Night and Day Should Flip Every Six Months if We Were Orbiting Around the Sun

A very basic argument proving that the Earth is not orbiting the Sun.

Night and Day Should Flip Every Six Months if We Were Orbiting Around the Sun

Night and Day Flip

66 thoughts on “Night and Day Should Flip Every Six Months if We Were Orbiting Around the Sun

  1. Joseph August 11, 2016 at 2:16 pm Reply

    What do these guys smoke?


    • Manny Clay August 12, 2016 at 3:39 pm Reply

      If you can refute this, please do so.


      • Joseph August 12, 2016 at 3:43 pm

        Are you humoring me for comic effect, or you you really believe this?


    • Manny Clay August 12, 2016 at 8:47 pm Reply

      Joseph, I don’t play about serious things….refutation please.


      • Joseph August 13, 2016 at 7:05 am

        You speak of phenomena that do exist. If you live in Svalbard then you have around 6 months of day then around 6 months of night; it switches. If you live in a less extreme corner of the globe you would expect to see a gradual lengthening and shortening of the days; hello winter and summer. The fact that you cannot understand or visualise the rotation of the Earth is disappointing; but also discredits your entire site. I find it baffling how people can be so against things they can literally see with their own eyes. I think there is always going to be a small section of the human race that wants to label everything a conspiracy because they don’t have the intelligence to do anything more; sad but you cannot stop people wasting their life away


    • Demitra M. N. August 13, 2016 at 11:29 am Reply

      Joseph, first you mock then you offer up nothing more edifying than your personal disappointment that others don’t live up to your expectations. You have obviously not taken even 5 minutes to see what everyone else here is seeing.Perhaps if you did you wouldn’t have to live life “baffled” when you come across those who are seeing past the deceptive hokum of mainstream science and it’s elitist jargon, which clearly only the truly indoctrinated can rationalize and call reality.

      The truth is, life is not confusing or convoluted despite the deep mind programming we have all been subjected to by the system. It is only made so by those at the top who’ve wished to control and direct the thinking minds of others. Elaborate and convoluted explanations for what is simple everyday stuff (and it’s all everyday stuff) is essentially ‘the emperor has no clothes’ being played out to great effect. The FEers are those who are seeing the evidence staring them in the face, and daring to point out the nonsensical lies, and the ostentatious fakery of those who are passing themselves off as the pinnacle of authority and knowledge.

      If you don’t wish to analyze and mull on the evidence as put forth by the FEers and communicate by asking questions when you don’t understand, then why are you even here? There are many groups out there who will gladly accommodate you by describing your present worldview in familiar and comforting ways, why not ‘play’ with them?


      • Joseph August 15, 2016 at 9:11 am

        “despite the deep mind programming we have all been subjected to by the system” – Do you have any idea how loose your grip on reality is? I comment on posts like this so that ordinary innocent people are not brainwashed by a small cult of people who abuse the hard work of centuries of human effort. You present a post that is flawed in its logic; at around the level of science taught to children when they are 14, it is easily discredited by making observations with actually relatively inexpensive home equipment you can buy on Amazon and then get upset that people don’t believe you. You know you accuse others of brainwashing – and yet you get highly defensive and go back into your bunker of insanity when faced with logic. Think I know where the open minds lie; not with the people sitting in tin foil hats claiming the world is flat and the system is keeping them down


      • Demitra M. N. August 15, 2016 at 1:06 pm

        Dear Joseph, you suddenly do a lot of backpedaling for someone who is so concerned about the mental welfare of his fellowman. Might I remind you that you came in here asking what was being smoked? You did not caringly and benevolently offer any clear and concise knowledge in your concern for our mental welfare. No, you simply ridiculed. In case you haven’t figured it out yet, there is nothing loving or helpful about ridicule. It’s nothing more than the intent to belittle another so you can feel superior within yourself.

        The fact is, your fellowmen here are attempting to exercise their minds by keeping them open. This is necessary in order to entertain possibilities, however far-fetched those possibilities may be to you and to others who think as you do. If such activities are too frightening to you because they leave you feeling ungrounded and unstable, then by all means don’t do it! But more importantly, you need to become aware of the fact that no one likes to be condescended to — its a form of verbal abusive and it is not helpful to anyone, not even you. If you really care about others as you say, then let them mull about life matters in the way that helps them make sense of it even, and especially, if their thought process doesn’t find your approval.


