What is the sun?

What material is it made of?
Why does it act like a flash light? Is there something at the "back" of the sound and around it preventing it to light the entire earth?
Or is it very weak and the light cannot get all the way?

Actually, son is not the real source of the light. We agree it as so, because it is acting like that.

In  my opinion, there is nothing as sun in fact. Sun is a type of "center of all lights". In other say, the intersection of all the lights in the sky forms the sun. this intersection zone is the middle of the zone called "day" and is fixed. the sun moves as the day moves.

Actually, son is not the real source of the light. We agree it as so, because it is acting like that.

In  my opinion, there is nothing as sun in fact. Sun is a type of "center of all lights". In other say, the intersection of all the lights in the sky forms the sun. this intersection zone is the middle of the zone called "day" and is fixed. the sun moves as the day moves.

I need you to expand a little more for me to understand.
So there are a lot of lights in the sky (what are they made of then?)
And they combined give the actual light to where it is day now (and look like a ball in the sky? or this is just a "side effect" ?)
And that "day" is moving (meaning the lights in the sky move? because the earth isn't)

Actually, son is not the real source of the light. We agree it as so, because it is acting like that.

No, you might think that, but we certainly don't agree.
All the evidence indicates the sun does light up Earth, and heat it up.

In other say, the intersection of all the lights in the sky forms the sun. this intersection zone is the middle of the zone called "day" and is fixed. the sun moves as the day moves.

If that was the case we would see the lights converge to make the sun, but we don't.

Quote from: wise on August 30, 2018, 01:10:30 PM

Actually, son is not the real source of the light. We agree it as so, because it is acting like that.

No, you might think that, but we certainly don't agree.
All the evidence indicates the sun does light up Earth, and heat it up.

Quote from: wise on August 30, 2018, 01:10:30 PM

In other say, the intersection of all the lights in the sky forms the sun. this intersection zone is the middle of the zone called "day" and is fixed. the sun moves as the day moves.

If that was the case we would see the lights converge to make the sun, but we don't.

I understand you are not a FE.
I would like the FE explaination, I already know (more or less) the "round earth" one.

I understand you are not a FE.
I would like the FE explaination, I already know (more or less) the "round earth" one.

If all you want is that you are better off asking in FE Q&A. This forum is for debates, and thus when "explanations" are provided others are free to challenge them.

Quote from: wise on August 30, 2018, 01:10:30 PM

Actually, son is not the real source of the light. We agree it as so, because it is acting like that.

In  my opinion, there is nothing as sun in fact. Sun is a type of "center of all lights". In other say, the intersection of all the lights in the sky forms the sun. this intersection zone is the middle of the zone called "day" and is fixed. the sun moves as the day moves.

I need you to expand a little more for me to understand.
So there are a lot of lights in the sky (what are they made of then?)
And they combined give the actual light to where it is day now (and look like a ball in the sky? or this is just a "side effect" ?)
And that "day" is moving (meaning the lights in the sky move? because the earth isn't)

Day follows night, and night follows day. The photosentesis is just a hoax. Day comes with light and oxygen. This a compleye system. Sun stays its center. There is also equal oxygen comes with day in big deserts have no trees.
I meant all day have light, while using lights in the sky term. When you open a hole in a mountain, whether the direction of hole throught the sun or not, even so light rebounds in. If the sun was the source of daylight, so it wouldn't rebound light by using tubes like this, haven't the direction through the sun.

You can think the sun as common intersection cluster of daylight.

It's the sun. Next question.

 

Day follows night, and night follows day.

Correct!

The photosentesis is just a hoax.

Incorrect. Photosentesis is very much real. Plants using it would die without it.
https://www.thoughtco.com/photosynthesis-basics-study-guide-608181

Day comes with light and oxygen.

This premise is correct. Plants use light as a fuel to produce sugars with oxygen as a waste product. Your conclusion further down the line is incorrect.

There is also equal oxygen comes with day in big deserts have no trees.

