https://www.presstelegram.com/2018/03/28/astronomers-baffled-by-distant-galaxy-void-of-dark-matter/

Works perfectly does it?

that sounds like a baseless claim

So why are all the astronomers baffled?

http://astronomy.com/news/2015/05/astronomers-baffled-by-discovery-of-rare-quasar-quartet

@Human Sheeple Lol nice deflection

can't deal with the fact that solar eclipse ground tracks are perfectly predicted by nasa, using gravity

that must suck

Well it obviously doesn't work perfectly does it

@Meeper you tried to actually make any predictions with 'science' and verify them afterwards? Did you notice that the more you go away from trivial stuff, the more prediction diverges from reality?

No they were perfectly predicted by the Saros Cycle 5,000 years ago

sure does

ground track was right on

@SamanthaFluff yes

And as I've already stated Epherimedes uses ground observation data

i used the ephemerides that predicted the last solar eclipse

and it was right one

So it's pattern recognition, not heliocentric modelling

flat earth does none of this

@Human Sheeple wrong

Sure, maybe your method works, but there have been methods that worked just fine in the past and you can build all sorts of intricate models that all give you same-ish result in the end

di dyou forget how i proved you wrong on that already?

@SamanthaFluff so if i can measure distance with a ruler, and a laser, does that mean all distances are measured with a ruler?

@SamanthaFluff yet flat earth can do no such prediction

interesting

Basically, why build some very complicated tool/model if it doesn't give any major benefits with the different models of the past

@SamanthaFluff it does

it gives you the accurate ground track

previous methods didn't do that

nor did they account for terrain

Can I put that 'accurate ground track' onto a sandwich and eat it for sustenance? :'D

Yah... this is called an affirming the consequent logical fallacy

lol no

thats call measurement uncertainty

LOGICAL FALLACY: AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT: https://imgur.com/a/P1hsRB4

It's called we have a model, we observe reality. The model doesn't reflect reality, so reality must be wrong.

wrong , it does match reality

Oh I know, let's re-work the model and add some more ad-hoc math in order to "best fit" the real observations

but measurements are imperfect, can you measure somethign with a ruler to 1 millionth of an inch?

All things aside, you're demonstrating a basic misunderstanding. We've heard all the things you're trying to present to us as facts, giving us more of the same thing isn't going to make this conversation any more constructive

hilarious