Why would the Sun, if it was 93 million miles from Earth, and millions of degrees on its surface, get colder and colder when closer to it within air? It wouldn't. It isn't 93 million miles away, or millions of degrees on it's surface. If it were, we'd burn to a crisp when closer to it, not freeze to death.
Do you mean why does it get colder when you get higher up?
If so, the distance is basically irrelevant.
If it is 93 million archaic units away, why should a few thousand archaic units (a different archaic unit) make any significant difference at all?
It wouldn't.
So clearly something else is going to be playing a role.
And the simpler answer for that is to pay attention to the topography of Earth.
You have the ground or ocean, which absorbs that light and warms up.
When you are close to that, you are nice and warm.
But as you ascend a mountain, you are no longer so nice and close and warm.
This shows that God created the Sun, for those ON the Earth, created for life on Earth, not above it. That's why it is colder, when closer to it.
Pure garbage.
There is no logical connection there at all.
It's colder because there's less and less AIR when higher above Earth, of course, but why would there be ANY air above Earth, if 'gravity' is 'pulling it all down' to Earth's surface? It should pull ALL of the air down to the surface, not just SOME of it, that makes no sense at all either.
It only appears to not make sense because you are so desperate to pretend it doesn't.
We know gravity (or some pathetic substitute) is playing a role due to the pressure gradient.
This pressure gradient shows there must be something acting trying to force the air down. If there wasn't, then the pressure gradient would push the air up to remove the gradient.
And this pressure gradient is just a representation of the balance between gravity pulling the air down, and the pressurised air below pushing it up.
So the air doesn't just sit on the surface, because the pressurised air is pushing it up.
Not only that, but if 'gravity' WAS pulling down the air, from above, we'd have just as much air on top of Mt. Everest as we do on the ground below, so again, it makes no sense at all.
Why?
Why should the air stack up above Everest, rather than flow down the side?
The key thing to consider here is the pressure of the air just above Mt Everest, and a location to the side, at the same altitude.
If your fantasy was true and Mt Everest had the same amount of air above as a spot near sea level to the side, then that would make the air pressure at the top of Mt Everest much higher than the locations directly beside it at the same altitude.
This will cause the air to push sideways to remove that pressure gradient as there is nothing to act against that sideways gradient.
That will mean the air above Mt Everest will fall until the pressure equalises.
Your made up force has to 'pull down' air, to Earth's surface, at equal levels, because you claim it HOLDS us down to Earth, PULLS US from above Earth, to ANY point on the surface, equally.
No, that is not our claim.
That is your strawman. Similar to other pathetic strawmen you make.
When they made up 'gravity', it was NEVER going to hold up to scrutiny
Except it does. You are yet to point out a single flaw.
Instead all you have been able to do is repeatedly lie about it to pretend there are problems.
If you wish to claim there is a problem, trying making a coherent argument which doesn't require you to ignore so much.
That means don't just baselessly assert that Mt Everest needs to have the same amount of air above it as a point on the ocean. Instead actually explain why. And that means starting from first principles about why there is air pressure at all.