Not entirely correct. The amount of oxygen can vary by 15% at some latitudes. Reasons for this variation is seasons, temperature, human activity and vegatation. You can check the composition of any coordinates via the below link (warning: NASA!!!). Over time, oxygen is dispersed of course.
https://ccmc.gsfc.nasa.gov/modelweb/models/msis_vitmo.php

When you open a hole in a mountain, whether the direction of hole throught the sun or not, even so light rebounds in. If the sun was the source of daylight, so it wouldn't rebound light by using tubes like this, haven't the direction through the sun.

Incorrect. Ambient lighting is a thing you know. You described it right … the light rebounds in. That’s exactly what is happening. Every surface is reflective to some extent, otherwise we wouldn’t be able to see!

You can think the sun as common intersection cluster of daylight.

Incorrect. Grab a telescope with a solar filter and home in on the sun. What you’ll see is an actual object made of matter with distinguishable features like the sunspots. Here’s a tutorial (I took the first of a gazillion search results)

Quote from: mmab on August 30, 2018, 02:29:25 PM

I understand you are not a FE.
I would like the FE explaination, I already know (more or less) the "round earth" one.

If all you want is that you are better off asking in FE Q&A. This forum is for debates, and thus when "explanations" are provided others are free to challenge them.

Oh... I didn't realize that. I am sorry.
This is why everyone kept attacking me when asking questions

The sun is indeed the source of light that feeds the planet. But its distnace and size has been grossly misrepresented by mainstream science. Even their own rules prohibit what occurs with the sun being 95 million or so miles away.

The sun only actually makes sense if it 3500 miles or so away. Cos the photons and wavelength of light would get tired and evaporate if they were like 90 million miles away. The wavelengths of light due to particle/wave duality (look this term up if you dont believe me) means the wavelengths would expand in amplitude over 90 million miles away so even one wavelength would be so huge it would stretch out over the entire planet and hence be to diffuse in its energy to even detect anywhere. The particles wave function of light photons only has a probability factor of 90 plus % of being seen when about 3500 miles away. Any statistician would agree with this. Since the light waves get curved by disruption from the density of the air molecules. Things APPEAR curved at large and inter-continental distances giving the ILLUSION of a curved earth.

Cos the photons and wavelength of light would get tired and evaporate if they were like 90 million miles away.

"My photons just flew in from the Sun and their little arms are sooooo tired!"

"Remember to tip your waiter! I'll be here all week!"

I meant the photons would spread out and collapse into the aether of deep space. The warping of space time increases the likelihood of quantum fluctuations making the photons self annihilate with their anti-matter counterparts.

I meant the photons would spread out and collapse into the aether of deep space. The warping of space time increases the likelihood of quantum fluctuations making the photons self annihilate with their anti-matter counterparts.

And an inverse tachyon pulse fed through the deflector array will solve *anything*.

The antipartcle of a photon is a photon.

Quote from: Frank Christ on August 31, 2018, 10:43:12 AM

I meant the photons would spread out and collapse into the aether of deep space. The warping of space time increases the likelihood of quantum fluctuations making the photons self annihilate with their anti-matter counterparts.

And an inverse tachyon pulse fed through the deflector array will solve *anything*.

The antipartcle of a photon is a photon.

There is a quantum tunnelling inevitability factor that pushes self annihilation into the photon uncertainty to 99.9999999999999999 on the Globalist model. So 95 million miles away at best could attribute the energy of the planets identity to 0.0000000001% at the most of being the true source of energy . Euclidean models use statistics to prove this.

The sun is indeed the source of light that feeds the planet. But its distnace and size has been grossly misrepresented by mainstream science. Even their own rules prohibit what occurs with the sun being 95 million or so miles away.

The sun only actually makes sense if it 3500 miles or so away. Cos the photons and wavelength of light would get tired and evaporate if they were like 90 million miles away. The wavelengths of light due to particle/wave duality (look this term up if you dont believe me) means the wavelengths would expand in amplitude over 90 million miles away so even one wavelength would be so huge it would stretch out over the entire planet and hence be to diffuse in its energy to even detect anywhere. The particles wave function of light photons only has a probability factor of 90 plus % of being seen when about 3500 miles away. Any statistician would agree with this. Since the light waves get curved by disruption from the density of the air molecules. Things APPEAR curved at large and inter-continental distances giving the ILLUSION of a curved earth.

