Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy

Come on what proof.
I think you need to go look in a dictionary and read up the meaning of the word proof.

No, that would still be you.

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

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

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

The only 'evidence' and I use that word in the lightest way possible was a one-page piece of iffy maths

And the arguments provided directly here.
This is evidence that you are wrong.
The only reason you are using it lightly is so you can just dismiss it.
Remember how you just dismissed the math as dubious or just outright ignored it?
Because you are completely unable to show any actual problem with it.

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

if such a thing existed would have to be 'perfect' as any inconsistency in its makeup would cause a gravitational imbalance and the whole thing would come crashing down into a black hole

No, that is just another of your baseless assertions that you are yet to justify in any way.

For infinite objects who can really tell, but that's what my thought experiment told me based on the real world. to imagine you know better about something no one really knows anything about just demonstrates what a total fool you are.

So is that an admission that you are a fool?
Every since it was brought up, by you, you have been acting like you know better than everyone else. That your entirely basless claims somehow magically disproves the infinite flat Earth on the basis of gravity alone.

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

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

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

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

Really?
Where?

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

Tell me how an infinite plane of the sort described by Davis would come about. Some proof would be nice.

And there you go with even more avoidance.

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

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

Good job projecting your own inadequacies onto others.
You have been provided plenty of evidence, which you just ignore.
You have been asked direct questions, which you just ignore.

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

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

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

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

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

In my opinion, uncertainty is preferable to unfounded certitudes.

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

Yet again, you are digging yourself deeper.

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

Quote from: Timeisup on January 19, 2020, 01:58:44 PM

Come on what proof.
I think you need to go look in a dictionary and read up the meaning of the word proof.

No, that would still be you.

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

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

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

Quote from: Timeisup on January 19, 2020, 01:58:44 PM

The only 'evidence' and I use that word in the lightest way possible was a one-page piece of iffy maths

And the arguments provided directly here.
This is evidence that you are wrong.
The only reason you are using it lightly is so you can just dismiss it.
Remember how you just dismissed the math as dubious or just outright ignored it?
Because you are completely unable to show any actual problem with it.

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

Quote from: Timeisup on January 19, 2020, 01:58:44 PM

if such a thing existed would have to be 'perfect' as any inconsistency in its makeup would cause a gravitational imbalance and the whole thing would come crashing down into a black hole

No, that is just another of your baseless assertions that you are yet to justify in any way.

Quote from: Timeisup on January 19, 2020, 01:58:44 PM

For infinite objects who can really tell, but that's what my thought experiment told me based on the real world. to imagine you know better about something no one really knows anything about just demonstrates what a total fool you are.

So is that an admission that you are a fool?
Every since it was brought up, by you, you have been acting like you know better than everyone else. That your entirely basless claims somehow magically disproves the infinite flat Earth on the basis of gravity alone.

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

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

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

Quote from: Timeisup on January 19, 2020, 01:58:44 PM

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

Really?
Where?

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

Quote from: Timeisup on January 19, 2020, 01:58:44 PM

Tell me how an infinite plane of the sort described by Davis would come about. Some proof would be nice.

And there you go with even more avoidance.

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

Quote from: Timeisup on January 19, 2020, 01:58:44 PM

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

Good job projecting your own inadequacies onto others.
You have been provided plenty of evidence, which you just ignore.
You have been asked direct questions, which you just ignore.

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Timeisup on January 19, 2020, 01:59:53 PM

In my opinion, uncertainty is preferable to unfounded certitudes.

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

Yet again, you are digging yourself deeper.

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have to remember that is just ones persons theory or what he thinks may happen on a fictional infinite plane it’s not gospel. However if you agree with it then you have to go with it all and not cherry pick.
As we don’t live on a uniform planet with uniform density and uniform gravity...etc...etc.

As this discussion has veered off into a petty JackBlack vendetta let’s bring it back and clarify a few points.

The original question:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

So much for both the Davis plane, and the slavering hoard.
I think we can conclude that the  idea of an infinite flat earth is a fiction, and Jack Black, is wrong, again. Totally busted!
Jack Black, your Timeisup.

Quote from: JackBlack on January 19, 2020, 11:20:10 PM

Yet again, you are digging yourself deeper.

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

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

No, but you "sure have a problem".

