Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy

  • 540 Replies
  • 27867 Views
*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #450 on: February 05, 2020, 11:44:05 PM »
Infinite gravity would most likely lead to a singularity. The most obvious parallel is the creation of black holes.
But you have yet to show that an infinite plane of uniform surface density would have infinite gravity under Newtonian Gravitation. That was the original thought experiment!

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

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

Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #451 on: February 06, 2020, 01:28:01 AM »
Infinite gravity would most likely lead to a singularity. The most obvious parallel is the creation of black holes.
But you have yet to show that an infinite plane of uniform surface density would have infinite gravity under Newtonian Gravitation. That was the original thought experiment!
I would leave it more general:
"But you have yet to show that all infinite planes would have infinite gravity. That was the original thought experiment! "

But until he does justify it, or admit it is completely unsupported and thus his argument is nonsense, every character he types is definitely wasted.

Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #452 on: February 06, 2020, 04:05:49 AM »

1: a infinite plain has no center.
2: all particles have Gravity: a field that stretch out in all direction, for a infinite distance.
3: the thickness of the plain is unknown, will this make a difference?
   the density, and composition of the plain is unknown.
   What would it have to be, to have Gravity at (9.8m/s-2) at it’s surface?
We find our selves in a pickle.
A. Can a object stand on the plane and not be drawn into it?
The object creating a in balance of gravity causing a collapse of the plane.
B. There can be no orbital mechanics with an infinite plain, no weather satellites, no GPS, no exploration of outer planets, not even men walking on the moon.
C. How would tides work?
D. As for point 0,0,0 any point you choose will do.
E. I have a hard time seeing the earth disk with its dome above it, any where on the infinite plain. (point 0,0,0)?
Your thoughts on each point be nice.
Another thought: with infinite gravity you have fusion of the elements in the plane, as each element fuses into the next element the fusion goes on and does not end.

Infinite gravity would most likely lead to a singularity. The most obvious parallel is the creation of black holes.
The problem throughout this discussion is that some people have put forward views on infinite flat planes as though they have had actual experience of one!
The other interesting aspect of this discussion is that certain people don’t want a discussion nor are they actually interested in science. All they appear to want to do is be right and prove other people wrong at all costs irrespective of what the actual known science is.
Empty vessels sure do.




Why the hell are you still on this?











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?

I’m surprised you even needed to ask the question as the answer is so obvious.
As no one knows how an infinite plane would collapse it’s therefore anyone’s guess. Infinite plane, Infinite mass, infinite gravity, infinite points of collapse. Your guess is as good as mine.


So we re all in agreement that timies is wrong?
Finally.



But do carry on and let us know where 0-0-0 is.

Or maybe you dont know what a singularity is or what 0-0-0 is?
If not dont be afraid to ask.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2020, 04:08:26 AM by Themightykabool »

*

Timeisup

  • 2199
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #453 on: February 06, 2020, 03:22:12 PM »

1: a infinite plain has no center.
2: all particles have Gravity: a field that stretch out in all direction, for a infinite distance.
3: the thickness of the plain is unknown, will this make a difference?
   the density, and composition of the plain is unknown.
   What would it have to be, to have Gravity at (9.8m/s-2) at itís surface?
We find our selves in a pickle.
A. Can a object stand on the plane and not be drawn into it?
The object creating a in balance of gravity causing a collapse of the plane.
B. There can be no orbital mechanics with an infinite plain, no weather satellites, no GPS, no exploration of outer planets, not even men walking on the moon.
C. How would tides work?
D. As for point 0,0,0 any point you choose will do.
E. I have a hard time seeing the earth disk with its dome above it, any where on the infinite plain. (point 0,0,0)?
Your thoughts on each point be nice.
Another thought: with infinite gravity you have fusion of the elements in the plane, as each element fuses into the next element the fusion goes on and does not end.

Infinite gravity would most likely lead to a singularity. The most obvious parallel is the creation of black holes.
The problem throughout this discussion is that some people have put forward views on infinite flat planes as though they have had actual experience of one!
The other interesting aspect of this discussion is that certain people donít want a discussion nor are they actually interested in science. All they appear to want to do is be right and prove other people wrong at all costs irrespective of what the actual known science is.
Empty vessels sure do.




Why the hell are you still on this?











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?

Iím surprised you even needed to ask the question as the answer is so obvious.
As no one knows how an infinite plane would collapse itís therefore anyoneís guess. Infinite plane, Infinite mass, infinite gravity, infinite points of collapse. Your guess is as good as mine.