It is a sad someone has a name as "christ" and talk opposite of God's talkings.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

16 And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars.

As a result, God has created the light/and or daylight in the first day. But God has created the sun in fourth day.

As we see that, day and night and light have been created "before the sun". How sun can be a source of anything created before it?

Because it’s not true maybe?

The photosentesis is just a hoax. Day comes with light and oxygen.

Got any evidence to back that up? All the evidence indicates the oxygen comes from plants. This can be achieved with artificial lights or light from the sun. Meanwhile, other systems can be isolated from the atmosphere, but still exposed to the sun and not get oxygen.

There is also equal oxygen comes with day in big deserts have no trees.

Have you actually bothered testing that?
What you will likely find is that the concentration remains roughly the same as the gasses in the atmosphere mix.
Plants elsewhere produce enough oxygen to be carried over into deserts. Remember, the oxygen content of the atmosphere is roughly 21%. The CO2 content is much smaller, the amount it fluctuates from humans and plants is at a similar (or smaller) level to the CO2.

When you open a hole in a mountain, whether the direction of hole throught the sun or not, even so light rebounds in. If the sun was the source of daylight, so it wouldn't rebound light by using tubes like this, haven't the direction through the sun.

When you go from complete darkness (such as opening a hole in a mountain) light bounces in and even small amounts can appear fairly bright. But compared to the light of the day outside the mountain, it is quite dark.
You would also find if the sun does align such that the hole is facing the sun, it is much brighter inside, which indicates the sun is the source of the light.

Do you know a much simpler experiment? Go stand outside in the sun. Note where your shadow is, directly opposite the sun. If the sun wasn't the source of light, why does your shadow go opposite the sun? Why would you have a shadow at all?

As a result, God has created the light/and or daylight in the first day. But God has created the sun in fourth day.

Yes, and that is why people point out religion is nonsense.
Your imaginary fiend only created the sun on the 4th day, with 3 hole days going past without a source for the light.
If your religion contradicts reality, your religion is wrong, not reality.
All the evidence in the world indicates the sun is the source of the light for day. You have nothing to refute that other than the baseless of ancient, ignorant men.

But its distnace and size has been grossly misrepresented by mainstream science.

Not in the slightest.

Even their own rules prohibit what occurs with the sun being 95 million or so miles away.

Nope. We get just what you would expect, complete with eclisses and basically parallel rays of light from the sun, and penumbras and umbras as you would expect.

The sun only actually makes sense if it 3500 miles or so away.

Nope.
With the sun being only 3500 miles away it should change in size dramatically throughout the day and also have a massive change in intensity. That is not observed.

Cos the photons and wavelength of light would get tired and evaporate if they were like 90 million miles away. The wavelengths of light due to particle/wave duality means the wavelengths would expand in amplitude over 90 million miles away so even one wavelength would be so huge

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
Wavelength and amplitude are 2 fundamentally different things, and the wavelength of light does not change as it propagates. It doesn't magically get tired and evaporate. That would violate the law of conservation of energy.
Instead, all that happens is the light spreads out as it gets further away, as the sun is a spherically symmetric source (or close enough). That means the amplitude (and intensity) will decrease as you get further from the source. But all that would mean is the sun is very intense if you were to get close to it.

Any statistician would agree with this.

No, only someone who has no idea what you are talking about would agree.

Since the light waves get curved by disruption from the density of the air molecules.

, no light gets scattered by the air, and curves ever so slightly downwards due to changes in refractive index. That would make a round Earth look slightly flatter (or larger) and make a flat Earth appear to be an inverted Earth at best. It would be unable to make a flat Earth appear like a round Earth as we know it.

the photons self annihilate with their anti-matter counterparts.

