Nice nod down there at the bottom, John: "The author acknowledges the collaboration of John Kierein for bringing up the IRAS information"

But, I am concerned about the titles on the FAQ page. "Series #8 Why Quantum Mechanics is Non-sense? " for instance, or "Series #14 They burn heretics, don't they?".

I looked into the Series #10: Energy Required to Move a Mass from the Pole to the Equator. Although I didn't wade through the math, it looks like the conclusions were OK. I was concerned because of the blurb on the main page: " It requires external (Earth) energy to move from the equator to the pole..." That is wrong, as Paul's writeup goes to great lengths to show. The surface at the pole and the surface at the equator are in an equilibrium, as the main body of the article states. The entire surface (geoid, or "sealevel") of the Earth is an equipotential surface, in other words.

That's why the water is "flat".

It also neatly explains the relativity phenomenon.