  2. Demitra M. N. August 11, 2016 at 5:06 pm Reply

    You don’t have to be a genius or even a physicist to grasp this one. You may still not be convinced of a FE but I promise you once you take the 5 minutes necessary to wrap your head around this simple, logical concept, your bubble of belief in the heliocentric model will get some serious deflating, if not outright bursting.


    • bmwmechanic August 11, 2016 at 5:58 pm Reply

      Sorry, but in this case it’s your bubble that is going to burst.

      “Noon” is based on the position of the Sun in sky, the time when the Sun is highest overhead. There might be slight differences based on daylight savings, or where you are in a time zone, but it’s mostly about the Sun being overhead.

      So the statement “it will face the same direction at 12:00pm no matter where it is” is just plain wrong.

      Lots of interesting and thought provoking stuff here, but this isn’t one of them.


      • Manny Clay August 12, 2016 at 12:13 am

        Bmw mechanic. You sir are flat out wrong. Wrong. Wrong. You have no place to hide…. This globe lie gig is up!


      • bmwmechanic August 12, 2016 at 11:40 pm
      • Nick August 13, 2016 at 9:13 am

        Manny, the fault is in the premise at the top of the diagram. The Earth does NOT make a full rotation every 24 hours (it takes about 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds). The false premise gives a false conclusion! Each 24 hours (on average) the Earth makes a complete rotation WITH RESPECT TO THE SUN! I’m afraid this really is the weakest of all so called FE proofs.


      • Demitra M. N. August 13, 2016 at 11:58 am

        bmwmechanic, just like Joseph above, with a few select words you’ve signified nothing. You say that the assertion made is wrong but you don’t explain why. We just have to take you at your word. Well, okay then.
        Perhaps you should comment when you have something enlightening to share rather than criticizing but offering no adequate correction. I mean, what is the point? You’re attitude belies an underlying feeling that ‘there’s nothing new under the sun’ and yet, it is you that would be wrong because there is a whole lot that, while not new in itself, would be new to our collective understanding.
        As for the wiki ‘science’ page link you provided, read my comment to Joseph and what i think about elaborate and convoluted explanations when simple and everyday wording is more practical to the interested layman.


        And Nick, you too, have made no sense here. You put the words “WITH RESPECT TO THE SUN!” in bold lettering and yet… aside from the fact that you are yelling, what exactly do you intend on impressing upon us? Why nay-say if you aren’t going to back it up with a clear rational thought process so that we can all follow where you’re coming from? I would be interested in why you think as you do if you weren’t so assertively vague.


      • bmwmechanic August 13, 2016 at 5:13 pm

        “You say that the assertion made is wrong but you don’t explain why.”

        I’m sorry, but I did explain why. This is just about the definition of the word “noon.”

        Noon can be used interchangeably with “midday.” Noon means the middle of the day, when the Sun is at the highest point in the sky.

        So the statement “it will face the same direction at 12:00pm no matter where it is” is wrong, unless you mean that it always faces the sun at noon, which is true.

        Science is about observations, experiments, etc. But this is just a very simple case of a misuse of a word. You are free to change the definition of a word, but unless everyone agrees what “noon” is, you can’t really discuss it.

        I don’t understand why you guys are so angry about this. Why can’t we just discuss it like adults?


      • Demitra M. N. August 13, 2016 at 8:53 pm

        bmwmechanic, I only said that if anyone bothered to take a few minutes to mentally envision the earth going around the sun day by day and season by season with the earth always facing the sun at the same time of day, that they would quickly notice that the helio-centric model just doesn’t work as we’ve been told it should (i explain more clearly below).
        While I don’t have a problem discussing anything like an adult, I do take issue with being impertinently told that it was my personal bubble that was going to get burst. Why say this? did my comment offend you?? For some reason you thought it made sense to make your comment to me a personal one even though you didn’t actually have any facts to base on your “threat”. Why not just ask for help in understanding this whole thing better? You’d have gotten a better response from me initially.

