Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy

Just before I go can I share this fairly unambiguous statement theThe Black Jack will no doubt gnash his teeth over and the flying pig will no doubt say is trolling!

One can give a physical motivation for the appearance of pressures or tensions (i.e. negative pressures) in the static, general relativistic solutions: a matter source with only a plane of mass-energy – T00 ∝ δ(z) – is not stable, but will collapse under its gravitational self-attraction.

You can check that out here:-
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0708.2906.pdf

You won’t like it but what can you do. Bye for now.

And, please explain how something's thickness is 0.004879 m^(3/2) / kg^(1/2)

Take it up with the author of the paper. You can find his contact details on the paper.

Quote from: Timeisup on January 30, 2020, 03:08:17 PM

Have you read the words of the Black Jack? He calls them lies and rubbish!

Stop lying.
I called your words lies and rubbish, not the papers.

Pointing out your lies when you try and use these papers to defend your garbage, when they in no way back up your garbage is not saying the papers are lying.

Quote from: Timeisup on January 30, 2020, 03:08:17 PM

He keeps going on about symmetry

Yes, because you are yet to deal with that argument.
I don't need a paper to back up my case.
Arguments stand on their own merits.

I'm not the only one appealing to symmetry either.

Meanwhile you have absolutely nothing to refute it.

Quote from: Timeisup on January 30, 2020, 03:08:17 PM

An unfounded opinion is less than worthless.

Which means your unfounded opinion, based upon nothing at all, is less than worthless.

Meanwhile, the arguments presented based upon symmetry and math and the known laws of gravity are not.

Quote from: Timeisup on January 30, 2020, 03:08:17 PM

You can go back and check if you have a mind to if anyone other than myself has presented a scientific paper that explains their POV.

And there you go lying yet again.
What do you mean other than yourself?
You haven't presented a paper that explains your POV.
You are yet to present any paper that claims that the infinite mass of an infinite plane will cause it to have infinite gravity and collapse into a black hole.

Remember, that is what started all this, your baseless garbage argument where you tried to refute the existence of an infinite plane by appealing to its infinite mass and claiming that this infinite mass causes it to have infinite gravity and collapse into a black hole.
But you are yet to present anything which backs that up.

Again, all the evidence is against you.
You have nothing more than your baseless claim.
We have papers, which you have provided, which show you are wrong.
We have math based upon the known laws of gravity which indicate that you are wrong.
We have symmetry which shows that you are wrong.

All you seem to be able to do is bring up papers that in no way support you.

Would you like me to link to papers which are irrelavent to the argument as well?
How about this one:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1762-6
Or this:
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/367/6477/492

Neither are relavent to the argument in any way, but that applies to your sources.

So by your own standard, that means I have presented evidence which shows you are wrong.
Saying otherwise would be calling these scientists liars.

Is that really the pathetic crap you want?

If not, how about you stop acting like Sandy and actually defend your BS?
See if you can find any evidence or reference which actually back you up by clearly showing that the infinite mass causes an infinite plane to have infinite gravity and collapse into a black hole.
Or, try to actually refute the counter arguments, including those which require no knowledge of how gravity would behave at the infinite (other than the symmetry of it) and instead just appeal to symmetry to show that it cannot collapse into a black hole.

Or actually act like you have claimed you do, and own up and admit your mistake.

You do so love the word garbage. I think you have an affinity for it, or is it an infinity!  How you manage to go through a whole discussion saying the same thing over and over again is quite an achievement. I honestly think every you say is unsupported rubbish, a different form of garbage. Love the links by the way, though if you were trawling through Nature why couldn’t you have found something to back your own views up?.....is that because there was nothing there? Never mind, better luck next time. One consolation for you, at least you were beaten by someone with a superior intellect.

Just before I go can I share this fairly unambiguous statement theThe Black Jack will no doubt gnash his teeth over and the flying pig will no doubt say is trolling!

Yes, you can pull a Sandy, and dishonestly present a scientific source as if it backs you up.

Notice how they aren't saying that an infinite plane has infinite gravity which causes it to collapse.
Instead it is saying that there will be pressure in the plane.

So it still doesn't back you up.

Furthermore, notice how it just says collapse, rather than collapse into a black hole.

I honestly think every you say is unsupported rubbish

Then why are you completley incapable of refuting it and instead repeatedly misrepresent your position and scientific references to pretend you are correct?

If what I have said actually was garbage you would easily be able to refute it.

The real question isn't why I keep repeating the same things, it is why you keep ignoring it or just blatantly lying about it?

I wasn't trawling nature. I just put in pretty much the same effort you have. I went to their site and grabbed one of the first links there. I didn't even bother reading it or really care what it was about.

