J.C.MacSwell

Even if plain heaters are 100% efficient, which they basically are, heat pumps can deliver many times more energy than they use (pay for). Entropy increases as the high grade electrical energy is used to concentrate the much lower grade heat energy outdoors to not much higher grade room temperature. It is much more efficient (and less heating required anyway) the warmer the outside (or geothermal, lake water etc.) temperature. Note that heat pumps can claim to be 300% and greater efficient, which is true, but that is not thermodynamic efficciency, just that it delivers more heat than the energy that it uses directly.

It should still collapse to a point.

I'm a dinghy and iceboat racer. My first thought was that you had no energy potential to harness unless you were somehow in contact with the ground or another fluid, air or wind, at a different velocity. I just didn't realize this is what you were suggesting. You could actually go "upwind" of both "winds" using this metod, at least in theory. Interesting idea. It would be an awkward contraption though.

I hope he appreciates your efforts!

Understood, except I don't think that is what he is claiming. Also 99.99% of the energy leaves with the photons, not going into propulsion. Extremely inefficient. I think he is claiming that the shape of the chamber influences the net rebound/impulse of the continuously resonating photons. An analogy would be putting a boat in the water and it moves forward because of it's shape.

Any attempt by the plane to harness the energy of the wind will cause more drag than thrust unless it is a tailwind (in which case lift will be somewhat problematic)

I have that one but haven't read it. Are any of the roads extra dimensional or is that too stringy?

I Wonder if TWP is actually helping Elegant sales?

No, you're all wrong, but I'm too busy to explain. But take it from me, you're all wrong. (even the original poster who was just asking, he's wrong also in a different way but I doubt you'd understand if I told you why) Glad I could help.

Correct, but drag on the moon speeds it up not down, though I have heard the moon should eventually escape (on a thread here, can't remember which one or why it escapes)

Oh good, more greenhouse gas. Gotta love carbon...cough...cough.

Good, I think that was Spyman's point also. More on this later (anyone know definitively what GR would say on this?) but I like your view of the expansion or contraction as nothing actually moving (local movement aside) which is also how I picture it from an "outside" POV. This brings us back toward my original question about the momentum of the expansion. Since "nothing is actually moving" what keeps the expansion going? What tells space to keep expanding at the same rate? Assuming gravity can only change the rate incrementally over time from the present rate the main factor that determines tomorrows rate is today's rate, the present "momentum" of the expansion.

It's getting closer because it is yielding to gravity. I think I see what you are getting at with regards to direction though by your "nothing is moving at all" comment. You are only considering the effects of nondirectional yielding to gravity to affect (or coincide with) a shrinking of space. (Am I reading you correctly?)

Then why would space collapse when all the stuff gets moved together? I think GR predicts this whereas Newtonian physics does not. It is like the potential energy of mass displacements supports what space "is". So the one small ball drop (and Earth "dropping" immeasurably toward the ball) is one small "tuck" (much much smaller than the immeasurable Earth displacement) in the fabric of space.

Newtonian/Euclidean this is obviously right.

If the sum of all masses collapsing gravitationally add up to a collapse of space, would not a small insignificant gravitational "collapse" coincide with an immeasurable reduction in space. (relative to if the event had not happened and all other things being equal) Edit: and if this is correct, what does it say about space? Gravity seems to balance out in the 3 apparent space dimensions and all mass seems to "escape" the insignificant dropping of a ball so I'm sorry but I am still missing your point. Don't give up on me though!

Calmer and less paranoid? Right where I'm sitting.

I think you're right. Care to elaborate?

I think you missed a few!

Because if you dropped all of the balls in the universe you would have a big crunch.

Yes, counter or resist (successfully or not). If I could pose a question: If you drop a ball is the universe smaller than it would have been if you had not dropped it?

We have nothing with which to propel it faster. If light went faster, say 1.1 c, then that would be the barrier we could only approach and that would be the point where inertia would approach infinite.

"Worked best" is not the issue. I'm not advocating it, I just claim it can be done.