Vagueness in FE

Quote from: rabinoz on February 06, 2019, 07:25:48 PM

Incorrect! You just have a short memory. Where's the Love for Bipolar FET? « Reply #8 on: November 17, 2016, 12:13:30 PM »

Quote from: Jane

Non-Euclidean space has nothing to do with Einstein's GR beyond the example that space does not need to be Euclidean.

Really? Why then does John Davis claim EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY PROVES THE EARTH IS FLAT May 23, 2016 JohnDavis

Bipolar FET is not what bendy light refers to. It's just... not. Sure, it's a model with atypical behaviour of light, but bendy light refers to something specific, generally EAT.
And, yep, sensationalist titles meant to draw attention to the site and forum absolutely speak of objective truths.

That "sensationalist title" as you call it, in my opinion, is nothing more a deceptive attempt to make it appear that GR supports his "non-Euclidean Flat Earth" model.

Sure the term "bendy light" usually refers to the EAT hypothesis suggested by Parsifal and Tom Bishop.
Surely  "bendy light" could also be applied to the curving of light explicitly claimed by Zetetes in SEA-EARTH GLOBE, And Its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions; OR Modern Theoretical Astronomy, by Zetetes.
With the explicit statement, "and it goes round with that current in the direction of the arrow until it arrives at p, when its light, preceding it in a great curve, the sun’s image is again seen at H from A.

This "model" is also supported by Tom Bishop. Should we call this "curving light" but whatever its name, it is still not less an unsupported hypothesis than EAT.

Quote from: rabinoz

Wrong again!
Just because "cosmologists are an example that the basic idea is accepted as possible" is not any reason to justify the "idea is accepted as possible".
As I've tried to explain before there is simply no expansion of space where there are gravitationally bound objects and the sun, etc, are certainly gravitationally bound to the earth in the infinite plane model.

You've tried to explain that, and then provided sources which pointed out, like I said, that's only the case when the force of gravity is sufficiently larger than the expansion of space. Jesus christ are you seriously going to drag that into a third thread?!

If I have to!

Once more: gravity doesn't stop working when you get a distance away, it just gets arbitrarily small. By your logic of gravity=no expansion observed, no expansion would ever be observed, but of course that's ludicrous. As logic, and the source you gave say, "The mutual gravitational attraction between two galaxies at that distance is too small to have a significant effect, so the galaxies more or less follow the general flow of the expansion. But it is a different story in a galaxy's local neighborhood. There the gravitational attraction can be very significant and the interactions much more exciting."

It's NOT MY logic. It is what modern cosmologists claim.

The whole point that you seem unable to grasp is that in the space between galactic super-groups gravitation comes from such diverse directions and has fallen so small that it becomes totally irrelevant.
It is only in these regions that the expansion of space causes these galactic super-groups to move apart.

Using the "expansion of space" only observed many millions of light years from here to justify a local hypothesis is simply not on!
The galaxies M86, M89, M90, IC 3258, some 50 to 60 million lightyears away, are examples of blue-shifted galaxies ie are moving toward us!.

Stop throwing a temper tantrum over an ancient thread when you refuse to ever acknowledge or respond to what your own sources say. You don't need to kick up a fuss every single time we interact over the fact I dared disagree with you. Expansion of space can absolutely overwhelm the force of gravity if it is large enough in comparison.

I am quite calm and not "throwing a temper tantrum over an ancient thread". I am trying to get you to understand the implications of what my own sources say.

You (or really John Davis) do suggest that "expansion of the Universe" can support things against quite strong gravitation. How many references do you want?

Look you, John Davis or anybody else can hypothesise whatever you like but please do not try to justify those unsupported hypotheses by saying things like:
      the "Universe is expanding" therefore that the "Expanding Universe" supports the sun against the 9.8 m/s² and
      the "atmosphere refracts sunlight" therefore "atmospheric refraction" explains the 20° bending of light to explain sunsets (this is from Rob Skiba but has been presented here).

This is why FEers think we're brainwashed. That level of sheer, obstinate idiocy is bloody hard to believe coming from any supposedly well-meaning person.

You call it "brainwashing" but I call it requiring supportable evidence and hypotheses like the above do not have supportable evidence.

Quote from: rabinoz

I'm forever claiming that "these explanations" are no more than hypotheses or guesses that must be backed up by evidence and that is the bricke wall - no-pne has the evidence.

