## What is Gravity?

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.
Nink
Banned
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2015 1:21 pm

### Re: What is Gravity?

hoi.polloi wrote:Nink, you would benefit more from the way you word your hypothesis if you could prove that a dinosaur dig site shows that a dinosaur existed: http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=1594
Can I please opt out of this discussion.
hoi.polloi wrote: My question is: If gravity is due to sheer mass, why don't cliff faces demonstrate the ability to have even the slightest pull on objects from the middle of the mountain mass?
Gravitational force is aligned with the centre of the mass. Cut the top off the mountain put it on a NASA rocket (cough) and send it 23000KLM into space and you will certainly stick to side of the mountain.

Try and stick a metal pin to the centre of a bar magnet (half way between North and South Pole). It will not stick it will move to either the north of the south side at the top or bottom of the magnet.

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

### Re: What is Gravity?

I give credence to expanding Earth, but I still don't think the point makes sense from our traditional education that teaches inherent gravity potential in every atom.

Because the mountain is touching other objects, all of its gravity is pulled out of it and transfered to the center of the largest mass it's touching? That seems to be a different theory than what we're taught. How many atoms have to be touching for all the atoms to "give" their gravity to the larger object — one? A million? A trillion? How long does it take? Seconds? Eons?

Selene
Banned
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 7:59 pm

### Re: What is Gravity?

Nink wrote: Great questions.
I would estimate the earth mass has increased by about 5.97E23Kg over the past 200 Ma and the radius of the earth about 320 meters so 200Ma gravity on earth back then was about 8.89 I agree this is a significant amount
Let's pause here. You estimate a volume of matter which is huge, added to Earth in the last 200 Ma.
- where is all that material coming from? Space?
- what kind of material would that be? Meteorites, meteoric dust or smaller particles like gases or liquids?
- or do you think the Earth grew in volume from within?
- can you back-up your idea with analysis of the Moon, which seems pretty constant (at least the visible side of her) in the last phase (Copernican)? Our understanding of the Moon luckily does not depend on the NASA crooks and has been acquired pre-1968.
but if you look at history from about 200Ma to 100Ma the water levels rose dramatically about 250 meters (this is the new mass entering our atmosphere. Then from 100Ma to 10Ma they fell to the levels we have today. This is a result of the oceans lowering as the lithosphere crust expanded with all this additional mass. Now the water levels are rising again at a rate of about 3mm a year and this is a result of the continuous shower we receive from the Sun.
Sea level (global, eustatic) is not a very good indicator for this. The global sea level is studied in detail yet many autbors are disagreeing about it, see below. The most widely used curve is that of Haq (red line) which shows drastic variations in the past 200 Ma

Giant Dino's I don't think are as heavy as estimated, and arguments range + or - sometimes as much as 50% depending on the method used to calculate. There would have been a range of contributing factors such as increased oxygen with 200M years of vegetation growth, if we go with my 90% guestimate of gravity you 80 tonne Dino would weigh 72 tonne 200Ma
Ok, but the oxygen levels in the atmosphere are not constant either. Again, too many factors play a role to pinpoint it. Wouldn't the atmospheric compositional variation (and air pressures etc.) be enough to explain the huge size of dinos? I.e.: do we need varying gravity to explain it?

The weight distribution on the Titanboa is completely different then on a Dino as it evenly distributed on a snake instead of 4 small points or 2-3 points when in motion depending on the gate.
We still had large land based mamals 60 M years ago but they are getting smaller I think the Paratherium weighed in at about 60 tonne or around 55 tonne if you adjust for gravity at approx 9.3 around 60Ma
Ok, I agree the anatomy is very different. The existence of the giant beast has been explained by the different atmospheric composition and temperature of the time (estimated at ~2000 ppm CO2!! and an average global Temperature in the greenhouse (no ice) world of 10-12 degrees higher than today), source: Miracle Planet documentary.

