exchemist

Hmm, interesting. I had come to suspect as much but it's nice to see it confirmed. Sometimes I will respond to a post I am a bit suspicious of, on the basis of giving the benefit of the doubt and, in the process, trying to gain evidence one way or the other. Quite often, the reaction, or lack of it, does indeed lead me to a more decisive view on the nature of the poster. It's a bit of a dilemma, though. One shouldn't react to obvious spam but there is a bit of a grey area when this type of "sleeper bot" behaviour may be occurring. (In the present case I was hoping for an amused or indignant reply, averring that the poster is real and not a bot.)

Well obviously there can't be, or cosmic expansion would have been blown up as be a failed model, long since. So it's a question of what you don't understand, rather than a contradiction in the model. But it looks as if you are in dialogue with the right people, so I'll get back to being an interested spectator.

Please note I was careful NOT to say there are no viable alternative models. I said it seems there are currently no serious alternatives. But if wavelength alters and frequency does not, then surely the speed must change. Do you want to develop a model in which c has changed over time, or something? I'm just a chemist, not a GR specialist. I've never worked with tensors. @Mordred seems to be one, however. If you are bothered that space and time are treated differently from the viewpoint of expansion you will have to listen to him.

I did wonder. The fact that the text is highlighted with a blue background indicates it has been copy-pasted from somewhere. And the poster's one previous post is similarly a little lecture that nobody had really asked for. But one can jump at shadows these days.

That's funny, you sound just like a bot. 😁

You don't say what quantitative measurement of a molecule you have in mind, so that can't be answered. One molecule is not visible to the naked eye. Incidentally, regardless of how good your eyes are, light cannot resolve objects smaller than the wavelength of the light, because it will just diffract round them instead of being reflected. The wavelength of visible light is in the range 380-750nm, whereas a single water molecule is about 0.2nm across. Taking one tsp to be 5ml, 1/8 tsp contains approx 2 x 10²² molecules. In words that is twenty thousand billion billion. There is no reason why there should not be single molecules of water floating around in all sorts of places, but we would find it very hard to detect individual molecules as they are so small. So evidence of water, which is what you ask about, generally relies on an aggregation of molecules of some kind.

Just on this small point, the relationship between speed, c, frequency, ν, and wavelength, λ, is c = νλ. This is true of any wave (light, sound, water etc). So, given that for light c is constant, as observed by us (that being the basic premise from which relativity starts), once you have said its wavelength increases there is no need to say frequency decreases: the relationship is automatic. Everyone knows this, so that's why you don't see it mentioned. I'm not sure anyone would claim that it is the only interpretation. In science one never formally closes the door to other hypotheses. Surely the claim of science is that it is the leading interpretation, to the extent that there are currently no serious alternatives? I have read about the "tired light" hypothesis for example. This was tried by some people for a while but soon blew up, as it implied predictions that were not borne out by observation.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light So the reason @Genady is asking you to put forward an alternative is that there are no viable alternatives that anyone knows about, at least not at the moment.

What do you mean by help? I suppose we might be able to help you with items in your revision topics that you find difficult. Obviously nobody is going to help you cheat in the exam itself.

Google it and revert with questions if necessary. There’s no point us reinventing the wheel for you by reciting basic information that is widely available.

Word salad.

They don’t, though, do they? I thought the fusion fuel surrounded the fission fuel that sets it off.

From the responses it is clear that it is the ice that is in an approximately circular pattern, centred on the pole, which is hardly a surprise. The rock of the underlying continent is not. So nothing to do with rotation, just the amount of warmth from the sun, which obviously is at a minimum at the pole.

I don’t believe so. In the geological past, Antarctica or parts of it were at equatorial latitudes : https://discoveringantarctica.org.uk/oceans-atmosphere-landscape/ice-land-and-sea/tectonic-history-into-the-deep-freeze/

Thanks I’ve got it now, after some fat finger trouble with my ipad.

Like this? Aha, got it. Thanks.

How do you hide responses?

Yup, ditto. I recall these problems can be a bit counterintuitive, from trying to work the effect of the current in the Thames on a round trip in a sculling boat. One sculls by the bank against the stream, where it is less strong, and in the centre when going with the stream. (I think I came to the conclusion that the fastest time for a round trip is in still water, since you always lose more time going against the current than you gain when going with it.)

The uniquely bonkers feature of the paper, it seems to me, is the apparent equating of any form of hierarchy with “whiteness”.

Why don't you make a bit of an effort to inform yourself, then? There is masses of publicly available information on the evolution of flight.

Yes I was wondering about that, but decided it would be better not to lead the witness. 😉

What is a "progress metal"? Perhaps you are using a translator and it has not chosen a good term.

Yeah but I bet you are guilty of leading a discussion with a marker pen and whiteboard at some point in your life, you evil white supremacist. I know I have, on numerous occasions, mea culpa.

I was forgetting you were on an island. If you are - or soon will be - getting predominantly green electricity already, then there may be little environmental advantage. In fact there could be a net disadvantage, due to the manufacture and transport of the panels.

I should have the most obvious is lowering your carbon footprint so that you can look your children and grandchildren in the eye. The economics will obviously depend on the payback period, which no doubt you can work out. And if you a certain type of person it can be just interesting to see how well it works, how the output varies and so on. So a kind of engineering toy - but with the bonus of built-in virtue signalling.😁