Genady

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.

Consider the underlined sentence:

Two: From one warlord to another: Kadyrov pays tribute to dead Wagner chief – POLITICO

My response was focused on the two claims, which I think are incorrect, and I've said so. One claim was, "Every professional think they're noble". To refute this claim I've mentioned two friends of mine, RP and VA, both professionals in different fields, and both not thinking that their professions are noble. The other claim was, "you can't teach other's something, if you don't fully undersatand the topic". To refute this claim I've mentioned two teachers of mine, RA and RM, who taught us a lot, while being fully aware of limits of their knowledge and understanding.

Yes, mitochondrial DNA comes only from mother.

Actually, a child receives more DNA from the mother than from the father.

Thank you for the clarification. Finally, a clear statement. What a relief! But what does it have to do with the relativistic formula for addition of velocities, which is the topic of discussion now?

Can you find a better reference than ? In my life, nobody ever said that and nobody ever found that.

Oh, yes, regarding the fourth person, As I said, they were Him being a famous person was not important for my examples. To avoid this confusion, I strike him off the examples and replace with Ramin Machmudzade. To summarize: You have claimed, and I gave you two counterexamples for each of these two claims: for the first claim, Robert Phelan, Vlad Asinov, for the second, Rosalie Arshak, Ramin Machmudzade. The counterexamples refute the claims.

Here is this notion: It can be an absolute unit of length in a homogeneous non-Euclidean space, but our physical space is non-homogeneous on smaller scales and might be Euclidean on larger scales, AFAIK.

Ignoring the references to "non-simultaneity", which I don't understand, my answer is: In the frame S, xA=0, tA=0, xB=10^6 km, tB=1 s. If the frame S' moves with velocity 100000 km/s relative to S, then in S', xA'=0, tA'=0, xB'=954594 km, tB'=-.118 s.

I'd rather classify those as illusions.

If I understand what you say, you are talking about two events, let's call them, event A and event B. In the frame S, the coordinates of the events are respectively: xA=0, tA=0 and xB=10^6 km, tB=1 s. I still have no idea what the question, "What is velocity of non-simultaneity?" means.