So... you're agreeing with every word I said, you just want to kick up a fight anyway?

No, I am NOT "agreeing with every word you said" nor do I want to "just want to kick up a fight anyway"!

I keep saying that flat-earthers and their supporters can hypothesise what they like but do not claim unwarranted support from mainstream science.

If all you want is the evidence.

I don't want just "evidence" but I expect "supportable evidence" as I have tried repeatedly to explain but I seem to get nowhere.

If you really want to carry on with this make another thread somewhere more suitable.

You are completely incapable of forming or following an independent thought. It's a bit sad. Abstraction seems too difficult for you. This is why you are stuck in your rut.

You are completely incapable of forming or following an independent thought. It's a bit sad. Abstraction seems too difficult for you. This is why you are stuck in your rut.

Really? Just because I expect hypotheses to be supported by evidence before they can be accepted.

No, mostly because you are incapable of abstraction. As demonstrated by the expanding space conversation example (or indeed, nearly all of our conversations). 

The whole point that you seem unable to grasp is that in the space between galactic super-groups gravitation comes from such diverse directions and has fallen so small that it becomes totally irrelevant.
It is only in these regions that the expansion of space causes these galactic super-groups to move apart.

No one cares. We aren't talking about RET. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

See:

You are completely incapable of forming or following an independent thought. It's a bit sad. Abstraction seems too difficult for you. This is why you are stuck in your rut.

I keep saying that flat-earthers and their supporters can hypothesise what they like but do not claim unwarranted support from mainstream science.

They rarely do. There are occasional nods just to show that things are vaguely grounded, it's you who turns that into 'unwarranted support' by focusing everything on that one aspect to the exclusion of all else. You can completely ignore any mention of mainstream science and everything they say still works, you're just incapable of doing so because apparently you're genuinely just that irrationally touchy.

Really? Just because I expect hypotheses to be supported by evidence before they can be accepted.

If that was all you cared about we wouldn't be having this problem. Instead you make specific claims about the models far beyond 'Unjustified by evidence.' You don't get to claim all manner of things, and then immediately back down and only defend 'But it needs more evidence!'

You ask for explanations of principles, and then kick up a fuss when that answer doesn't respond to the completely different question of justification. That's your shtick, it's tiresome, it's tedious, it's dishonest, it's embarrassing.
If all you care about is justification, then stop making posts about anything else. If you're going to, then actually base them on something beyond bluster.

You are completely incapable of forming or following an independent thought. It's a bit sad. Abstraction seems too difficult for you. This is why you are stuck in your rut.

As you stated earlier in this discussion that you loved facts, do you feel ready to present some ?

Yet another dishonest flat earth debate, where personal attacks and evasion take precedent over over the discussion of any facts. If anyone cares to read through all the posts in this ‘debate’ they will find not one single fact presented by any flat earth supporter. Instead all there is, is Jane doing her upmost to insult anyone who dares to disagree with her.
This is not honest debate it’s no more than a total farce.

Yet another dishonest flat earth debate, where personal attacks and evasion take precedent over over the discussion of any facts. If anyone cares to read through all the posts in this ‘debate’ they will find not one single fact presented by any flat earth supporter. Instead all there is, is Jane doing her upmost to insult anyone who dares to disagree with her.
This is not honest debate it’s no more than a total farce.

This isn't a debate about facts. You have given nothing that facts are needed to respond to.
Sure is a farce.

The hilarious thing is that you weren't disagreeing with me at any stage. The world is round, FEers should provide evidence, there's not really much in the way of persuasive evidence out there.
What I object to is when you start making claims about models without wanting to be informed about what you're on about. Instead of addressing that, you do this. Of course. You must be so proud of how well-informed and intelligent you're making REers look.

You must be so proud of how well-informed and intelligent you're making REers look.

Why do you often times land here? As if each is an appointed ambassador representing all of RE. Why do you care about how someone else approaches a debate unless you are actually debating them personally? Do you have a manifesto, a rulebook, by which all of us should approach things so as not to sully the RE reputation?  It’s rather lofty of you to anoint yourself as the arbiter of what is to be considered the proper manner by which all should behave. Maybe just focus on how you address things and leave others to address things as they see fit.

Don't make me give Jane ops.

Quote from: Jane on February 07, 2019, 03:05:49 PM

You must be so proud of how well-informed and intelligent you're making REers look.

