A new dawn

I just assume that rational people get the point that the transition from darkness to daylight is represented by the turning of their location through the circle of illumination where the Sun comes into view.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okw6Mu3mxdM

Framed in such a way it is then easy to apply the same principle to the North and South poles on the Equinoxes as there is also another rotation behind that once a year event for each polar latitude. These latitudes provide a window into the orbital behavior of the Earth hence the major modification which displaces axial precession and puts dual surface rotations where that flawed notion existed -

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...precession.svg

The event will happen in less than two weeks whether people choose to consider it or not along with the surface rotation to the central Sun behind that event. The tendency will be to defend axial precession at the expense of the Sun appearing which represents the transition from darkness to daylight but it becomes impossible to ignore once seen.

One of the loveliest astronomical texts is from Plutarch which is brimming to topics including the first attempts to explain observations using the motions of the Earth -

"...just as Cleanthes thought it right that the Greeks collectively should impeach Aristagoras the Stoic, of impiety, for overthrowing the altar of earth, because the fellow attempted to account for visible phenomena by supposing that the sky remains fixed, and that the earth rolls round down an oblique circle, turning at the same time upon its own axis." Plutarch

http://thriceholy.net/Texts/Moon.html

There is even a passage which was mimicked by the late 17th century empiricists in terms of the moon's orbital motion 'falling around' the Earth or the jingoistic 'angular momentum' as the empiricists now call it -

" a safeguard to the moon against falling down is her motion, and the rapidity of her gyration, just as objects placed in slings have a hindrance from falling out in the circular whirling. For the natural tendency acts upon each object, unless it be diverted by some extraneous force. Consequently, her own weight does not act upon the moon, because by means of her rapid rotation its downward tendency is neutralized; there were rather cause to wonder at her not remaining stationary, like the earth, and not rolling out of her place. As it is, the moon has the greatest reason for not being carried in our direction; but the earth, as being destitute of other motion, it was natural should remain fixed through the force of gravity alone " Plutarch


The two separate paragraphs deal with two different approach for the former is an attempt to explain away observations using the motions of the Earth while the latter is applying analogies as to why the moon doesn't fall to the Earth or a theory of gravity .

It is a great deal more subtle and intricate to apply this type of reasoning as it was not a matter of attempting to keep the Earth at the center of the solar system but rather finding the right arguments to explain observations using the motions of the Earth.

The same applies to the dual surface rotations required to explain the planet's two distinct day/night cycles. A simple approach is to deal with the immediate transition from darkness to daylight as a location turns through the circle of illumination and brings the Sun into view each dawn as the planet rotates once each day. This perspective is then carried to the North and South poles as a means to introduce the surface rotation as a function of the Earth's orbital motion.

I do not mind that others now throw the fact that first appeared in this forum back at me as though it was common knowledge but it is new and it is supremely productive in a technical and historical sense.