Strange

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure#Radiation_pressure_by_emission A solar sail produces twice as much force when it reflects photons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail#Physical_principles And, as noted, if emitting photons violated conservation of momentum then it would be possible (trivially easy) to build a reactionless drive and build a free-energy source. It isn't. Also, can you explain why you say "towards empty space" as if that were significant? Of course you can: conservation of momentum.

Is there? Why?

Huh? No, the largest effect (beyond some distance) is the radiated energy. They do also take solar radiation into account (which is, again, mainly the heating effect increasing radiation, as far as I remember - I haven't read the paper in a long time and I don't have time to go through it again now - but I was immensely impressed by the level of detail they put into modelling the various surface features, sources of energy, etc.) By the way, if the momentum change caused by radiated photons wasn't equal and opposite to the momentum change caused by received photons, then you could build a free energy machine: a box with a light source at one end and an absorbing screen at the other. If your doubts were correct then there would be no force from the photons emitted but only from those received, resulting in a net force with no external release of energy....

You might have more luck if you realise that changes in the geometry of space-time are what we perceive as photons. But changes in the electromagnetic field are what we perceive as photons. It isn't clear why you think changes in the geometry of space and time can produce electromagnetic effects; it just doesn't have those properties. But the important point is that those "effects" are quantised - that is all that is meant by the shorthand of referring to light as "particles".

Conservation of momentum: sending radiation in one direction causes a force in the opposite direction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure#Radiation_pressure_by_emission Note that a solar sail gets "push" from two sources: first by being hit by photons and then by reflecting the photons. The latter is exactly what you are asking about. Why do you emphasize "towards empty space"? Why would that matter?

BANG!

Are you asking a general question about the momentum of electromagnetic radiation? Or the specifics of the Turyshev analysis?

First of all, you seem to be thinking of the big bang as an explosion which threw stuff out into space. That is not accurate. A better way to think of it is that the universe was very hot and dense, then it expanded and cooled. So it was the whole universe that expanded, and everything in it that moved apart. There are two possible explanations for why the universe does not have an edge. The simplest one is that the universe is infinite; therefore there is no end and no edge. The alternative explanation is that the universe is finite but unbounded. As an analogy, think of the surface of the Earth, it has a finite area but no "edge". Extend that to 3 dimensions and that might describe the universe. As it is, we don't know if the universe is infinite or not. (And probably can't know.)

It makes more sense than the idea the universe has turned inside out. When did that happen, exactly?

You suggest that the universe turned itself inside out at some point? If you are making up stuff like this, no wonder you are confused! Correct.

I'm impressed. I had heard of "pillars of creation" before but never "elephants' tusks".

I will second that (although I had guessed you might not be a native speaker!) What an interesting question...

I wouldn't say dark energy was the answer. Dark energy is just the name given to whatever the, currently unknown, answer turns out to be. Isaac Newton. Shell Theorem. In other words, no. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem Current cosmological models do not have such an edge for the universe.

Well, life is hard to define unambiguously but it has characteristics which would not be shared by an arbitrary complex set of reactions. In principle, yes. It is immensely complicated but there are projects underway to simulate the chemical processes in a cell. Ultimately, it would be possible to simulate everything from DNA to the complete living organism. This would require far more information than we have now, and even greater increases in computing. Apart from the "simple" bit, that is correct. Do you have any references to scientists who think that? I'm sure there are some religious scientists, for example, who think there must be more to life than chemistry, but I don't think it is a very mainstream view. Really? That is a little surprising for someone who is a scientist with an interest in biochemistry. This is a massive area of research. And, because of popular interest, has hit the headlines of normal news media many times. For example, regarding the effect of diet: http://tpx.sagepub.com/content/37/1/47(just the first one of many in the search results) And, on the effects of drugs: http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/abstract/S1550-4131%2808%2900182-4?cc=y(again, just the first of thousands of results) And then there are entire fields of nutrition, pharmaceuticals, neurochemistry, metabolomics, genetics, toxicology and others which cover exactly the topics you describe.

He never married. Literally and, I suspect, in the euphemistic sense.

OK. I have given it a rating of zero. Happy?

That could make a you a thoughtful person. However, there is a difference between "not accepting" and "rejecting". There is a difference between "cannot understand" and "refuse to understand". Your rejection of the theory and the evidence because you refuse to understand it, simply makes you a fool. Only because you reject the answers. If you look at A and B, and every other suitably distant galaxy, you will find they are all moving apart from one another. The rate at which they are moving apart from one another is proportional to how far apart they are. This shows an even expansion of space between them. This fairly clearly means that, in the past, they were closer together (and, of course, that now they are further apart than we currently see them). You appear to reject this because you think it represents a static snaphsot of the way the universe is now. Yes it is. It is directly observed as the CMB. That is why that was the evidence that killed the steady state model(s) stone dead. Because the theory states no such thing. You are making up your own "theory" based on nothing but ignorance and misunderstanding and then complaining the evidence doesn't fit it. Brilliant.

I don't know what radioactive nuclei or the twin paradox have to do with it. It certainly seems that way. Clearly, you totally miss the point. Take a single muon. It does nothing; nothing changes. After some time has passed (despite nothing changing) it decays. So in what sense does time only exist when something changes. I hate that sort of smug comment. ("My opinion must be right because look how it angers the poor fools".)

I think you miss the point. A muon doesn't change faster or slower because, until the moment it decays, nothing changes. The amount of time it spends not changing (before it decays) varies depending on velocity. The usual response to this is to beg the question and insist that there must be some unseen mechanism causing change. But that is just inventing something non-existent to support an opinion.

The connection with GR is that is the theory that is used to describe the universe (the nature of space-time). It is, therefore, the theory that predicted the expansion of the universe (which was later confirmed by observation): The Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) metric is an exact solution of Einstein's field equations of general relativity; it describes a homogeneous, isotropic expanding or contracting universe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann%E2%80%93Lema%C3%AEtre%E2%80%93Robertson%E2%80%93Walker_metric I am curious why you ask this. I suppose you could define the kinetic energy and momentum in the same way you would for any other object. But I'm not sure it has any real meaning, because the apparent movement is purely due to the metric expansion of space.

This question has been at the heart of theological disputes and some of the biggest heretical movements throughout Christian history (Adoptionism, Apollinarism, Arianism, Docetism, Luciferians, Marcionism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, Patripassianism, Psilanthropism, Sabellianism, ... to name but a few). Which suggests there is no single answer. People have interpreted the texts as saying everything from Jesus was purely human, to human but with divine spirit, to divine with human nature, to fully divine and every variation and combination in between.

No. I don't think anyone has held that view for a very long time.

If I came across a contradiction in something that is almost universally accepted then I would assume I have misunderstood, rather than that I have spotted something trivial that all the greatest minds of the last hundred years have missed.

Only if you (deliberately?) misinterpret the evidence. "People must get smaller as they get further away. Just look, they LOOK smaller!"