You seem to think that the content of the article doesn't matter and that merely linking to it magically makes everything you say correct.

Now again, going to back up your nonsense?

Going to provide any valid reference which claims the infinite mass of an infinite plane will cause it to have infinite gravity and collapse into a black hole?
Because unless you can pull one of them out, you have no references to back you up.

Going to even attempt to refute what the arguments I have presented?
Because unless you can actually refute them you have no basis for your claim that what I have presented is rubbish, and no basis to say you are not wrong.

Or going to act rational and honest for once and just admit your argument was pure garbage?

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on January 30, 2020, 04:15:58 PM

And, please explain how something's thickness is 0.004879 m^(3/2) / kg^(1/2)

Take it up with the author of the paper. You can find his contact details on the paper.

No!
You are are quoting that paper to support your claims so you explain "how something's thickness is 0.004879 m^(3/2) / kg^(1/2)".
It seems that you don't understand your own reference.

Just before I go can I share this fairly unambiguous statement theThe Black Jack will no doubt gnash his teeth over and the flying pig will no doubt say is trolling!

One can give a physical motivation for the appearance of pressures or tensions (i.e. negative pressures) in the static, general relativistic solutions: a matter source with only a plane of mass-energy – T00 ∝ δ(z) – is not stable, but will collapse under its gravitational self-attraction.

You can check that out here:-
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0708.2906.pdf

You won’t like it but what can you do. Bye for now.

OK, I did that and look what I found, this:

In Newtonian gravity a truly uniform field would be produced by an infinite plane with area mass density σ.
Infinite planes of charge are also among the first examples students encounter in introductory electrostatics.
Using the close connection between Newtonian gravity and electrostatics one can find the gravitational potential for such an infinite mass plane.

Now please remember that the thought was based on Newtonian gravitation as was the maths.

So this might be a little gift For you when you return.

Now please remember that the thought was based on Newtonian gravitation as was the maths.

Oh no, don't you know that Timeisup is an expert in relativistic physics, and when he said "the earth would have infinite gravity as a result of the infinite mass" he was thinking of this very paper? And that of course "the earth would have infinite gravity as a result of the infinite mass" in no way can possibly interpreted as Newtonian physics, why would anyone ever think that? And that he did all that math and physics (and Google research, too!) before blurting out "the earth would have infinite gravity as a result of the infinite mass"? Why ever would you doubt that the only person to bring scientific thought to this conversation wouldn't have done that before making the highly considered, researched, and well-founded statement "the earth would have infinite gravity as a result of the infinite mass"?

Still avoiding the 0-0-0 conundrum

Keep up the good work

Yes, the math is clearly newtonian. I've seen it also done back when I first wrote it and did further research on the topic around a relativistic version, but it has since left my memory and desk.

You can derive Gauss' law directly from Newton's. This is a task every undergrad physics student does. I believe it was in one of my general education classes as well as a mathematics student.

Yes, the math is clearly newtonian. I've seen it also done back when I first wrote it and did further research on the topic around a relativistic version, but it has since left my memory and desk.

You can derive Gauss' law directly from Newton's. This is a task every undergrad physics student does. I believe it was in one of my general education classes as well as a mathematics student.

Yes. Timeisup was given a link (see https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84509.msg2228969#msg2228969) to a site explaining how to do the calculation (a helpful "here's how to approach the problem") so that he could verify it for himself.

Instead of verifying the calculation, he treats it as a gospel reference and questions its veracity, calls the math "highly suspect" (which means he can't follow it and reproduce the results) and then goes off to try to find published papers:

In my naivety I expected something from Nature or perhaps a paper from Caltech, not some nondescript waffle from who knows who from who knows where.

Clearly a case of a wannabe with physics envy who's trying to wriggle out of a statement that he thought sounded good as part of his "look at me, I'm so smart, I gotcha, you dumb FEers", but which has no basis in physics. Now he's frantically looking for justification and using all the tired old techniques of deflection, moving the goalposts, never ever admitting a mistake, appealing to irrelevant authority, using belittling names ... it's the same old story.

Indeed. It reminds of the old days when we held the earth was accelerating upwards and were constantly having to teach people relativistic physics.

