Gawd, this isn't even what the article says. :roll: But that's not the point. I'll remind you of what you said:

Well, Cassini's reaction wheels have provided data. This is just one of many data points that you've ignored.

Here's another data point: Halley's Comet. You (or Jerry, for that matter) have never been able to explain why it follows the trajectory predicted by Newtonian physics "perfectly". This is another simple observation that kills both yours and Jerry's theories/hypotheses/speculations/whatever. Jerry even said so himself:
Lunatik, here's your commentary on the Halley observation:
So, unless you want to claim the Halley is special somehow, there you are acknowledging your "hypothesis" can't accurately describe the motion of objects in orbit around the sun. Not being able to accurately describe the motion of objects due to gravity is not really a hallmark of a great new theory of gravity I'm sorry to say. It is however great evidence that you need to modify your "hypothesis" or throw it out...because in its current form it does not work.

I'm certainly not the first person to bring these to your attention. These plain and simple observations are not new and they're probably not even the best evidence that's been presented that your "hypothesis" is wrong. They've simply been ignored and forgotten about...and then 75 pages later you're claiming we have to wait for data. :roll:

So, Lunatik, there's a bunch of "data" that you claim we don't have. Do you plan on revising your "hypothesis" so it agrees with these observations? Jerry, how about you?