So we re all in agreement that timies is wrong?
Finally.



But do carry on and let us know where 0-0-0 is.

Or maybe you dont know what a singularity is or what 0-0-0 is?
If not dont be afraid to ask.
I donít remember asking you for a comment. 0,0,0 is not that far from 0,0,1.
Donít feel you have to reply, itís not compulsory.

*

Timeisup

  • 2199
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #454 on: February 06, 2020, 03:23:56 PM »
Infinite gravity would most likely lead to a singularity. The most obvious parallel is the creation of black holes.
But you have yet to show that an infinite plane of uniform surface density would have infinite gravity under Newtonian Gravitation. That was the original thought experiment!

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

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

It wasnít the original experiment. Thatís utter bullshit.

*

Timeisup

  • 2199
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #455 on: February 06, 2020, 03:25:50 PM »
Infinite gravity would most likely lead to a singularity. The most obvious parallel is the creation of black holes.
But you have yet to show that an infinite plane of uniform surface density would have infinite gravity under Newtonian Gravitation. That was the original thought experiment!

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

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

You think! In your little world inhabited by elfís and pixies  quite possibly, but not in the real world.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #456 on: February 06, 2020, 04:35:52 PM »
Infinite gravity would most likely lead to a singularity. The most obvious parallel is the creation of black holes.
But you have yet to show that an infinite plane of uniform surface density would have infinite gravity under Newtonian Gravitation. That was the original thought experiment!

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

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

It wasnít the original experiment. Thatís utter bullshit.
. . . . . . . . .
Entertaining? Yes I think that a thought experiment on the earth as an infinite plane could be said to be entertaining.
the earth is an infinite plane it would therefore follow;
the earth would have infinite mass
the earth would have infinite gravity as a result of the infinite mass
light would not be able to escape the infinite gravitational field
the earth by implication would have to collapse into a black hole to obey the laws of physics
We would not and never have existed due to the earth being a black hole
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
There is no mention of GR and "the maths, from three independent sources" all used NewtonIan gravitation.
And more telling is that all you claimed was that the maths were "iffy" not that they all used NewtonIan gravitation.

You didn't even mention GR till much later!

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

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

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

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

Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #457 on: February 06, 2020, 05:42:47 PM »


I don’t remember asking you for a comment. 0,0,0 is not that far from 0,0,1.
Don’t feel you have to reply, it’s not compulsory.

Haha wtf?
Ok maybe you missed the whole point.
Point being the point.
We tought you got it, but then decided to post that reply that voided yourself.
Infinity doesnt have a center.
Got it?
No center.
No collapse into a center.
No black hole signularity.

Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #458 on: February 06, 2020, 11:29:37 PM »


I donít remember asking you for a comment. 0,0,0 is not that far from 0,0,1.
Donít feel you have to reply, itís not compulsory.

Haha wtf?
Ok maybe you missed the whole point.
Point being the point.
We tought you got it, but then decided to post that reply that voided yourself.
Infinity doesnt have a center.
Got it?
No center.
No collapse into a center.
No black hole signularity.
You miss the point that any point can be 0,0,0 just through a dart you can't miss, it will hit 0,0,0
How can you say that it didn't. there would be a infant distance in all directions.
Then too, infant mass brings infant fusion, possibly the big bang.
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #459 on: February 07, 2020, 02:20:32 AM »
It wasnít the original experiment. Thatís utter bullshit.
Your original experiment/argument was that the infinite mass of an infinite plane would cause it to have infinite gravity which would cause it to collapse into a black hole, which clearly hasn't happened meaning Earth couldn't possibly be an infinite plane.

You are yet to provide a single thing which backs up this baseless argument of yours, nor have you admitted it is pure nonsense which in no way refutes Earth being an infinite plane.

Until you do one of those things, any thing you said is just a pathetic distraction.

You miss the point that any point can be 0,0,0 just through a dart you can't miss, it will hit 0,0,0
How can you say that it didn't. there would be a infant distance in all directions.
Then too, infant mass brings infant fusion, possibly the big bang.
No, you miss the point.

Throw a dart, in fact, throw 2.
Both need to be 0,0,0. Both need to be the location where the singularity forms.

The point is that in order to have the singularity form you need a systematic way to uniquely define a point of origin, the point where the singularity will be.

If you do not have that, and instead have multiple such points being just as valid as the point of origin, the singularity cannot form as it would need to be centred in 2 locations.

For finite objects, you have the centre of mass.
For an infinite you have nothing.