Would you believe in the middle of nowhere and we have the equivalent of fibre speed broadband via a satellite connection, not only is it cool it’s totally ironic. Though just installed a week or so ago it appears to be working, almost bug free, but we shall see.
To answer a few of the comments regarding my initial thought experiment statement that caused such excitement with the collective. The reason why I made It is that is I had read about it in a New Scientist piece some time back, so it wasn’t something I had just dreamt up, unlike how flat earthers appear to operate. Why I then went off to find papers on the subject was to discover the current thought on the subject, not to be proven right as many of the clowns in the Collective insist. If Einstein can be wrong  ‘over spooky action at a distance’ then being wrong puts one in good company. I don’t get this rabid obsession over trying to get people to admit they are wrong! What is that about? Every discussion should be based on best evidence and not opinion. I presented best available evidence and it clearly demonstrated I was not wrong. The real irony was the collective were all getting hot under the collar over a situation for which no real data exists, for how could it? everything is just theoretical, which we all should know is just an educated guess. The mathematics being based on known theory, but as there are so many unknowns that have not been considered, the real answer if it exists is still up for grabs. The fact that the collective didn’t like my guess is irrelevant, as It was supported to a great extent by current thought on the subject.
The one person who is completely wrong, on so so many counts, is the author of the Davis Plane, John Davis himself. It’s odd how that one fact escaped the Borg like obsession of the collective.
You have to remember children, sticks and stones, etc.
While the mob or collective may still be baying for blood I say to them, forget your prejudices and preconceived ideas, consult the experts, examine the science and consider what they say.

examine the science and consider what they say.

We know the science, the mathematics and, strangely enough, even a little General Relativity.
But you must remember that you are on a Flat Earth Society site and the relevant thought experiment is based on Newtonian Gravitation.

Having a flat-Earther acknowledge Newtonian Gravitation is near enough to a miracle.
We've been trying to hammer into you that under Newtonian Gravitation an infinite flat earth does not collapse and does have uniform finite gravity.

But you kept raving about the "iffy maths" but still refuse to where because those maths were not at all "iffy".

You now seem to gloat over finding a "gotcha" quote but even that paper agrees that under Newtonian Gravitation an infinite flat earth does not collapse and does have uniform finite gravity.

Gloat away but I still doubt that you have any understanding of that GR analysis.

Quote from: Timeisup on February 01, 2020, 02:15:32 AM

examine the science and consider what they say.

We know the science, the mathematics and, strangely enough, even a little General Relativity.
But you must remember that you are on a Flat Earth Society site and the relevant thought experiment is based on Newtonian Gravitation.

Having a flat-Earther acknowledge Newtonian Gravitation is near enough to a miracle.
We've been trying to hammer into you that under Newtonian Gravitation an infinite flat earth does not collapse and does have uniform finite gravity.

But you kept raving about the "iffy maths" but still refuse to where because those maths were not at all "iffy".

You now seem to gloat over finding a "gotcha" quote but even that paper agrees that under Newtonian Gravitation an infinite flat earth does not collapse and does have uniform finite gravity.

Gloat away but I still doubt that you have any understanding of that GR analysis.

1. No, It was my thought experiment that I thought! so my thinking was my own and of course, it had to include relativistic effects. If you or other flat Earthers in the collective don't like that then go think your own thoughts, but don't have the audacity to tell me how to think. You been reading 1984?

2. What flat earthers think is their own concern, they do after all think the earth is flat! so including the reality of relativity is hardly an issue when they think both moon and sun are small and near!

3. The maths are iffy because they do not take into account the whole picture ignoring relativity, so how can it be anything other than iffy. Have we not moved on since the time of Newton, great man though he was. Does your GPS work on Newtonian physics or take relativity into account I know how mine works. That may account for you being lost all the time? Do you honestly think that page of simplistic iffy maths actually presents a more accurate picture of what after all is just an imaginary situation than the scientific papers I presented? 

4 No gloating, why would I want to gloat? why do you imagine I don't understand the GR analysis? though you being rather petty and small-minded would have to get that one in as it's all you have.

5 Why don't you stick the facts and the science rather than making stuff up? this discussion should be about the best possible evidence you and your collective have tried vainly to distort it and make it into some vindictive witchhunt where the actual science was secondary.

Indeed. It reminds of the old days when we held the earth was accelerating upwards and were constantly having to teach people relativistic physics.

To get to the point, how do you feel now about your Davis plane, as its been pretty well busted as a result of this 'discussion'? Do you intend to give it a re-write or just pop it in the bin?

Quote from: rabinoz on February 01, 2020, 02:52:25 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on February 01, 2020, 02:15:32 AM

examine the science and consider what they say.

We know the science, the mathematics and, strangely enough, even a little General Relativity.
But you must remember that you are on a Flat Earth Society site and the relevant thought experiment is based on Newtonian Gravitation.

Having a flat-Earther acknowledge Newtonian Gravitation is near enough to a miracle.
We've been trying to hammer into you that under Newtonian Gravitation an infinite flat earth does not collapse and does have uniform finite gravity.

But you kept raving about the "iffy maths" but still refuse to where because those maths were not at all "iffy".

You now seem to gloat over finding a "gotcha" quote but even that paper agrees that under Newtonian Gravitation an infinite flat earth does not collapse and does have uniform finite gravity.

