Strange

Yes it is. (The fact you don't realise that is what you are saying is part of the problem.) When does an electron "disappear"? You tell me. It sounds like something else you have made up. In some ways it can; e.g. it has momentum (which is conserved). http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.5795 You did. You ignored it. The actual, real, measured, observed, factual, hard, physical, existing, substantial, concrete, palpable, indubitable, authentic, perceptible, sensible, tangible, valid force for both solar sails and the Nichols radiometer is DOUBLED when the surface is reflected. Did you get it that time? (You have been given several references where you can check the details.)

Something like that. It is slightly more complicated because the space that the light has travelled through has also been expanding. So the one from the more distant object took longer to arrive and so they appear further apart. But, again, you need to look at the maths. For someone who claims they cannot accept something until they understand it, you seem surprisingly reluctant to do that.

That isn't true. And it doesn't mean you can make up any old nonsense. It is called an ion drive. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/144296-nasas-next-ion-drive-breaks-world-record-will-eventually-power-interplanetary-missions Also, as noted for both solar sails and the Nichols radiometer, the effect is DOUBLED when the surface is reflected. This is because the emitted photons impart the same momentum and the received ones.

No you are not. Yes. You are not taking into account the finite travel time of light and the fact that space is expanding (while the light is travelling).

Feel free to do a detailed analysis of the results and come up with an alternative explanation. Preferably one based on physics, not magic.

If the conservation of momentum were violated as you suggest then this would be equivalent to a violation of Lorentz invariance (thanks to Noether's Theorem). This has been (and still is being) tested to extraordinarily high levels of accuracy (about10-43 for some experiments).

Not necessarily. It varies. Some Jewish and Christian people think that, others don't. Some don't even belief in hell (after all, it doesn't appear in the Old Testament and not much in the New). I would expect there to be a similar amount of variation of interpretation of the Qur'an as well.

Can you please explain why you emphasize "towards empty space"; why do you think that is relevant? Do you think that rockets don't work in space because they need something to push against?

Yes. Obviously. You have been presented with multiple lines of evidence. That is sad, but hardly relevant. Now: please present some hard evidence that conservation of momentum is not valid. (I am going to ask the moderators to split your posts off to the Speculations forum,)

Thanks for your long answer. I think it is pretty obvious that any theory or belief that relies on such extremes is not going to be very realistic. So we may be in agreement (at least partly) on that. I don't. (I'm not even sure why you keep going on about arguing. This isn't a Monty Python sketch.) I guess this is where I begin to get lost. As I say, I'm not sure what any metaphysical scheme has to do with physics. That is what I am trying to understand. They may well do. And some play the piano or write poetry. None of which has anything to do with physics. Can you explain why you think that? That is a pretty common idea. I don't see what its relevance to physics is, though. Could you expand on that a bit? True. And one of the strengths of philosophy is that it is all about questioning ideas and assumptions. Yes, they are all about philosophy. I still fail to see any connection to physics. Apart from the fact that someone could think that there is no point doing anything (including physics) if "nothing is real". But it makes no difference to physics. We are still able to make observations, create models, test them and produce useful results. The underlying nature of reality (and whether such a thing exists or not) makes no difference. I can believe in solipsism (and that therefore Shockley, Bardeen and Brattain only exist in my head) but that doesn't stop my non-existent computer working (and allowing me to have a non-existent conversation with a non-existent PeterJ). That is disappointing. This has turned into another thread where you say something interesting and then refuse to discuss it. A little. You seem to think that "the nature of reality" should have some implications for physics? But those implications are either unknown or too sensitive to discuss (you seem to oscillate between the two positions).

And it also explicitly says that one reason for using reflective surfaces is that the radiation pressure will be twice as great as for non-reflective surfaces. Which provides (yet more) physical evidence Bjarne is asking for. I hope that finishes off his claims of the violation of conservation of momentum.

And another example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarkovsky_effect Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarkovsky%E2%80%93O%27Keefe%E2%80%93Radzievskii%E2%80%93Paddack_effect

No evidence? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evidence And we don't "know" anything of the sort. There is just very strong evidence. Unless you are claiming that it is all fabricated? We don't "know" that. Nothing is ever "proven". That is not how science works. But other explanations fail to fit ALL the evidence. This was a perfect example of the scientific method: theory (GR); hypothesis (universe expands); predictions (e.g. CMB), observation (redshift, CMB, many other things); experiment (more measurements); new evidence (e.g. accelerating expansion); modify theory ... and so on. What, demonstrating how little you know?

