So once again
If we know what the sun is made of how does it not burn the atmosphere if it's inside it? Size wouldn't be an issue if you've ever seen nuclear fusion before.

there's lesssss "atmosphere" in/at HIGHER >> Altitudess
. 🍼 🤤

Still enough heat to burn the lower altitudes
The sun is still *inside* the dome

Because we don't know the size of the sun or the distance of the sun, all those things are important to whether or not it would burn us.

I'm not talking about burning the surface

That's another matter entirely

And since clearly it doesn't, we can at least conclude that the sun is a rather small object

The sun has existed as long as earth has, don't you think something that incredibly bright and hot would have done some amount of damage if it were inside of an atmosphere?
With oxygen, nitrogen, helium, and other flammable gases?

Lightning strikes are literally plasma from electrical buildup alone and they can be devastating to their surroundings, while the return stroke is hotter than the sun they only stick around for a fraction of a fraction of a second, the sun's been around for much longer.

Clearly it didn't, which must mean that the sun isn't as "powerful" and huge as we're told. Furthermore, we can't know for sure how old the sun is, so your first sentence is an assumption

If the sun hasn't existed as long as the earth

How did it get there

I don't know, nobody *can* know because we can't directly observe it. Anyone who claims to know is making baseless assumptions that cannot be tested

So my first sentence is an assumption but so is literally any other statement about the flat earth sun

Or at least it's origin or age

Most of them are, yes. A lot of flat earthers are scientifically illiterate and try to come up with weird explanations themselves. Truth of the matter is, nobody can know for certain. The reason why I'm a flat earther is that the evidence for a spherical earth is very wobbly and based on assumptions at best. In that regard I simply apply occam's razor to the question and pick the most simple answer; namely facts what we *can* observe without the needs for assumptions, such as the earth remaining flat at high altitudes and laser experiments showing that there's no curvature whatsoever

I'd like to see those laser experiments tbh

Also thank you for giving actual answers to my legitimate questions
Even the mods here can't do that.

https://fecore.org/final-results-fecore-measurements-disprove-the-wgs84-model-by-proving-flat-lake-surface/

These guys made a series of laser experiments on different lakes to compensate for any differences in altitude, as well as accounting for refraction and whatnot

Did they compensate somehow for the small size?

More or less, IIRC they used a more exact approximation for the supposed earth's curvature rather than the Taylor Approximation used by civil engineering, so even at small distances *especially* they should get results well within the margin of error for approximations

25 miles is what they measured apparently?
That's not nearly enough, the round earth is massive and 25 miles is absolutely nothing compared to the whole.

http://prntscr.com/nc70uh

Grr X (

i gave u friggn responses. You must not've liked 'em

I'm not wrong

You gave no evidence to back your statements

And not a single number

Yes, but with precise laser experiments you ought to find a curvature *for* those 25 miles. It would be a small one, but a curvature nonetheless.

The curvature would likely be too small to measure with such a short distance

It would be more probmatic to actually measure over longer distances since the margin of error would increase to a point where you can't be sure about your measurements anymore

Technically it would be possible given enough time and money but no one cares enough about what the earth is shaped like to spend millions on a project like that.

With the equipment used in the above test raising the distance would definitely throw in unknown variables but it's that or not enough distance.
Either way the experiment is flawed

Also keep in mind, at 25 miles we would expect about 400 feet of curvature when using the Taylor approximation, and for 25 feet the approximation itself is perfectly fine

Taylor approximation?

Mhm

Hold on

http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Eight+Inches+per+Miles+squared+Formula+Derivation

Here, this website adequately explains how the formula is derived using Taylor approximation

Earth ain't flat