JohnAdams1145,
How civil of you to resort to name-calling / ad hominem attacks on a poor, little girl. You should be ashamed of yourself. Because while I and other flat earth theorists are here trying to answer questions scientifically and to contribute to the scientific endeavor of advancing flat earth theory, you're being a hindrance to our scientific ambitions and a bully. You are therefore an enemy of science and progress.
I think I have answered quite nicely here, regardless of your attempt to resort to using strawman fallacies by suggesting that I proposed the Sun performs its own electrolysis. The facts still remain: the earth used to have more atmospheric hydrogen, the earth contains over 70% of h2o, and h2o is a byproduct of oxygen-hydrogen combustion. Thus, it is logical to conclude that earth's h2o is the product of hydrogen-oxygen combustion, and this fits in nicely with a flat earth. The earth is also the only planet with large bodies of water, which gives further credence to the idea that the earth contains the Sun within earth's atmosphere. Now, isn't that a better conclusion than "comets deposited water onto the earth"? You know, on a side note, it makes no sense how comets can even still exist if the solar system is billions of years old. They would be gone by now due to the second law of thermodynamics. But round earthers make up an excuse like the oort cloud (that has never been proven) and then they accuse us of speculating and making things up to fit into our worldview? The nerve!
Pickel -- You clearly didn't even read about thermolysis.
Of course I have. What about it?
I'm not communicating effectively because I'm trying to explain rather complicated scientific concepts to one who obviously has no knowledge whatsoever in even basic physics and chemistry.
Or because you don't use the right words...
There is no such thing as water in the Sun; no molecules can exist at such high temperatures.
I never proposed that water is in the Sun. Pay attention, please. Or is this another strawman attempt of yours? I suggested that h2o is formed by the Sun and that the hydrogen and oxygen are quickly replaced with New oxygen and hydrogen that are drawn in by the Sun to be used as fuel.
If you posit that something else is transferring energy to the Sun by chemical means, it would require a massive amount of matter to move into the Sun, and we'd see it get more massive
May I ask what are you basing that on?
(you can't extract water from the Sun because it is chemically separated long ago -- the equilibrium would be on the side of the reactants even at the surface temperature of the Sun).
That's assuming that the Sun is really as hot as is claimed by round earthers. Also, what do you mean "you can't extract"? Are you suggesting that I have proposed that h2o is in the Sun but remains h2o and thus is able to be extracted by humans? Because I never suggested that.