Letter to oriel36 - continued YET again

It seems to me that your theory – indeed any theory – is only as
strong as its weakest link.

POINT 1
I know from my own experience that there is a noticeable seasonal
variation in the position where the sun rises and sets and in the time
of sunrise and sunset even for an observer situated on the equator.
You deny this fact – based on what evidence exactly?

You wrote:
“It is a matter of precision - axial tilt or rotational orientation is
not, I repeat, not responsible for seasonal variations in daylight/
darkness, it stands to reason given that no seasonal variations occur
at the Equator in terms of daylight/darkness however the global
variation in the natural noon cycle occurs there just as it does for
all points North and South of the Equator.”

Well you are wrong in this part of your argument. Been there, seen
that! So I am faced with a situation where a central pillar of your
argument is certainly incorrect and that worries me.

POINT 2
We agree that daily rotation causes the day night cycle.

POINT 3
You declined to answer the question on the existence and/or value of
axial tilt.

POINT 4
You wrote:
“ ..so the variations in the annual daylight/darkness variations have
to be found elsewhere hence looking at the specifics of orbital
motion.”

Indeed – try looking at the concepts of daily rotation, axial tilt and
the non-circular orbit of the earth. These fully explain all your
concerns.

POINT 5
You declined to answer the question on the situation that occurs in
December when at the same time the sun doesn’t rise above the horizon
in the north polar regions while the south polar regions have 24 hours
of daylight.

You need to consider if your theory explains this fact.

You wrote:
“The extreme variations in daylight/darkness are due to both daily
rotation and orbital motion and at both poles where rotation is at its
least, within reason, those location experience a single cycle of
daylight/darkness. The global perspective ignores hemispherical
concerns by dropping axial inclination as the dynamic for seasonal
variation and puts the dynamical cause in the Earth's orbital motion
–“

This doesn’t explain the observed facts. Indeed it seems to introduce
some new factual errors (rotation at its least at the poles? Err, no,
angular rotation is constant at all latitudes) The Earth’s orbital
motion in conjunction with axial tilt does indeed cause the seasons
but then you don’t believe in axial tilt do you?

POINT 6
John Savard has dealt neatly and well with your misunderstanding
regarding Copernicus.

He wrote:
“.. Because his conclusion only follows from his premise within a
system such as that of Tycho Brahe. That is, if the inclination of the
Earth's axis, when compared to the line from the Earth to the Sun,
does not change, then the length of the day could
not alter in the course of a year. But if the orientation of the
Earth's axis remains constant, while the direction from the Earth to
the Sun changes, then an axis not perpendicular to the plane of the
orbit will cause areas close to the poles to be always in sunlight for
part of the year, and always in darkness for another part.

--
Martin Nicholson - Daventry, UK
http://www.martin-nicholson.info/index.htm
Dealing with John Greaves FAQ
http://www.geocities.com/badastrobuster/index.htm