[edby]

I propose that a model which we know is broken should not be considered more valuable than the absence of a model.

But we don't know that, e.g. the free air correction model is 'broken'. How is it broken? It is limited only by the precision of the measuring instruments, amazing as that is.

[Pete Svarrior]

But we don't know that, e.g. the free air correction model is 'broken'. How is it broken? It is limited only by the precision of the measuring instruments, amazing as that is.

Ah, but this is where you once again ignore the broader theory and focus on the one observation you like, pretending no other observations should be considered. Your gravitational model has to be considered as a whole.

[edby]

But we don't know that, e.g. the free air correction model is 'broken'. How is it broken? It is limited only by the precision of the measuring instruments, amazing as that is.

Ah, but this is where you once again ignore the broader theory and focus on the one observation you like, pretending no other observations should be considered. Your gravitational model has to be considered as a whole.

Millions of observations. In any case, Science still prefers the Free Air Correction model to, e.g. Celestial Gravitation, which is no model at all, moreover introduces assumptions (of the existence of gravitational attraction) which the UA thesis was meant to dispense with. Show Science a model for Celestial Gravitation that competes with Free Air correction, and Science will prefer it.

Note I say 'Science will prefer it' . I haven't said whether I prefer it. I am merely stating how Science goes about its business.

[Pete Svarrior]

Millions of observations.

I once again refer you to my point on meaningless semantics. Correcting tiny details in my phrasing does not advance your cause, it merely documents your desperate attempts at deflection.

In any case, Science still prefers the Free Air Correction model to, e.g. Celestial Gravitation

And, in a shocking turn of events, I once again have to bring up a past point you've failed to address - that me outlining your failures does not require me to bring an alternative to the table. Your tu quoque does not apply here.

[edby]

Millions of observations.

I once again refer you to my point on meaningless semantics. Correcting tiny details in my phrasing does not advance your cause, it merely documents your desperate attempts at deflection.

You: 'one observation'.
Me: 'millions of observations'
You: 'tiny details in my phrasing '

This is laughable, and enough is enough. I shall resist any temptation to return to this thread.

[Pete Svarrior]

You: 'one observation'.
Me: 'millions of observations'
You: 'tiny details in my phrasing '

Yes. I obviously meant one category of observation, which you chose to misinterpret. I'll be slightly more generous than yourself and assume that you simply didn't get my meaning - but then you had the simple option of asking.

The fact that plenty of observations contradict your model is what you should be addressing, but your best attempt at slithering away from this is attacking someone's use of language.

This is laughable

I agree - your dishonesty, inability to remain internally consistent, and finally poor attempts at taunting your opponent will join your attempt at faking your status as an academic when we next need to recall your behavioural patterns. We will laugh and laugh. And, as you astutely pointed out, it's all recorded and documented here.