Gloat away but I still doubt that you have any understanding of that GR analysis.

1. No, It was my thought experiment that I thought! so my thinking was my own and of course, it had to include relativistic effects.

If you NOW claim that "of course, it had to include relativistic effects" why didn't mention include General Relativity until well after you introduced your thought experiment.

Just when did you say that your thought experiment was not based on Newtonian Gravitation?

This, I believe is when you introduced your "thought experiment":

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

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

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

I see not one mention of General Relativity in your "terms of reference".
And you never raised GR in all you "iffy maths" claims, why not!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to be the first time you brought relativity into it about 13 days later:

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

It does look as though General Relativity was a bit of a long long after thought!

I don’t get this rabid obsession over trying to get people to admit they are wrong!

I don't get this rabid obsession over people refusing to admit they are wrong and continuing discussions for no reason.

Quote from: rabinoz on February 01, 2020, 02:52:25 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on February 01, 2020, 02:15:32 AM

examine the science and consider what they say.

We know the science, the mathematics and, strangely enough, even a little General Relativity.
But you must remember that you are on a Flat Earth Society site and the relevant thought experiment is based on Newtonian Gravitation.

Having a flat-Earther acknowledge Newtonian Gravitation is near enough to a miracle.
We've been trying to hammer into you that under Newtonian Gravitation an infinite flat earth does not collapse and does have uniform finite gravity.

But you kept raving about the "iffy maths" but still refuse to where because those maths were not at all "iffy".

You now seem to gloat over finding a "gotcha" quote but even that paper agrees that under Newtonian Gravitation an infinite flat earth does not collapse and does have uniform finite gravity.

Gloat away but I still doubt that you have any understanding of that GR analysis.

1. No, It was my thought experiment that I thought! so my thinking was my own and of course, it had to include relativistic effects. If you or other flat Earthers in the collective don't like that then go think your own thoughts, but don't have the audacity to tell me how to think. You been reading 1984?

2. What flat earthers think is their own concern, they do after all think the earth is flat! so including the reality of relativity is hardly an issue when they think both moon and sun are small and near!

3. The maths are iffy because they do not take into account the whole picture ignoring relativity, so how can it be anything other than iffy. Have we not moved on since the time of Newton, great man though he was. Does your GPS work on Newtonian physics or take relativity into account I know how mine works. That may account for you being lost all the time? Do you honestly think that page of simplistic iffy maths actually presents a more accurate picture of what after all is just an imaginary situation than the scientific papers I presented? 

4 No gloating, why would I want to gloat? why do you imagine I don't understand the GR analysis? though you being rather petty and small-minded would have to get that one in as it's all you have.

5 Why don't you stick the facts and the science rather than making stuff up? this discussion should be about the best possible evidence you and your collective have tried vainly to distort it and make it into some vindictive witchhunt where the actual science was secondary.

1.
Is the exact stance of sceptimatic.
Go read about him her and ask yourself - do i want to be like him?

2.
And we debate their merit when they present their theory.
In this case, you presented yoyr theory and we discussed its merit.
You just chose to go all 1.
Where 's 0-0-0?
Instead you continue to avoid and wrote another whinefest (376word).

3, 4, 5.
The math works out.
You dont understand infinity.
An inf plane of finite thickness will have uniform gravity at perpendicular to plane - and we assume (state assumptions) that it is finite because we arent crushed so if we can safely assume 9.81 as a finite gravity (this does not relieve the fe of all the other fails with the inf idea however, you did not state these).
The math using force be it magnetic, gravity, whatever, al show the perpendocilar distance cancels out.
The plane doesnt have to be perfectly flat as any mountains or valleys as a percentage are negligible to infinity and to the supposed thickness of the plane.
The inf plane woild not collapse into a singularity because there is no center on infinity (youve yet to proove otherwise, and we have all noted yoyr blatant avoidance).
An inf plane of finite thickness would have the same parrallel gravity in all directions - the lateral forces would all cancel out - the same problem with sceptimatics "math" where jackb pointed out that his theory works regardless of flatness, regardless of direction.
You two are so fixated on down and infinity you cant open your minds to the flaw and instead parrot your inital statement over and over, never expanding on it, refusing to address the simple refuting question and redirect to a plea for duped or borg mentality.

Quote from: Timeisup on February 01, 2020, 02:15:32 AM

I don’t get this rabid obsession over trying to get people to admit they are wrong!

I don't get this rabid obsession over people refusing to admit they are wrong and continuing discussions for no reason.

Welcome to the internet.

Btw, wheres 0-0-0?
Still no answer to pg2.
We re on pg14.

Quote from: Timeisup on February 01, 2020, 04:34:45 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on February 01, 2020, 02:52:25 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on February 01, 2020, 02:15:32 AM

examine the science and consider what they say.