        According to the heliocentric model, it is the earth in it’s yearly spin around the sun that gives us our seasons, and (according to the heliocentric model) we get our 24 hr clock of day/night as a result of the earth spinning on it’s axis. That’s all fine and good and even believable until we imagine the TWO rotations working in unison. That’s when the heliocentric model fails because the two rotations together produce very different conditions than what we here on the planet actually experience in our reality.

        If the heliocentric model were true and correct, then we would experience the sun at 12pm differently, at different times of the year, depending on which season we happened to be in. For example: if the sun were high in the sky in the Springtime for me where I live, then come the Autumn, 12pm would now be dark outside (midnight) for me because the sun would be shining on the opposite side of the planet in order to “accommodate” the heliocentric model. Likewise, during the Summer and Winter I’d be seeing a sunrise or a sunset at 12pm. I don’t know about you, but I’ve never lived in a world where that happens. But according to the heliocentric model, that’s exactly what “should” happen.

        At 12pm, assuming there are no clouds, the sun can always be counted on to be shining overhead. That’s the reality of our DIRECT experience every single day, no matter what time of the year it is, for every one of us. Again, no matter where we live on the planet 12pm is High Noon, every time, all the time.

        Bottom line, the heliocentric model of earth orbiting sun, while earth spins on it’s axis at the same time, ultimately ends up painting a very different picture than the one we are accustomed to seeing. That’s what’s important about this blog post.


      • Nick August 15, 2016 at 7:36 am

        Demitra, I am sorry that you are finding it difficult to follow my argument, I will spell things out more clearly. Please also note, I was using capitals FOR EMPHASIS, not shouting.

        The diagram starts, “The earth makes a full rotation every 24 hours, therefore it will face the same direction at 12:00pm [sic] no matter where it is in it’s revolution round the sun.” This is simply NOT (emphasis) what the heliocentric model says! On average the Earth takes about 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds to make a full rotation with respect to the stars, but takes a further 3 minutes and 56 seconds to return to the same position with respect to the Sun. The extra time is needed BECAUSE OF the orbit around the Sun. So, if the Sun is directly overhead at noon, it continues to be.

        The diagram either shows a complete misunderstanding of the timings involved or is a deliberate attempt to mislead.

        As a further question, how does the FE theory explain the variation in length of the Solar day caused by the slightly elliptical orbit of the Earth?


      • Demitra M. N. August 15, 2016 at 1:09 pm

        Very good, Nick, I appreciate your further clarification regarding your understanding of the heliocentric model of science. Sometimes strongly emphasized words alone don’t get a point across.

        I certainly can and do accept this minor variation of the Sun’s orbital path even and especially in terms of the FE model. What you have described does not only work in the heliocentric model, but it fits very nicely into the FE model as well!

        Remember, while the FE model does not adhere to the idea that the Earth itself is in motion, it does fully embrace the notion that the Sun is continuously circling above the plane. And so what you deem a definitive proof that the Earth itself must be in motion for this phenomenon to occur, is not. The Sun, as you have described it’s motion, rotates for some hours, minutes and seconds, and then corrects it’s orbital path. Yes, indeed! from a FEers point of view this correction is absolutely necessary as it sees to it that the sun does not continue off into the distance in a straight line AWAY from the plane, but continues to arc in a circle ABOUT the plane.


      • Nick August 15, 2016 at 11:45 pm

        Demitra, so do you accept that the diagram is, at best, misleading?


      • Demitra M. N. August 16, 2016 at 9:57 am

        I have to admit this diagram misrepresents the relevancy of what the heliocentric model actually says occurs, and as a result, muddies the waters for those who are trying to understand the basic workings of the FE model.

        Nick, I thank you for applying yourself to this — very much appreciated!


      • Nick August 16, 2016 at 10:16 am

        Demitra, I appreciate your appreciation! 🙂


      • Demitra M. N. August 16, 2016 at 10:31 am

        Well, for sure…thanks, where thanks is due! 🙂


      • Manny Clay August 18, 2016 at 9:17 am

        Bmwmechanic, I do see the math. Thank you for showing me. While its not a proof for heliocentricity as opposed to flat earth I will no longer point to it as a reason the globe earth model is impossible. I appreciate it very much. Manny


      • bmwmechanic August 19, 2016 at 12:38 am

        Thanks for being a man(ny) and admitting it. You’re correct, this does not prove the shape of the Earth. It simply debunks this blog entry, which is based on untruths.