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 1985
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #460 on: February 07, 2020, 05:19:36 AM »
What jack black is saying is.
Infinite gravity divided by infinite area equals 1g (or something in that region)

Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #461 on: February 07, 2020, 06:08:26 AM »
What im aaying is infinite centers means no center.

Amazingly timies was finally following and then wammo.
Back to pg2.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16759
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #462 on: February 07, 2020, 10:45:02 AM »
How about this angle:

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

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

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

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

Maybe its easier to visualize.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2020, 10:53:01 AM by John Davis »
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16759
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #463 on: February 07, 2020, 10:54:06 AM »
Interestingly, the second is actually explicit in the math posted earlier.
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #464 on: February 07, 2020, 10:57:34 AM »
It wasnít the original experiment. Thatís utter bullshit.
Your original experiment/argument was that the infinite mass of an infinite plane would cause it to have infinite gravity which would cause it to collapse into a black hole, which clearly hasn't happened meaning Earth couldn't possibly be an infinite plane.

You are yet to provide a single thing which backs up this baseless argument of yours, nor have you admitted it is pure nonsense which in no way refutes Earth being an infinite plane.

Until you do one of those things, any thing you said is just a pathetic distraction.

You miss the point that any point can be 0,0,0 just through a dart you can't miss, it will hit 0,0,0
How can you say that it didn't. there would be a infant distance in all directions.
Then too, infant mass brings infant fusion, possibly the big bang.
No, you miss the point.

Throw a dart, in fact, throw 2.
Both need to be 0,0,0. Both need to be the location where the singularity forms.

The point is that in order to have the singularity form you need a systematic way to uniquely define a point of origin, the point where the singularity will be.

If you do not have that, and instead have multiple such points being just as valid as the point of origin, the singularity cannot form as it would need to be centred in 2 locations.

For finite objects, you have the centre of mass.
For an infinite you have nothing.
sow you have 2 black holes or infant black holes.
what about
Infant mass brings on infant fusion, possibly the big bang.
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #465 on: February 07, 2020, 11:03:04 AM »
But they wouldnt collapse laterally or planar.
As johnD points out, youd be adding infinitely decreasing fractions.
Some one already pointed out 1 + 0.5 + 0.25 +.... = ?
Or = Infinity?


*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16759
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #466 on: February 07, 2020, 12:33:22 PM »
Assuming somewhat even distribution, consider any particular point and one that is affecting it gravitationally; you can always find a third point that will even this out such that the first point is not feeling any gravitational influence, given all three points are within the plane. This is why we can discount the horizontal gravitational effects when doing this calculation; we can ignore it equally for objects above the plane and consider simply the sum of the vertical components of the gravitational vectors. This is why it doesn't diminish via altitude. The vertical components sum finitely.

Its bit a bit inaccurate of me to state since 1/d^n converges so does this, but on the other hand we know the above summation is smaller than the latter.
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #467 on: February 07, 2020, 01:42:20 PM »
sow you have 2 black holes or infant black holes.
You would have infinitely many of them, in a plane, i.e. an infinite plane.

*

Timeisup

  • 2199
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #468 on: February 08, 2020, 12:47:28 AM »


I donít remember asking you for a comment. 0,0,0 is not that far from 0,0,1.
Donít feel you have to reply, itís not compulsory.

Haha wtf?
Ok maybe you missed the whole point.
Point being the point.
We tought you got it, but then decided to post that reply that voided yourself.
Infinity doesnt have a center.
Got it?
No center.
No collapse into a center.
No black hole signularity.

Ah youíre an expert on the behaviour of infinite structures. Tell me how you came by this knowledge? While itís most probably true that 0,0,0 is pretty meaningless in terms of coordinates on an infinite structure you are making a totally wild assumption that an infinite structure would behave in the same way as a finite one requiring some central point to collapse around. There is absolutely no real data on this, how could there be! only theoretical mathematically inspired thought. Or do you know differently? Even experts in this hypothetical field agree that itís an open question. So how come you appear to know differently?

*

Timeisup

  • 2199
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #469 on: February 08, 2020, 12:55:58 AM »
It wasnít the original experiment. Thatís utter bullshit.
Your original experiment/argument was that the infinite mass of an infinite plane would cause it to have infinite gravity which would cause it to collapse into a black hole, which clearly hasn't happened meaning Earth couldn't possibly be an infinite plane.

You are yet to provide a single thing which backs up this baseless argument of yours, nor have you admitted it is pure nonsense which in no way refutes Earth being an infinite plane.

Until you do one of those things, any thing you said is just a pathetic distraction.

