That's right, I could explain it way better with a picture, but that isn't possible, right?

I understand what you're saying about the isosceles triangle, but there are a few problems. The most important of which is that the angle that you're measuring has to be with respect to the surface of the Earth on both models. On the flat model, the norm of the surface is always in one direction. In the globe model, the norm changes depending on where you are

I also wish I could use some pictures to explain, but I'm very new to discord, so I have no idea about any of that 😦

In this case it's not Discord, I think we have to debate more to get the option to send pictures.

That's alright. We both understand that the earth is a sphere, so I trust us both to understand how triangles work

Definetely

i know we can make a triangle on a globe earth, it's how we first calculated the distance to the sun, but a near sun on a flat earth will not produce the same angles as a distant sun on a globe earth

since they are different triangles

That's for sure, but that has more to do with the position of the sun than the shape of the earth.

ok but one of the postulates of most FE is that the sun is very close

Yeah, I forgot about that

also, if the sun is very far away, why can we see it but we can only see a limited distance on a flat disc?

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