Is the Heliocentric Model correct?

  • 41 Replies
  • 3336 Views
Re: Is the Heliocentric Model correct?
« Reply #30 on: March 28, 2023, 12:27:48 PM »
Quote
Your reasoning would only work if Earth rotated on the spot for 1 sidereal day, and then jumped forward in its orbit.
Instead, it is a smooth process, with it rotating as it orbits.
A similar jump can be seen in the model as well.
Quote
By merely starting our analysis 12 hours later, you flip which side gets the extra day and which gets the extra night.
This clearly can't work.
It should matter where your analysis starts, you should get the same result.
I asked the same question in the model.

How come noon "N" is lagged by 4 minutes in the sunshine after the completion of 360 degrees rotation of the earth while orbiting the sun when N has already completed its quota of 6 hours in the sunshine and 12 hours in the nighttime in the first three quarters? Shouldn’t it be 1 minute in the sunshine?

Below is the full detail.

Let ANBM be morning, noon, evening, and midnight respectively.

After the completion of one solar day (24 hours).
Each of the above points gets 12 hours a day and 12 hours a night time.


After the completion of one axial or 360 degrees rotation of the earth while orbiting the sun.
Each of the points is lagged by 4 minutes.


After the completion of 6 hours of a solar day
N becomes B – N stays in the sunshine for 6 hours
B becomes M – B stays in the nighttime for 6 hours
M becomes A – M stays in the nighttime for 6 hours and
A becomes N – A stays in the sunshine for 6 hours


After the completion of 90 degrees of rotation of the earth.
N is lagged by 1 minute in the sunshine to become B
B is lagged by 1 minute in the nighttime to become M
M is lagged by 1 minute in the nighttime to become A
A is lagged by 1 minute in the sunshine to become N


After the completion of half solar day (12 hours)
A becomes B and vice versa
A stays in the sunshine for 12 hours. B also stays in night time for 12 hours.

N becomes M and vice versa
N stays for 6 hours in the sunshine and 6 hours in the nighttime. B also stays for 6 hours in the nighttime and 6 hours in the daytime.


After the completion of 180 degrees of rotation of the earth.
N is lagged by 2 minutes in the nighttime to become M – N has already spent 6 hours of its quota in its first quarter in the sunshine so how come N is lagged by 2 minutes in the nighttime to become M. Shouldn’t it be 1 minute?

B is lagged by 2 minutes in the nighttime to become A - B has already spent 6 hours of its quota in its first quarter in the nighttime so how come B is lagged by 2 minutes in the nighttime? Shouldn’t it be 1 minute?

M is lagged by 2 minutes in the sunshine to become N -  M has already spent 6 hours of its quota in its first quarter in the nighttime so how come M is lagged by 2 minutes in the sunshine? Shouldn’t it be 1 minute?

A is lagged by 2 minutes in the sunshine to become B - A has already spent 6 hours of its quota in its first quarter in the sunshine so how come A is lagged by 2 minutes in the sunshine? Shouldn’t it be 1 minute?


After the completion of ¾ of the solar day (18 hours)
N becomes A, N stays in the sunshine for 6 hours and stays in the night for 12 hours
B becomes N, B stays in the nighttime for 12 hours and stays in the sunshine for 6 hours
M becomes B, M stays in the nighttime for 6 hours and stays in the sunshine for 12 hours
A becomes M, A stays in the sunshine for 12 hours and stays in the nighttime for 6 hours


After the completion of 240 degrees rotation of the earth.
N is lagged by 3 minutes in the nighttime to become A – Here N has already completed its quota of 6 hours in the sunshine and 6 hours of nighttime in its first two quarters so how come N is lagged by 3 minutes in the nighttime? Shouldn’t be it 1 minute?

B is lagged by 3 minutes in the sunshine to become N – Here B has already completed its quota of 6 hours in nighttime and 6 hours in the sunshine in its first two quarters so how B is lagged by 3 minutes in the sunshine. Shouldn’t be it 1 minute?

M is lagged by 3 minutes in the sunshine to become A – Here M has already completed its quota of 6 hours in nighttime and 6 hours in the sunshine in its first two quarters so how come M is lagged by 3 minutes in the sunshine? Shouldn’t it be 1 minute?

A is lagged by 3 minutes in the nighttime to become M – Here A has already completed its quota of 6 hours in the sunshine and 6 hours of nighttime in its first two quarters so how come A is lagged by 3 minutes in the nighttime? Shouldn’t it be 1 minute?