We know the science, the mathematics and, strangely enough, even a little General Relativity.
But you must remember that you are on a Flat Earth Society site and the relevant thought experiment is based on Newtonian Gravitation.

Having a flat-Earther acknowledge Newtonian Gravitation is near enough to a miracle.
We've been trying to hammer into you that under Newtonian Gravitation an infinite flat earth does not collapse and does have uniform finite gravity.

But you kept raving about the "iffy maths" but still refuse to where because those maths were not at all "iffy".

You now seem to gloat over finding a "gotcha" quote but even that paper agrees that under Newtonian Gravitation an infinite flat earth does not collapse and does have uniform finite gravity.

Gloat away but I still doubt that you have any understanding of that GR analysis.

1. No, It was my thought experiment that I thought! so my thinking was my own and of course, it had to include relativistic effects.

If you NOW claim that "of course, it had to include relativistic effects" why didn't mention include General Relativity until well after you introduced your thought experiment.

Just when did you say that your thought experiment was not based on Newtonian Gravitation?

This, I believe is when you introduced your "thought experiment":

Quote from: Timeisup on January 09, 2020, 01:43:13 AM

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

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

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

I see not one mention of General Relativity in your "terms of reference".
And you never raised GR in all you "iffy maths" claims, why not!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to be the first time you brought relativity into it about 13 days later:

Quote from: Timeisup on January 22, 2020, 12:54:40 AM

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

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

It does look as though General Relativity was a bit of a long long after thought!

When did I say it wasn't? Now you really are clutching at straws!
Go back and read what I said, you can believe what you like!
Why do you think for one moment that I should have, I took it as a given and assumed you lived in the real world and the thought experiment was one that existed in that real'imagined' world!
I told you exactly why the maths in my opinion was iffy in the previous post. Tell me why you don't think it was iffy?

OK let's see if you can follow this and I'll keep it as simple as possible for you to follow.
I said way in the beginning in one of my supporting posts that large stellar masses have been shown to collapse due to their own inherent gravity. Was this idea of gravitational collapse first put forward by Newton?
By implication, I was obviously talking about Einstien and his thesis where he explains through analytical investigations of his highly non-linear Einstein Field Equations how and why stars dynamically collapse due to gravity. They also happen to generally predict an ultimate singular end-state. From what I recall about Newton he didn't much go in for the creation of a singularity or talk much about event horizons, did he?
It's not my problem that you appear unable to follow a simple argument and need things spelled out to you. Do try and keep up.
With that now explained to you in simple easy to follow terms, do you still think it was an afterthought?

Going by your last post it appears that your not that interested in the science but more interested in catching me out. Why is that? Is the science too tricky for you to follow? Tell you what you stick to your page of iffy maths if it makes you happy.

Quote from: Timeisup on February 01, 2020, 04:34:45 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on February 01, 2020, 02:52:25 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on February 01, 2020, 02:15:32 AM

examine the science and consider what they say.

We know the science, the mathematics and, strangely enough, even a little General Relativity.
But you must remember that you are on a Flat Earth Society site and the relevant thought experiment is based on Newtonian Gravitation.

Having a flat-Earther acknowledge Newtonian Gravitation is near enough to a miracle.
We've been trying to hammer into you that under Newtonian Gravitation an infinite flat earth does not collapse and does have uniform finite gravity.

But you kept raving about the "iffy maths" but still refuse to where because those maths were not at all "iffy".

You now seem to gloat over finding a "gotcha" quote but even that paper agrees that under Newtonian Gravitation an infinite flat earth does not collapse and does have uniform finite gravity.

Gloat away but I still doubt that you have any understanding of that GR analysis.

1. No, It was my thought experiment that I thought! so my thinking was my own and of course, it had to include relativistic effects. If you or other flat Earthers in the collective don't like that then go think your own thoughts, but don't have the audacity to tell me how to think. You been reading 1984?

2. What flat earthers think is their own concern, they do after all think the earth is flat! so including the reality of relativity is hardly an issue when they think both moon and sun are small and near!

3. The maths are iffy because they do not take into account the whole picture ignoring relativity, so how can it be anything other than iffy. Have we not moved on since the time of Newton, great man though he was. Does your GPS work on Newtonian physics or take relativity into account I know how mine works. That may account for you being lost all the time? Do you honestly think that page of simplistic iffy maths actually presents a more accurate picture of what after all is just an imaginary situation than the scientific papers I presented? 

4 No gloating, why would I want to gloat? why do you imagine I don't understand the GR analysis? though you being rather petty and small-minded would have to get that one in as it's all you have.

