Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy

  • 540 Replies
  • 14370 Views
*

Timeisup

  • 1080
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #510 on: February 10, 2020, 12:04:14 PM »
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.

Your claim has nothing to do with refutation of my analogy. I see no reason to bother reading the support for your argument as its content is non sequitur.

Everytime you post here you look ignorant; you lessen the gap between those reasonable round earthers and us flat earthers. Thank you for your service to help The Flat Earth Society.

Who is it who believes the earth is flat? and it's not I.

For some reason, people are objecting to me using academic references. Every statement I have made can be backed up by the best science available, which is far more than you can say. I'm not sure what science if any you can claim to back any of your views. The fact that you do not wish to read my references makes your statement regarding my "ignorance' look rather lame. If you have not read what I have put forward how can you consider what I have said to be ignorant? Now that is a non sequitur if ever I have heard one. I'm not sure how what I have said in any way has given service to the FE society.

Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #511 on: February 10, 2020, 12:11:02 PM »
And youve yet to simply in one sentence state where the cente rof infinite plane would be.
18pg.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16496
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #512 on: February 10, 2020, 12:12:55 PM »
Me believing in a flat earth doesn't change mathematics.

We are objecting to you using references you don't understand and which don't show the points you are trying to make. Its a pain in the ass to read a paper only to find out you didn't bother to do so yourself, or you did and misunderstood it.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Timeisup

  • 1080
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #513 on: February 10, 2020, 12:21:31 PM »
You have said that the maths are "iffy" - prove it and you might find that suddenly everybody's attitude changes.

Do you still not get it...Its simplified to such an extent ( ignoring GR) that it does not actually mean anything. Im not sure how else I can say this.
No, you still don't get it!
The maths are NOT "iffy"! The maths are quite correct.

And if you considered that "ignoring GR" was relevant why did YOU not explicitly say so until well AFTER you said that the maths were "iffy"?

You introduced your "thought experiment" on January 09, 2020 and you first explicit reference to General Relativity was here, in quote of MY post:
Sure! I "believe the current research on gravity" and possibly have a better understanding of General Relativity than you.
My words, not yours!

Now ponder on these things. If this infinite plane of finite thickness collapses in a black hole:
  • Where would this black hole be located?
  • How big would this black hole be - its Schwarzschild radius?
  • How long would this infinite plane of finite thickness take to collapse?
I'll await you answer.

Wow, you obviously don't read, or more accurately don't want to. My initial post referred to a Black Hole. True or not?
Can Black holes be talked about or discussed meaningfully without reference to GR? True or not?
Was it not the theory of GR that predicted the existence of Black Holes? Yes or No?
Did Newton, Genius as he was, have anything to say about black holes? Yes or No?

Though to be honest I can't get why you appear to be so hot under the collar and demand that the discussion is ring-fenced and only to include 17th-century mathematics.
I assumed, my mistake obviously, that I was dealing with free-thinking open-minded individuals. Though in the end what difference does it make, do you have something against GR? If so what? What difference does it make?

The iffy maths as I have said is not 'wrong' in its limited context, it's iffy because it's too simplistic and does not take into account all the known parameters. For the life of me, I can't understand why you are not able to take onboard that point. These calculations are used as an introduction to set the scene before introducing the mathematical theories that are much harder to use and understand.

*

Timeisup

  • 1080
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #514 on: February 10, 2020, 12:28:45 PM »
Me believing in a flat earth doesn't change mathematics.

We are objecting to you using references you don't understand and which don't show the points you are trying to make. Its a pain in the ass to read a paper only to find out you didn't bother to do so yourself, or you did and misunderstood it.

References I don't understand? If you have not read them, or what I've said, how can you make that statement? Another non sequitur.
I'm not sure how you can come to that conclusion. I understand them well enough, I have at least read them.
You appear to have a habit of making contradictory statements.

Your belief in a Flat Earth most certainly has a huge impact on both Mathematics and Physics. I am surprised that you are not aware of that. Your belief in a flat earth would overturn our understanding of Physics and the mathematics used to form all the known laws.

*

Timeisup

  • 1080
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #515 on: February 10, 2020, 12:29:41 PM »
And youve yet to simply in one sentence state where the cente rof infinite plane would be.
18pg.

Why does it need a center? Its infinite

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16496
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #516 on: February 10, 2020, 12:45:01 PM »
I did waste my time reading your reference, and I wasted it reading your post. First, you seem to think the numbers to the right of the document represent paragraph numbers. This is not the case. Secondly, the quote you keep throwing about:

Quote
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.
Has absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand. We are not talking about test particles above the surface of the plane. As it turns out, this can be seen as a point of support for an infinite flat earth.

The fact you think the earth being flat would change mathematics shows you know little about mathematics. You seem to think mathematics is indispensable to physics. Field has shown it is not.

Do you have any justification for your wild belief that these points are not counter-balanced, aside from out of context and irrelevant quotes from a paper you don't understand?
« Last Edit: February 10, 2020, 01:00:57 PM by John Davis »
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #517 on: February 10, 2020, 01:00:44 PM »
You have said that the maths are "iffy" - prove it and you might find that suddenly everybody's attitude changes.

Do you still not get it...Its simplified to such an extent ( ignoring GR) that it does not actually mean anything. Im not sure how else I can say this.
No, you still don't get it!
The maths are NOT "iffy"! The maths are quite correct.

And if you considered that "ignoring GR" was relevant why did YOU not explicitly say so until well AFTER you said that the maths were "iffy"?

You introduced your "thought experiment" on January 09, 2020 and you first explicit reference to General Relativity was here, in quote of MY post:
Sure! I "believe the current research on gravity" and possibly have a better understanding of General Relativity than you.
My words, not yours!

Now ponder on these things. If this infinite plane of finite thickness collapses in a black hole:
  • Where would this black hole be located?
  • How big would this black hole be - its Schwarzschild radius?
  • How long would this infinite plane of finite thickness take to collapse?
I'll await you answer.

Wow, you obviously don't read, or more accurately don't want to. My initial post referred to a Black Hole. True or not?
Can Black holes be talked about or discussed meaningfully without reference to GR? True or not?
Was it not the theory of GR that predicted the existence of Black Holes? Yes or No?
Did Newton, Genius as he was, have anything to say about black holes? Yes or No?

Though to be honest I can't get why you appear to be so hot under the collar and demand that the discussion is ring-fenced and only to include 17th-century mathematics.
I assumed, my mistake obviously, that I was dealing with free-thinking open-minded individuals. Though in the end what difference does it make, do you have something against GR? If so what? What difference does it make?

The iffy maths as I have said is not 'wrong' in its limited context, it's iffy because it's too simplisticand does not take into account all the known parameters. For the life of me, I can't understand why you are not able to take onboard that point. These calculations are used as an introduction to set the scene before introducing the mathematical theories that are much harder to use and understand.

Because you cant seem to understand that the unknowable is unknowable.

Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #518 on: February 10, 2020, 01:02:09 PM »
And youve yet to simply in one sentence state where the cente rof infinite plane would be.
18pg.

Why does it need a center? Its infinite

Great
Then we re once again in agreement that an inf plane cant possibly collapse into a nonexistent center.

*

Timeisup

  • 1080
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #519 on: February 10, 2020, 01:17:11 PM »
I did waste my time reading your reference, and I wasted it reading your post. First, you seem to think the numbers to the right of the document represent paragraph numbers. This is not the case. Secondly, the quote you keep throwing about:

Quote
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.
Has absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand. We are not talking about test particles above the surface of the plane. As it turns out, this can be seen as a point of support for an infinite flat earth.

The fact you think the earth being flat would change mathematics shows you know little about mathematics. You seem to think mathematics is indispensable to physics. Field has shown it is not.

Do you have any justification for your wild belief that these points are not counter-balanced, aside from out of context and irrelevant quotes from a paper you don't understand?

You say the Earth being Flat would not change Mathematics?  I don't think you have fully thought out the implications. Physics would not have progressed had it not been for the language of mathematics. Newton, Einstien and Planck would have struggled a bit. How would he have worked out his length? As for Feynman, Heisenberg and the rest, they would have been lost without it.