After the completion of one solar day = 24 hours,
N becomes N – N stays 12 hours in the sunshine and 12 hours in the nighttime
B becomes B – B stays 12 hours in the sunshine and 12 hours in the nighttime
M becomes M – M stays 12 hours in the sunshine and 12 hours in the nighttime
A becomes A – A stays 12 hours in the sunshine and 12 hours in the nighttime


After the completion of 360 degrees rotation of the earth.

N is lagged by 4 minutes in the sunshine to become N – Here N has already completed its quota of 6 hours in the sunshine and 12 hours in the nighttime in the first three quarters so how come N is lagged by 4 minutes in the sunshine? Shouldn’t be it 1 minute?

B is lagged by 4 minutes in the sunshine to become B – Here B has already completed its quota of 12 hours in nighttime and 6 hours of its quota in the sunshine in the first three quarters so how come B is lagged by 4 minutes in the sunshine? Shouldn’t be it 1 minute?

M is lagged by 4 minutes in the nighttime to become M – Here M has already completed its quota of 6 hours in nighttime and 12 hours in the sunshine in the first three quarters so how come M is lagged by 4 minutes in the nighttime? Shouldn’t it be 1 minute?

A is lagged by 4 minutes in the nighttime to become A – Here A has already completed its quota of 12 hours in the sunshine and 6 hours in the nighttime in the first three quarters so how come A is lagged by 4 minutes in the nighttime? Shouldn’t it be 1 minute?

*

JackBlack

  • 22529
Re: Is the Heliocentric Model correct?
« Reply #31 on: March 28, 2023, 01:41:25 PM »
Quote
Your reasoning would only work if Earth rotated on the spot for 1 sidereal day, and then jumped forward in its orbit.
Instead, it is a smooth process, with it rotating as it orbits.
A similar jump can be seen in the model as well.
Do you mean in the model you are trying to present or the actual model?
Because in the actual model it can't.
There is no sudden jump.

How come noon "N" is lagged by 4 minutes in the sunshine after the completion of 360 degrees rotation of the earth while orbiting the sun when N has already completed its quota of 6 hours in the sunshine and 12 hours in the nighttime in the first three quarters? Shouldn’t it be 1 minute in the sunshine?
I wouldn't say it has completed its quota of 6 hours in sunshine. It has spent more than that, but the important part is that it is not the full 12 hours.
No, it shouldn't be 1 minute. Why do you think it should be?
It would be 1 minute if you were doing a 90 degree rotation from when day started.
But instead you are doing a 360 degree rotation from it starting at noon.

Below is the full detail.
Which leaves out the times, and just results in confusion.
Especially with you placing the solar day before the sidereal day.

After a 90 degree rotation, N has spent 359 minutes in the sun, and still isn't out. Due to the orbit, you have to wait another minute to reach B.
So after 6 hours (1 minute more than a 90 degree rotation), it has reached point B.

After a 180 degree rotation FROM THE START it has spent 6 hours in the sun and only 358 minutes in night.
1 minute of this was used to reach point B while still in the day.
You need to wait an addition 2 minutes to reach point M.
This also makes sense as considering it from point B.
You have a 90 degree rotation and 1 minute to reach point B, and then an additional 90 degree rotation and 1 minute to reach point M, so that is a total of 180 degrees and 2 minutes.
A 180 degree rotation from point N is NOT the same as a 90 degree rotation from point B. You have used an extra minute to reach point B, and that minute is taken away from the rotation from point B towards point M. So after a 180 degree rotation and 1 minute you have reached the point that is a 90 degree rotation from point B. You then need to take an extra minute (or a total of 180 degrees and 2 minutes) to reach point M.

Then the same applies to reach point A, where it is 3 minutes from a 270 degree rotation from N, with 1 minute to reach B 1 minute to reach M and 1 minute to reach A.
Or it is just a 1 minute delay from a 90 degree rotation from M.

And finally to reach point N again, it is an extra 4 minutes from a 360 degree rotation, or 1 minute from a 90 degree rotation from A.
These 4 minutes can be summarised as 1 extra minute in day to reach point B, 1 extra minute in night to reach point M, 1 extra minute in night to reach point A and 1 extra minute in day to reach point M.
And the first 3 of these minutes puts it in the same location as a 90 degree rotation from A.

