncertainty is preferable to unfounded certitudes.
Anthony Aguirre


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

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

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

https://philpapers.org/archive/SEWTCA

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

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

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


Lagrange Lecture: Methodology of Numerical Computations with Infinities and Infinitesimals.Yaroslav Sergeyev - 2010 - Rendiconti Del Seminario Matematico dell'Universitŗ E Del Politecnico di Torino68 (2):95Ė113.
Philosophy and Cosmology 2012 (The Journal of International Society of Philosophy and Cosmology (ISPC) ).Oleg Bazaluk (ed.) - 2012 - ISPC
Part IV. Perspectives on Infinity From Physics and Cosmology : 7. Some Considerations on Infinity in Physics / Carlo Rovelli ; 8. Cosmological Intimations of Infinity / Anthony Aguirre ; 9. Infinity and the Nostalgia of the Stars/ Marco Bersanelli ; 10. Infinities in Cosmology. [REVIEW]Michael Heller - 2011 - In Michał Heller & W. H. Woodin (eds.), Infinity: New Research Frontiers. Cambridge University Press.
Actual Versus Potential Infinity (BPhil Manuscript.).Anne Newstead - 1997 - Dissertation, University of Oxford
The Case Against Infinity.Kip Sewell - manuscript
The Universe Around Them: Cosmology and Cosmic Renewal in Indianized South-East Asia.H. G. Quaritch Wales - 1977 - A. Probsthain.
Theism and Physical Cosmology.Hans Halvorson - 2010 - In Charles Taliaferro, Victoria Harrison & Stewart Goetz (eds.), Routledge Companion to Theism.
Infinity: New Research Frontiers.Michał Heller & W. H. Woodin (eds.) - 2011 - Cambridge University Press.
Cosmic Agnosticism.Timothy E. Eastman - 2007 - Process Studies 36 (2):181-197.
The Harmony of the Spheres: Speculations on Western Man's Ever-Changing Views of the Cosmos, From Hesiod (700 B.C.) to Newton (1650 A.D.). [REVIEW]Robert Navon - 1991 - Selene Books.
Philosophy and Cosmology 2008 (The Journal of International Society of Philosophy and Cosmology (ISPC) ).Oleg Bazaluk (ed.) - 2008 - ISPC.
Philosophy and Cosmology 2011 (The Journal of International Society of Philosophy and Cosmology (ISPC) ).Oleg Bazaluk (ed.) - 2011 - ISPC.
On Describing the Total Universe as the Non-Self-Similar Fractal (NSSF) Set.Tim Crowther - manuscript
Cosmology and Political Culture in Early China.Aihe Wang - 2000 - Cambridge University Press
What a laugh!!!

*

Timeisup

  • 2620
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #106 on: January 18, 2020, 01:38:55 PM »
I'd like to take a second to thank our new friend Timeisup. He has united both FE and RE, and in bringing us all together, has also done a great service for this fine community. Cheers, Tim. You may be wrong, but you are accomplishing something so right for this world!

I may be wrong! but you are most definitely wrong.
What a laugh!!!

*

JackBlack

  • 17021
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #107 on: January 18, 2020, 04:14:08 PM »
This is just one of the reasons why all of the people who rejected my original thoughts on this subject are mistaken from the outset and their collective logic is flawed.
No, this is just you being pretentious and not liking the fact that even mainstream physics has no problem with a hypothetical infinite plane.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stop treating infinite as if it is finite.

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

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

Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #108 on: January 18, 2020, 09:04:35 PM »
Let's remember what member Timeisup said:

Entertaining? Yes I think that a thought experiment on the earth as an infinite plane could be said to be entertaining.
the earth is an infinite plane it would therefore follow;
the earth would have infinite mass
the earth would have infinite gravity as a result of the infinite mass
light would not be able to escape the infinite gravitational field
the earth by implication would have to collapse into a black hole to obey the laws of physics
We would not and never have existed due to the earth being a black hole

[snip]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

Timeisup

  • 2620
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #109 on: January 19, 2020, 01:20:10 AM »
This is just one of the reasons why all of the people who rejected my original thoughts on this subject are mistaken from the outset and their collective logic is flawed.
No, this is just you being pretentious and not liking the fact that even mainstream physics has no problem with a hypothetical infinite plane.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stop treating infinite as if it is finite.

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

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

Letís just deal with your first point.

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

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

So letís see your proof, over to you chum.
Letís remember John Davis is proposing this for real.
What a laugh!!!

*

Timeisup

  • 2620
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #110 on: January 19, 2020, 01:31:23 AM »
Let's remember what member Timeisup said:

Entertaining? Yes I think that a thought experiment on the earth as an infinite plane could be said to be entertaining.
the earth is an infinite plane it would therefore follow;
the earth would have infinite mass
the earth would have infinite gravity as a result of the infinite mass
light would not be able to escape the infinite gravitational field
the earth by implication would have to collapse into a black hole to obey the laws of physics
We would not and never have existed due to the earth being a black hole

[snip]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are a few questions for you.