The photon has no mass. It has no anti-matter counterpart. The closest thing to an antimatter counterpart would be itself.
Do you know what happens when a matter particle annihilates with its antimatter counterpart? It produces a photon (or several).

Your best bet would actually be saying the other process, where a photon spontaneously gives rise to a matter, anti-matter particle pair. But the energy of visible light isn't large enough to do that.

There is a quantum tunnelling inevitability factor that pushes self annihilation into the photon uncertainty to 99.9999999999999999 on the Globalist model.

Pure bovine excrement.
If you wish to assert such pure nonsense, and have anyone with an IQ greater than a rock take you seriously you will need to back up your claims.

Euclidean models use statistics to prove this.

You sure do seem to love throwing words together to try and look smart. The problem is there are plenty of people that actually understand what those words mean and will call you out on your BS and just make you look worse than if you remained silent.
Just what Euclidean models are you talking about? Do you mean Euclidean space, or something else?

Jackblack is a NASA troll and always says lie. He knows I never reply who has seperated my posts. So that I'll not reply, not take an adress him. I recommend you do not read his posts, only contains poison. His only aim is confuse you and deceive us all. God damn him. I hope he dies hard. He knows I'll not reply him, but even so writes longer replies with a great effort, and thinks succeed something.  Perhaps he feels himself good when replies me and saw a post from me adressing him. He can write full of a few pages for answering this just a paragraphe post. Pityful.

Jackblack is a NASA troll and always says lie. He knows I never reply who has seperated my posts. So that I'll not reply, not take an adress him. I recommend you do not read his posts, only contains poison. His only aim is confuse you and deceive us all. God damn him. I hope he dies hard. He knows I'll not reply him, but even so writes longer replies with a great effort, and thinks succeed something.  Perhaps he feels himself good when replies me and saw a post from me adressing him. He can write full of a few pages for answering this just a paragraphe post. Pityful.

No, I know that you don't reply to those that repeatedly refute your garbage.
I gave you a chance with me not splitting up your posts and you still refused.
You just make up whatever excuses you can to ignore people.

Do you really hope to convince anyone when all you do in response to those challenging your insane claims is just insulting them?
Grow up.

Quote from: wise on August 31, 2018, 10:31:16 PM

Jackblack is a NASA troll and always says lie. He knows I never reply who has seperated my posts. So that I'll not reply, not take an adress him. I recommend you do not read his posts, only contains poison. His only aim is confuse you and deceive us all. God damn him. I hope he dies hard. He knows I'll not reply him, but even so writes longer replies with a great effort, and thinks succeed something.  Perhaps he feels himself good when replies me and saw a post from me adressing him. He can write full of a few pages for answering this just a paragraphe post. Pityful.

No, I know that you don't reply to those that repeatedly refute your garbage.
I gave you a chance with me not splitting up your posts and you still refused.
You just make up whatever excuses you can to ignore people.

Do you really hope to convince anyone when all you do in response to those challenging your insane claims is just insulting them?
Grow up.

What is after 99, 100?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=77576.0

I'm writing in debate subforum. I am not generally writing here.

I'm writing here just inform people. Yes, this is debate, you haev the right to try debating me. But this is not my way. I stay this forum to inform people; not for debating with anyone.

But you and some NASA trolls are awating for a flat earth believer you can take them your dirty dump to fight. Because your patrons had ordered you to fight flat earthers and decrease their numbers. But as I numereous time said, you are decreasing only members of this forum, not the movement.

So that, your childish behaviour of try to getting adress me means nothing for me. Because I aware what you try to do, and like I numereous time doesn'T considered them, this is just one more.

But this is not my way. I stay this forum to inform people; not for debating with anyone.

Then you do not belong here.

If you only want to preach without having to defend your insane claims you should go elsewhere.

But you and some NASA trolls are awating for a flat earth believer you can take them your dirty dump to fight. Because your patrons had ordered you to fight flat earthers and decrease their numbers. But as I numereous time said, you are decreasing only members of this forum, not the movement.

