“You seem to be saying now, that it works (roughly speaking) for this solar system?”
I said roughly, not “roughly speaking”, as in, it works for our solar system only roughly, but still breaks down when you look at the finer details. That is an indictment of the model, not praise for it.
If the reason for the model working to an approximate degree for our solar system was that the fundamentals of the model were correct, then it should work at least roughly for other stellar systems as well, but it does not. Therefore, the fact that it works roughly for our solar system is a sign that the equations have been forced to fit. In other words, it’s a sign that someone has been up to some shenanigans instead of proper science.
Very interesting commentary. Why is everything automatically compared to models which are predictable?
Where do we attribute something to a random occurence? Life, it seems to me is preety much affected by random actions. In this instance models become null and void.