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

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

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

*

JackBlack

  • 17021
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #111 on: January 19, 2020, 02:19:27 AM »
How about you offer up some proof, for both me being pretentious and that main stream physics has no problem with an infinite plane hypothetical or otherwise.
You mean like the proof that has already been provided, some of which you just dismissed as dubious, and others you just fled from and tried to change subject?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Either way you made a bad argument.

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

But I suspect you will take the 4th.
Admit no wrong, try to distract and just dig yourself deeper.

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 46846
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #112 on: January 19, 2020, 09:00:58 AM »
Timmy, I don't know where you get the idea that John Davis believes in Universal Acceleration, but he does not.

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

Quote
Is The Earth Accelerating Upwards?

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


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

Gravity on an infinite plane:

Gravity on an Infinite Plane

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

In this case, the typical model of gravity, mass attracting mass, may apply.
There is no way for an infinite plane to be pulled into the shape of a ball. Similarly, the horizontal component of the pull of gravity on any object on the discís surface would be balanced: thereís the same amount of mass to each side, meaning a net force of zero.
The downwards force of gravity caused by an infinite plane is dependent solely on the depth of said plane. The thickness can be calculated, I believe, to be approximately 4,250km.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

Timeisup

  • 2620
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #113 on: January 19, 2020, 01:35:00 PM »
Timmy, I don't know where you get the idea that John Davis believes in Universal Acceleration, but he does not.

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

Quote
Is The Earth Accelerating Upwards?

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


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

Gravity on an infinite plane:

Gravity on an Infinite Plane

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

You have to admit its difficult to keep track of who believes in what when it comes to those who believe in the earth being flat.
Does he believe in this:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomy_is_a_Pseudoscience
If thats the case its difficult to know what he believes in!
Or how about this
https://wiki.tfes.org/Quotes_That_Tell_Us_We_Have_All_Been_Lied_To
So you are saying he parts company when it comes to this
https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration
I take it he believes in this as he wrote it
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/einsteins-relativity-proves-earth-flat
Its funny that the three links he provides as refrences, one warns the user that the site could fradulent, the other its a link to a BBC page and the other is dead!
Normally when one includes meaaningful refrences they generally have some underlying credibility.
Though I take it he still believes in an ice wall
https://thetab.com/uk/sussex/2016/05/11/spoke-people-still-believe-earth-flat-9548
Which is very strange as how does that square with the infinate plane? or do you have to climb the wall to get on to the plane OR is it an infinite ice wall?
You tell me.
Though apparently he still holds with the idea that moonlight is dangerous!
https://idobi.com/podcast/053-john-eric-davis-flat-earth-society/
Taking all what Ive gleaned from his seamingly random beliefs I think its safe to conclude that he rejects our current understanding of the laws of physics..
« Last Edit: January 19, 2020, 02:02:06 PM by Timeisup »
What a laugh!!!

*

Timeisup

  • 2620
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #114 on: January 19, 2020, 01:58:44 PM »
How about you offer up some proof, for both me being pretentious and that main stream physics has no problem with an infinite plane hypothetical or otherwise.
You mean like the proof that has already been provided, some of which you just dismissed as dubious, and others you just fled from and tried to change subject?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Either way you made a bad argument.

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

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

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

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

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

I would really love to know what you think. You remind me of Bishop who loves to snip and snap but runs away when asked a direct question. Put your money where your mouth is and answer those questions, if you dare.
What a laugh!!!

*

Timeisup

  • 2620
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #115 on: January 19, 2020, 01:59:53 PM »
For the one called Black.

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

https://www.edge.org/conversation/next-step-infinity
What a laugh!!!

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 46846
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #116 on: January 19, 2020, 02:13:36 PM »

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

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

Moonlight is deadly.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 17212
  • Mebs!
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #117 on: January 19, 2020, 02:46:12 PM »
<So many words, mostly backpedaling>

It seems you a) can't actually refute the math you were shown, and b) can't defend your claims in your OP. Why are you still pretending you are on offense?

Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #118 on: January 19, 2020, 04:27:17 PM »
Let's remember what member Timeisup said:

Entertaining? Yes I think that a thought experiment on the earth as an infinite plane could be said to be entertaining.
the earth is an infinite plane it would therefore follow;
the earth would have infinite mass
the earth would have infinite gravity as a result of the infinite mass
light would not be able to escape the infinite gravitational field
the earth by implication would have to collapse into a black hole to obey the laws of physics
We would not and never have existed due to the earth being a black hole

[snip]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iíve sure got your panties in a right old twist.

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

Here are a few questions for you.

How did your imaginary FE infinite plane come into existence?

Your infinite plane, not mine. Remember?
Entertaining? Yes I think that a thought experiment on the earth as an infinite plane could be said to be entertaining.
the earth is an infinite plane ...

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

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

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

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

I pointed out how flawed your logic was.

Sorry, you did nothing of the sort.

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

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

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

I'll take neither. I'll just remind you to go ask your uni buddies "does an infinite uniform sheet of mass produce an infinite gravity field?"

Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #119 on: January 19, 2020, 08:27:00 PM »

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

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

Moonlight is deadly.
Where are the reports that shows. death by moonlight , I have yet to see a news report, of death by moonlight. Show me a death certificate, death by moonlight.
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.