Selene

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

### Re: What is Gravity?

Nink (post moved to DERAILING ROOM) wrote: I realize magnetism and gravitational force are different [principles] but the concept remains the same.
Well, they would seem very comparable in your explanation; but I have never heard of gravity having polarities. Are you suggesting gravity is polarized? It seems by characterizing gravity as something that behaves a little like magnetism (which certainly makes some sense), you have already improved on an explanation I received in my (admittedly American public school). However, to say that gravity works as much like magnetism as you've explained eludes a practical explanation for anything gravity is said to effect in the real world.

What does it mean to say that two objects can no longer become closer to one another? At what point does nature deem this so?

You are suggesting gravity's center is contingent on gravity — it's a bit circular in reasoning. In a case where situation 1 represents a massive box and a smaller box attracted ("gravity" in yellow) to the center of a very massive convexity and the smaller box is attracted to the massive box ("gravity" in blue); and in the same case situation 2 represents the center of gravity having been transferred to the unified mass of the two more massive objects; which of the bottom boxes is the correct "situation 3"?
gravity123.GIF
By your explanation, you seem to be telling us the gravity of the massive box is transfered to the center of the massive "ground" by simply being supported on legs that do not give way (like the illustration in the lower right). So you are basically saying the illustration in the lower left (whereby the small object is still attracted to the large, which is the logical behavior of gravity if it seriously is related to mass) is not relevant. Correct me if I misunderstood you, because if that's so, it's like saying gravity only matters as long as something is falling — i.e.; being directly affected by gravity until the moment the object comes to be at rest, at which point gravity ceases to exist in anything but the largest context imaginable, which isn't comparable to anything else. It's basically like saying the only thing that has gravity on Earth is Earth, which is a bit of a useless explanation for gravity, isn't it?

Also, that explanation seems to suggest that the moment two objects can become closer, the "centers of gravity" return instantly to each object in question, and the moment they touch, they are no longer attracted to one another. How thrillingly bizarre and conveniently inaccessible.

Furthermore, and unfortunately for those that believe such "science", it still would not preclude potential experiments to locate gravity by means of careening magnetically neutral objects through the air at parallels, repeatedly, until it can be shown that they are attracted to one another and not just the Earth. Unless you are telling me objects that have not yet resolved to Earth's gravity also do not have gravity.

Sounds a bit like a Masonic and circular-reasoned non-explanation for gravity to me.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Critical Mass
Member
Posts: 544
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:33 pm

### Re: What is Gravity?

My understanding of the expanding earth model is that it is a model proposed by geologists to explain several observations/problems with the plate tectonic model.

As for how the Earth grows or expands (or whether its gravity changes over time) that was meant to be a problem for physicists to solve... the idea put forward by Nink is only one of many theories & ideas.

The lack of any really solid mechanism proposal is one of the reasons the model was rejected 'by consensus'.

Cluesforum may be interested to know that the primary evidence for the Earth not expanding was provided by Satellites.

Nink
Banned
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2015 1:21 pm

### Re: What is Gravity?

Before I answer the question in regards to the makeup of the ~3*10^15 kg per year, and how something of such mass could enter our atmosphere relatively undetected, I would like to ask a couple of questions please.

1) Where did the ~1,386,000,000 cu km that scientists currently estimate or 1.386*10^21 kg of water on earth originate from?
2) If the earth has remained the same size but the oceans according to previously posted data, managed to rise and fall ~250 m over the past 200 million years, and if we assume this information is correct, where did that volume of water come from, and where did it go?
Last edited by Nink on Mon Sep 07, 2015 4:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.

ProperGander
Banned
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 1:16 pm

### Re: What is Gravity?

"3. Helium is so light that Earth’s gravity is not strong enough to hold on to it. When helium atoms are released into the atmosphere, they rise until they escape into space."

http://www.chemicool.com/elements/helium-facts.html

"Molecules in a gas are in constant motion zipping around and bouncing off each other. Lightweight gases such as hydrogen and helium move faster than medium-weight gases like nitrogen and oxygen. The heavy gases like carbon dioxide move at a slower rate of speed than the other two. To visualize this choose this link to an animation of molecular motion. A large planet like Jupiter with a strong gravitational pull is able to hold the light gases even though they move at high speeds. A small planet like Earth or Mars cannot hold onto lightweight gases. The moon is so small that its gravity is not even strong enough to hold onto the heavy gases like carbon dioxide, that means it has no atmosphere."

http://quest.nasa.gov/aero/planetary/at ... avity.html

This would mean a helium filled balloon in a room with a motionless atmosphere, should exhibit a 'Coriolis effect'. The balloon is defying gravity thanks to the helium.
The world would turn beneath the balloon if the Earth is spinning, The balloon should look like it is following a straight line to us, since we are rotating away from it. There'd also be the issue of the effect of momentum on the ballon as the centripetal force of gravity is cancelled.

