Genady

I think it is rather a different aspect of the question. Agnosticism is about knowledge. Atheism is about attitude.

Yes, but as a matter of curiosity, here are three different atheisms, from Atheism - Wikipedia: There are more nuances described in the article. You seem to refer to the "narrow atheism". I'd call myself tentatively, a rational atheist or simply, a non-believer.

Maybe I am wrong, but agnosticism sounds to me like a model with two or several alternative hypotheses, while I prefer a model with one null hypothesis and one or more alternative hypotheses. This is why I'd like to have a different label.

Or to change them, right?

Then we are back to my previous question: assuming that atheism is a belief that no deities exist, what is the correct label for taking not existence of deities as a null hypothesis rather than a belief?

This truth is so simple that it is trivial and irrelevant. We don't know if neutrinos have mass. We don't know if there ever was life on Mars. Etc. End of story?

I disagree that every null hypothesis is a belief. I think it is a wordplay.

Yes, I do. So, the rest of the conclusions are wrong. Coordinates don't say anything about the length, area, and volume. Coordinates are arbitrary. Expansion of space is a solution of the field equation in these conditions.

The idea of a null hypothesis is that it is not to be proved. It rather holds until refuted.

How do you call it if it is not a belief but rather an assumption, a null hypothesis?

The OP is asking about but there are no equations.

Did you happen to evaluate his previous book, Visual Complex Analysis? Would like to know your opinion if you did.

Why we would need to store DNA, when we could just store the sequence?

On the one hand, On the other hand, Thank you all for presenting arguments from two different perspectives. I am not neutral anymore, at least for the next 65,000 years. Then, we can discuss it again. Why this number? The last catastrophic asteroid event has occurred 65 million years ago. Assuming we are in a random point between that and the next similar event, with 99.9% confidence we have at least 65,000 years until the next one. If it happens sooner, somebody will perhaps update the probabilities using Bayesian inference.

No, not everything is expanding. Only the space on scales of 100 Mpc and up is expanding. The redshift is caused by expanding of the light wavelength together with the expanding space on these scales.

This seems like humans becoming "nomadic aliens", which have been discussed a bit here: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/129082-are-uapsufos-finally-being-taken-seriously/?do=findComment&comment=1242201

I don't think so. But regardless, what does stop us from storing DNA up there now?

Yes, these arguments are very clear. The only argument on the other side that I know of is, that it will come to an end one way or another. My honest question then is, so what?

Do we? I am really neutral about this question and would like to hear arguments about it.

I don't know. However, I understand the OP question being about "heredity" in general. The appearance features described in the OP are only examples of what they could personally observe.

Another point to make clear is that while boys get the smaller Y from their fathers compared to the larger X for their mothers, girls get the equally sized X and X from both. OTOH, in girls only one X is active, just like in boys. So, on this account, girls have one X while boys have one X and one Y. The active X in girls is either the one that came from the father or the one that came from the mother, randomly.

The expansion is a feature of a homogenous and isotropic space. Black holes and stars don't fit in this picture.

To answer questions about length / area / volume one needs metric. Coordinates do not have the required information.

Metric does not expand. Metric defines distances between points. Points are labeled by coordinates. The distances between points expand.