Rab, I had a minor of astrology in college...
Do you really mean "astrology"?
Astrology is the study of the movements and relative positions of celestial objects as a means for divining information about human affairs and terrestrial events.
In my opinion
astrology is purely superstitious rubbish.
Or do you mean "astronomy"?
Astronomy is a natural science that studies celestial objects and phenomena.
But I do know that the Heliocentric model and the Big bang contradict themselves on numerous levels.
I've never seen that, but in my opinion the
the Big bang is completely irrelevant to the basic
heliocentric solar system.
The
heliocentric solar system resulted from the work of Copernicus, Galileo, Tycho Brahe (though he believed in a geocentric globe) and finally Kepler. The theories of Newton gave a solid basis to it.
In any case the choice was between the earlier
geocentric solar system of Ptolemy, etc and the
heliocentric solar system.
The question of the earth's being flat never came into it.
So, no the "Heliocentric model and the Big bang" do not contradict, but that's quite irrelevant to the
flat earth vs Globe or to the
geocentric solar system vs
heliocentric solar system question.
I don't know everything their is to know about the heliocentric model or anything of the sort, but the science of the heliocentric model is not accurate...
No it is not inaccurate. Your understanding of the
heliocentric solar system might not be accurate but that's quite a different matter.
If you disagree you could start a thread to discuss your so-called inaccuracies.
But no scientist would ever claim that everything is known and I've read that if you want a Nobel Prize, just disprove
Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.
...just like the claim that the sun is 93 million miles away. Well it turns out they measured it based on the speed of light, but wouldn't you know that the speed of light is NOT A CONSTANT!
Sure in the most recent measurements "they measured it based on the speed of light" but all earlier measurements were based on parallax observations.
This post has a bit of the history on the estimations/measurements of the distance to the sun,
THE DISTANCES (moon/sun) « Message by rabinoz on April 18, 2018, 07:34:44 AM »Anf you might read this post again,
Transit of Venus on the Flat Earth Model « Reply #18 on: July 11, 2018, 10:24:31 AM ».
One purpose of Captain Cooks first voyage was for astronomers to make observations of the "transit of Venus" from Tahiti.
Those measurements were part of a set of astronomical observations leading to the measurement of the distance to the sun.
The result was within 4% of the current value.
It is very funny in my mind that the sun is 93 million miles away, but dust, gas clouds and other known objects that go through space never seem to get within the direction of the sun.
No, there's no problem. Space is very big and very empty. There are no dust clouds but there are solar flares.
Usually the content of the space around us is just the "solar wind":
At the orbit of the Earth, the solar wind has an average density of about 6 ions/cm3
Now, that I've had a little time to actually compose a actual problem here is my question. How is it that clouds, that weigh thousands of KG's can defy gravity and float. According to the mainstream scientist, the water particles are too small to actually be affected by gravity.
No, that is quite incorrect! Clouds do not defy gravity - see later.
Obviously you have no idea what "the mainstream scientist" understands.
Gravity is strong enough to hold in our atmosphere to our spinning ball PERFECTLY, yet it can't pull down a cloud? They do realize that our atmosphere and a cloud have a large amount of air particles in common. Something doesn't seem accurate here.
Well, it is quite accurate and quite well understood! But are you prepared for the explanation.
First the the clouds come from water evaporated from ground level - lakes, rivers, the oceans and damp ground.
Now water vapour is a lot less dense than so floats forming an updraft but finally reaches cooler air where the vapour condenses into the tiny droplets that form clouds.
The average droplet size in clouds is only from 10 to 15 microns (one micron is a millionth of a metre), though could range from 1 to 100 microns.
Such small droplets fall very slowly and are kept up by just a slight updraft.
This updraft is partly formed by the rising water vapour and partly from what are commonly called thermals.
So no-one claims that "the water particles are too small to actually be affected by gravity". They are affected by gravity, just as everything else is, but are lifted by an equal or greater force from the updrafts of water vapour and air.
THis is what doesn't make sense, Gravity is strong enough to hold planets that are traveling at MASSIVE speeds and have Massive velocities,
And these planets are travelling on huge almost circular paths and need exactly the gravitational force to keep them in orbit.
yet it can't bring a cloud down or prevent birds from flying. Sorry, but that's not science, you can't test observe, or predict this outcome based on science taught in schools or even at higher levels.
Clouds, we've dealt with and
birds flying is again a case that gravity applies exactly the same force to a bird as to anything of that mass.
But the bird's wings provide the lift needed to counteract that force, just as an aircraft's wing provide the needed lift to counteract the weight - only the birds do it better and more efficiently.
That's the science that you can test, observe, and predict the outcome as is done in the design of aircraft, etc.
I agree with the Saudi clergy man that was just bashed around the world for claiming the earth doesn't spin.
No experiment in the history of man has measured the movement of the earth and no airplane accounts for the spin of the earth. Yet this doesn't raise a flag in the minds of the scientific community?
That is completely incorrect. The rotation rate of the earth is really quite slow at 0.0007 rpm and not easy to measure.
These range from Foucault's gyroscope and pendulum, more modern marine gyro-compasses and gyro-theodilites to modern optical gyroscopes that measure the rotation rate very precisely.
I can't tell you what to believe. The best I can do it try to correct your false ideas ideas about the
heliocentric solar system.