We can also see how much it has spent in day and night.
It spent 359 minutes, i.e. the first 90 degree rotation in the day. It then had to spend another minute to reach point B, bringing a subtotal to an initial 360 minutes in the sun.
It then rotates for another 90 degrees for 359 minutes in night and needs to spend another minute to reach point M, bringing the time in night to 360 minutes and the total time to 720.
It then rotates for another 90 degrees for 359 minutes in night and needs to spend another minute to reach point A, bringing the time in night to 720 minutes and the total time to 1080.

After a 360 degree rotation, it has been 1436 minutes. 720 of these have been at night, leaving 716 minutes in the day. It needs to wait another 4 minutes to reach M which will be entirely in the day. That brings the total daytime to 720 hours.

The 1 minute extra only applies if you have the initial time be a 90 degree rotation from the previous point.
If you increase the angle, you increase the time.
For 180 degrees it is 2 minutes, 1 minute for the first 90 degree rotation, and then another for the second.

Or, the timeline, in order:
   time      Position   
   0      Starts at N   
   359      90 degree rotation from N   
   360      Reaches point B   
   718      180 degree rotation from N   
   719      90 degree rotation from B   
   720      Reaches point M   
   1077      270 degree rotation from N   
   1078      180 degree rotation from B   
   1079      90 degree rotation from M   
   1080      Reaches point A   
   1436      360 degree rotation from N   
   1437      270 degree rotation from B   
   1438      180 degree rotation from M   
   1439      90 degree rotation from A   
   1440      Reaches point N   

And this timeline really makes it clear where the issue is.
If you just want to look at the last 90 degree rotation and extra minute, you have that 90 degree rotation from A bringing you to t=1439 minutes, where you need 1 more minute.
But if you do a 360 degree rotation from N, then all the time is taken away from the last section.

You are trying to treat a 360 degree rotation as ending up at time t=1439 minutes, but it is only 1436 minutes.

We can also consider what should happen if your suggestion was true.
If it requires a 90 degree rotation and 1 extra minute to reach point B, but then it is only a 360 degree rotation and 1 minute to reach point N again, then you can break it down into:
A 90 degree rotation + 1 minute to reach point B.
A 90 degree rotatoin to reach point M.
A 90 degree rotation to reach point A
A 90 degree rotation to reach point N.
You have Earth being slow for the first 90 degree rotation + 1 minute, and then faster for the rest.

If instead we have it take the same each time that means:
A 90 degree rotation + 1 minute to reach point B.
A 90 degree rotation + 1 minute to reach point M.
A 90 degree rotation + 1 minute to reach point A.
A 90 degree rotation + 1 minute to reach point N.
This gives a total of a 360 degree rotation and 4 minutes to reach point N.

You can also consider an analogous problem.
Consider a car driving along a track at 60 km/hr.
The track is 244 km long.
After 1 hour, the car has reached 60 km. It needs to spend another minute to reach the quarter mark.
After 2 hours, the car has reached 120 km. It needs to spend another 2 minutes to reach the half way point.
But if we consider it 1 hour after it reached the quarter mark, that 2 hours and 1 minute from the start so it only needs 1 extra minute.
After 3 hours, it needs 3 more minutes.
And after 4 hours, it needs 4 more minutes.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2023, 01:46:39 PM by JackBlack »

Re: Is the Heliocentric Model correct?
« Reply #32 on: March 29, 2023, 09:12:48 AM »
Quote
A 90 degree rotation + 1 minute to reach point B.
A 90 degree rotation + 1 minute to reach point M.
A 90 degree rotation + 1 minute to reach point A.
A 90 degree rotation + 1 minute to reach point N.
This gives a total of a 360 degree rotation and 4 minutes to reach point N.
I know 4 more minutes are needed in daylight for noon to occur again after 360 degrees rotation of the earth but my question is about the total staying of “N” in the preceding 4 more minutes which should be 2 minutes in daylight (equally in the first and fourth quarter of a solar day) and 2 minutes in nightlight (equally in the second and third quarter of a solar day), not all the said 4 more minutes in daylight.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2023, 09:28:23 AM by E E K »

*

JackBlack

  • 22529
Re: Is the Heliocentric Model correct?
« Reply #33 on: March 29, 2023, 02:00:23 PM »
Quote
A 90 degree rotation + 1 minute to reach point B.
A 90 degree rotation + 1 minute to reach point M.
A 90 degree rotation + 1 minute to reach point A.
A 90 degree rotation + 1 minute to reach point N.
This gives a total of a 360 degree rotation and 4 minutes to reach point N.
I know 4 more minutes are needed in daylight for noon to occur again after 360 degrees rotation of the earth but my question is about the total staying of “N” in the preceding 4 more minutes which should be 2 minutes in daylight (equally in the first and fourth quarter of a solar day) and 2 minutes in nightlight (equally in the second and third quarter of a solar day), not all the said 4 more minutes in daylight.

