For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Whos's we?Atla wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 5:44 pmActually 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.Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 5:38 pmSo what is simpler? The multiverse blows bubbles, or a universe two-strokes?
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 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 6:51 pmWhos's we?Atla wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 5:44 pmActually 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.Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 5:38 pm
So what is simpler? The multiverse blows bubbles, or a universe two-strokes?
I wasn't talking about the symmetry, the two-strokes, the old in-out, of the universe until you were. Martin me.Atla wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 6:54 pmYou 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.
Do you even know what topic you're commenting on? Are you drunk?Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 7:01 pmI wasn't talking about the symmetry, the two-strokes, the old in-out, of the universe until you were. Martin me.
Tuesday.Atla wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 7:03 pmDo you even know what topic you're commenting on? Are you drunk?Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 7:01 pmI wasn't talking about the symmetry, the two-strokes, the old in-out, of the universe until you were. Martin me.
Very good 'new one'.Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jun 09, 2025 8:15 pm 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.
I never understood how they are so sure that the CMB isn't mostly just radiation from galaxies.Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 10:47 amVery good 'new one'.Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jun 09, 2025 8:15 pm 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.
What did you predict? Or was it just aesthetic bias?
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 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 10:52 amI never understood how they are so sure that the CMB isn't mostly just radiation from galaxies.Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 10:47 amVery good 'new one'.Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jun 09, 2025 8:15 pm 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.
What did you predict? Or was it just aesthetic bias?
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 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 11:00 amFair 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 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 10:52 amI never understood how they are so sure that the CMB isn't mostly just radiation from galaxies.Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 10:47 am
Very good 'new one'.
What did you predict? Or was it just aesthetic bias?
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 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 11:07 amBut 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 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 11:00 amFair 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?
Where did I say that there was no BB? And do you even understand what evidence is?Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 11:15 amThat 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 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 11:07 amBut 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 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 11:00 am
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?
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 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 11:21 amWhere did I say that there was no BB? And do you even understand what evidence is?Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 11:15 amThat 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?
Used for WHAT? You on drugs?Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 11:43 amGive 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 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 11:21 amWhere did I say that there was no BB? And do you even understand what evidence is?Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 11:15 am
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?
Goodbye Troll.Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 11:50 amUsed for WHAT? You on drugs?Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Jul 06, 2025 11:43 amGive 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.