Proof the Sun is not 93 Million miles away

https://www.livescience.com/cannibal-coronal-mass-ejection-inbound

Ever noticed how many people get sick when these big CMEs happen? I've been following them for a while and there's always a "flu" outbreak around the time. They say it takes days for the radiation to hit earth but we know that's not true since the sun is right fucking there. I believe the perceived delay in time it takes to reach earth helps hide the fact that it causes illness. #grandsolarminimum is going to cause a lot of this kind of solar activity

Hello from the inside... [/url]

The sun and moon are not at the distances claimed by modern science. If the sun and moon are at such far distances phenomenon such as solar/lunar eclipses, moon phases, planetary alignments and the zodiac would not have such a profound effect on human and animal consciousness.  

from https://sciencing.com- "Dogs seem to get into trouble and show up in the emergency room more often during a full moon than any other time in the lunar cycle. Some people report that a lunar eclipse makes their dogs go into barking fits. The science hasn't yet backed up whether dogs bark more at the peak of an eclipse.25 July 2018"

Sun and moon are local, yes. That is most likely so. However, I still lack a conclusive explanation for the phenomenon that clouds are illuminated orange on the underside at sunset. How can this happen? Possibly only near the ocean due to water reflection?

EDIT:
To answer my own question partly, I have found a video experiment for this phenomenon:


However, in the experiment some sort of vertical plastic lens is used, and I suspect that the effect shown only works because of this lens.
Unfortunately, it is not explained why this lens is used at all.
Is it to show the effect of the athmosphere?

This is still an unanswered question for me.

Here are photos from yesterday. My camera on the iPhone sucks but this shows clouds in front and behind and to the left and right of the sun all at the same time. The quality sucks but just play with the contrast and you will clear as day see clouds in every direction surrounding the sun. Also feel free to go into photo shop and test the levels to show these pictures are not photoshopped at all.

Hi gang!

Obviously the sun is not 93 million miles away, but I also believe that both it and the moon are much, much closer than the 3000 miles away as suggested by the AE model.

Many videos floating around showing clouds BEHIND the sun and moon, suggesting they lie somewhere between 2-18kms altitude.

Now how can a sun that local light up half the world?
Food for thought indeed....

Dan-cer wrote:Sun and moon are local, yes. That is most likely so. However, I still lack a conclusive explanation for the phenomenon that clouds are illuminated orange on the underside at sunset. How can this happen? Possibly only near the ocean due to water reflection?

EDIT:
To answer my own question partly, I have found a video experiment for this phenomenon:


However, in the experiment some sort of vertical plastic lens is used, and I suspect that the effect shown only works because of this lens.
Unfortunately, it is not explained why this lens is used at all.
Is it to show the effect of the athmosphere?

This is still an unanswered question for me.

It is not an "AE Model" claim, the 19th century Flat Earthers had differing opinions and methods of calculating the Sun's distance, but all of them were between 300 and 3000 miles away. Your estimate of 2-18km is silly as airplanes regularly fly over 10km high and none of them are crashing into the Sun or Moon. It is an optical illusion when it seems like the Sun is the same altitude as the clouds. In those videos we are just seeing the Moon/Sunlight through the clouds whiting them out so as to appear as if they are passing behind.

My estimate is not silly, it's insane.

I'm aware of the explanation of an optical illusion, and I could perhaps understand it in relation to the sun, but the moon is 400,000 times less bright than the sun.
The same explanation doesn't make sense to me. We can observe the effect of the clouds behind the moon with the naked eye.

Banjo has a good video on his channel demonstrating this.
We see the moon being enveloped by clouds, yet when the camera switches focus to the moon's face, the clouds are nowhere to be seen (about 30sec in).
They are clearly behind. Unless I am missing something?

You are right in that the sun and moon being within the clouds makes no sense, as airplanes for instance could crash into them.
But maybe there is an explanation far outside the box?

Perhaps the sun and moon remain equidistant to the observer at all times, wherever they are, hence why a plane or anything else could never crash into them?
A virtual reality of sorts??


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdojiTkJi_4&t=54s

I've often pointed people to Eric's videos talking about Crepuscular rays being a good proof for a local sun.

A few times, I've had people point to photos of sunlight behaving the same way in a dense forest. I am attaching a picture as an example.

The person I was debating was saying that applying my logic about Crepuscular rays, this photo would suggest the sun is directly above the forest.

Does anyone have an understanding of the difference? Perhaps Crepuscular rays are not a good proof for a local sun?

any input is appreciated

This question also concerns me. As nice as it would be if we could determine the approximate distance from the angle of sunbeams passing through clouds - your picture (sunlight in the forest) also gives me doubts.

Thanks for your reply Dan-cer. Yeah I think it just points to the fact that we need to understand more about how light travels/disperses. The sun is clearly more local than the mainstream tells us, but the "crepuscular rays through clouds" argument than many flat earthers use.... needs to be questioned and not used if it is not a good example

Using my Nikon Coolpix P1000 & a NiSi 16.5Stop ND 100000 Solar filter taking two pictures of the sun. One at 7am(left), the other at 1:30pm(right). The only noticeable different i could see was about a 5% reduction in the overall size. One could argue that its simply due to interactions with the light passing through more of the atmosphere in the AM. One would think the sun, as it is orbiting around overhead moving closer and further away to us due to perspective. It should get significantly bigger and smaller. It wasn't my observation. Opinions?