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

That is not affected by whether:

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

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

Quote from: Timeisup on January 20, 2020, 12:16:51 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on January 19, 2020, 11:20:10 PM

Yet again, you are digging yourself deeper.

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

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

No, but you "sure have a problem".

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

That is not affected by whether:

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

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

You really need that explained!

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

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

You know what I think about this situation, but what do you think? or are you going to play the Bishop, refuse to answer then run away claiming victory?

You know what I think about this situation, but what do you think? or are you going to play the Bishop, refuse to answer then run away claiming victory?
[/quote]quote author=Timeisup link=topic=84509.msg2230883#msg2230883 date=1579508211]
You sure have a problem.
[/quote]
Again, that would be you, not me.

Remember, you are the one contradicting yourself.

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

If you accept the workings and methodology of the person who produced it, possibly because it was posted on the internet, then you should accept all he says and not just the bits you like.

Why?
That is like saying if someone says Earth is round, then you should accept everything he says.
So do you accept everything clickjamas says, including that rockets can't work in space and that Earth is stationary?

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

He said any deviation form that would result in a gravitational instability and according to him his hypothetical infinite plane would collapse.

I don't really care.
Is that backed up by anything at all?

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

what I thought was pretty much in line with the thoughts of the author of the page of iffy maths

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

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

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

If you go along with this guy then you have to accept this:

Good thing I'm not just going along with him.

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

You mean like yourself? Where you still haven't admitted your initial argument was completely wrong?

So Gravity measurements falsify the hypothesis of an infinite Flat Earth plane. Observations of gravity on earth confirm a rotating ellipsoid.

Which is completely irrelevant to the argument you made.

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

Firstly the whole concept of an infinite plane is somewhat farfetched

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

Again, quit with the pathetic distractions.

It, therefore, follows that any mathematics applied to such an unknown is pure entertaining speculation
No one knows the physics of the infinite nor can they make any predictions that are any more than pure guesswork.

Again, if you truly believe that admit your argument was pure speculation and shows absolutely nothing about if an infinite plane can or cannot exist.

so I'm not sure what your beef is

It is quite simple. You are spouting pure garbage and doubling down rather than admitting you are wrong.

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

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

How about this time you avoid option 4?

Contradiction....what contradiction?
You really do have a problem accepting the truth.
I posted the page of mathematics that contained the comments that I referred to, you know the one that you are trying desperately to use to prove your point, that for some reason you are choosing to ignore the part I am referring to. I think that's called cherry-picking!

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

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

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

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

By the way, you may wish to adjust your shorts as judging by the tone of your posts they sound as though they could be infinitely tight.

Where are the reports that shows. death by moonlight , I have yet to see a news report, of death by moonlight. Show me a death certificate, death by moonlight.

I suggest you research moon lunacy.

Quote from: MouseWalker on January 19, 2020, 08:27:00 PM

Where are the reports that shows. death by moonlight , I have yet to see a news report, of death by moonlight. Show me a death certificate, death by moonlight.

I suggest you research moon lunacy.

Then such claims, are definitely lunacy.

Contradiction....what contradiction?

Your initial argument was that gravity would cause an infinite plane to collapse.
This requires you to know how gravity behaves for an infinite object.
But you claim no one knows how gravity would cause an infinite object to behave.

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

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

That is covered by options 1 and 2.

You really do have a problem accepting the truth.

Again, that would be you.
Refusing to accept that you have argued yourself into a corner where there is no way out without admitting you are wrong.

you know the one that you are trying desperately to use to prove your point

Again, I have not used that page.
Try again.

for some reason you are choosing to ignore the part I am referring to. I think that's called cherry-picking!

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

The infinite plane I was referring to is not a featureless smooth uniformly dense object

That doesn't matter at all.
Your initial argument made no reference to ANY irregularities.
Instead all you appealed to was it being infinite.

How do you know how something infinite would behave?

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

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

If you want to appeal to us not knowing how the infinite behave, you are limited to option 1 and 4. Either admit you are wrong because your argument relies upon knowing how the infinite behave, or just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper due to repeatedly contradicting yourself.
So what's it going to be?