        Let’s see who among your comrades will also be big enough to admit that this particular bit of FE ‘evidence’ has been debunked.


    • Manny Clay August 15, 2016 at 10:01 pm Reply

      Demitra N M could you plz contact me at thank you Manny clay


  3. Manny Clay August 13, 2016 at 1:01 pm Reply

    Joseph, I am not the administrator of this site. Having said that I do not “feel the earth move under my feet”, but I do see the sun, moon, and stars moving around us. At one time i did “visualise” the rotation of the earth, but now that I am awake I realize it was just a bad dream.


  4. SG Today August 14, 2016 at 4:18 am Reply


    As far as seeing things in the sky move, it raises a questions about what causes the movement observed? What is the cause of these movements, that is not an elaborate and convoluted explanation?

    An additional complication is raised by the seasonal constellations, which vary throughout the year. What is the simple and everyday wording, more practical to the interested layman that explains these plain observations?


  5. Manny Clay August 14, 2016 at 12:01 pm Reply

    SG, I do not know scientifically what causes these movements. I believe God set them in the heaven to give light and be for signs and seasons. He made the stars also. The sun moon and stars visibly move in a east to west direction when you view time lapse. One of the first things I became aware of that puzzled me was that in the heliocentric model which I beloved for 45 years the moon moves in the opposite direction I see it moving in. I don’t have answers for most things, but I do rule out what is impossible regardless of how dearly held it has been.


    • SG Today August 14, 2016 at 4:07 pm Reply


      For starters, the movements of the moon are well described by its orbital pattern and the daily rotation of the earth. These are movements understood very early by mankind.

      Agriculture, which was responsible for the growth of civilization, was organized around moon observations and tracking. You could say we are here today because humans learned and relied on the moon to survive, and then thrive.

      To ignore this foundation of humankind in favor of a flat earth can be a personal choice, but to claim not being able to understand such fundamental things about the related visible motions of the sky leads to a very weak position.

      Humans have always embraced reality, and our curiosity and instincts leads us towards those ideas that together fit most or all the observations.


  6. Manny Clay August 14, 2016 at 6:54 pm Reply

    SG, I suspect that the well described movements of the moon you speak of are based on the very same impossible ball rotating and revolving model which is the subject of this post. I hope that you receive eyes to see so that you also can embrace this true reality. Good day to you.


    • SG Today August 14, 2016 at 9:37 pm Reply

      On this we agree: “I hope that you receive eyes to see so that you also can embrace reality”. Peace.


    • Nick August 15, 2016 at 7:40 am Reply

      Manny, I too believe that God created the heavens and the Earth, but the “ball rotating and revolving model” is far from impossible. It fits ALL the evidence, even though at times some of the results may seem counter-intuitive.


      • Demitra M. N. August 17, 2016 at 12:12 pm

        I wish to comment on the following comment, which was posted days earlier by Nick.

        He said: –>”…the “ball rotating and revolving model” is far from impossible. It fits ALL the evidence, even though at times some of the results may seem counter-intuitive.” <– end quote.

        My thoughts now:
        On the assumption that ALL the evidence Nick is referring to is the mathematics, physics, and theoretical computations as put forth by science, I say this:

        The problem with arguing from this standpoint is that for the most part the levels of math and physics that are being computed (by the heliocentric model) are actually describing the workings of reality from the HIGHER density/dimensional levels. It doesn't make it wrong, it's just not what we ever actually see with our 3D eyes.

        On the other hand, the FE model is fundamentally addressing the PHYSICAL manifestation of these higher resonating frequencies at the point at which they coalesce into solid physical forms within the 3rd dimensional field. At the 3D level of our experience what is detected and perceived by the senses is precisely what the all FEers are identifying!