Again, this comes down to what your reference is.
You have started with your reference being N, and you rotated 360 degrees from that, to put it back in day.
This means the remaining 4 minutes will be in day.
But that is just because of your reference.
You start at day and end at day, so those final 4 minutes will be day.

Again, you have the 359 minutes for each of the 2nd half of day, the 1st half of night and the second half of night.
You then have 1 minute extra for each of these bringing them to 360 minutes each (i.e. 6 hours).
Each extra minute you give these you are taking away a minute from the final half of the day.
That means instead of that final half of the day getting 359 minutes and just needing 1 more, you have taken away 3 of those minutes.
That means it has only gotten 356 minutes, and needs another 4.

The other way, which I think is what you were trying to get at, is that it has spent an extra 1 minute in day in the 1st quarter, an extra 1 minute in night in each of the second and third quarters. But then it hasn't even spent the 359 minutes in the last quarter, it has only spent 356.
And that is simple math of the full 360 degree rotation has been 359*4 minutes = 1436 minutes, and it has spent 360 minutes in each quarter excluding the last, taking up a time of 360*3 minutes = 1080 minutes, so the time spent in the last quarter is 1436-1080 = 356 minutes.
The other way is noting that of the 359 minutes it should have had, 1 minute has been taking away to extend each of the other quarters, meaning it has lost 3 minutes.

That means point N has spent a total of 1-3 extra minutes in day, so it has actually lost 2 minutes of day, and it has spent 2 extra minutes in night.
So these final 4 minutes will be making up the 2 minutes it has lost in the day, and then the extra 2 minutes of day it needs.

Again, it is just like a track that is 244 km long, with someone travelling at 60 km/hr.
That means each quarter of the track will take 1 hour and 1 minute.
But if you just go from the start to 4 hours in, they will need to travel an extra 4 minutes in the last quarter.
But that total time of 4 hours and 4 minutes is made up of 1 hour and 1 minute in each quarter.

After 4 hours, the extra time spent in the first 3 quarters is 1 minute each, and that takes away 3 minutes from the last quarter, meaning it needs an extra 4 minutes. 3 of these extra minutes make up the lost 3, and then the final one is the final minute needed.

Re: Is the Heliocentric Model correct?
« Reply #34 on: March 29, 2023, 07:54:01 PM »
The math is correct.

Completion of the First Quarter of a solar day of 24 hours
A 90-degree rotation + (1 minute to reach point B in daylight = t1).

Completion of the Second Quarter of a solar day of 24 hours
A 90-degree rotation + (1 minute to reach point M in a nightlight = t2).

Completion of the Third Quarter of a solar day of 24 hours
A 90-degree rotation + (1 minute to reach point A in a nightlight = t3).

Completion of the Fourth Quarter of a solar day of 24 hours
A 90-degree rotation + (1 minute to reach point N in daylight = t4).

This gives a total of a 360-degree rotation and 4 minutes to reach point N. The detail of the later part is as follow.

Let T = the aforesaid 4 minutes

T = t1 + t2 + t3 + t4

The detail of t1, t2, t3, and t4 are shown above.

Duration of N in daylight (first and fourth quarters) = t1 + t4 = 1 + 1 = 2 min
Duration of N in nightlight (second and third quarters) = t2 + t3 = 1 + 1 = 2 min


Now watch the following video when the earth completed its 360 degrees rotations i.e. from 1:05 to 1:25



Doesn’t that extra one degree of rotation of N on earth in its orbit take about T = 4 minutes in full daylight in the above video from 1:05 to 1:25?

Duration of N in T (= 4 min) should be 2 min in daylight and 2 min in nightlight as explained above the link instead of the whole T = 4 min in daylight (in the above video from 1:05 to 1:25).

The HC model maker made the same jump that I did in the previous post as you told me. Both axial and orbital motion of the earth occurs simultaneously.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2023, 08:16:32 PM by E E K »

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Is the Heliocentric Model correct?
« Reply #35 on: March 29, 2023, 09:43:08 PM »
The HC model maker made the same jump that I did in the previous post as you told me. Both axial and orbital motion of the earth occurs simultaneously.

