Paul, I don't recall it, but neither do I have any reason to doubt it. I remember thinking at the time that using 'Sa(t)' (which stood for speed due to gravitational acceleration - time dependent) was not going to be correct, since I needed at least two such terms - one for the Moon and one for the World. The paper was thrown together as a composite of three pieces of work, and needs refinement. In particular, a lot of my work from this period is heavily influenced by what I perceived to be God-breathed scripture which, as you have no doubt observed for yourself, is not the way that I would now approach the subject. In fact, GU 3.0 was conceived and designed from such a standpoint and it should be noted that this discussion forum, of which you have played an important role, has been influencial in revising the way I think geocentrism ought to be approached. Certainly GU 4.0, if there is one, will rely solely upon scientific arguments. When, God willing, the paper is reposted on my website, a notice will be sent around the whole forum. For the moment, however, I am preoccupied with other material. Neville. Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Neville J Thanks. You may recall that at the time I did point out to you that Sa was a positive quantity in the text but negative in the diagram. And I was wondering when (if?) this would re-appear. Paul D Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com --------------------------------- New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out more at the Yahoo! Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes.