> but has anyone looked at the spreadsheet yet to see for themselves? I think we're proving him right so far, haha. But we aren't. The author has described hi

> but has anyone looked at the spreadsheet yet to see for themselves? I think we're proving him right so far, haha. But we aren't. The author has described his method in words. My contention is that the method he described does not pass the bar for good science. If my contention is correct, then it simply does not matter what is or is not in his spreadsheets. Here's an analogy: If I told you that I determined the safest car on the road by measuring the distance to the moon, and that I had very very good spreadsheets for measuring the distance to the moon, would you really bother to check my spreadsheets? I don't think you would. I think you would (correctly) say, "Hey, that's a really dumb way to figure out the safest car on the road and I'm not going to bother to check your math." Now, I don't think that the author has done something quite that orthogonal to his stated goal, but I also don't think it's close enough that I want to bother checking his math.