J.C.MacSwell

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.

Only to help pose the question. If you assume enough matter to slow it down the question is the same. What role does space play in the momentum of the expansion. I am assuming that the expansion has momentum.

I assure you it doesn't! Try blowing through a straw if you want a simple example of the speed exceeding any "impacts". (and it's all impacts, though you can argue the molecule speeds are higher it is the same thing, the fluid can be accelerated, it must if it is funneled)

I think this is correct. So based on that rate, what inertia is the space assumed to have that must be "subdued" in order to arrest the expansion? As I think (?) you were pointing out the galaxies themselves are more or less at rest wrt the expansion, at least locally.

How is the momentum of the expansion thought to be measured? Assuming there is enough matter present to create a "big crunch" is it assumed that space will "shrink" (or slow in expanding, stall, then shrink) to the same beat as would be consistent locally with a gravitational collapse "in" space?

You need wind to sustain it, but it will go upwind. It's not a PMM.

Same amount at a faster speed. Net momentum transfer backwards of the air. It actually mixes with other air so another way of looking at it is that it is not the "only" air displaced backwards.

My point is that it is possible to do this. Direct more momentum backwards in spite of the fan facing forward.

As long as the sail/fan system can direct more air momentum backward than forward it can propel the boat forward. Also a fan can be set up to catch the wind and turn a water propellor which propels the boat straight upwind. No energy source other than the wind required.

Thanks Spyman that's what I was after.

This is conjecture at this point. We have no idea of how or why. I thought the EM and W were the same at higher energies, not just connected, but I may have been mislead as Severian suggested. I thought Weinberg, Glashow and Salam won the Nobel prize for that?

I think physicists, for the most part, are pretty good at staying objective. But I do question the degree of "faith" they seem to have in "theories" such as the Big Bang Model. Built up on strong circumstantial evidence, and having no serious alternatives "remaining standing", has seemed to have produced a paradigm of certainty beyond what seems warranted. I think "science" puts the Big Bang Model as the clear front runner, but faith, mob mentality ( ) or just by default it gets pushed into the all but certain range.

Time took a serious beating back in 1905... and still hasn't recovered.

In your opinion would he give a good review to a well written anti-string book? I know people that, where I respect their work, I would take with a bucket of salt their opinion of a competitor or colleague. Not that I know anything at all of Dr. Motl, but why shouldn't Martin urge others to ignore him, if he feels the guy is not being objective and is on a crusade?

You could also try a warm glass of milk.

As in a gravitation only effect, the weakest known force, or are there other possible effects they are looking for?

Interesting how that works out.