Where to begin, even? The first paragraph perhaps:
> As with Justice Potter Stewart’s non-definition of pornography – ‘I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it’ – the soul is slippery
"Gravity is a weak force, in the sense that the gravitational force between two protons is about 10^33 times weaker than the electric force between them. And I'm using protons rather than electrons here to make the gravity stronger - with electrons gravity would be almost 10^40 times weaker.
This has various consequences, but one is that gravitational waves are absorbed by matter much less than electromagnetic waves. It would be fun to estimate the amount of energy absorbed by the Earth as this particular gravitational wave came through, but it would be absurdly small. Gravitational waves make neutrinos look like rampaging gorillas."
Rephrasing, and assuming waving commutes with rampaging, gravitons make neutrinos look like WAVES of rampaging gorillas. I'm no physicist but to answer the original question I'd hazard a guess: quite far!
Urs Schreiber currently is at the forefront of where this line of mathematics ties in with fundamental physics. Here is a series he has started recently:
Hmm. The UK has a Freedom of Information request process, much like the US (ie just as neutered). The request would be, essentially: "prove it". The hard part would be putting it in a form likely/able to be answered.
> As with Justice Potter Stewart’s non-definition of pornography – ‘I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it’ – the soul is slippery
So is prose! Right through his grasp.