Why do you often times land here? As if each is an appointed ambassador representing all of RE. Why do you care about how someone else approaches a debate unless you are actually debating them personally? Do you have a manifesto, a rulebook, by which all of us should approach things so as not to sully the RE reputation?  It’s rather lofty of you to anoint yourself as the arbiter of what is to be considered the proper manner by which all should behave. Maybe just focus on how you address things and leave others to address things as they see fit.

Because it's all they seem to care about.

They don't care about being uninformed, they don't care about actively being unpleasant, they don't care that they get in the way of any actually interesting discussions, but the one thing that the likes of Rab have said is that they're here to try and dissuade people from an anti-science mindset. Hence, pointing out when they fail to attain that goal.
Believe me, if pointing out logical inconsistencies was enough I would be happy to leave it there.

Quote from: Lonegranger on February 07, 2019, 02:57:01 PM

Yet another dishonest flat earth debate, where personal attacks and evasion take precedent over over the discussion of any facts. If anyone cares to read through all the posts in this ‘debate’ they will find not one single fact presented by any flat earth supporter. Instead all there is, is Jane doing her upmost to insult anyone who dares to disagree with her.
This is not honest debate it’s no more than a total farce.

This isn't a debate about facts. You have given nothing that facts are needed to respond to.
Sure is a farce.

The hilarious thing is that you weren't disagreeing with me at any stage. The world is round, FEers should provide evidence, there's not really much in the way of persuasive evidence out there.
What I object to is when you start making claims about models without wanting to be informed about what you're on about. Instead of addressing that, you do this. Of course. You must be so proud of how well-informed and intelligent you're making REers look.

The original question was vagueness in FE thinking. All I have pointed out is the reality of the world or are you implying  that every heat engine ever made is a fake? For let me remind you that would have to be the case if denpressure were true.

When you turn on your light switch tonight, just remember there is somewhere out there a turbine spinning due to high pressure steam that is working in a fashion  according to the laws of thermodynamics in direct contradiction to denpressure. Are you claiming all the turbines around the world are fake? Are you claiming all the engineers that designed them are involved in a conspiracy to hide the truth about denpressure?

The problem is, is that you can’t cope with the reality of the real world.its just like the person who thinks pi is wrong despite the wheels on his car being round!

What you advocate makes no sense whatsoever no matter ho much illogical spin you care to give it. Switching your light on proves my point.

What you could do is build a heat engine of your choice that operates according to denpressure then fit it with wheels made according to phew, and let’s see how far you get!

You're so awful at this that you have to pretend Jane believes in denpressure now? No wonder the Flat Earth movement is gaining such traction.

You're so awful at this that you have to pretend Jane believes in denpressure now? No wonder the Flat Earth movement is gaining such traction.

Look back at her earlier posts. Why is it you FE types always have to resort to personal abuse? By all means contradict my facts.....ad hominem at its worst.
Still waiting on your facts.

I've seen many, but not all of her posts. Is there a specific post of hers that you'd like to pretend consists of her belief?

I've seen many, but not all of her posts. Is there a specific post of hers that you'd like to pretend consists of her belief?

I mean, this one works:

The world is round, FEers should provide evidence

I think lonegranger just wants to fight. That or he can't tell the difference between calling out a bad argument and objecting to the conclusion.

LG. If I made the claim that the world was round because I had a round cushion, would you objecting to that poor logic make you a FEer?

I've seen many, but not all of her posts. Is there a specific post of hers that you'd like to pretend consists of her belief?

Your at liberty to read them along with anyone else. I’ll let you draw your own conclusions. As you were the one who stated they loved facts why not let’s just stick to them.....facts that is.

While your at it if there are any facts I have presented that you think are false please indicate where I have gone wrong and reveal your reasoning.

Quote from: Ski on February 07, 2019, 03:41:33 PM

I've seen many, but not all of her posts. Is there a specific post of hers that you'd like to pretend consists of her belief?

I mean, this one works:

Quote from: Jane on February 07, 2019, 03:05:49 PM

The world is round, FEers should provide evidence

I think lonegranger just wants to fight. That or he can't tell the difference between calling out a bad argument and objecting to the conclusion.

LG. If I made the claim that the world was round because I had a round cushion, would you objecting to that poor logic make you a FEer?

If eyou are going to provide a quote, please use one from my post.
Please be specific about exactly what I have said that you don’t agree with, let’s not be vague.

