What is the sun?

I have yet another question for the FEers here. What is the sun? According to your model, the sun is only 3000 miles away, but, gauging the size it must be if it were that distance away, it isn't a star. A star would have to be way more massive. There's no way fusion could start in a ball that small, and even then the fuel of an object that small would burn away in a couple of years max. So, what is it, then? Anyone can do some basic spectroscopy and see that the sun is primarily made up of helium and hydrogen, and if we examine it using special sun viewing lenses, we see that it is a burning ball covered in magnetic hotspots and arc-shaped disturbances we call coronal mass ejections. So, considering that it can't be a star, (Because said star is physically impossible and would melt the earth if it were burning at the temperature the sun is.) what in the (flat) world is it?

Would someone please answer this?

It's a well known fact that the Sun is a quark-gluon plasma. Well known to certain FE'ers anyway. Other answers range from "it's a reflection off the ice dome covering the Earth's surface" to "it's impossible to tell".

Wait, Quark-gluon plasma? Like the exotic matter that isn't stable for more than a few milliseconds, only forms at much higher energy levels than fusing hydrogen, and doesn't appear anywhere in the sun? 

Wait, Quark-gluon plasma? Like the exotic matter that isn't stable for more than a few milliseconds, only forms at much higher energy levels than fusing hydrogen, and doesn't appear anywhere in the sun? 

The very same:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=58009.msg1471118#msg1471118

it's just god's nightlite.
dur.

it's just god's nightlite.
dur.

Nah, his nightlight is obviously the Moon. The Sun is his light source for the rest of the day.

I saw somewhere that the sun was a reflection of the moon... somehow.

Blacksmith- the sun is not burning, if it was burning (chemical reaction) it would have exhausted all of its fuel within a few thousand years from when it formed. It is in fact glowing (nuclear fusion reaction).

Shmeggley, can you cite some sources to back up your supposed "well-known" claim? I'm an astronomer and have never heard of what you claim. What is well known is that the sun is 92,960,000 miles from earth. We know that the speed of light in a vacuum is 186,000 miles per second. And that light from the sun takes 8 min 17 sec to reach us. It is well known fact that we can get  accurate measurements of interstellar distances using trigonometric parallax. That is well-known science.

Blacksmith- the sun is not burning, if it was burning (chemical reaction) it would have exhausted all of its fuel within a few thousand years from when it formed. It is in fact glowing (nuclear fusion reaction).

Shmeggley, can you cite some sources to back up your supposed "well-known" claim? I'm an astronomer and have never heard of what you claim. What is well known is that the sun is 92,960,000 miles from earth. We know that the speed of light in a vacuum is 186,000 miles per second. And that light from the sun takes 8 min 17 sec to reach us. It is well known fact that we can get  accurate measurements of interstellar distances using trigonometric parallax. That is well-known science.

Shmeggley's just having a joke at the flat earther's expense.  He's paraphrasing an earlier posting by one of the flat earth's alleged gurus known as Parsifal, who said:

"The Sun is well known to be a quark-gluon plasma with an atmosphere of mostly hydrogen and helium, with trace amounts of other elements. It produces energy by the mutual annihilation of quarks and anti-quarks, which is then converted into visible radiation by absorption and re-emission within its atmosphere, producing the spectrum often misinterpreted as evidence of nuclear fusion".

Parsifal's nonsensical pseudo-science about the thus-far hypothetical "quark soup" is typical of the sort of stuff you'll encounter dozens of times every day here NEO.

You'll get used to it.  Sit back and enjoy the ride.  It'll lighten up an otherwise dreary workday.

The sun is a mass of incandescent gas.

Blacksmith- the sun is not burning, if it was burning (chemical reaction) it would have exhausted all of its fuel within a few thousand years from when it formed. It is in fact glowing (nuclear fusion reaction).

Shmeggley, can you cite some sources to back up your supposed "well-known" claim? I'm an astronomer and have never heard of what you claim. What is well known is that the sun is 92,960,000 miles from earth. We know that the speed of light in a vacuum is 186,000 miles per second. And that light from the sun takes 8 min 17 sec to reach us. It is well known fact that we can get  accurate measurements of interstellar distances using trigonometric parallax. That is well-known science.

Did you not read the link? What kind of astronomer doesn't do any research?

The sun is a mass of incandescent gas.

Yeah, and who knows why it is so angry?

I find it likely that the sun is mostly made up of phlogiston. 

I find it likely that the sun is mostly made up of phlogiston.

Why would you think that the sun is made up of something that your own source said was discredited over 200 years ago? 

The phlogiston theory was discredited by Antoine Lavoisier between 1770 and 1790.

Quote from: jroa on September 19, 2014, 09:46:33 AM

I find it likely that the sun is mostly made up of phlogiston.

Why would you think that the sun is made up of something that your own source said was discredited over 200 years ago? 

