Another sun thread :)

A few things to do with the sun, temperature, radiation etc that i would like the FEs to answer

If the sun is indeed the size you claim it to be, then how has it kept buring so long. Unless you are going to deny the sun being around 4.57 billion years old too.

Explain how radiation levels are less concentrated the further you get from the equator. The current theory for this is due to the angle the light/radiation enters the earths atmosphere more of it is reflected by hygroscopic nuclei and the surface area the radiation covers is greater.

Also explain how a flat earth could support the tricellular model, the "southern hemasphere's" polar cell could not work as the earth just stops here.. if possible i would like somone to show me a diagram of what the flat earth atmosphere looks like.

A few things to do with the sun, temperature, radiation etc that i would like the FEs to answer

If the sun is indeed the size you claim it to be, then how has it kept buring so long. Unless you are going to deny the sun being around 4.57 billion years old too.

...are you 4.57 billion years old? Did you see the sun when it first came into being? Are you really that stupid to have blind faith in what science tells you? You can't prove the sun's 4.57 billion years old so I suggest you shut your trap.

Explain how radiation levels are less concentrated the further you get from the equator. The current theory for this is due to the angle the light/radiation enters the earths atmosphere more of it is reflected by hygroscopic nuclei and the surface area the radiation covers is greater.

The model demonstrated in the FAQ would have the same results. The angle the light/radiation enters the atmosphere is greater at the poles.

Also explain how a flat earth could support the tricellular model, the "southern hemasphere's" polar cell could not work as the earth just stops here.. if possible i would like somone to show me a diagram of what the flat earth atmosphere looks like.

How about you first demonstrate that the tricelluar model is correct.

...are you 4.57 billion years old? Did you see the sun when it first came into being? Are you really that stupid to have blind faith in what science tells you? You can't prove the sun's 4.57 billion years old so I suggest you shut your trap.

The sun being the source of life obviously not, but please tell me how something as small as the FE sun can burn for so long with enough heat to warm a whole planet over 900x the diameter of it. I'm sure we can agree that Earth has been around a fair while.

The model demonstrated in the FAQ would have the same results. The angle the light/radiation enters the atmosphere is greater at the poles.

The angle wouldn't be significant enough to have the effect it does with the sun only 4000 miles away.
 

How about you first demonstrate that the tricelluar model is correct.

Deserts in the tropics
Rain forests
The polar front

All fairly decent examples of effects the tricellular model. If you don't accept the model as fact please explain the above 3 examples.

The sun being the source of life obviously not, but please tell me how something as small as the FE sun can burn for so long with enough heat to warm a whole planet over 900x the diameter of it. I'm sure we can agree that Earth has been around a fair while.

The earth has been around for a fair while. The sun's heat comes from a renewable energy source. Remember, you have to ditch conspiracy science to make a point against the flat earth. It's no good saying it's impossible without being able to demonstrate it.

The angle wouldn't be significant enough to have the effect it does with the sun only 4000 miles away.

Just saying it wouldn't be a significant enough angle without demonstrating it is ridiculous and doesn't prove anything. It obviously is significant enough as evidenced by the fact that we do have night and day.

Seeing as your an expert what exactly is the angle the sun needs to hit the earth at before it is reflected instead of refracted? Also, how can you demonstrate this?
 

Quote

How about you first demonstrate that the tricelluar model is correct.

Deserts in the tropics
Rain forests
The polar front

All fairly decent examples of effects the tricellular model. If you don't accept the model as fact please explain the above 3 examples.

Now think about the model provided in the FAQ and tell me what you'd expect...

Deserts in the tropics, rain forests, the polar front... sound familiar?