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

Being flat and being level are not at all the same thing.

You know what i mean. No need to skew the words

Do you think im saying earth is flat like a vertical wall?

Oh well. Guess you cant understand simple concepts

In that case we are done.

Have a nice day.

So, if we agree that being flat and being level are not the same thing, then we can agree that concluding the earth is flat because water levels itself is a non sequitur.

I dont think you mean the earth is a vertical wall

Im saying that a spherical earth with gravity does not act the same as a bucket of water because the direction of the force varies from place to place. Each vector points to the center if the earth but some point upwards, sideways, and diagonally from a view of the whole earth

Gravity is a theory

Einstein debunked newton

The entire thought of gravity has never been proven