You miss the point that any point can be 0,0,0 just through a dart you can't miss, it will hit 0,0,0
How can you say that it didn't. there would be a infant distance in all directions.
Then too, infant mass brings infant fusion, possibly the big bang.
No, you miss the point.

Throw a dart, in fact, throw 2.
Both need to be 0,0,0. Both need to be the location where the singularity forms.

The point is that in order to have the singularity form you need a systematic way to uniquely define a point of origin, the point where the singularity will be.

If you do not have that, and instead have multiple such points being just as valid as the point of origin, the singularity cannot form as it would need to be centred in 2 locations.

For finite objects, you have the centre of mass.
For an infinite you have nothing.

As I said to the other member of your close minded collective what data sets or research are you using to produce these wild statements? You are making one major wild assumption and that is that an infinite structure would behave in the same manner as a finite structure!
By what reasoning leads you to imagine that this would be the case?

*

Timeisup

  • 2199
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #470 on: February 08, 2020, 12:57:04 AM »
What im aaying is infinite centers means no center.

Amazingly timies was finally following and then wammo.
Back to pg2.

Dream on.

*

Timeisup

  • 2199
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #471 on: February 08, 2020, 01:17:28 AM »
How about this angle:

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

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

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

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

Maybe its easier to visualize.

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

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

*

Timeisup

  • 2199
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #472 on: February 08, 2020, 01:19:53 AM »
Infinite gravity would most likely lead to a singularity. The most obvious parallel is the creation of black holes.
But you have yet to show that an infinite plane of uniform surface density would have infinite gravity under Newtonian Gravitation. That was the original thought experiment!

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

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

It wasnít the original experiment. Thatís utter bullshit.
. . . . . . . . .
Entertaining? Yes I think that a thought experiment on the earth as an infinite plane could be said to be entertaining.
the earth is an infinite plane it would therefore follow;
the earth would have infinite mass
the earth would have infinite gravity as a result of the infinite mass
light would not be able to escape the infinite gravitational field
the earth by implication would have to collapse into a black hole to obey the laws of physics
We would not and never have existed due to the earth being a black hole
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
There is no mention of GR and "the maths, from three independent sources" all used NewtonIan gravitation.
And more telling is that all you claimed was that the maths were "iffy" not that they all used NewtonIan gravitation.

You didn't even mention GR till much later!

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

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

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

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

And your Independent sources are what?

Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #473 on: February 08, 2020, 01:30:57 AM »
As I said to the other member of your close minded collective what data sets or research are you using to produce these wild statements? You are making one major wild assumption and that is that an infinite structure would behave in the same manner as a finite structure!
No, that was entirely you making such a ridiculous wild assumption.

That was the problem from the start.
You acting like an infinite plane would behave just a very large finite plane.
Something you are yet to back up in any way, nor admit is pure nonsense backed up by nothing.

Remember, you were the one who claimed that the infinite mass of an infinite plane would cause it to collapse into a black hole.

The problem for you is that a black hole has a centre.
If it has a centre then there will be a unique position for this infinite plane to collapse into. But symmetry precludes that.
As such, an infinite plane cannot collapse into a black hole.

Iím afraid your simplistic statement regarding forces to be counterbalanced is not actually the case. Read the paper, or go to paragraph 28 onwards.
Perhaps you should actually try and read and understand the paper yourself.

Why say paragraph 28? Why not use a page number? Do you mean equation 28, and the paragraph below which describes 2 particles falling towards the plane, rather than the plane itself?

Better yet, how about you stop relying upon references to try and make your arguments for you and instead make them yourself.

Clearly explain why the arguments from symmetry don't work.
If you disagree with them, EXPLAIN WHY!
Don't just dismiss them.



Now are you going to admit your argument is garbage or actually try to defend it, or just keep on appealing to ignorance while refusing to acknowledge your own?

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #474 on: February 08, 2020, 02:27:56 AM »

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

You didn't even mention GR till much later!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #475 on: February 08, 2020, 03:19:59 AM »


I donít remember asking you for a comment. 0,0,0 is not that far from 0,0,1.
Donít feel you have to reply, itís not compulsory.

Haha wtf?
Ok maybe you missed the whole point.
Point being the point.
We tought you got it, but then decided to post that reply that voided yourself.
Infinity doesnt have a center.
Got it?
No center.
No collapse into a center.
No black hole signularity.

