Oggers:
"Deep ocean tides on Earth don't exist"
"I don't understand when factors are too small to matter"
"I can't estimate the size of physical quantities and effects"
awblain, having seen you perform on other threads it seems you are more comfortable with that kind of post than one which includes a coherent technical argument to support your point.
I think at this stage it is fair comment to say that - in my subjective opinion of course - you seem to lack the technical nous to make an argument that will carry your point in a technical forum such as this.
You have failed to explain anything at all on this thread, you have merely piled up a list of vague rhetorical responses stuffed with ambiguous and woolly jargon.
Take this one as a case in point:
The poor guy's written a decidedly mediocre conference proceeding that advances Mr Stokes' work from the 19th century not one jot.
If you can't see that, then you need more than a hundred-word comment to explain.
It is a purely subjective comment. But this is a technical forum. Why can't you explain what is wrong with his model? Because there is nothing wrong with it except in your subjective opinion it isn't much use. But you are not an accident investigator whilst he is. You are an anonymous lay-person, whilst he is a professional in the field who sees utility in the trajectory analysis he has developed.
Let's face it awblain, you aren't going to be using that or any other trajectory analysis to investigate in flight break-ups. I'm not either.
If you can't win by arguments strong - and you haven't provided anything resembling one - can you at least point me to your publishing history? For the third time of asking
Because, all I have to go on with you, is about 6 pages of waffle that any schoolboy with a search engine could cobble together.