Feynman, in particular, would disagree with you. He had a lot to say on the relationship between Physics and Mathematics.
ďMathematicians prepare abstract reasoning thatís ready Ďto be usedí even though they donít know what itís being used forĒ

As regards the particles, the mathematics in that particular solution, showed, under the conditions described, how they would fall in a manner that was not uniform.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2020, 01:20:30 PM by Timeisup »

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16496
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #520 on: February 10, 2020, 01:53:31 PM »
"Mathematicians prepare abstract reasoning thatís ready 'to be used' even though they donít know what itís being used for"

This quote is exactly why it wouldn't change mathematics. Like I said, you seem to think mathematics is indispensable to physics; it has been shown otherwise. You have even quoted above otherwise. There is a nominalism to mathematics, and that quote highlights this from the view of a physicist.

And again, we are not talking about particles falling towards the plane, but the plane itself. And more than this, the fact they fall towards each other would be a benefit for the infinite flat earth hypothesis.

Do you have anything to support your wild and as of yet 18 page insistence that the gravitational pull would be infinite or that it would collapse to a black hole? Because particles above an infinite earth falling together does not support this claim, or perhaps it is the case you haven't shown why this would support this claim. You seem to think that since they converge this would imply the distribution overall is uneven; this has not been shown either and it is not the case.
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #521 on: February 10, 2020, 01:58:06 PM »
For some reason, people are objecting to me using academic references.
Cut the crap.
No one is objecting to you using references.
What they are objecting to is you using references which do not back you up in any way to pretend your position is justified.

Every statement I have made can be backed up by the best science available
Pure BS!
You are yet to provide a single thing which backs up your initial argument.
You are yet to provide a source which in any way justifies your claim that the infinite mass of an infinite plane would have infinite gravity.
You are yet to provide a source which in any way justifies your claim that this would lead it to collapse into a black hole.

You have literally nothing to back up your argument.
The closest you have come is by providing arguments which work for finite objects, which rely upon the object being finite to work.
The only other relevant thing you have done is shot yourself in the foot by repeatedly saying we have no idea how such an infinite object would behave.

Meanwhile, all the available science shows you are wrong. Either because we do not know how the infinite would behave so you have literally no justification for your claim, or based upon how we know gravity behaves at scales we can measure, which shows you are wrong as such a plane would be stable and not have infinite gravity. And there are the arguments from symmetry which again show it makes no sense for a infinite plane to collapse into a black hole.

Stop lying by claiming what you are saying is backed up by science.
What you are saying is only your baseless assertions backed up by nothing at all.

Again, if you wish to disagree then provide the reference which clearly states that an infinite plane would have infinite gravity and collapse into a black hole which does not rely upon any special properties of the plane such as it being a gas or fluid.
Provide the references or counterarguments which show how symmetry is violated.

The "service" you have provided to the FE community is by providing an argument which is pure garbage and repeatedly lying by pretending the best science justifies your garbage. You are making REers look like completely delusional fools that will spout whatever garbage they can to pretend to back up their delusions and completely ignore any refutation of it and refuse to justify it in any way.
If you wish to stop providing this "service" then admit your argument is pure garbage and move on.

Can Black holes be talked about or discussed meaningfully without reference to GR? True or not?
That is not a true or false statement. That is a yes or no statement.
And the answer is yes. Black holes can be talked about or discussed without reference to GR. People speculated about black holes BEFORE GR.
I pointed this out before, and you just ignored it.
As I pointed out before, it was first proposed in 1784 by John Michelle, long before GR was thought of.
It was based upon the idea of a star so large that the escape velocity at the surface would be greater than that of the speed of light.
This leads to the criteria of R<2GM/c^2.
This is the exact same criteria for a stationary black hole under GR.

I'm not sure how you can come to that conclusion. I understand them well enough, I have at least read them.
If you truly understood them you wouldn't be lying by saying they support you.

Your belief in a Flat Earth most certainly has a huge impact on both Mathematics and Physics. I am surprised that you are not aware of that. Your belief in a flat earth would overturn our understanding of Physics and the mathematics used to form all the known laws.
Pure garbage.
Someone believing Earth is flat doesn't magically mean they understand literally nothing about math and physics.

The only ones which would be a problem are those which cause a contradiction for FE.

Why does it need a center? Its infinite
What is an infinite black hole?
Not a black hole.

In order for it to be a black hole, it needs a centre.

You say the Earth being Flat would not change Mathematics?  I don't think you have fully thought out the implications. Physics would not have progressed had it not been for the language of mathematics. Newton, Einstien and Planck would have struggled a bit. How would he have worked out his length? As for Feynman, Heisenberg and the rest, they would have been lost without it.
And that in no way indicates that math would need to be different if Earth was flat.