Ah youíre an expert on the behaviour of infinite structures. Tell me how you came by this knowledge? While itís most probably true that 0,0,0 is pretty meaningless in terms of coordinates on an infinite structure you are making a totally wild assumption that an infinite structure would behave in the same way as a finite one requiring some central point to collapse around. There is absolutely no real data on this, how could there be! only theoretical mathematically inspired thought. Or do you know differently? Even experts in this hypothetical field agree that itís an open question. So how come you appear to know differently?

Dafuq you on about man?
Thats the entire point.
The hypocrasy of you wiping away our mathematical assumptions while at the same time using thouse same assumptions (incorrectly) is insane.

No,
Infinity has no center.
And your continued clakm it has a center is the point we re trying to highlight.sure

For the unkowable possibilty ofbwhat gravity does on an inf plane is beyond us.
Based on assumptions, as listed, the following results = as stated.

You, using same assumptiond, the following results = wrong.
Theres no center.
Theres no reason for it to be  a singularity.

If yoy jave reason, lets have it.
If not, then yoyre just a giant "nuh-uh".
Youve procided no new infromation for 16pg now.
Thats right, we re at 16pg, nothing new from yuor weakass end.

Feel free to let us knwo where the center of the singularity is on an inf plane.

Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #476 on: February 08, 2020, 03:22:18 AM »
It wasnít the original experiment. Thatís utter bullshit.
Your original experiment/argument was that the infinite mass of an infinite plane would cause it to have infinite gravity which would cause it to collapse into a black hole, which clearly hasn't happened meaning Earth couldn't possibly be an infinite plane.

You are yet to provide a single thing which backs up this baseless argument of yours, nor have you admitted it is pure nonsense which in no way refutes Earth being an infinite plane.

Until you do one of those things, any thing you said is just a pathetic distraction.

You miss the point that any point can be 0,0,0 just through a dart you can't miss, it will hit 0,0,0
How can you say that it didn't. there would be a infant distance in all directions.
Then too, infant mass brings infant fusion, possibly the big bang.
No, you miss the point.

Throw a dart, in fact, throw 2.
Both need to be 0,0,0. Both need to be the location where the singularity forms.

The point is that in order to have the singularity form you need a systematic way to uniquely define a point of origin, the point where the singularity will be.

If you do not have that, and instead have multiple such points being just as valid as the point of origin, the singularity cannot form as it would need to be centred in 2 locations.

For finite objects, you have the centre of mass.
For an infinite you have nothing.

As I said to the other member of your close minded collective what data sets or research are you using to produce these wild statements? You are making one major wild assumption and that is that an infinite structure would behave in the same manner as a finite structure!
By what reasoning leads you to imagine that this would be the case?

Says the guy claiming an inf plane would collapse into a single point.
..

Yes?
No?
Hypocrasy?
Irony?

Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #477 on: February 08, 2020, 03:26:26 AM »
How about this angle:

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

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

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

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

Maybe its easier to visualize.

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

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

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

*

Timeisup

  • 2199
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #478 on: February 08, 2020, 04:21:19 AM »
As I said to the other member of your close minded collective what data sets or research are you using to produce these wild statements? You are making one major wild assumption and that is that an infinite structure would behave in the same manner as a finite structure!
No, that was entirely you making such a ridiculous wild assumption.

That was the problem from the start.
You acting like an infinite plane would behave just a very large finite plane.
Something you are yet to back up in any way, nor admit is pure nonsense backed up by nothing.

Remember, you were the one who claimed that the infinite mass of an infinite plane would cause it to collapse into a black hole.

The problem for you is that a black hole has a centre.
If it has a centre then there will be a unique position for this infinite plane to collapse into. But symmetry precludes that.
As such, an infinite plane cannot collapse into a black hole.

Iím afraid your simplistic statement regarding forces to be counterbalanced is not actually the case. Read the paper, or go to paragraph 28 onwards.
Perhaps you should actually try and read and understand the paper yourself.

Why say paragraph 28? Why not use a page number? Do you mean equation 28, and the paragraph below which describes 2 particles falling towards the plane, rather than the plane itself?

Better yet, how about you stop relying upon references to try and make your arguments for you and instead make them yourself.

Clearly explain why the arguments from symmetry don't work.
If you disagree with them, EXPLAIN WHY!
Don't just dismiss them.



Now are you going to admit your argument is garbage or actually try to defend it, or just keep on appealing to ignorance while refusing to acknowledge your own?

You have a problem with academic references ?
If so could you elaborate on why forming an opinion based on best available evidence is in some way problematic.

*

Timeisup

  • 2199
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #479 on: February 08, 2020, 04:27:31 AM »
How about this angle:

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

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

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

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

Maybe its easier to visualize.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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