Quote from: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/456974/phlogiston

The phlogiston theory was discredited by Antoine Lavoisier between 1770 and 1790.

And, you just believe it every time the conspiracy tells you that something has been discredited? 

Quote from: markjo on September 19, 2014, 10:06:50 AM

Quote from: jroa on September 19, 2014, 09:46:33 AM

I find it likely that the sun is mostly made up of phlogiston.

Why would you think that the sun is made up of something that your own source said was discredited over 200 years ago? 

Quote from: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/456974/phlogiston

The phlogiston theory was discredited by Antoine Lavoisier between 1770 and 1790.

And, you just believe it every time the conspiracy tells you that something has been discredited? 

So why are you linking to conspiracy sources then?

Quote from: jroa on September 19, 2014, 10:13:10 AM

Quote from: markjo on September 19, 2014, 10:06:50 AM

Quote from: jroa on September 19, 2014, 09:46:33 AM

I find it likely that the sun is mostly made up of phlogiston.

Why would you think that the sun is made up of something that your own source said was discredited over 200 years ago? 

Quote from: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/456974/phlogiston

The phlogiston theory was discredited by Antoine Lavoisier between 1770 and 1790.

And, you just believe it every time the conspiracy tells you that something has been discredited? 

So why are you linking to conspiracy sources then?

The source explains what I am talking about. 

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on September 19, 2014, 11:08:38 AM

Quote from: jroa on September 19, 2014, 10:13:10 AM

Quote from: markjo on September 19, 2014, 10:06:50 AM

Quote from: jroa on September 19, 2014, 09:46:33 AM

I find it likely that the sun is mostly made up of phlogiston.

Why would you think that the sun is made up of something that your own source said was discredited over 200 years ago? 

Quote from: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/456974/phlogiston

The phlogiston theory was discredited by Antoine Lavoisier between 1770 and 1790.

And, you just believe it every time the conspiracy tells you that something has been discredited? 

So why are you linking to conspiracy sources then?

The source explains what I am talking about.

Yes, very clearly:

The phlogiston theory was discredited by Antoine Lavoisier between 1770 and 1790.

Quote from: jroa on September 19, 2014, 11:13:05 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on September 19, 2014, 11:08:38 AM

Quote from: jroa on September 19, 2014, 10:13:10 AM

Quote from: markjo on September 19, 2014, 10:06:50 AM

Quote from: jroa on September 19, 2014, 09:46:33 AM

I find it likely that the sun is mostly made up of phlogiston.

Why would you think that the sun is made up of something that your own source said was discredited over 200 years ago? 

Quote from: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/456974/phlogiston

The phlogiston theory was discredited by Antoine Lavoisier between 1770 and 1790.

And, you just believe it every time the conspiracy tells you that something has been discredited? 

So why are you linking to conspiracy sources then?

The source explains what I am talking about.

Yes, very clearly:

Quote

The phlogiston theory was discredited by Antoine Lavoisier between 1770 and 1790.

It also explains what phlogiston theory is.  Just because the Satanists at NASA try to make the theory seem unlikely, that does not disprove the theory. 

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on September 19, 2014, 11:16:50 AM

Quote from: jroa on September 19, 2014, 11:13:05 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on September 19, 2014, 11:08:38 AM

Quote from: jroa on September 19, 2014, 10:13:10 AM

Quote from: markjo on September 19, 2014, 10:06:50 AM

Quote from: jroa on September 19, 2014, 09:46:33 AM

I find it likely that the sun is mostly made up of phlogiston.

Why would you think that the sun is made up of something that your own source said was discredited over 200 years ago? 

Quote from: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/456974/phlogiston

The phlogiston theory was discredited by Antoine Lavoisier between 1770 and 1790.

And, you just believe it every time the conspiracy tells you that something has been discredited? 

So why are you linking to conspiracy sources then?

The source explains what I am talking about.

Yes, very clearly:

Quote

The phlogiston theory was discredited by Antoine Lavoisier between 1770 and 1790.

It also explains what phlogiston theory is.  Just because the Satanists at NASA try to make the theory seem unlikely, that does not disprove the theory.

Are you saying that Antoine Lavoisier worked for NASA in the late 18th century? 

It also explains what phlogiston theory is.  Just because the Satanists at NASA try to make the theory seem unlikely, that does not disprove the theory.
 

The notion of "phlogiston" was never posited as a "theory" jroa.  It was merely one man's hypothesis, and one which was subsequently discredited when it was put to peer review.  And that's precisely how science works, and why it's so precise.  Your flat earth hypothesis has NEVER been subjected to peer review, nor has it ever been reproduced in any accredited scientific papers.  It's based on nothing more than a 16-page pamphlet written by a non-scientist 150 years ago, and has not once been revised to accord with 21st-century scientific knowledge.

—And while we're at it, could you give us some viable evidence that leads you to believe that there are "satanists" working at NASA, plus exactly what your personal definition of a "satanist" is?