Stop your silly stupid lies!
A claim like "Because your patrons had ordered you to fight flat earthers and decrease their numbers" is a total baseless lie.

Quote from: wise on August 31, 2018, 10:43:33 PM

But this is not my way. I stay this forum to inform people; not for debating with anyone.

Then you do not belong here.

If you only want to preach without having to defend your insane claims you should go elsewhere.

No, I'm in true place. I mean, I'm informing people when someone ask something and if I have a knowledge about it. I'm informing it with truths only. But you and your troll partner only aim to either confuse people or discussing with us. The second part is not my job. You may continue to however you want. But I do not have to join your nonsence discussings. If you would not not known me until now, so you will not know either after now too.

No, I'm in true place.

No you are not. If you are not interested in debate, you have no purpose here other than to spam the forum.
If you just want to preach or "inform" as you put it, keep it in the believers only or Q&A. It has no place here.
If you wish to continue posting, address the arguments against your claims.

If you aren't willing to do that, then you do not belong here as you are simply spamming.

If you can't defend your claims then it is clear you are the one spreading lies while we call you out for your lies.

Now either defend your claims or go away.
Explain why your magic sun completely fails to match reality.
Explain why shadows face away from the sun if the sun is not the source of light.
Explain why holes are illuminated so much more brightly if the sun shines directly in.
Explain why we should accept your religious nonsense over all the available evidence.

Quote from: wise on August 31, 2018, 11:36:29 PM

No, I'm in true place.

No you are not. If you are not interested in debate, you have no purpose here other than to spam the forum.

No, I am in true place. But you are unable to understand what I talked. I said that I am not not interested to debating, but I am answering the members who I want to do it. This is not a spam. Do not answer your questions is not a defining of the spam. But you are manipulating everything like how nss does.

I am not explaining anything to you and rabinoz because you are trolls and explainning to you something means nothing. I'm only answering people who I think is not a troll and a real person. You are just a waste of time, why do I do that?

Look, I'm the most wise person here if you agree or not. When I decide to do something, you can't change it. Whatever you do to convince, you can't do that. Even NASA decides to bombing the Istanbul, even so I don't change my mind. What can you do more than this? So, stop this nonsence in your mind forcing me to get you as an address. This is in vain.

But you are unable to understand what I talked.

No. I completely understand. You just want to preach but not have to defend your nonsense.
That is spamming as this forum is for debate, not preaching.
So defend your claims or go away.

You are just a waste of time, why do I do that?

The only reason you deem me and others like me to be a waste of time is because of how many times you have been refuted.
If you actually cared about the truth, you would find that I am not a waste of time.

Now defend your claims or go away:

Explain why your magic sun completely fails to match reality.
Explain why shadows face away from the sun if the sun is not the source of light.
Explain why holes are illuminated so much more brightly if the sun shines directly in.
Explain why we should accept your religious nonsense over all the available evidence

Stop stop. Waved his hooves. How much can you blame each other for what?
Ugly like that even. I do not understand why believers in FE are so aggressive. And we have the same thing, try to say which of them to try to prove that the earth is a plane ... You will hear this ... Although neither of them understands how to do it. Especially they are beset by lunar eclipses, which they can not explain - they say that this should be on flat ground - and the point. They "send" you far away. Do you know the hypothesis of a hollow earth? And there are those who believe in this and prove that this is true, only they say that the earth is a space ship ...
Ludi strange creatures - contradict themselves. And most importantly - the obvious facts.
 Although ... we do not know much. For example, why the sun's light has a dual structure - there is no this is not a well-known phenomenon, I mean another. The sun in its light carries two different types of radiation. One radiation gives energy, the other absorbs it. This is due to the density of time, which can be treated as the radiation of time. And this can be checked by each of you, by collecting the torsion weights. Such as used in the telescope MTM-500 in the Crimea. And sending them a bunch of sunlight.
So excuse me of a curious pony that I sometimes say incomprehensible things - but reliably established. And which there is no explanation in any of the models of both the ball's land and the land of the plane. In what world do we really live? Who can answer this question 100%?