What, do you think if Earth was flat that 1+1=5?
If not, just what do you think it equals?
You seem to indicate that it must change, so it definitely can't equal 2.
While we are at it, what does Earth being flat do to integration, and differentiation?
What about exponentiation and multiplication? Complex numbers?
Vectors and matrices, including dot and cross products?

How do these all change by Earth being flat?

As regards the particles, the mathematics in that particular solution, showed, under the conditions described, how they would fall in a manner that was not uniform.
Due to the influence of the second particle. Nothing to do with the plane.
It provides absolutely nothing to indicate that an infinite plane would be unstable.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16496
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #522 on: February 10, 2020, 02:10:50 PM »
Its nice to be on the same side of the fence with you now and then Jack.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16496
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #523 on: February 11, 2020, 07:59:35 AM »
Where do thought experiments belong in method?

I would think they belong most often within a scientific revolution. This can be seen with Galileo, Einstein, Schrodinger; however it does seem to fail when looking at epistemology or philosophy whose main domain is surely the thought experiment.

Does this imply that philosophy is in a constant state of revolution? Or that I am incorrect in my assumption?
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #524 on: February 11, 2020, 02:12:51 PM »
Its nice to be on the same side of the fence with you now and then Jack.
It is definitely strange.
But we do agree on a lot of things.

Where do thought experiments belong in method?

I would think they belong most often within a scientific revolution. This can be seen with Galileo, Einstein, Schrodinger; however it does seem to fail when looking at epistemology or philosophy whose main domain is surely the thought experiment.

Does this imply that philosophy is in a constant state of revolution? Or that I am incorrect in my assumption?

I think they belong to 2 areas:
Where you can show a contradiction that may lead to a revolution.
Where you cannot do an actual experiment for some reason.

Pure philosophy is typically in the realm of the second, as it is quite difficult to do experiments on a lot of it, especially with it often not dealing with facts about physical reality and often going into the metaphysical. I would also say that means it isn't what most would consider science (and instead I would say it is more appropriate to have it the other way around with science as a branch of philosophy, perhaps applied philosophy).

I think ethics is a good example of that. There are no experiments you can conduct to try and derive ethics from reality. It isn't some particle that can be measured or the like. And with such a field it would be unethical to conduct anything other than a thought experiment. For example, I don't think an experiment where 1 or 5 people get killed would get past an ethics board.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2020, 02:14:32 PM by JackBlack »

Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #525 on: February 15, 2020, 05:51:41 AM »
Did timies get banned or hes run off?

*

Macarios

  • 2031
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #526 on: February 16, 2020, 11:52:49 PM »
...
The question is can a flat earth thought experiment such as the Ďinfinite planeí have any logical or scientific validity?
...

Every experiment, including thought experiment, can have logical or scientific validity, if conducted without predetermination or bias.

For example, the infinite flat plane produces the g value constant in all points regardles of the altitude.
Comparing that to the g produced by Earth we can see the fundamental difference, which shows us that the Earth can not be infinite flat plane.
To make them similar we would have to introduce additional parameters, which haven't been observed nowhere in reality.

It is possible to create configuration that produces decreasing g with altitude by creating the plane with non-constant thickness,
but for two or more different verticals we would have to create two or more different configurations of the plane.
And they would all contradict each other.
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

*

Timeisup

  • 1080
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #527 on: February 22, 2020, 01:48:11 AM »
Did timies get banned or hes run off?

Neither old son, just back from a fantastic photography jaunt to the Lofoten islands. Iím glad to see you are all still trying to wrap youíre tiny brains around the problem. Best view of the aurora borealis Iíve  ever had. I wonder what explanation John Davis has for that, though I imagine heís too busy dreaming up stuff  to explain away fossils and dreaming up flying whales!

Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #528 on: February 22, 2020, 01:53:42 AM »
Iím glad to see you are all still trying to wrap youíre tiny brains around the problem.
I'm disappointed you are still just projecting your own inadequacies onto others.
Do you have anything better than insults?
Perhaps an actual defence of your argument?
Dealing with the refutations of your argument (in an honest and rational manner)?
Or admitting your argument is pure nonsense which in no way refutes a flat Earth?