5 Why don't you stick the facts and the science rather than making stuff up? this discussion should be about the best possible evidence you and your collective have tried vainly to distort it and make it into some vindictive witchhunt where the actual science was secondary.

1.
Is the exact stance of sceptimatic.
Go read about him her and ask yourself - do i want to be like him?

2.
And we debate their merit when they present their theory.
In this case, you presented yoyr theory and we discussed its merit.
You just chose to go all 1.
Where 's 0-0-0?
Instead you continue to avoid and wrote another whinefest (376word).

3, 4, 5.
The math works out.
You dont understand infinity.
An inf plane of finite thickness will have uniform gravity at perpendicular to plane - and we assume (state assumptions) that it is finite because we arent crushed so if we can safely assume 9.81 as a finite gravity (this does not relieve the fe of all the other fails with the inf idea however, you did not state these).
The math using force be it magnetic, gravity, whatever, al show the perpendocilar distance cancels out.
The plane doesnt have to be perfectly flat as any mountains or valleys as a percentage are negligible to infinity and to the supposed thickness of the plane.
The inf plane woild not collapse into a singularity because there is no center on infinity (youve yet to proove otherwise, and we have all noted yoyr blatant avoidance).
An inf plane of finite thickness would have the same parrallel gravity in all directions - the lateral forces would all cancel out - the same problem with sceptimatics "math" where jackb pointed out that his theory works regardless of flatness, regardless of direction.
You two are so fixated on down and infinity you cant open your minds to the flaw and instead parrot your inital statement over and over, never expanding on it, refusing to address the simple refuting question and redirect to a plea for duped or borg mentality.

It depends on what kind of universe you would like to talk about. If you would like to consider a simplified one with many of the laws put to one side and the unknows not even considered, then go ahead. My thought expt. was based, as much as it was possible for an impossible event, in the real universe. Go on all you like about your simplistic explanations, I would rather stay with the peer-reviewed explanations for grownups.

You do go on about how correct you are but please remind me of the science you are basing your assumptions on, or have you just made it up.
Your 'science' against the science I've presented head to head. Over to you Mighty Mouse.

Over to me

Well i appear to be playing ball by myself because you refuse to yet again answer Where 0-0-0 is.


Ironically you smuggl just one post before your last, with this tidbit

OK let's see if you can follow this and I'll keep it as simple as possible for you to follow.
I said way in the beginning in one of my supporting posts that large stellar masses have been shown to collapse due to their own inherent gravity.

Ok smugass
Lets see if you can follow this.
A finite large celestial body with a definitive center collpases into a star or plaent or singularity of some kind - is your choice to use as an example of what would happen with an infinite plane.

Right...
So ill ask again.
Wheres 0-0-0?

I presented a string of points.
You chose instead to whine and cry about how superior you are.
Im not smart.
Congrats to you for being smart.
Please justify why and where we can find 0-0-0 on an inf plane of finite thickness

Ill end with your own quote bounced back to you.


With that now explained to you in simple easy to follow terms, do you still think it was an afterthought?

Going by your last post it appears that your not that interested in the science but more interested in catching me out. Why is that? Is the science too tricky for you to follow? Tell you what you stick to your page of iffy maths if it makes you happy.

Over to me

Well i appear to be playing ball by myself because you refuse to yet again answer Where 0-0-0 is.


Ironically you smuggl just one post before your last, with this tidbit

OK let's see if you can follow this and I'll keep it as simple as possible for you to follow.
I said way in the beginning in one of my supporting posts that large stellar masses have been shown to collapse due to their own inherent gravity.

Ok smugass
Lets see if you can follow this.
A finite large celestial body with a definitive center collpases into a star or plaent or singularity of some kind - is your choice to use as an example of what would happen with an infinite plane.

Right...
So ill ask again.
Wheres 0-0-0?

I presented a string of points.
You chose instead to whine and cry about how superior you are.
Im not smart.
Congrats to you for being smart.
Please justify why and where we can find 0-0-0 on an inf plane of finite thickness

Ill end with your own quote bounced back to you.


With that now explained to you in simple easy to follow terms, do you still think it was an afterthought?

Going by your last post it appears that your not that interested in the science but more interested in catching me out. Why is that? Is the science too tricky for you to follow? Tell you what you stick to your page of iffy maths if it makes you happy.

Do you honestly think there is such a place as 000 on an infinite plane?
We have a bit of a standoff here as you appear to be very reluctant for you to pit your 'science' against my peer-reviewed papers. I just wonder why.

Over to me

Well i appear to be playing ball by myself because you refuse to yet again answer Where 0-0-0 is.


Ironically you smuggl just one post before your last, with this tidbit

OK let's see if you can follow this and I'll keep it as simple as possible for you to follow.
I said way in the beginning in one of my supporting posts that large stellar masses have been shown to collapse due to their own inherent gravity.