So what's your point from all this?

*

JackBlack

  • 22529
Re: Is the Heliocentric Model correct?
« Reply #36 on: March 30, 2023, 12:51:24 AM »
Completion of the First Quarter of a solar day of 24 hours
A 90-degree rotation + (1 minute to reach point B in daylight = t1).
Completion of the Second Quarter of a solar day of 24 hours
A 90-degree rotation + (1 minute to reach point M in a nightlight = t2).
Completion of the Third Quarter of a solar day of 24 hours
A 90-degree rotation + (1 minute to reach point A in a nightlight = t3).
Completion of the Fourth Quarter of a solar day of 24 hours
A 90-degree rotation + (1 minute to reach point N in daylight = t4).
This gives a total of a 360-degree rotation and 4 minutes to reach point N. The detail of the later part is as follow.
Let T = the aforesaid 4 minutes
...
Now watch the following video when the earth completed its 360 degrees rotations i.e. from 1:05 to 1:25

Doesn’t that extra one degree of rotation of N on earth in its orbit take about T = 4 minutes in full daylight in the above video from 1:05 to 1:25?
Again, you are using different references and ignoring where the time is going and how long Earth is spending in each part

If you look at each quarter day, it is 90 degree + 1 minuite.
But note that if you continue this along, then:
90 degrees + 1 minute + 90 degrees + 1 minute + 90 degrees + 1 minute + 90 degrees
Is NOT the same as 360 degrees.
Each minute is 0.25 degrees.
So it is:
90 degrees + 0.25 degrees + 90 degrees + 0.25 degrees + 90 degrees + 0.25 degrees + 90 degrees = 360.75 degrees.
Notice how this is 0.75 degrees ahead of 360 degrees?

If you just go 360 degrees from the start you are not at the final +90 degrees. Instead you are +90 degrees-3 minutes, or -0.75 degrees.

The HC model maker made the same jump that I did in the previous post as you told me. Both axial and orbital motion of the earth occurs simultaneously.
No, they don't.
They are not looking at it in quarters.
Instead, there merely note that after a full 360 degree rotation it hasn't reached midday again, they still need to move along 4 minutes to have it reach mid day.


The 4 minutes of extra time will give 2 extra minutes of day and 2 extra minutes of night.

But when you start at midday and complete a full 360 degree rotation you have already given night its 2 extra minutes. And in doing so you have taken 2 minutes away from the day.

If Earth wasn't orbiting it would simply be 90 degrees + 90 degrees + 90 degrees to reach sunrise.
Instead you have 90 degrees + 1 minute + 90 degrees + 1 minute + 90 degrees + 1 minute.
That means you have reached sunrise 3 minutes later.
That means if you simply rotate 360 degrees, you have taken away 3 minutes from the time between sunrise and noon. That means you need to give back those 3 minutes, as well as give the 1 extra minute needed for the rotation.

There is no problem with the HC model here.

Re: Is the Heliocentric Model correct?
« Reply #37 on: April 07, 2023, 04:38:30 AM »
It’s true that I made a mistake of jumping but the HC model still seems wrong as the orbital velocity of “N” relative to the sun starts increasing till it turns into midnight and then begins to decrease till ”N” becomes noon again at a different position in the space.

Let's draw concentric circles from the center of the sun. Since we are dealing with Earth therefore we will consider all those circles that pass through the Earth only in its orbit. These circles represent the contours of orbital velocities.

This means orbital velocity on any point on the circumference of one circle is the same but differs from any other point if lies on the circumference of another circle.

The opposite of
“N” is “Midnight”
“N + 1” is “Midnight + 1”
“N + 2”  is “Midnight + 2”
“N + 3” is “Midnight + 3”
And so on

Similarly, the opposite of
Evening is Morning
Evening + 1 is Morning + 1
Evening + 2 is Morning + 2
Evening + 3 is Morning + 3 
Evening + 4  is Morning + 4
And so on 

All the aforementioned points that are opposite to each other have different orbital velocities except evening and morning points that lie on the same circle have the same orbital velocity relative to the sun.

The following can be observed if a curve of solar N to N is traced.

The length of the curve above the concentric circle on which evening and morning lie is greater than the length of the curve below the foregoing circle. OR

The length of the curve within the night zone is greater than the length of the curve within the day zone.

And we know differences in orbital velocities are the reasons for all the above.

