You have a problem with academic references ?
No, we have been over this before.
I have a problem with you linking to a reference which does not support your claim.
You seem to want to just link to whatever you can find in the hopes that it will support you rather than actually defending your claims.
If you want to use a reference find one that states the infinite mass of an infinite plane will cause it to collapse into a black hole.
State explicitly where that is in the reference.
If you can't do that, then theses references are not backing you up.
If so could you elaborate on why forming an opinion based on best available evidence is in some way problematic.
Again, that would be your job. You are the one rejecting all available evidence and instead claiming pure nonsense which you are yet to defend in any way.
All the available evidence shows that you are wrong.
I really do wonder about your comprehension, when it clearly says they are falling!
Again, you should be questioning your own, as I already pointed out and you just ignored.
That is not talking about the forces on a particle in the plane.
It is talking about 2 particles falling towards the plane.
Guess what?
If you have 2 particles moving through empty space, they would accelerate towards each other as well.
That in no way relates to the forces on the plane itself.
It does not support your wild claims at all.
Tell me how any discussion about a relativistic object such as a black hole
You sure do love spouting nonsense don't you?
I already pointed out that people had been discussing black holes before relativity.
How many times and how many ways do you need to be told it’s infinite there is no centre. The real question is why your so fixated on this 000?
Which has already been explained.
Any black hole will have a centre point. That centre point can thus be defined as 0,0,0. Without such a point, it can't be a black hole.
An infinite black hole makes no sense.
That would be an infinite expanse. If it is only infinite in 1D it would be an infinite line. If it was infinite in 2D it would be an infinite plane. and so on.
So are you saying that the infinite plane would collapse into an infinite plane?
That would mean it doesn't really collapse and instead remains an infinite plane.
Again, you are the one who has been treating the infinite as finite, this entire time.
Ask any cosmologist they will say that how gravity acts when dealing with the mega large is unknown
Again, this means your argument was nothing more than wild speculation based upon nothing.
If you want to appeal to ignorance that means that you need to admit your argument is pure garbage.
You cannot appeal to ignorance to try and refute others while pretending or ignoring the fact that it completely destroys your argument.
Now again, are you actually going to try and defend your BS?
So far all you have done to do so is pretend it is just a really large finite object.
Appealing to ignorance is not defending your argument. It is showing it is BS.
If you can't defend your BS, are you going to admit your argument is garbage which in no way shows that Earth can't be an infinite plane?