Ok smugass
Lets see if you can follow this.
A finite large celestial body with a definitive center collpases into a star or plaent or singularity of some kind - is your choice to use as an example of what would happen with an infinite plane.

Right...
So ill ask again.
Wheres 0-0-0?

I presented a string of points.
You chose instead to whine and cry about how superior you are.
Im not smart.
Congrats to you for being smart.
Please justify why and where we can find 0-0-0 on an inf plane of finite thickness

Ill end with your own quote bounced back to you.


With that now explained to you in simple easy to follow terms, do you still think it was an afterthought?

Going by your last post it appears that your not that interested in the science but more interested in catching me out. Why is that? Is the science too tricky for you to follow? Tell you what you stick to your page of iffy maths if it makes you happy.

Ok mighty mouse.
No, you misquote me. I was just pointing out, what we actually know in regard to very large stellar masses and how they behave under intense gravitational forces.
An infinite plane as you deliberately choose to ignore is something very very different on which Newton has nothing to say. The reason why it is so different is that it's not actually real and as such exists only in theory. If you choose the simplistic Newtonian route then you're going to arrive at an answer that is pretty meaningless or more meaningless than any other answer. As has been pointed out no one knows how gravity or anything else for that matter will behave under those conditions so to say you know is pretty delusional. At least the relativistic approach goes some way to producing an answer that makes some sense.

Sure let's stick to the science so you show me yours for up until now you have been very coy. It's now time to reveal all mighty mouse, or are you worried that you won't have much to show and will be embarrassed by its minuscule nature?

Quote from: Themightykabool on February 01, 2020, 09:23:09 AM

Over to me

Well i appear to be playing ball by myself because you refuse to yet again answer Where 0-0-0 is.


Ironically you smuggl just one post before your last, with this tidbit

OK let's see if you can follow this and I'll keep it as simple as possible for you to follow.
I said way in the beginning in one of my supporting posts that large stellar masses have been shown to collapse due to their own inherent gravity.

Ok smugass
Lets see if you can follow this.
A finite large celestial body with a definitive center collpases into a star or plaent or singularity of some kind - is your choice to use as an example of what would happen with an infinite plane.

Right...
So ill ask again.
Wheres 0-0-0?

I presented a string of points.
You chose instead to whine and cry about how superior you are.
Im not smart.
Congrats to you for being smart.
Please justify why and where we can find 0-0-0 on an inf plane of finite thickness

Ill end with your own quote bounced back to you.


With that now explained to you in simple easy to follow terms, do you still think it was an afterthought?

Going by your last post it appears that your not that interested in the science but more interested in catching me out. Why is that? Is the science too tricky for you to follow? Tell you what you stick to your page of iffy maths if it makes you happy.

Do you honestly think there is such a place as 000 on an infinite plane?
We have a bit of a standoff here as you appear to be very reluctant for you to pit your 'science' against my peer-reviewed papers. I just wonder why.

Ok finally the question is addressed... somehwat.

If we are in agreement (i assume we re in agreement) and there is no 0-0-0 on an inf plane, where do you beleive the inf plane will decide to pick as its center to collapse into?

Timie quote

As has been pointed out no one knows how gravity or anything else for that matter will behave under those conditions so to say you know is pretty delusional.


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.

 

Didn't you say you would be gone for a week?

The reason why I made It is that is I had read about it in a New Scientist piece some time back

Care to provide the reference?
Because it sure seems like the same old naive nonsense.

Why I then went off to find papers on the subject was to discover the current thought on the subject, not to be proven right

Then why repeatedly lie by saying they back you up?

I don’t get this rabid obsession over trying to get people to admit they are wrong!

Because far too often here, people like Sandy and now you, will come up with one argument, and then run from it rather than admitting it is wrong, trying to distract with completely different arguments, only to bring up the first argument some time later.

What I don't get is why you so strongly refuse to admit you were wrong, and not even bother attempting to discuss what shows you are wrong, instead either ignoring it outright or finding some pathetic excuse to dismiss it.
If you really cared about the truth you would have admitted your initial argument was pure garbage which proved nothing.

I presented best available evidence and it clearly demonstrated I was not wrong.

Again, stop lying. It did no such thing.
No where did this "best evidence" indicate that the infinite mass of an infinite plane would cause it to have infinite gravity.
No where did it indicate such a plane would collapse into a black hole.

You have literally provided nothing that proved you were right (i.e. not wrong).

Instead, the only sources you have provided which are relevant have indicated that such a plane would be stable.

I said way in the beginning in one of my supporting posts that large stellar masses have been shown to collapse due to their own inherent gravity. Was this idea of gravitational collapse first put forward by Newton?

