If you need to build a SCALE model, I wish you well, though I personally would use the significant funds that would take for something more personally gratifying and worthwhile.
What I am getting at is that if it doesn't have predictive power and is not falsifiable it is not science. No amount checking, explaining and describing an historical event will ever amount to a scientific treatment.
Feel free to elaborate upon and test any suggestions, such as ROOSD, that you want to.
If you don't like scale models that is fine.
I'm fine with models, scaled or otherwise. I simply cannot justify the effort to build a physical model myself, mainly due to the fact that even a large scale model would probably not add to my personal understanding.
There are other ways to attempt to falsify an hypothesis.
Again, feel free to do so.
But insisting that a hypothesis is not falsifiable because it is based on extensive observation only reinforces the conclusion that it is unscientific.
Who is insisting anything ? Feel free to reject ROOSD, with specific points of interest.
Usually it is the prerogative of the person putting forward the hypothesis to put forward ways in which it may be conceivably be falsified by failing to correctly predict the outcome of some experiment.
Perhaps, though there's no formal workplace here. We're all just "some guys" (and gals
If you want to take on the task, again, feel free...but please stop inferring you're being stone-walled with use of words like "insisting", "refusing" and "studiously object"...pffft.
It doesn't have to be scale models.
Of course not. I assume you've had a peek at some of the smearogram graphs resulting from my simple async impact model set with 70MJ support strength.