A balloon that is left to rise up into the atmosphere would then also exhibit the same effect.

Selene
Banned
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 7:59 pm

### Re: What is Gravity?

Nink wrote:Before I answer the question in regards to the makeup of the ~3*10^15 kg per year, and how something of such mass could enter our atmosphere relatively undetected, I would like to ask a couple of questions please.

1) Where did the ~1,386,000,000 cu km that scientists currently estimate or 1.386*10^21 kg of water on earth originate from?
What do you mean with "originate from" and when? Afaik the current models are debating endogenic (produced by the Earth itself) or exogenic (water meteorites) origins or the combination of those two.

I see many more arguments for the endogenic origin maybe aided by some wet meteorites:
- H2O is a simple molecule
- electrolysis and the opposite binding of H2 and O2 does not seem a complex process
- the Earth itself is very rich in different elements and H and O are very abundant
- for decent volumes of water to produce an endogenic origin makes sense
- we see it happening on Earth; hydrous minerals are exhumed in volcanic eruptions
- the cycle of water and oxygen is pretty well understood for the recent past (dO18/O16)
2) If the earth has remained the same size but the oceans according
to previously posted data, managed to rise and fall ~250 m over the past 200 million years, and if we assume this information is correct, where did that volume of water come from, and where did it go?
Sea level consists of 2 types:
- relative sea level - the sea level w.r.t. a local datum
- global, eustatic, sea level - the volume of water in liquid form in seas and oceans

You are and must be referring to the latter. For the recent ice age periods the sea level is mainly controlled by how much of it is stored in solids (ice) in glaciers and polar ice caps. Today that is volume X (and don't fall for the Antropogenic Global Warming Hoax that claims we will go to an ice-free world...).

In a complete greenhouse that X is increased by the volume of water now stored in ice (minus lakes and rivers that will be formed) and in a complete icehouse that X is decreased by the extra ice formed). The greenhouse/icehouse periods are in turn controlled by astronomical (Milankovitch) parameters; the position of the Earth w.r.t. the Sun. Which is also an interesting gravitational question in itself.

This glacial vs. interglacial variation alone can change the global sea level by some hundred meters and can be calculated (X0 +/- the ice volume).

For longer geological periods the global sea level is thought to be controlled mostly by the average rate of sea floor spreading (how fast new crust is created) and related subduction (how fast that crust is "consumed" again by the asthenosphere at subduction zones (e.g. the Pacific Ring of Fire). That is explained in more detail in the link I provided with the Eustatic Sea Level Curves on the previous page.

On your question; the vast majority of all water on Earth is not moving on top of the crust (seas, rivers and lakes; liquids, glaciers; solids and clouds; vapours), but is "stored" in hydrous minerals in the crust (clays and micas, zeolites and others) and mantle (same minus clay minerals).

This water is released more or is released less with varying spreading rates which results in changing H2O amounts on the surface.

At least this is the current model and so far I have not seen convincing arguments to doubt that, but I am open and all ears to get convinced of other views.

Selene

ProperGander
Banned
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 1:16 pm

### Re: What is Gravity?

A brief and partial history of the concept of gravity and who promoted the resulting 'science':

"Newton made clear his heliocentric view of the Solar System—developed in a somewhat modern way, because already in the mid-1680s he recognised the "deviation of the Sun" from the centre of gravity of the Solar System. For Newton, it was not precisely the centre of the Sun or any other body that could be considered at rest, but rather "the common centre of gravity of the Earth, the Sun and all the Planets is to be esteem'd the Centre of the World", and this centre of gravity "either is at rest or moves uniformly forward in a right line" (Newton adopted the "at rest" alternative in view of common consent that the centre, wherever it was, was at rest).