*

Timeisup

  • 1080
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #529 on: February 22, 2020, 02:39:47 AM »
Iím glad to see you are all still trying to wrap youíre tiny brains around the problem.
I'm disappointed you are still just projecting your own inadequacies onto others.
Do you have anything better than insults?
Perhaps an actual defence of your argument?
Dealing with the refutations of your argument (in an honest and rational manner)?
Or admitting your argument is pure nonsense which in no way refutes a flat Earth?

Still wearing those over tight pants Jack ?
Put aside for one moment your desire to infinitely repeat yourself and letís agree to disagree.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2020, 02:42:05 AM by Timeisup »

Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #530 on: February 22, 2020, 02:56:29 AM »
Still wearing those over tight pants Jack ?
Put aside for one moment your desire to infinitely repeat yourself and letís agree to disagree.
No, lets not agree to disagree, especially as you seem to have no interest in it.
You spouted pure garbage, as fact.
Your argument is pure garbage, and that is actually a fact, as proven beyond any sane doubt.
And then you have the nerve to come back and just insult us for not accepting your garbage.

If you want to agree to disagree, then keep your garbage to yourself.
Don't come here acting like it is a fact, and don't insult others for not accepting your garbage.

*

Timeisup

  • 1080
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #531 on: February 22, 2020, 04:18:02 AM »
Still wearing those over tight pants Jack ?
Put aside for one moment your desire to infinitely repeat yourself and letís agree to disagree.
No, lets not agree to disagree, especially as you seem to have no interest in it.
You spouted pure garbage, as fact.
Your argument is pure garbage, and that is actually a fact, as proven beyond any sane doubt.
And then you have the nerve to come back and just insult us for not accepting your garbage.

If you want to agree to disagree, then keep your garbage to yourself.
Don't come here acting like it is a fact, and don't insult others for not accepting your garbage.

Just as I said, constantly repeating yourself. What do you hope to gain? You are entitled to your opinion, but it looks like you consider that I'm not entitled to mine? Just how long have you been a tight knickered opinionated fascist?
Answer on a postcard.

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 18446
  • Thread Janitor
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #532 on: February 22, 2020, 04:37:20 AM »
Just tell Tim Eisup he is right and he will shut up.

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 14256
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #533 on: February 22, 2020, 05:39:12 AM »
Just tell Tim Eisup he is right and he will shut up.
That's exactly why giving everyone a trophy is problematic.

Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #534 on: February 22, 2020, 06:56:08 AM »
Sounds like a good trip.

You still havent unwrapped your brain around infinity not having a center and the hypocritical way you used a galaxy and cosmic gravity to "proove" your point while dismissing curoous and jacKB for applying known physcis models to an unknowable hypotehical question.

Welcome back.

Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #535 on: February 22, 2020, 12:26:18 PM »
You are entitled to your opinion
Again, it isn't simply my opinion. It is a fact.
You are entitled to your own opinion, regardless of how incorrect it is.
The problem is when you pretend they are facts.

Do you feel the same way about FEers?

Would you "agree to disagree" with a FE that claims Earth is flat and that anyone who doesn't think so (including you) is a moron, and who has lied about what you have said?
If not, why should I agree to disagree with you, when you behaving quite the same, spouting factually incorrect information as true and factual and insulting others for not accepting your lies and lying about what they have said?

How would you respond if they accused you of being a "tight knickered opinionated fascist" for repeatedly showing that Earth is round rather than accepting their claims that Earth is flat?


This entire argument hasn't been about opinions, but about what is claimed as fact.
You presented an argument with absolutely no indication of any part of it being an opinion which you claimed proved Earth cannot be an infinite flat plane.
That is making a statement of fact.
This has been shown to be garbage, repeatedly.
Our known understanding of gravity indicates it is wrong.
Without that and instead appealing to our ignorance of how gravity behaves at the infinite scale shows your argument is garbage as you have no basis for it.
Symmetry shows it is pure garbage.

Yet you dismiss all that and still go on pretending that you are correct.

Grow up.