Why do you keep repeating the same thing over and over again. I’ve answered those questions!  What do you hope to achieve? For some bizarre reason you are unwilling to accept them, and that is your problem. Go and read my pervious post again, and who knows you may we’ll see both the light and the error of your ways.

If you can’t follow the logic presented here, then there is nothing I can do for you:-

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

We have an impasse.
Keeping saying I’m wrong without presenting an alternative is a waste of time.
If you care to look through all my posts you will see I’ve presented quite a number of pieces of credible evidence that supports my position. In my mind I think my logic is sound, you don’t agree.

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

You obviously don’t like what I’ve presented so one way to resolve this is for the Jack that is Black, to present his alternative answer.
Over to you Jack.

Why do you keep repeating the same thing over and over again.

Perhaps because you are repeatedly ignoring it.

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

Do you not notice the direct contradiction there?

Again, deal with your initial argument before moving on.

I’ve presented quite a number of pieces of credible evidence that supports my position.

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

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

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

So what will it be?

We have an impasse.
. . . . . . .
Over to you Jack.

I'm not JackBlack and if you think that there's an impasse it's of your own making.

This is where you really start getting into trouble

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on January 09, 2020, 10:56:35 AM

Quote from: boydster on January 09, 2020, 04:11:55 AM

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

Thank you for bringing sense to an otherwise nonsensical argument.

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

Forget your "spacecraft" etc, etc they are quite irrelevant to the basic question.

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

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

You saw the maths in Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy « Reply #36 on: January 11, 2020, 07:23:26 AM ».
Now, no one has said it's realistic, just the maths work and the gravity above the surface is finite.

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

Quote from: Timeisup on January 20, 2020, 11:47:39 PM

Why do you keep repeating the same thing over and over again.

Perhaps because you are repeatedly ignoring it.

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

Do you not notice the direct contradiction there?

Again, deal with your initial argument before moving on.

Quote from: Timeisup on January 21, 2020, 12:08:17 AM

I’ve presented quite a number of pieces of credible evidence that supports my position.

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

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

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

So what will it be?

You are in repeat mode. I have dealt with your argument.
You are determined to prove I'm wrong, I get that, so how about showing me the correct answer?
Follow this logic.
You say I am wrong
It's now up to you to provide the correct answer.
Simple, over to you Jack.

Quote from: Timeisup on January 21, 2020, 12:08:17 AM

We have an impasse.
. . . . . . .
Over to you Jack.

I'm not JackBlack and if you think that there's an impasse it's of your own making.

This is where you really start getting into trouble

Quote from: Timeisup on January 09, 2020, 03:24:34 PM

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on January 09, 2020, 10:56:35 AM

Quote from: boydster on January 09, 2020, 04:11:55 AM

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

Thank you for bringing sense to an otherwise nonsensical argument.

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

Forget your "spacecraft" etc, etc they are quite irrelevant to the basic question.

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

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

You saw the maths in Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy « Reply #36 on: January 11, 2020, 07:23:26 AM ».
Now, no one has said it's realistic, just the maths work and the gravity above the surface is finite.

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

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

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

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

I honestly don't know how to convince people when it is right before them in black and white. If you choose to ignore it then so be it.

You are in repeat mode. I have dealt with your argument.

No, you haven't you ignored it and brought up irrelevant crap.

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

I have.

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

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

Follow this logic.
You say I am wrong
It's now up to you to provide the correct answer.

Not how the burden of proof works.
You made a claim, you need to justify it.
So justify your claim that gravity would cause an infinite plane to collapse into a black hole.
Remember, homogeneity being needed still means you are wrong.
You appealed to the infinite mass, not any irregularities.

Here is the original maths, go read it. He agrees with me.

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

I honestly don't know how to convince people when it is right before them in black and white. If you choose to ignore it then so be it.

How about first start by accepting that you were completely wrong and that an infinite plane and thus infinite mass doesn't mean it would collapse into a black hole?

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

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

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

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

Quote from: rabinoz on January 21, 2020, 12:52:45 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on January 21, 2020, 12:08:17 AM

We have an impasse.
. . . . . . .
Over to you Jack.

I'm not JackBlack and if you think that there's an impasse it's of your own making.