So far, with the exception of Jane's posts, one would be inclined to say globularism seems mostly to consist of poor reading comprehension and the inability to apply logic and information to the abstract, if this thread is any evidence.

Please be specific about exactly what I have said that you don’t agree with, let’s not be vague.

Yeah, I'm with Ski.

poor reading comprehension

Quote from: Lonegranger on February 07, 2019, 03:49:26 PM

Please be specific about exactly what I have said that you don’t agree with, let’s not be vague.

Yeah, I'm with Ski.

Quote from: Ski on February 07, 2019, 04:11:28 PM

poor reading comprehension

Of course you would say that it’s such an easy out and just other demonstration of the fact free vagueness of FE thinking. Making a statement that is not based on actual reality.

What you say is not actually based on the content of any of my posts.

Vaugness aside what in particular do you disagree with in the statements I have made. You appear to be unhappy with them, but why?

Quote from: Stash on February 07, 2019, 03:18:06 PM

Quote from: Jane on February 07, 2019, 03:05:49 PM

You must be so proud of how well-informed and intelligent you're making REers look.

Why do you often times land here? As if each is an appointed ambassador representing all of RE. Why do you care about how someone else approaches a debate unless you are actually debating them personally? Do you have a manifesto, a rulebook, by which all of us should approach things so as not to sully the RE reputation?  It’s rather lofty of you to anoint yourself as the arbiter of what is to be considered the proper manner by which all should behave. Maybe just focus on how you address things and leave others to address things as they see fit.

Because it's all they seem to care about.

They don't care about being uninformed, they don't care about actively being unpleasant, they don't care that they get in the way of any actually interesting discussions, but the one thing that the likes of Rab have said is that they're here to try and dissuade people from an anti-science mindset. Hence, pointing out when they fail to attain that goal.
Believe me, if pointing out logical inconsistencies was enough I would be happy to leave it there.

A fair point(s) in the macro. However, you're coming across as the sanctimonious arbiter of what is or could be an 'interesting' discussion - According to you. Which is your right; to critique. But you're kinda like a style judge. And you foist yourself into the mindset of what you think others are trying to achieve and let them know how they are failing at it. Let them fail. Or succeed on their own merit or lack thereof. (And here I am critiquing your style. Pretty much pot, kettle, I know.)

Quote from: Ski on February 07, 2019, 03:41:33 PM

I've seen many, but not all of her posts. Is there a specific post of hers that you'd like to pretend consists of her belief?

I mean, this one works:

Quote from: Jane on February 07, 2019, 03:05:49 PM

The world is round, FEers should provide evidence

I think lonegranger just wants to fight. That or he can't tell the difference between calling out a bad argument and objecting to the conclusion.

LG. If I made the claim that the world was round because I had a round cushion, would you objecting to that poor logic make you a FEer?

Fighting? Bad arguments?

When it comes to using bad arguments look no farther than your own, and here is why:-

I remember you saying the cushion ‘thing’ once before, it made no sense then and it still makes no sense now.

You once more missed and misunderstood the basic fundamental point I was presenting which was:

If I you are going to have a revolutionary, turn the world upside down idea about something, then you better get your facts right, particularly if those ideas totally conflict and are at odds with known principals on which our current technology works.

You can argue it until you are blue in the face: there is just no way of getting away from the facts of reality as we all experience it. If someone comes along with a claim, and I just used the two examples you quoted, denpressure and DET, but it’s the same for any idea that’s at odds with known and proven knowledge. The fact that these ‘ ideas’ have no supporting ‘facts’ or evidence to support them is because there are none available.

When I say, known and proven knowledge, it’s basic knowledge the world has been built on, like the  gas laws, Boyle's Laws, Charles's law and Gay-Lussac's law on which the industrial revolution was built and are completely  at odds with denpressure for example!

If an idea is put forward by anyone that; a) lacks any supporting facts or  evidence and ..  b) contradicts basic known laws.......what is the point of giving it the time of day and suspending reality to consider it?

That is what you constantly want to do. Create a reality free environment where these crazy ideas can be examined without the fear of having to explain any pesky facts. In your reality free world anything is possible.....even DET, denpressure and phew!

The problems start when you try to support their right to exist using rules based on reality. You can’t have it both ways. By all means concider DET and how it might work, but for heavens sake don’t bring reality into it. That is when your version of logic falls apart.