Newton's postulate of an invisible force able to act over vast distances led to him being criticised for introducing "occult agencies" into science. Later, in the second edition of the Principia (1713), Newton firmly rejected such criticisms in a concluding General Scholium, writing that it was enough that the phenomena implied a gravitational attraction, as they did; but they did not so far indicate its cause, and it was both unnecessary and improper to frame hypotheses of things that were not implied by the phenomena. (Here Newton used what became his famous expression "hypotheses non dingo"

"In April 1705, Queen Anne knighted Newton during a royal visit to Trinity College, Cambridge. The knighthood is likely to have been motivated by political considerations connected with the Parliamentary election in May 1705, rather than any recognition of Newton's scientific work or services as Master of the Mint.[86] Newton was the second scientist to be knighted, after Sir Francis Bacon."

"The President, Council, and Fellows of the Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge, commonly known as the Royal Society, is a learned society for science and is possibly the oldest such society still in existence.[a] Founded in November 1660, it was granted a royal charter by King Charles II as "The Royal Society". The society today acts as a scientific advisor to the British government, receiving a parliamentary grant-in-aid. The society acts as the UK's Academy of Sciences and funds research fellowships and scientific start-up companies."

Here is a theory that provides a mechanism for 'gravity':

The Le Sage theory:
"The theory now called “Le Sage’s theory of gravity” was originally proposed in the 1690s by Nicolas Fatio de Duillier, a friend of Isaac Newton and Christiaan Huygens. Fatio was a well-known Swiss personage, and the kinetic theory of gravitation was his most notable scientific contribution, to which he devoted much of his life. Le Sage said that he heard of Fatio for the first time through his father, because his father had heard the prophecies of the cevénots (camisards), and told him that Fatio was among those prophets. Le Sage’s father was well acquainted with the scientific fields in which Fatio worked, and he tutored Le Sage in the sciences. Nevertheless, Le Sage later claimed that his father never told him that Fatio had created a theory of gravitation essentially identical to his own. (Le Sage also admitted that he had a pathologically bad memory, so it is unclear if his recollection is accurate.) In any case, Le Sage stated that he knew nothing of Fatio’s theory until he was informed by his teacher Gabriel Cramer in 1749."

"The theory posits that the force of gravity is the result of tiny particles (corpuscles) moving at high speed in all directions, throughout the universe. The intensity of the flux of particles is assumed to be the same in all directions, so an isolated object A is struck equally from all sides, resulting in only an inward-directed pressure but no net directional force (P1). This could be used as an explanation for a gas based theory of 'gravity'.

Two bodies "attract" each other
With a second object B present, however, a fraction of the particles that would otherwise have struck A from the direction of B is intercepted, so B works as a shield, i.e. from the direction of B, A will be struck by fewer particles than from the opposite direction. Likewise B will be struck by fewer particles from the direction of A than from the opposite direction. One can say that A and B are "shadowing" each other, and the two bodies are pushed toward each other by the resulting imbalance of forces. Thus the apparent attraction between bodies is, according to this theory, actually a diminished push from the direction of other bodies, so the theory is sometimes called push gravity or shadow gravity, although it is more widely referred to as Lesage gravity."

source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Society
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges-Louis_Le_Sage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%2 ... ravitation

ICfreely
Member
Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

### Re: What is Gravity?

The Cubed Earth Model

To G or not to G, is the question
And like Smith told Wesson
I'm shady with the .380 old school diploma
I'll leave that ass in a coma

--O'Shea (IceCube) Jackson, Really Doe

The following textbook attempts to prove the spherical shape of the Earth by comparing it to a Cubical Earth!

Ch. 7 - The Earth-Moon-Sun System – The Earth’s Size and Shape

pg. 186 (3 of 32)

Ancient Measurements Earth’s shape is similar to a sphere. A sphere is a round, three-dimensional object, the surface of which is the same distance from the center in all directions. Even ancient astronomers knew that Earth is spherical in shape [appeal to ‘ancient’ authority]. We have pictures of Earth from space that show us that it is spherical [appeal to NAS-holery], but how could astronomers from long ago have learned this? They used evidence from observations.

