Genady

I too value other species and hate to see that. But it does not answer the question.

Can you clarify your statements with an example? If you don't mind, please describe the Pythagoras theorem in your terminology.

Is the Earth overpopulated?

It also would have to be all the bacteria and archaea which live within the larger organisms, and which are necessary for these organisms' functioning.

You are right, 'null' is not strictly applicable here. I use it here rather in the sense of 'default setting.' (Re: )

You might be just an atheist in disguise, like the ones described here (from the same wiki article): 😄

Wanted to add a couple of examples to my previous comment and to demonstrate why this ^^^ is incorrect. One example is metric that measures number of colored pixels. In this metric, the second shape is larger than the first. Another metric is square of difference between the pixels in vertical and in horizontal directions. In this metric, the first shape is larger than the second.

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?