> Data can "prove" that a theory is wrong (if your theory has falsifiability, as it should), but they can never show that your theory is all that there is, nor your maths.
Where you got '"prove"' and 'all that there is' I am unsure
My wording was:
op> how well different theoretical models express experimental data
Which mirrors your own reiteration of that point
> the idea is to check your predictions with the measurements from more and more precise experiments
Which is literally what I was asking for: measurements from .. precise experiments
> predicts a precession of the perihelion of Mercury that agrees with the experimental result
Right, where's the experimental data on the orbit of Mercury?
If you are unable to answer the question that's fine but as is I fail to see what you are trying to accomplish with your ire and misdirection