I found this wild "alternate cosmology" theory the

>>18634244
Looks like in finity is a lie on

Well the sun does receive its first impulse from Saturn on Saturday and Saturn was the old Sun.

>>18634244

Me me! Liquid magma man!

>>18634258
How does an Earth-based time system relate to Saturn in any way?

>>18634254

{{{stand on the face~of the ancients}}}

>>18634267
Sorry im not sorry

>>18634270

I normally double the punishment if they apologize, so for that comment... I'll give you 50%!

How special!?

>>18634262
>Earth-based time system relate to Saturn in any way
It doesn't have to, why would it? The time system does not exist outside of us, every part is an integral part in creation and plays its part.

>>18634285
Ill take the punishmind

>>18634290

The mission is always Nala. Dear catfriend.

>>18634294
Caturday never ends eternal punishmind :(

sumones gotta do it

>>18634286
You're implying a connection between a Saturn-Sun relationship and our Saturday, I don't see how those two connect.

>alternative cosmology
>alternative

Alternative would imply some sort of at least basic comparison.

Electric Universe is just conspiracy theorist word salad with no actual basis in science.

>>18634325
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk4BbF7B29w

/x/ theme from now on

>>18634325
I mean, you're right, but that's the term I've seen used to describe it often. I can't really think of a better term. "Bullshit unintelligible faux-astronomy" doesn't work as well.

>>18634244
>In short, stars are powered by electricity, Saturn is (was) a brown dwarf, and Venus, Mars, and Earth were originally Saturn's planets before the Saturnian system joined with the Solar system. The effects of this prior celestial configuration and the chaotic shift to the current configuration are the root cause of all mythology. Also this happened, like, 6,000 years ago somehow.
10k, and this is not a conspiracy, it's a scientific theory. THey are looking into hypotheses, because the standard model requires you to make up huge amounts on non-existent dark matter and dark energy for the calculations to work.

Saturn death cult has little to do with the theory.

>>18634330

I'm just looking for my lost kitten friends, are any of these posters real?!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZJCCiLKmPM

So many intruders! Eh?!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGbptt8MXBo

>>18634404
E v e r y w h e r e

>>18634353
>it's a scientific theory

No it isn't

>>18634353
Scientific theories are based in evidence, and there is none for the electric universe.

>>18634244
>>>phys.org
>engineers know more about plasma physics than darwinist astrophysicists
>gravity does not exist
>dark matter and black holes don't either
>Hannes Alfvén is the only scientist ever that knew how to science correctly
>real science does not rely on mathematical models and formulas
>simulations are not useful

Wew lad!

>>18634452
well there are no evidence of black holes. the one time astrophysicists could have gotten it was a few years ago when a giant molecular cloud approached where Sagittarius A*, a supermassive black hole, is. Except when that cloud passed, nothing happened. The only explanation astrophysicists gave was that the black hole was not "hungry".

>>18634469
>black wholes

>>18634440
No, scientific theories are used to make predictions, which are used to formulate hypotheses, and if the prediction does not hold, the theory is wrong.

For example, the SUn produces about one third the neutrinos the standard model predicts. Now, should ẃe follow the standeard practice, we might ask if there is something wrong with the standard model. Instead, they just claimed that "neutrinos have mass", no proof of course.

EU makes oredictions which are consistent with observed evidence, without making up shit like dark matter.

>>18634479
>EU makes predictions which are consistent with observed evidence

No, it doesn't.

>>18634479
>the sun produces about on third the neutrinos the standard model predicts

You're woefully out of date. The solar neutrino problem was resolved, and they found the missing neutrinos. All perfectly as predicted by the standard solar model.

>>18634474
great re-butt-al m8

>>18634469
>there are no evidence of black holes

Mmm, no, there's quite a bit of evidence for black holes. In fact, black holes are the only possible explanation that fits the evidence. I have no idea where you're getting this molecular cloud nonsense. Did you make it up personally, or did you just buy it whole cloth from somebody who made it up?

File: tmp_3766-Screenshot_2017-01-26-23-09-161564312708.png (298KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 720x1280px

I find it funny that the same people that go on /x/ to
>Muh claim
>Where is evidence
Blindly believe in mainstream "science" and "peer review" even when the latter is completely influenced by money and the agenda of sponsors.

Most "scientists" are forced to comply with progress halting conduct for fear of funding cuts, muh reputation, or outright life threats because most of their legit research upsets the global economic balance, and people in power will do anything to keep said power.

Think free energy Technologie.

>>18634545
>Most "scientists" are forced to comply with progress halting conduct

No they're not.

>>18634550
>You're stupid.
>Nuh uh, you're stupid.
>No, you're stupid.

Grow up, for fuck's sake.

>>18634483
http://www.interactions.org/cms/?pid=2100&image_no=OT0003

Here is one. Neutrino image of the Sun. According ro EU models, the Sun would produce neutrinos in it's atmosphere and all over the surface. Which we see.

According to mainstream model, it produces them at solely at the centre and definetely bot in the atmosphere.. Which is inconsistent with the obeservatiosn.

>>18634558
Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

>>18634559
Where's the surface of the sun in that image? Where is the core? Neutrinos form wherever there is fusion, and while most of the fusion is within the core, there is some fusion outside of it.

How focused is this image? Where is their explanation for your claim? Because your link doesn't make the claim that you make.

>>18634575
>Where's the surface of the sun in that image? Where is the core? Neutrinos form wherever there is fusion, and while most of the fusion is within the core, there is some fusion outside of it.
Centered on the Sun's postion, the picture covers a significant fraction of the sky (90x90 degrees in R.A. and Dec.).

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap980605.html

How the fuck are you going to have nucklear reactions in the atmosphere?

Their explanation is something about the atmosphere and that the picture is inaccurate.

>>18634575
>Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Consider yourself dismissed.

>>18634499
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evxEOXkxRIA

For the love of ***********

>>18634550
>What is dark ages
>What is Nikola Tesla

Weak b8, m8

>>18634600
>https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap980605.html

Your link still doesn't support your claim.

>that the picture is inaccurate

I never said the picture is inaccurate, I'm saying your explanation is inaccurate.

>>18634617
Tesla wasn't a scientist. He was also a notorious liar.

>>18634617
Tesla is walking the earth as we speak.

Reals gonna change. Just op serve.

Gr33tings