No eternal expansion?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I asked an AI and according to it Kolmogorov didn't say what you said. He only said that some infinite patterns are more easily described than some finite patterns, which is obviously true and irrelevant.

So help me out here, what did he say?

So what is simpler? The multiverse blows bubbles, or a universe two-strokes?

Actually we were talking about symmetry of one universe, not sure what two-strokes means here. We weren't talking about multiverse. And we really weren't talking about a multiverse blowing bubbles.

Whos's we?

[Atla]

So what is simpler? The multiverse blows bubbles, or a universe two-strokes?

Actually we were talking about symmetry of one universe, not sure what two-strokes means here. We weren't talking about multiverse. And we really weren't talking about a multiverse blowing bubbles.

Whos's we?

You and me. When you look into a mirror, you see a person, that's you. And the other one is me, I go by the nick Atla.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Actually we were talking about symmetry of one universe, not sure what two-strokes means here. We weren't talking about multiverse. And we really weren't talking about a multiverse blowing bubbles.

Whos's we?

You and me. When you look into a mirror, you see a person, that's you. And the other one is me, I go by the nick Atla.

I wasn't talking about the symmetry, the two-strokes, the old in-out, of the universe until you were. Martin me.

[Atla]

Whos's we?

You and me. When you look into a mirror, you see a person, that's you. And the other one is me, I go by the nick Atla.

I wasn't talking about the symmetry, the two-strokes, the old in-out, of the universe until you were. Martin me.

Do you even know what topic you're commenting on? Are you drunk?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

You and me. When you look into a mirror, you see a person, that's you. And the other one is me, I go by the nick Atla.

I wasn't talking about the symmetry, the two-strokes, the old in-out, of the universe until you were. Martin me.

Do you even know what topic you're commenting on? Are you drunk?

Tuesday.

[Atla]

I always thought the CMB was too suspect, probably mostly just the light of galaxies. Well according to this new one, that might be the case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xb69yPNgX-Q

Always nice that they keep confirming that my predictions could be correct. Wait till they start to wonder if black holes are entropy sinks after all.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I always thought the CMB was too suspect, probably mostly just the light of galaxies. Well according to this new one, that might be the case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xb69yPNgX-Q

Always nice that they keep confirming that my predictions could be correct. Wait till they start to wonder if black holes are entropy sinks after all.

Very good 'new one'.

What did you predict? Or was it just aesthetic bias?

[Atla]

I always thought the CMB was too suspect, probably mostly just the light of galaxies. Well according to this new one, that might be the case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xb69yPNgX-Q

Always nice that they keep confirming that my predictions could be correct. Wait till they start to wonder if black holes are entropy sinks after all.

Very good 'new one'.

What did you predict? Or was it just aesthetic bias?

I never understood how they are so sure that the CMB isn't mostly just radiation from galaxies.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I always thought the CMB was too suspect, probably mostly just the light of galaxies. Well according to this new one, that might be the case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xb69yPNgX-Q

Always nice that they keep confirming that my predictions could be correct. Wait till they start to wonder if black holes are entropy sinks after all.

Very good 'new one'.

What did you predict? Or was it just aesthetic bias?

I never understood how they are so sure that the CMB isn't mostly just radiation from galaxies.

Fair enough. Almost. But the discovery of early, rapid, giant galaxies has only just been made. What, in the data of of '64 and up until now, made you unsure?

[Atla]

Very good 'new one'.

What did you predict? Or was it just aesthetic bias?

I never understood how they are so sure that the CMB isn't mostly just radiation from galaxies.

Fair enough. Almost. But the discovery of early, rapid, giant galaxies has only just been made. What, in the data of of '64 and up until now, made you unsure?

But those galaxies are seen as early in the first place because people assumed that the CMB isn't mostly the light of galaxies, but the light of recombination. And yet we have way more evidence for galaxies than the recombination.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I never understood how they are so sure that the CMB isn't mostly just radiation from galaxies.

Fair enough. Almost. But the discovery of early, rapid, giant galaxies has only just been made. What, in the data of of '64 and up until now, made you unsure?

But those galaxies are seen as early in the first place because people assumed that the CMB isn't mostly the light of galaxies, but the light of recombination. And yet we have way more evidence for galaxies than the recombination.

That seems to go even further away from my question. Even questioning that these massive rapid galaxies are early. What evidence was there in '64 till now that CMB could be explained without the BB?

[Atla]

Fair enough. Almost. But the discovery of early, rapid, giant galaxies has only just been made. What, in the data of of '64 and up until now, made you unsure?

But those galaxies are seen as early in the first place because people assumed that the CMB isn't mostly the light of galaxies, but the light of recombination. And yet we have way more evidence for galaxies than the recombination.

That seems to go even further away from my question. Even questioning that these massive rapid galaxies are early. What evidence was there in '64 till now that CMB could be explained without the BB?

Where did I say that there was no BB? And do you even understand what evidence is?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

But those galaxies are seen as early in the first place because people assumed that the CMB isn't mostly the light of galaxies, but the light of recombination. And yet we have way more evidence for galaxies than the recombination.

That seems to go even further away from my question. Even questioning that these massive rapid galaxies are early. What evidence was there in '64 till now that CMB could be explained without the BB?

Where did I say that there was no BB? And do you even understand what evidence is?

Give me some that was used in '64. Do you understand that? Can you comply with that basic evidentiary requirement? Don't answer with any more questions. Don't claim and troll. @amihart would be able to answer, stoop to conquer. Reach up.

[Atla]

That seems to go even further away from my question. Even questioning that these massive rapid galaxies are early. What evidence was there in '64 till now that CMB could be explained without the BB?

Where did I say that there was no BB? And do you even understand what evidence is?

Give me some that was used in '64. Do you understand that? Can you comply with that basic evidentiary requirement? Don't answer with any more questions. Don't claim and troll. @amihart would be able to answer, stoop to conquer. Reach up.

Used for WHAT? You on drugs?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Where did I say that there was no BB? And do you even understand what evidence is?

Give me some that was used in '64. Do you understand that? Can you comply with that basic evidentiary requirement? Don't answer with any more questions. Don't claim and troll. @amihart would be able to answer, stoop to conquer. Reach up.

Used for WHAT? You on drugs?

Goodbye Troll.