Aha! I knew the other place this effect would be obvious is spectroscopy. Took a while to track down a simple enough explanation: http://quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node429.html This is an observed effect. Happy now? You could also look up the Mossbauer effect but it is more complex. And can you give any such examples? I'm afraid there is only one rational response to that: nonsense. It is very obviously not speculation. No. I said NICHOLS radiometer. No. The word for that is "ignorance" not speculation. In fact it is wilful ignorance as you have been presented with links that provide information about the PRACTICAL USE of solar sails. Er, no. Application of the scientific method. Exactly as your little diagram. That is true today because of the overwhelming evidence that that is the case (e.g. gravitational lensing). But other possibilities have been, and still are being, investigated. It is a good test case for theories like MOND (which so far fail to fit observations, strengthening the argument for some sort of matter). But matter has always been the most plausible explanation because it behaves just like matter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Alternative_theories

That is not what I was suggesting. Bjarne is confused enough about basic physics so I didn't think it would help to get him to read something which is NOT about light pressure. He might. Or he might have missed it and just latched on to "not due to radiation pressure" and decided it supported his mistaken ideas. True. He has a lot to learn. They are obviously conserved but have nothing to do with the motion of the radiometer. But the movement is caused by radiation pressure. And, as it uses mirrors it answers Bjarne's question about experiments that measure the force of emitted photons.

For example? 1. Conservation of momentum. (It is up to you to show that this does not apply - unless you are not interested in the scientific method?) 2. Nichols radiometer. 3. Solar sails. 4. Pioneer anomaly I have no idea why you say that. Initially "dark matter" was pretty much a placeholder name for "unknown effect that behaves like unseen matter". Since then many explanations have been investigated some involving forms of matter and some not. Currently, the weight of evidence is that dark matter is a form of matter but it other possibilities are still being investigated.

You are the one challenging the most fundamental aspects of physics, it is up to YOU to provide evidence to support your claims of magic occurring. But... SOLAR SAILS. Sheesh. No, don't. That is nothing to do with it. But you could look at the Nichols radiometer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichols_radiometer

By that argument he was ethnically African because the "Hamitic" people are descended from his son Ham. He was also ethnically European because they were descended from his son Japheth. (Presumably the peoples of Asia, Polynesia, Australasia, etc. don't exist.)

Er, what? When you said there was no need for an argument, I agreed. I have no idea why you thought it was an argument then and, as we have both agreed that we have nothing to argue about, why you still think it is an argument now. But never mind. OK. I didn't realise that was his "result". I thought it was just a general comment. I don't see how that follows. But maybe that isn't important. Actually, I'm not quite sure what it means. Yes, the universe is a single thing. But that seems to be too trivially true to be what you are referring to. Are we talking about non-locality? Or mass-energy equivalence? Or ... That is very frustrating. Why bring it up if you are unwilling to explain or discuss it. I am always interested in where physics might be going next. OK. I am just curious as to what they are (or what you think they might be). I am baffled by your refusal to expand on this. I assume it isn't actually of any significance, then. But I don't know what to research! Can you give me some hints? Who are the scientists who you mention? What tests are or could be done? Anything ... ? What have I rejected? How can I reject it when I don't yet know what it is yet? You seem somewhat over-sensitive to non-existent criticism of your ideas.

Well, you seem to think it does. I just wondered why. And, presumably, you think that would somehow be in conflict with science. Could you explain why you think that? I find it slightly confusing that you think there are (profund?) implications for physics but aren't able to give even a hint as to what they are. If you don't have any idea what the implications for physics are, then maybe there aren't any? Indeed. I have nothing to argue about. I am just curious what the implications for physics might be (or what you think they might be). Really? You have repeatedly referred to his philosophy and proof. I can't imagine you would do that if you didn't think it was correct. I'm not sure there is any disagreement. Just ignorance, on my part. I would look if I knew what "this" was. OK. I am just trying to find out what this "topic" is. (Maybe I can work out an idea of the possible implications for myself.) The proof of that is not a "nightmare to follow". It is pretty straightforward. This may be the crux of my confusion. As I don't see how any metaphysical position can have any implications for physics, it isn't clear how refuting some or all of them can have any implications for physics either. Ah good... Oh. Can you state it then? In order for it to be tested in physics, it needs to make quantifiable, measurable predictions. This is what I am trying to understand. What testable (by science) predictions does a philosophical idea make? How can these be quantified? What can be measured to test them? And so on.

So muons know when to decay by looking at your clock. Got it. I don't really know why that bothers you so much that you have to invent other differences between time (as a temporal distance) and length (as a spatial distance).

Preaching, bogus etymology and numerology all in one. Great.

That is almost the point. Change is only a way we use to measure or quantify time; it is not time nor the cause of time. You can't tell that time passes, because there is no change. And yet, time passes for that muon and, after some time, it decays. If time is "an abstraction of change", then how is it possible for there to be a delay (Where there is no change) before the muon decays. Or perhaps people care about "someone being wrong on the Internet" more than they care about angels. "What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong."

Maybe his "point" has nothing to do with science? Can you explain in what way you think it would rock the boat? Can you explain what you think the implications for physics are?

I don't think it is well-defined. After all, what frame of reference are you calculating it in? Why do you think that "creates space"? Please stop doing that.