Aristotle was one of these early astronomers. He made three different observations that indicated that Earth’s shape is spherical. First, as shown in Figure 1, no matter where you are on Earth, objects fall straight down to the surface, as if they are falling toward the center of a sphere. Second, Earth’s shadow on the Moon during a lunar eclipse is always curved. If Earth weren’t spherical, this might not always be the case. For example, a flat disk casts a straight-edged shadow sometimes. Finally, people in different parts of the world see different stars above their horizons. More specifically, the pole star Polaris is lower in the sky at some locations on Earth than at others.

You see? If the Earth weren’t spherical (it would be cubed), then objects wouldn’t fall straight down to its surface. Speaking of cubes:

IceCubeSouth Pole Neutrino Observatory
IceCube is a particle detector at the South Pole that records the interactions of a nearly massless subatomic particle called the neutrino. IceCube searches for neutrinos from the most violent astrophysical sources: events like exploding stars, gamma-ray bursts, and cataclysmic phenomena involving black holes and neutron stars. The IceCube telescope is a powerful tool to search for dark matter and could reveal the physical processes associated with the enigmatic origin of the highest energy particles in nature. In addition, exploring the background of neutrinos produced in the atmosphere, IceCube studies the neutrinos themselves; their energies far exceed those produced by accelerator beams. IceCube is the world’s largest neutrino detector, encompassing a cubic kilometer of ice.
http://icecube.wisc.edu/

If IceCube and Roald Amundsen’s miraculous 1911 expedition to the South Pole aren’t enough to convince you of
the Earth’s sphericity, then consider the following:

The good old days. In 1666, when Isaac Newton [“]discovered[“] his law of gravity, people did not need to understand the calculus that Newton [had claimed he’d] invented so he could calculate the orbit of the moon. It was enough [, for the unwashed masses,] to know that there is a universal force that causes apples to fall to the ground and that this same force holds the moon in its orbit around the earth. There was nothing paradoxical [(if by paradoxical you mean sensible)] about this concept; indeed it explained [away] so many things that the poet Alexander Pope wrote as Newton’s epitaph:

Nature and Nature’s laws lay hid in night.
God said, “Let Newton be!” And all was light.

http://www.quantum-field-theory.net/chap-1/
And:

Gravity: from weightlessness to curvature

In part, gravity is an illusion. In part, it is associated with a quantity called "curvature". Overall, gravity is intimately connected with the geometry of space and time.

The elusiveness of gravity

Most readers will have seen footage showing situations like this, involving, for instance, astronauts aboard the international space station ISS. Those astronauts haven't escaped the earth's gravity - they're experiencing a very special kind of free fall, a free-falling orbit around the earth

The elusiveness of curvature

But in spite of the differences in geometry, the following still holds: If you look at a tiny region of the sphere's surface, you'll be hard-pressed to find a difference between it and the corresponding region on a plane. In fact, that's what we do every day: We draw city maps, which show a comparatively small part of the earth's surface, just as if the city had the same geometry as that flat sheet of paper we're drawing on:

This works quite well, although, in reality, the city region is part not of a gigantic plane, but of the surface of a gigantic sphere, the earth. Only when you look at larger regions will you notice that the surface is, in fact, curved; the larger the region, the more distinct the signs of curvature.

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlig ... #section-3

I'm sorry Ms. Jackson (oh) I am for real!

Farcevalue
Member
Posts: 390
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:21 am

### Re: What is Gravity?

So, the apple falls from the tree, due to the same force that keeps the moon in place relative to the earth, but the astronots in between the apple and the moon have escaped that force.

Got it.

Of course Cavendish had to have balls to get a constant out of this.

Painterman
Member
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2015 12:02 pm

### Re: What is Gravity?

This question is worth another look after the recent chirp (or thud) we're told proved Einstein at a \$1.1 billion observatory.
hoi.polloi wrote:What is gravity?
Gravity is a force of attraction between all material objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. (Admittedly, this doesn't really explain what gravity "is" - but that remains an unknown, in my opinion.)

