/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11238450
Correct - it's also impossible to prove the distance and size of it as well (currently).

But nothing about it indicates it is as far away and as big as we're told. Crepuscular rays, for example, are evidence of a local, small sun. The response to crepuscular rays is that they're being created by the clouds, but this is a fucking retarded explanation because the rays converge perfectly towards the sun, rather than being rays going in all different directions as they're bouncing off random parts of clouds.

It's also retarded to assume the sun and moon are completely different sizes and distances from each other, but in such a way that they appear the same size in the sky to us. It's much more logical to assume that they are a very similar distance and size away, and that's assuming they're even physical things.

They clearly have a symbiotic relationship with each other, it's amazing how we've been convinced that there's nothing more to the sun and moon other than sharing similar orbits. They're just random balls of gases and rock floating up for there for no specific reason, yet seem to have a huge influence on life down here.

Nah, fuck you. Modern cosmology is done for, it's fucking retarded, and it's time we started working shit out instead.

>>10161915
The atmosphere does get less and less dense. In terms of a "force", the best guess would be electromagnetic in nature. Photographing a solar eclipse using infrared captures this rather well. Or are we looking at curved space-time instead?

>>10138602
They are electromagnetic, not gravitational.

>>10020020
>Or, if you think that we are just stationary in space, how do we have seasons?
Due to the sun's movement where it makes tighter circles around the "north" pole during the summer and much wider circles around the "rim" in the winter. This is what creates the sun's analemma.
>How do we have years?
Because we base "years" on the sun's movement.

>Why is "the sun" (in your eyes, a small planet) so large in our sky compared to other celestial bodies, even larger than the moon, which is even closer than your small planet would be?
Pic related, I don't believe the sun is a "planet", but does it really look that much different in size?

What's causing the atmosphere to do this in pic related? It's a solar eclipse taken with an infrared camera.

>>9918222
>A misunderstanding/ simplification of motion. It's more like a vortexual motion because the sun orbits something else and so on.
Helios is a Greek sun God, there are many of them. The sun orbiting something else is a new idea due to the big bang bullshit requiring everything to be in motion.

The sun is still the most important to worshippers because it swallows up the stars and planets during the day and spits them back out at night. We are orbiting it as well as everything in the solar system (allegedly).

>The sun is nothing other than a transformer, a converter that pull (energy) from "another dimension" (counterspace). It is not visible in free space, it is only visible when free matter becomes involved (something to reflect off of). It burns nothing, the fusion only occurs in flares, not the actual boundary of the sun.
It doesn't burn anything, it is electromagnetic plasma drawing energy from the "aether" if you want to call it that, and produces electromagnetic radiation. A solar eclipse in infrared like pic related, shows its electromagnetic nature as well as its locality to us.

>If the sun were to instantly vanish, we in turn would instantaneously vanish with it. There would be no "vibrations" to churn the core of our earth and keep the already coherent matter coherent and moving. No motion= no matter. We would evaporate and whirl into the next pressure mediation that would accept us (a sun or "black hole")
It couldn't vanish by itself anyway as it is not separate.