Did you mean large objects collapsing into a sphere?
If so, Newton certainly seemed to know about it, even factoring in other factors. After all, he proposed that Earth was not actually a sphere and instead was an ellipsoid, flatted at the poles.

Or did you mean the idea of light not being able to escape a black hole?
If so, that was proposed in 1784 by John Michell.

Neither needed GR for it.

Do you honestly think there is such a place as 000 on an infinite plane?

That's the point genius.
Like me, he is making an argument from symmetry.

For any FINITE body there is a uniquely defined 0,0,0 point based upon the centre of mass.
If this object were to collapse into a sphere or black hole, it would be centred on the 0,0,0 point.
Conservation of momentum demands this.

For an finite plane, there is no such point.
Instead, you have a unique z=0, but there is no x or y = 0 based upon the centre of mass.

If you were to pick such a point, you would then be able to translate along the x and y directions to go to any other point in the centre of the plane and have a point which is just as valid as the 0,0,0 point.

This means if it was going to collapse into a black hole, the black hole must be centred at 2 different points.
This is impossible and means it cannot collapse into a black hole.

That is why he was asking, the absence of a 0,0,0 point means it will not collapse as doing so would produce a contradiction.

We have a bit of a standoff here as you appear to be very reluctant for you to pit your 'science' against my peer-reviewed papers. I just wonder why.

Stop lying.
Your peer-reviewed papers in no way back up your argument. As such they are irrelevant to the discussion.

You seem to just be completely unwilling to defend your garbage in any way.

As has been pointed out no one knows how gravity or anything else for that matter will behave under those conditions so to say you know is pretty delusional.

Again, if you honestly believed that you would admit that your argument was nothing more pure garbage which proves nothing and that you were delusional to pretend you knew how such an infinite object would behave.

But with your usual double standard for this thread, you are happy using this absence of knowledge to dismiss every argument which shows you are wrong, while refusing to admit it also shows you are wrong.

That is why before, when I was giving you the options, one was something along the lines of this:
Admit your argument is garbage as you have absolutely no idea how such an infinite object would behave.

Yet you refused, and still want to claim you are not wrong.

Again, so far all the available evidence shows you are wrong.

The arguments from symmetry do not require knowing how gravity would behave at the infinite other than it being isotropic.
These arguments alone are enough to refute your garbage.
You have absolutely nothing to even attempt to refute them.

Quote from: Themightykabool on February 01, 2020, 09:23:09 AM

I'll end with your own quote bounced back to you.

With that now explained to you in simple easy to follow terms, do you still think it was an afterthought?

Going by your last post it appears that your not that interested in the science but more interested in catching me out. Why is that? Is the science too tricky for you to follow? Tell you what you stick to your page of iffy maths if it makes you happy.

Do you honestly think there is such a place as 000 on an infinite plane?
We have a bit of a standoff here as you appear to be very reluctant for you to pit your 'science' against my peer-reviewed papers. I just wonder why.

As Themightykabool has already asked:
If there is no "such place as 000 on an infinite plane" please explain where this infinite plane can collapse into.

Quote from: rabinoz on February 01, 2020, 05:02:01 AM

It does look as though General Relativity was a bit of a long long after thought!

When did I say it wasn't? Now you really are clutching at straws!
Go back and read what I said, you can believe what you like!

I did "Go back and read what I you said" and:

• It appears that General Relativity is mentioned nowhere in the thread until well after you introduce your thought experiment.
  
  
• The original "thought experiment" of John Davis and jroa was obviously based on Newtonian Gravitation and Gauss's Law, which could not be used under General Relativity.
  And this was pointed out to you:
  Quote from: boydster on January 09, 2020, 04:30:44 PM

  Quote from: Timeisup on January 09, 2020, 03:14:19 PM

  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.
  

  Can you put forward the scientific basis for your statement

  THE MATHEMATICS OF THE INFINITE FLAT EARTH by John Davis
  I await your review.

You simply passed these and other references to the same mathematics as simply "iffy maths".

In that YOU were quite wrong those maths are not "iffy" in the slightest yet you have refused to say why YOU claim them to be "iffy".

So I repeat "It does look as though General Relativity was a bit of a long long after thought" and you cannot expect to add new "terms of reference" so belatedly and get away with it.

Now answer this question, "Just when did you say that your thought experiment was not based on Newtonian Gravitation?"

Look, just face the fact that you've made a total fool of yourself and that could have been so simply avoided.

As soon as John Davis presented "those so-called iffy maths" you could simply have said that you accepted that but that you meant "under Einstein's General Relativity".

But you didn't do that and I suspect the reason might be that basically you do understand really General Relativity yourself.

Side note
So good to see rab and jackb getting along with johnD and scg