This is where you really start getting into trouble

Quote from: Timeisup on January 09, 2020, 03:24:34 PM

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on January 09, 2020, 10:56:35 AM

Quote from: boydster on January 09, 2020, 04:11:55 AM

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

Thank you for bringing sense to an otherwise nonsensical argument.

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

Forget your "spacecraft" etc, etc they are quite irrelevant to the basic question.

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

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

You saw the maths in Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy « Reply #36 on: January 11, 2020, 07:23:26 AM ».
Now, no one has said it's realistic, just the maths work and the gravity above the surface is finite.

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

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

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

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

I honestly don't know how to convince people when it is right before them in black and white. If you choose to ignore it then so be it.

Sorry, but it's not there in black and white. The thought experiment was:
"If the earth were an infinite plane of a certain thickness b and homogeneous density ρ, you would get a homogeneous gravity field that acts perpendicular to the surface everywhere."
So If the Earth were a uniform homogeneous infinite plane it would not collapse, end of story!

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

So the original thought experiment is valid.

Now it might collapse due to slight irregularities and might not describe reality but that does not invalidate the original premise.

I'm not even sure about the "slight imperfections making it collapse." I can't recall where I saw it, but I seem to remember there being an argument that if the imperfections were roughly evenly distributed (much like matter being pretty much evenly distributed in the universe, although there are obviously local places like galaxies with higher concentrations), small local variances wouldn't be a problem.

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

The gravitational stability of an infinite plane has been shown by Spitzer for the less stable state of gas.

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

Quote from: Timeisup on January 21, 2020, 12:55:14 AM

You are in repeat mode. I have dealt with your argument.

No, you haven't you ignored it and brought up irrelevant crap.

Quote from: Timeisup on January 21, 2020, 12:55:14 AM

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

I have.

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

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

Quote from: Timeisup on January 21, 2020, 12:55:14 AM

Follow this logic.
You say I am wrong
It's now up to you to provide the correct answer.

Not how the burden of proof works.
You made a claim, you need to justify it.
So justify your claim that gravity would cause an infinite plane to collapse into a black hole.
Remember, homogeneity being needed still means you are wrong.
You appealed to the infinite mass, not any irregularities.

Quote from: Timeisup on January 21, 2020, 12:57:21 AM

Here is the original maths, go read it. He agrees with me.

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

Quote from: Timeisup on January 21, 2020, 12:55:14 AM

I honestly don't know how to convince people when it is right before them in black and white. If you choose to ignore it then so be it.

How about first start by accepting that you were completely wrong and that an infinite plane and thus infinite mass doesn't mean it would collapse into a black hole?

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

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

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

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

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

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

No where have you attempted to offer an alternative.

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

The gravitational stability of an infinite plane has been shown by Spitzer for the less stable state of gas.

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

A link to that would be interesting.

Quote from: Timeisup on January 21, 2020, 12:57:21 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on January 21, 2020, 12:52:45 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on January 21, 2020, 12:08:17 AM

We have an impasse.
. . . . . . .
Over to you Jack.

I'm not JackBlack and if you think that there's an impasse it's of your own making.

This is where you really start getting into trouble

Quote from: Timeisup on January 09, 2020, 03:24:34 PM

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on January 09, 2020, 10:56:35 AM

Quote from: boydster on January 09, 2020, 04:11:55 AM

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

Thank you for bringing sense to an otherwise nonsensical argument.

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

Forget your "spacecraft" etc, etc they are quite irrelevant to the basic question.

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

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

You saw the maths in Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy « Reply #36 on: January 11, 2020, 07:23:26 AM ».
Now, no one has said it's realistic, just the maths work and the gravity above the surface is finite.

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

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

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

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

I honestly don't know how to convince people when it is right before them in black and white. If you choose to ignore it then so be it.

Sorry, but it's not there in black and white. The thought experiment was:
"If the earth were an infinite plane of a certain thickness b and homogeneous density ρ, you would get a homogeneous gravity field that acts perpendicular to the surface everywhere."
So If the Earth were a uniform homogeneous infinite plane it would not collapse, end of story!

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

So the original thought experiment is valid.

Now it might collapse due to slight irregularities and might not describe reality but that does not invalidate the original premise.