The 3000mi up sun isn't making a whole lot of since. If it were local, due to perspective it should get a lot bigger and smaller.
Both pictures were taken at 1400mm Focal length.

carter15 wrote:
The person I was debating was saying that applying my logic about Crepuscular rays, this photo would suggest the sun is directly above the forest.

How do you mean directly above the forest? The sun rays are not horizontal like they would be at the equator. So "directly above" is not correct. The sun is still far away, just not millions of kms. To triangulate the sun you would need to do something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SkKg8AsL3I

And the crepuscular ray argument is more about how much bigger the sun is and why the light from the sun hitting the much smaller earth would look like your picture above. How the sun's light could ever create a hot spot on earth if reality was like this picture below.

Bouwen wrote:

carter15 wrote:
The person I was debating was saying that applying my logic about Crepuscular rays, this photo would suggest the sun is directly above the forest.

How do you mean directly above the forest? The sun rays are not horizontal like they would be at the equator. So "directly above" is not correct.

I will try to explain it a bit more clearly. When I debate globe defenders they look at a common Flat Earth argument showing crepuscular rays where the sun appears to be almost directly above the clouds (see my image on the right) suggesting that the sun is local and physically located just above the clouds.

Globe defenders will then reply using an example like my picture in the forest where the sun rays converge at the top of the trees. We can ALL agree that the sun is much further up than this. So even though the rays appear to converge at the top of the trees in the forest example, the sun is much further.

So the common flat earth proof of using crepuscular rays converging above the clouds is not a great argument when you compare these 2 examples side by side

I think I will agree with you on crepuscular rays not being the most convincing/best single argument for a local sun. It is more a thought experiment and visualization. If you took a massive sun far away interacting with a distant earth, how would that look like in your mind. Using your own logic and common sense on how light behaves on a round earth. How would a local sun interact with a much closer flat earth and how would that look like? I believe we observe the latter.

Video's at high altitude looking at the sun show this even more clearly. It really looks like something local emitting light instead of something much farther away emitting light. Creating a hot spot under the sun, where it looks like the sun is located, even though the sun should be millions of kms away in space according to their views.

Video's showcasing the sun/moon between the clouds do look like an optical illusion to me with denser and thinner layers of clouds. Even though it looks like it to me too, it doesn't make sense. The sun couldn't be that low. Now is the sun/moon something altogether with the image being created based on the observers point of view? I don't know, but don't think so. I also think the moon is made up of something else than the sun, or maybe used to be the same but is now in a different state/form. The sun could be like a focal point like how you would use a magnifying glass to create a hot spot. This would make more sense to me than the heliocentric explanation.

With the globe model there are too many coincidences they try to write of as nature just being complex and too many irregularities with no or bad explanations and no actual scientific data. Not only with cosmology but with other topics like evolution too. They really are trying their absolute best to actively shape minds towards Atheism even though they obviously worship themselves. A flat earth, or at the very least them lying about their model, fits that bill perfectly. If I were trying to convince someone in a debate I would start with something else and not with crepuscular rays.

For me crepuscular rays was just a little puzzle piece and would have probably never solely convinced me otherwise. About the occurrence of crepuscular rays it really depends on when they occur. In the forest it mostly occurs in the morning with dew in the air or at noon with dust in the air. They could be there one day but the next they could not, it depends. The trees are blocking the view so the sun seems very close is just perspective. Remove the trees and rays from that picture and would you still say the sun is directly above? In the other picture it looks like it's sunset (sun moving away) and really far zoomed in and cropped. This makes it hard to compare the two and draw conclusions based on just the images. They have totally different settings, different camera's with different zooms taken at different locations on earth at different times during the day.

How would a sun 695,508 Km in radius, let’s not even begin to question how they came up with that precise of a measurement of something that’s allegedly 92,955,807 miles away, another ridiculous number and suspiciously precise. Although they’ve changed their BS numbers several times. How would a sun of that size and distance produce crepuscular rays on an earth so much smaller?

The rays from the local sun produce the same effects as a street lamp under the right conditions. As above so below, the macro and the micro. Crepuscular rays most definitely prove the sun is much smaller and local and measurements of the angles have been used to estimate a size and distance. If you’re getting your definition of crepuscular rays from Google and Wikipedia I can see the confusion and doubt you may have. Not implying you are but that’s a major issue. They have a monopoly on everything mainstream and trusted. Control the information and control the minds and worldview, it’s really that simple. We need to keep it simple and not over complicate things. The truth is simple, testable and observable. Lies are complicated and impossible to observe or verify. They’re pathological liars and psychopathic control freaks and their battle to keep the lies believed by the ignorant, naive and gullible masses is a never ending battle but in the process mistakes are made and cracks in their BS are being exposed. It’s like a good interrogator, they will see the lies and put the puzzle together.

All these complicated ideas and complaints about maps is a little annoying. Stick to the basics and keep it simple. The truth is OBVIOUS which is why it’s so frustrating seeing how many still haven’t figured it out.