An idea that is not based on the reality of the real world cannot be examined in real world terms which is why there is perpetual conflict on this forum.

You once more missed and misunderstood the basic fundamental point I was presenting which was:

You say, once more proceeding to completely miss and misunderstand the basic fundamental point I was making.
Ditto for your claims I'm being vague, I'm not, I've been explicit, you just don't want to hear it. Try again:

The world is round, FEers should provide evidence, there's not really much in the way of persuasive evidence out there.
What I object to is when you start making claims about models without wanting to be informed about what you're on about. Instead of addressing that, you do this. Of course. You must be so proud of how well-informed and intelligent you're making REers look.

The problem is not you objecting to FET. The problem is you a) acting as though counterarguments are necessary when lack of evidence suffices, b) nevertheless trying to give counterarguments, but doing so in so uninformed a fashion that they mean nothing.

No one is asking you to accept or believe any FE model. But if you want to disprove them, you've got to know what you're talking about, otherwise your arguments hold no more weight than "The world can't be round because all the water would fall off!" You aren't finding a flaw, you're betraying your own fundamental lack of understanding.
Don't want to learn the models? Great! Don't try for disproofs, stick to "Where's the evidence?" and don't butt into threads on topics you know nothing about. This is not hard.

A fair point(s) in the macro. However, you're coming across as the sanctimonious arbiter of what is or could be an 'interesting' discussion - According to you. Which is your right; to critique. But you're kinda like a style judge. And you foist yourself into the mindset of what you think others are trying to achieve and let them know how they are failing at it. Let them fail. Or succeed on their own merit or lack thereof. (And here I am critiquing your style. Pretty much pot, kettle, I know.)

It's more than that, it's a matter of logic. You can't argue against something you don't know anything about, that's just a fact. How do you make claims about something when you don't even know what it would predict?
They don't acknowledge that. You say 'let them fail,' the problem is they've been failing at it for years and it is thoroughly unpleasant and tedious for absolutely every user, new and old, that actually has to deal with them. If I come across as sanctimonious in response to that so be it, it's better than having thousands of posts of arrogantly delivered objective rubbish.

So far, with the exception of Jane's posts, one would be inclined to say globularism seems mostly to consist of poor reading comprehension and the inability to apply logic and information to the abstract, if this thread is any evidence.

That is a very ignorant thing to say.

Quote from: Lonegranger on February 08, 2019, 02:36:16 AM

You once more missed and misunderstood the basic fundamental point I was presenting which was:

You say, once more proceeding to completely miss and misunderstand the basic fundamental point I was making.
Ditto for your claims I'm being vague, I'm not, I've been explicit, you just don't want to hear it. Try again:

Quote from: Jane on February 07, 2019, 03:05:49 PM

The world is round, FEers should provide evidence, there's not really much in the way of persuasive evidence out there.
What I object to is when you start making claims about models without wanting to be informed about what you're on about. Instead of addressing that, you do this. Of course. You must be so proud of how well-informed and intelligent you're making REers look.

The problem is not you objecting to FET. The problem is you a) acting as though counterarguments are necessary when lack of evidence suffices, b) nevertheless trying to give counterarguments, but doing so in so uninformed a fashion that they mean nothing.

No one is asking you to accept or believe any FE model. But if you want to disprove them, you've got to know what you're talking about, otherwise your arguments hold no more weight than "The world can't be round because all the water would fall off!" You aren't finding a flaw, you're betraying your own fundamental lack of understanding.
Don't want to learn the models? Great! Don't try for disproofs, stick to "Where's the evidence?" and don't butt into threads on topics you know nothing about. This is not hard.

Quote from: Stash on February 08, 2019, 02:01:18 AM

A fair point(s) in the macro. However, you're coming across as the sanctimonious arbiter of what is or could be an 'interesting' discussion - According to you. Which is your right; to critique. But you're kinda like a style judge. And you foist yourself into the mindset of what you think others are trying to achieve and let them know how they are failing at it. Let them fail. Or succeed on their own merit or lack thereof. (And here I am critiquing your style. Pretty much pot, kettle, I know.)

It's more than that, it's a matter of logic. You can't argue against something you don't know anything about, that's just a fact. How do you make claims about something when you don't even know what it would predict?
They don't acknowledge that. You say 'let them fail,' the problem is they've been failing at it for years and it is thoroughly unpleasant and tedious for absolutely every user, new and old, that actually has to deal with them. If I come across as sanctimonious in response to that so be it, it's better than having thousands of posts of arrogantly delivered objective rubbish.