The fact is none of it is proved! How can a page of numbers prove anything? It would have to be verified by observation or experimentation. The main problem is that there are no infinities in our universe. No one knows the physics of infinity, any thoughts on it would be no more than a stab in the dark. The fact that we are still unsure about aspects of gravity when dealing with large structures, how do you think that may translate to infinity?

The gravitational stability of an infinite plane has been shown by Spitzer for the less stable state of gas.

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

I think you may Be misunderstanding what Spitzer said. I think there would be little to gain from explaining it to you.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IoO7a6G8gJYC&pg=PA356&lpg=PA356&dq=Spitzer+infinite+plane+stability&source=bl&ots=V4j14I0JnG&sig=ACfU3U3F7JrMA-TNndRGvUKcmJYrijKetw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjZjt2_25bnAhUCZcAKHQMmCScQ6AEwAHoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=Spitzer%20infinite%20plane%20stability&f=false

I'm not even sure about the "slight imperfections making it collapse." I can't recall where I saw it, but I seem to remember there being an argument that if the imperfections were roughly evenly distributed (much like matter being pretty much evenly distributed in the universe, although there are obviously local places like galaxies with higher concentrations), small local variances wouldn't be a problem.u

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

Burden of proof and all that, how about you prove an infinite plane could actually exist........or don’t you realise all this discussion is hypothetical in the extreme as nothing infinite exists in the real physical world.

It’s interesting to note that Spitzer, the one referred to by John Davis appears to have spent a great deal of his research life in looking at how massive clouds of interstellar gas and dust light years in size collapse locally due to gravitational instabilities to form stars. It’s interesting to note that Spitzer is not a flat earth advocate, anything but. What puzzles me is why John Davis would not reference a flat earth astronomer, rather than one who would disagree with anything He himself believes in?
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IoO7a6G8gJYC&pg=PA356&lpg=PA356&dq=Spitzer+infinite+plane+stability&source=bl&ots=V4j14I0JnG&sig=ACfU3U3F7JrMA-TNndRGvUKcmJYrijKetw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjZjt2_25bnAhUCZcAKHQMmCScQ6AEwAHoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=Spitzer%20infinite%20plane%20stability&f=false

It’s interesting to note that Spitzer, the one referred to by John Davis appears to have spent a great deal of his research life in looking at how massive clouds of interstellar gas and dust light years in size collapse locally due to gravitational instabilities to form stars. It’s interesting to note that Spitzer is not a flat earth advocate, anything but. What puzzles me is why John Davis would not reference a flat earth astronomer, rather than one who would disagree with anything He himself believes in?

All of which is quite irrelevant to the fact that the maths show that an infinite flat earth of uniforms mass/unit area is stable.

Whether it's practical, possible or sensitive to small irregularities are quite a separate matters.
Just face that and then debate the very real practical problems.

If anyone cares to analyse your post as a response to my previous post, they will discover quite quickly its nothing more than a joke.

And again you spout a bunch of insults rather than defend your argument.

You constantly evade presenting your own answers backed by proper references. I’m not sure what your angle is but it’s definitely not science.
Your own arguments unlike my own are based on nothing more than your own opinions!

And there you go projecting your own failures onto others.

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

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

It is a baseless opinion, nothing more.
I don't care what his baseless opinion is.

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

No one knows the physics of infinity, any thoughts on it would be no more than a stab in the dark.

Which would mean that your argument is nothing more than a stab in the dark.
Again, this is refuting yourself.
You are indicating that your argument is unsound, that is pure guesswork.

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

Burden of proof and all that

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

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

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

When are you planning on meeting YOUR burden of proof?

Again, let me remind you of what your argument was:

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

Notice how you are appealing to the infinite mass?
Notice how you claim this infinite mass results in infinite gravity which causes it to collapse into a black hole?
Notice how no where in there do you claim that it would collapse due to it being non-uniform.

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

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

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

What this discussion has thrown up are some very interesting observations.
The infinite plane referred to in relativistic versions that Flat earthers like John Davis try to use to prop up his own ideas are not infinite flat versions of the earth we live on, but rather mathematical idealised perfect planes as explained in this quite interesting paper.

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

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

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

How can one believe in the results of work that has come from a source that, according to flat earthers, doesn’t exist is very perplexing. Perhaps John Davis could explain this conundrum.

Jack Black may  also wish to read the above paper, even although it may stick in his craw!