The foregoing is what's called an "operational definition". This type of definition defines a concept by what is actually measured (force, in this case). Such definitions are useful when dealing with bad-faith purveyors of junk science, because these phonies typically base their pitch on "special effects" rhetoric and can't handle arguments framed in terms of empirical observation.

Whenever this force has been sought between known masses in the lab, it has been found as expected. I've never seen a counterexample cited by any "gravity denier" (apologies to George Orwell).

Whether, and in what way, this force exists in "outer space" is another question, because independent confirmation in this area is nearly impossible.
Flat Earth Theorists believe it is simply caused by mutual acceleration of the entire Earth, which is physically flat, and constantly going faster and faster "up".
A moment's thought will show that a literal upward acceleration of the surface can't possibly be the source of gravity, even on a flat Earth, because the so-called "acceleration" of gravity varies by a significant amount across the surface of the Earth - e.g. an object weighs 0.5 percent more at the poles than at the equator.

If the North Pole were accelerating upward 0.5 percent faster than the equator, the disastrous consequences would be obvious. So the "upward acceleration" theory of gravity proposed by flatology is a nonstarter.

JLapage
Member
Posts: 115
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 1:38 pm

### Re: What is Gravity?

Painterman wrote:This question is worth another look after the recent chirp (or thud) we're told proved Einstein at a \$1.1 billion observatory.
hoi.polloi wrote:What is gravity?
Gravity is a force of attraction between all material objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. (Admittedly, this doesn't really explain what gravity "is" - but that remains an unknown, in my opinion.)

The foregoing is what's called an "operational definition". This type of definition defines a concept by what is actually measured (force, in this case). Such definitions are useful when dealing with bad-faith purveyors of junk science, because these phonies typically base their pitch on "special effects" rhetoric and can't handle arguments framed in terms of empirical observation.

Whenever this force has been sought between known masses in the lab, it has been found as expected. I've never seen a counterexample cited by any "gravity denier" (apologies to George Orwell).

Whether, and in what way, this force exists in "outer space" is another question, because independent confirmation in this area is nearly impossible.
Can you back up your statement that I highlighted in pink? By the way I am not a gravity "denier". What experiments in the lab have you read about or better yet done yourself?
Last edited by JLapage on Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ICfreely
Member
Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

### Re: What is Gravity?

And if if was a fifth we'd all be drunk. If you'd been around in the early day of this website you'd have 'cautioned' everyone to avoid questioning NASA in order to 'preserve the integrity' of this forum's 9/11 research. Keep brown nosing you coward. You'll eventually expose yourself for the PARASITIC INFILTRATOR that you are. As for me, I'm content with the ORIGINAL CONTENT I've contributed over the last year. Genuine readers will eventually catch up with and supersede my research. Disingenuous momos like you will keep running around in circles. Keep on 'exposing flatoloy subversion' like the good little house boy that you are. Like smj I'm done. You don't deserve the benefits of our research.

P.S.

And Fuck You very much for poisoning the Einstein thread with your bullshit. Run like the wind & don't drop the baton bitch!

simonshack
Posts: 6944
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

### Re: What is Gravity?

Relax, dear ICfreely (and JLapage) - don't walk out on us, come on ... As always, I'm keeping a watchful eye on things - don't worry!
And as always, I'm a bit slow (sometimes strategically so) before taking appropriate actions. Chill out, guys.
And yes, Painterman - I also have pretty much the same questions as ICfreely and JLapage - so I'll be awaiting your reply to them.
And if smj reads this, please come back. I, for one, am missing your superb diggings and info.

I hope all good folks appreciate how hard it is to moderate this forum - please bear with my (and my fellow admins) occasional shortcomings / inefficiencies / latencies, as we're only human. Thanks.

As an example of what we REALLY need to combat (regarding the gravest gravity of science-quackery) - here's something I watched today (keep your barfbags ready). I can't think of anyone quite as full of shit as this slimy Brian Cox BBC clown :