Again you don't understand.....its not me who disagrees with these ideas, lets make it clear they are not models, its reality that renders them null and void, and you don't quite understand that.

Do you have a problem with any of the gas laws I mentioned? if not then denpressure for one is a non starter. I don't have to point out the flaws in denpressure as the premise on which it is based is just plain wrong. If he were correct then the industrial revolution would never have happened the way it did.....and it is this plain and simple fact you just dont get.

The problem is all the ideas you champion are so far out of left field that for them to be even remotely accurate would need an entirely different world from the one we live in.

If you think denpressure is worthy of consideration please tell me the flaws in the gas laws and where science for the last 200 years has gone wrong, along with verifiable proof.

Similarly if you think DET is worthy of consideration, and we have been here before, tell me what the primary energy source of the sun is under DET, how it was discovered and observed, and proof that the current understanding of the sun is wrong.

For both questions you will have no answers, why because there are none. You defend the indefensible for neither you nor the authors could provide adequate answers which is why both ideas are no more that nonsense.

Again you don't understand.....its not me who disagrees with these ideas, lets make it clear they are not models, its reality that renders them null and void, and you don't quite understand that.

The world is round, FEers should provide evidence, there's not really much in the way of persuasive evidence out there.
What I object to is when you start making claims about models without wanting to be informed about what you're on about. Instead of addressing that, you do this. Of course. You must be so proud of how well-informed and intelligent you're making REers look.

How many times is this going to need to be repeated?
If all you are doing is asking for evidence, I support that. That's what the questions you posed are, at least partially. How is the DET model of the Sun justified? That is at least a valid question.

But the rest? You're treating science like it's pseudoscience. 'Just plain wrong' is a pointless statement if you don't know why it's wrong. If all you are going to do is endlessly repeat that then you might as well just leave because it doesn't contribute anything. Science doesn't function on force of will, it works because of reason and logic. It works because we have reasons to accept the current theories, we have observations that justify them. If you are going to keep going around with posts like that, then do more than handwave. Why is denpressure at odds with the industrial revolution? What justification do we have that the current understanding of the Sun is any better than the DET one?
Dumb questions? Maybe, but you're the one who's choosing the path where you need to answer them. You're the one that has decided that just asking for the evidence apparently isn't good enough, and basic logic holds. You're the one that decided to move on to making claims about FE models, that requires actually being able to make an informed case. This isn't some bizarre pseudoscientific notion, it is the definition of an argument. If you want to make a claim about something, you have to know what it entails. You need to actually understand the denpressure modle of gas and molecules, you have to listen to the times you've had your question about the energy source of the DE Sun answered by me and JRowe both, and you have to make a case based on what is said.

If you think that's a waste of time, then stop talking about things you refuse to learn. End of story.

I am not 'championing' these ideas. You're the one who's choosing to make claims about them. I'm content rejecting them based on lack of evidence.
If a FEer said to you 'reality makes RET false' would you believe that? It's a handwave, not an argument.

So, to summarise in the hope you're not just going to have another ramble in which you say absolutely nothing of value:

1. You can choose to reject FET based on the lack of evidence.
2. You can choose to try for a disproof, demonstrating it is at odds with observations and reality. Keyword demonstrate, not assert. How can this be done if you don't know what would be expected to be observed under the FE model? You need to know what you're talking about. if you don't want to, fine, stick to point one.

This seriously should not need explaining, let alone repeating.

Here is a quote from sceptitank: “No, it's not so I can dismiss space. It's because what I'm telling you is 100% true.”

Are you going to correct him?

Here is a quote from sceptitank: “No, it's not so I can dismiss space. It's because what I'm telling you is 100% true.”

Are you going to correct him?

Why do I need to when plenty of others will jump in the thread to do just that? I don't talk just to hear myself speak, I talk when I have something to actually add to a thread. Repeating what multiple other people have said hardly does that.

If anything I'd say "Ok, why do you think that?" but there's really no point in trying to have an actually interesting discussion with the number of people who'll get in the way.

Here is a quote from sceptitank: “No, it's not so I can dismiss space. It's because what I'm telling you is 100% true.”

Are you going to correct him?

You need to show why I said that.
Using quotes like that to imply another meaning, does not favour you.