if the sun is actually very distant, is there still a dome? does that dome cover everything including the sun?

if not, what else is beyond the dome?

I don't know to whom you're asking this questions?

and if there is no dome but a distant sun, then are there also other planets? are they also flat?

i'm telling you why a close sun is actually very important to FE

Ah, allright

So they think that a sun, larger than the earth (although not as large as the sun is, according to NASA) , is inside a type of atmosphere?

usually, the common answer is that the sun and moon are the same size, smaller than earth, and very close to earth (though not close enough to reach by plane)
the ones who believe in a dome often believe that the sun and moon are part of the dome itself or just very close to the dome.
and they believe that they are both self luminescent (the moon doesn't reflect the light from the sun)
and that the moon sends off cooling light

But the sun (for 90% sure) can't be smaller than the earth. It would just have been burnt-out.

They don't think it's a ball of gas. I don't think they have a consensus on what it is, exactly, just that it *isn't* what mainstream science says it is.

The sun on flat earth geometrically has to be around 35 km in diameter

And around 4,300 km away

In that case the sun can't have burnt for 6,000 or more years.

Again, they don't think the sun is a ball of gas, so whether it can sustain itself for 6,000 or more years doesn't really concern them.

The sun would never actually reach fusion at that size.

So they didn't come up with an alternative way of how the sun must produce light?

No, but they don't hide the fact that they don't know.

That's not very creative

haha, no, not really. A lot of what they choose to believe is based on direct evidence. And, since you can't visit the sun yourself, you can't really know for sure what it is.

Well, actually I was wrong with my 'sun must've burnt-out-theory' if the sun was only 35 kilometres. It appears to be the following: The larger a star is, the faster it burns up.

However, a sun (according to the best-known theory) probably can't be 35 km in diameter and still be a sun.

no, it would never be able to achieve fusion.

97 has an explanation on why it could sustain fusion or something

I have no idea if it’s bs or not but you should talk to them

I'd be interested to hear that. I'll ask him in the other server

Lol thats an interesting piece of data.

so .. just measure that curve u trolls beLIEve in so much ,, and prove it ur self , //

..
u want ppl to spoon feed u info when u still cling to mainstream bs -- mockery , , -they-are mocking u , the public

Y o-u a-RE ilLe-gibL-e

Speak English

Reminds me of how Mike writes... Mike, is that you?

Mike is vacationing in the ICLOUD of the internet

i'm not a flat earther and looking for a civil debate with one

anyone up

?

Yes, but a glober too

I'm a bit bored by the fact that no flat earther joins the debate.

What is there to debate @P3TER_

@Citizen Z the shape of the earth?

Water is said to cover 71% of our known surface of earth. The natural physics of water is find and maintain level. Therefore the earth is atleast 71% flat just counting the oceans. Then we also have large lakes and other naturally flat surfaces such as salt flats and plains.

So like i said, the earth is flat, what is there to debate?

Assuming there is a force that acts in the same direction but a globe earth haa gravity acting as a vector with essentially constant magnitude in different directions depending on where masses are making it possible for water to fill space unnaturally