Don't answer on a postcard, unless it is an admission that your argument was pure garbage.
If you don't want to admit that either don't answer at all, or actually deal with the arguments presented.
Explain how you can know that an infinite plane would collapse into a black hole, when you claim to be unable to know how gravity would behave for the infinite.
Or if you just want to appeal to what we do know about gravity, then explain how the current known laws of gravity would result in the plane collapsing, when everything shows otherwise.
And most importantly, deal with the issue of symmetry that shows there can be no horizontal component of acceleration due to the gravity of the infinite plane meaning there can be no force to cause it to collapse, and likewise the fact that there is no centre and thus no point for it to collapse into a black hole.

*

Timeisup

  • 1080
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #536 on: February 23, 2020, 01:52:23 AM »
Just tell Tim Eisup he is right and he will shut up.


You talk about being right on a flat earth forum! What you know about being right could be written on a grain of rice leaving room for a recipe for Chow Mein.

*

Timeisup

  • 1080
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #537 on: February 23, 2020, 01:57:49 AM »
You are entitled to your opinion
Again, it isn't simply my opinion. It is a fact.
You are entitled to your own opinion, regardless of how incorrect it is.
The problem is when you pretend they are facts.

Do you feel the same way about FEers?

Would you "agree to disagree" with a FE that claims Earth is flat and that anyone who doesn't think so (including you) is a moron, and who has lied about what you have said?
If not, why should I agree to disagree with you, when you behaving quite the same, spouting factually incorrect information as true and factual and insulting others for not accepting your lies and lying about what they have said?

How would you respond if they accused you of being a "tight knickered opinionated fascist" for repeatedly showing that Earth is round rather than accepting their claims that Earth is flat?


This entire argument hasn't been about opinions, but about what is claimed as fact.
You presented an argument with absolutely no indication of any part of it being an opinion which you claimed proved Earth cannot be an infinite flat plane.
That is making a statement of fact.
This has been shown to be garbage, repeatedly.
Our known understanding of gravity indicates it is wrong.
Without that and instead appealing to our ignorance of how gravity behaves at the infinite scale shows your argument is garbage as you have no basis for it.
Symmetry shows it is pure garbage.

Yet you dismiss all that and still go on pretending that you are correct.

Grow up.

Don't answer on a postcard, unless it is an admission that your argument was pure garbage.
If you don't want to admit that either don't answer at all, or actually deal with the arguments presented.
Explain how you can know that an infinite plane would collapse into a black hole, when you claim to be unable to know how gravity would behave for the infinite.
Or if you just want to appeal to what we do know about gravity, then explain how the current known laws of gravity would result in the plane collapsing, when everything shows otherwise.
And most importantly, deal with the issue of symmetry that shows there can be no horizontal component of acceleration due to the gravity of the infinite plane meaning there can be no force to cause it to collapse, and likewise the fact that there is no centre and thus no point for it to collapse into a black hole.

Do you honestly believe you have all the required information to make a definitively correct statement about what would happened in the hypothetical situation in regards to an infinite plane? If you do then You have transcended madness.

*

Timeisup

  • 1080
Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #538 on: February 23, 2020, 01:59:23 AM »
Sounds like a good trip.

You still havent unwrapped your brain around infinity not having a center and the hypocritical way you used a galaxy and cosmic gravity to "proove" your point while dismissing curoous and jacKB for applying known physcis models to an unknowable hypotehical question.

Welcome back.

Infinite plane, centre!  You still donít understand do you? Keep looking though as you might just find it.

Re: Thought Experiments and their Taxonomy
« Reply #539 on: February 23, 2020, 04:16:39 AM »
Do you honestly believe you have all the required information to make a definitively correct statement about what would happened in the hypothetical situation in regards to an infinite plane? If you do then You have transcended madness.
And yet again you completley ignore the issue at hand.
The issue is not if I can make a 100% definitive statement about what would happen.
The issue is if your argument is justified, or if it is pure garbage.
In order for your argument to be justified, YOU need to be able to provide a definitive statement about how such a plane would behave, as you pretended to do so with your argument.

So yet again, you are projecting and saying that you have transcended madness by acting like you know how it would behave.

Stop with the pathetic deflection.
Either defend your argument, admit it is garbage, or run away.

And of course, you just don't seem to be able to go a post without insulting people can you?
Why is it madness?
What causes symmetry to break at the infinite?

Infinite plane, centre!  You still donít understand do you?
And there you go projecting and insulting yet again.
Do you understand why this question is being asked of you?
Again, it is using symmetry to show your argument is garbage.
No centre=no black hole.