The disagreement is clearly over whether we should prefer some model to no model. Here are three threads where three different models are discussed, and where there is no FE predictive model. In each case, science prefers the predictive model.

Rowbotham Lighthouse experiment This shows that the simple model d = sqrt(7h)/2 predicts with reasonable accuracy the distance a lighthouse will be visible across water. I.e. reasonably accurate in the sense that there is a high correlation between prediction and observation. Pete made a series of objections on the grounds that correlation does not imply causation. Well perhaps, but Science is simply trying to make accurate predictions here, where ‘accuracy’ is defined in terms of statistical correlation. Er, how else would we define accuracy?

FE has no model whatsover to predict these observations. FE makes various claims about refraction, perspective or whatsoever, but claims are not predictions. There is no FE model that I know of which uses perspective to predict, with high statistical accuracy, the distance at which we can see a lighthouse.

Flight times and distance shows that the simple Haversine model roughly predicts how long a flight will take, given the latitude and longitude of the airport. No

*great* accuracy is to be expected, given time on the runway, delays to schedule etc. But there is a strong correlation, hence a strong prediction, nevertheless.

The usual FE maps, by contrast, show massive errors in calculation. There are two FE objections (1) jet streams (2) that there is no FE map. In reply, (1) there is no FE jet stream model, so Science rejects the jet stream hypothesis until it sees an accurate model, and (2) the admission of no map is the admission of no model, QED.

None of this means that we must rigorously reject any FE claim or hypothesis. Merely, science fails to consider such claims or hypotheses until it sees a model that is more accurate, or at least as accurate but simpler. Nothing so far.

Free Air Correction This shows how the simple Newtonian gravitational model predicts observed free fall acceleration at different heights. Here, the measuring instruments are unbelievably accurate, and the statistical correlation is very high. So Science prefers that model.

FE hypothesises that the effect is caused by ‘Universal Acceleration’. Fine, nice to have a competing hypothesis, however there is no model. Moreover, and much worse, any such model is bound to be more complex than the Newtonian one, because it posits two effects on acceleration, rather than one, namely UA and something like standard gravitational acceleration. Yet the UA model exists precisely to avoid any standard gravitational model. Law of Parsimony requires that we reject any such model.