Strange

I am using the evidence from your own sources. Those sources show you are wrong, but rather than admit it you accuse me of trolling. Sad.

Also a good point. But I think it is even more complicated than that. There is the large scale structure of webs and filaments, which is also gravitationally bound...

Your own sources state that albinism is a rare disorder in white people. Therefore your claim that all white people are albinos is trivially falsified. Posting irrelevant pictures of puppies and cherry picking quotations won't change that

So you accept the bits from your source that support your beliefs and reject the bits that you disagree with? That sort of cherry picking is not just unscientific, it is dishonest.

Stop doing that. It is idiotic. Please provide some peer reviewed evidence that supports your claims.

That completely contradicts your claims. 1. "Overall, an estimated 1 in 20,000 people worldwide are born with oculocutaneous albinism" Last time I looked 1/20,000 is a lot less than 4% 2. "People with OCA2 ... cannot tan" All the white people I know can tan.

Good point!

Lava lamp?

Consider a number of galaxies separated by the same distance (far enough apart that the expansion of space is significant and the same between all of them). At time 0, they are 1 unit apart: A.B.C.D.E.F After some time they are 2 units apart: A..B..C..D..E..F After the same time again, they are 3 units apart: A...B...C...D...E...F And so on: A....B....C....D....E....F Now, if we look at the distance between B and C, for example, it increases by 1 at every time step. But the distance between B and D increases by 2 at every step. So the distance between B and D is increasing twice as fast as the distance between B and C; i.e. the speed of separation is twice as great. Choose any pairs of galaxies and you will see that apparent the speed of separation is proportional to the distance between them. Take two objects far enough apart and the speed of separation will be greater than the sped of light. (But that is OK, because the speed of light limit is a local thing, whereas these objects are in different frames of reference.)

Which one? (Edit: which reply, not which schoolboy )

Obviously. Because science. However, what is taught is, generally, the current best theories; i.e. that which is best support by evidence. Nonsense. The reason that physicist use mathematics is because that is the only way to build quantitatively testable models (which is what science does). And even if mathematics is a human invention (something that philosophers have been arguing about for thousands of years), so what? So is science. So they seem like a good match. Skipping over the rather obvious fact that science is not about finding The Truth (that is the job of religion, I think) this is just nonsense.

The other answer is: because it was designed to be. In other words, it was derived from observation and so matches what we observe.

But they are not made of the same thing as atoms in the periodic table. They can't be because if they were then they would not be "dark". No. They cannot be part of dark matter because: 1. They interact electromagnetically (i.e. they are not "dark") 2. They are not stable (i.e. they do not exist) That is just nonsense.

If your dictionary defines "calculate" as waffle incomprehensibly, then yes.

Every element (known or unknown, below 118 or above, stable or unstable, naturally occurring or not) interacts electromagnetically and therefore can be a candidate for dark matter. Also, there is no evidence that atoms above 118 are stable. There are hypothetical "islands of stability" but those are just atoms that may be relatively more stable than others. They would still be very unstable.

I suggest you look up the word ORBIT in a dictionary. Note that expansion can't really be described as a speed. It is a scaling effect so the speed at which two points separate depends on how far apart they are. There are always points which are far enough apart that their speed of separation is greater than the speed of light.

Yes, it is curved by the presence of mass (or energy) and that curvature can be (and is) described as intrinsic curvature. My understanding is that curvature is curvature. You can choose to describe it extrinsically by embedding the surface in a higher dimension, or intrinsically where you don't need any higher dimensions.

Because they, and all the other galaxies, are in complex orbits around one another. Right now Andromeda might be getting further from Triangulum but almost certainly, at some time in the past, they were getting closer (until they passed one another).

Only to people of little intelligence.

It is not because of the nature of the space or time dimensions. It is always possible to describe curvature as intrinsic, i.e. not requiring a higher dimension.

Galaxies in clusters are gravitationally bound to one another and so not affected by the overall expansion of the universe.

It would be (slightly1) more accurate to think of the raisins as clusters of galaxies. Within each cluster, the galaxies are orbiting one another and occasionally collide. 1. I think it is a terrible analogy to start with.

As AI finds it hilarious, presumably he is the sort of person involved.

But he has posted pictures of dogs and kittens. How can anyone refute that.

Hilarious? Barely a wry smile, I would say.