It clearly indicates “N” spent more time in the nighttime and less in the daytime. More time during nighttime means the occurrence of slippage N which is more during the night while less time during daytime.

Time passes instantly just like a snap. Even if an instant of time is considered an infinitesimal duration instead of a snap then still both the above slippages (nighttime and daytime) must equal in magnitude if the HC model is correct.

It’s not difficult to comprehend all the above but I hope I have explained things clearly enough to understand.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2023, 04:40:10 AM by E E K »

*

JackBlack

  • 22529
Re: Is the Heliocentric Model correct?
« Reply #38 on: April 07, 2023, 06:12:34 AM »
It’s true that I made a mistake of jumping but the HC model still seems wrong as the orbital velocity of “N” relative to the sun starts increasing till it turns into midnight and then begins to decrease till ”N” becomes noon again at a different position in the space.
Again, this is not something wrong with the model.
The linear velocity of a point on Earth's surface will be slowest at mid day and fastest at mid night.
This is just a sum of the linear velocity due to orbital and rotational motion.
This is not a problem.

The length of the curve above the concentric circle on which evening and morning lie is greater than the length of the curve below the foregoing circle. OR

The length of the curve within the night zone is greater than the length of the curve within the day zone.
And as already established, the linear velocity is greater for a point on the night zone.
And as evening is behind morning in the orbital path, that means the distance from morning to evening is less than the distance from evening to morning.
Note, at night it is travelling faster, and traveling a greater distance. These 2 effects cancel so it takes the same time.
It is like during the day travelling 90 km/hr for 90 km; while at night it travels at 110 km/hr for 110 km. Both take 1 hour.
This doesn't mean you get more night or more day.

It clearly indicates “N” spent more time in the nighttime and less in the daytime. More time during nighttime means the occurrence of slippage N which is more during the night while less time during daytime.
No, it doesn't.
Not in the slightest.
Again, the order of events, complete with timing, demonstrates there is no magical extra day or extra night.

If you want to appeal to velocity and distances and the like, then do the math to show what the distances are, and what the velocities are to then calculate what time it will take. And this will be quite difficult math.

?

Kami

  • 1162
Re: Is the Heliocentric Model correct?
« Reply #39 on: April 07, 2023, 03:02:45 PM »
EEK, I think you are kinda talking about the Roche limit. The earth is far enough away from the sun that its own gravity is stronger than the forces induced by varying orbital velocities throughout its diameter.

Re: Is the Heliocentric Model correct?
« Reply #40 on: April 08, 2023, 03:31:31 AM »
EEK, I think you are kinda talking about the Roche limit. The earth is far enough away from the sun that its own gravity is stronger than the forces induced by varying orbital velocities throughout its diameter.
No, I'm not talking about Roche limit.

No doubt time required for the tracing of the curve above and below the circle of illumination is the same but it is the distance traveled per time of travel that is different.

This leads to differences in "1-1 mapping" of an instant of time and ultimately slippage. Slippage during the night means slippage during the day as well. This means maximum slippage of time occurs at Midnight and minimum at Noon which is never noticed in practice. Please refer to the diagram of Arc 1 and Arc 2 mentioned earlier.

I think it would be easy to note the said if both evening and morning are traced at the same time and then see them in combination.

Imagine a snapshot of Earth (top view) in its real orbit at any instant “t”, the magnitude of the night and day on Earth would be the same therefore If you disagree with the aforementioned forced slippage then can I ask what causes the magnitude of the night (Geometry) more than the magnitude of the day (Geometry) in 24 hours as well in one whole year if traced as shown earlier.

There must be reasons which I don’t know.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2023, 03:44:22 AM by E E K »

*

JackBlack

  • 22529
Re: Is the Heliocentric Model correct?
« Reply #41 on: April 08, 2023, 03:58:46 AM »
No doubt time required for the tracing of the curve above and below the circle of illumination is the same but it is the distance traveled per time of travel that is different.
And that distance being different does not present any problems.
Again, due to the contribution from the orbit and the rotation being in opposite directions during the day, a point on the day side will move slowly; and likewise, due to them being in the same direction during the night means it will move faster.

This means maximum slippage of time occurs at Midnight and minimum at Noon which is never noticed in practice. Please refer to the diagram of Arc 1 and Arc 2 mentioned earlier.
Just what do you expect to be noticed?
How do you expect it to be noticed?

Be clear as to exactly what this observation should be.