        Essentially, the FE model directly addresses the things we can actually perceive in the world around us, while the Heliocentric model is abstractly defining the higher levels of reality which CAUSE these manifestations in the physical world but that, experientially speaking, are never perceived as such from inside it's lower frequency band. From the 3D frequency band we can only theorize and imagine what occurs on the higher levels of reality above it — and that is what the heliocentric model is addressing.

        And so, for those who can grasp what I have just said, you have to admit that there is a certain folly in arguing that the FE model is wrong — likewise, for the Heliocentric model. To persist in such black and white thinking is to erroneously conclude that many of the things our senses pick-up from our environment are somehow mistaken, and should therefore be overlooked and/or ignored. Or, on the other hand, we get so materially oriented that we forget that there is much more to physical reality than meets the eye — literally, 3D energetically emerges out of the higher levels of reality and is therefore, highly dependent on these higher abstract levels of reality for it's very existence.

        In a nut shell, depending on which level of reality we are looking at, we are each correct, as long as our model is being applied in the correct context.


      • Nick August 17, 2016 at 1:07 pm

        Hi Demetra, I think it is clear that we come to this from a different perspective. From other postings it is clear you have a background with at least an interest in the likes of astrology and eastern religions. In your post you are using phrases such as “dimensional levels” and “the PHYSICAL manifestation of these higher resonating frequencies”, which make no sense to me from my western scientific background. As such, I may have totally misunderstood what you are saying!

        Nonetheless, I have a couple of comments to make.

        It is absolutely true that most of us live our lives in such a way that, for all intents and purposes, the flat Earth model is adequate to describe all that we see. This would have been particularly true for our ancestors, who would have lived out their lives living in one location, maybe only travelling a few miles away at any time during their lives. From this perspective, the FE model is adequate, and could even be said to be true.

        BUT, this does not mean that the FE model is a valid model for the Earth. Once our ancestors started to travel, to communicate with people living at a distance from them and to try to understand the observations they made, the FE model was no longer adequate and was rejected. Travelling further distances would have, at times, meant travelling “over the horizon” (earlier sea transport would have kept very close to the coast line), seeing different stars as they travelled north or south, observing the Sun at different elevations at midday at different latitudes. It is these observations that brought them to realise that the Earth is a globe, even without understanding gravity or coming to any of the theories of science which have come later – it does not require “higher abstract levels of reality”.

        Essentially I am saying that FE and globe Earth cannot BOTH be true. The question is, if I kept walking south long enough, would I end up at an edge, or back where I started? It cannot be both, and all the evidence tells us that the second answer is correct.


      • Demitra M. N. August 17, 2016 at 3:17 pm

        Nick, in expressing myself as I did, I did it under the impression that because modern science does indeed address topics such as “dimensions” “resonance” “energetics” and “frequencies” that most scientific researchers would diligently attempt to embody these topics into their own chosen areas of enquiry. I take it from your response that this is not so. Pity.

        I can tell as well that our respective knowledge as to humankind’s true roots is remarkably different one from the other. My own research into mankind’s overall historical past does not find it to be nearly as backward as we have been programmed to believe. Frankly, this is a critical factor in regards to all of this debate, because when we are certain that our ancestors were not as educated as we are at present, and that the sciences taught in our universities today are not deliberately corrupted in their classroom delivery, it is natural to believe that Man today possesses a more complete picture because he is certain that he is now more evolved, when the truth is quite the opposite.

        Regardless, I think it is unfortunate that despite the gulf between our perceptions of reality, past and present, what really blocks communication in this debate, and is fundamentally the cause of many heated arguments, is the certainty that only one’s personal ideology can be accurate and everyone else must simply be wrong. I encounter this myopia from both sides of the argument and is most unfortunate because both sides have so much to offer each other.

        From my point of view, both sides are intricately entwined at the subatomic level and in this regard, yes, science does require understanding the higher abstract levels of reality. In fact, modern scientific theories ARE speaking to that higher abstract levels of reality and apparently is not even aware that it is doing so.


      • Nick August 17, 2016 at 4:28 pm

        Demetra, you are right that these words (dimensions, resonance, frequency etc.) are used in modern science, but using scientific words does not make an idea scientific. The phrase “3D frequency band” uses scientific words, but makes no sense according to any science that I am aware of (please correct me if I’m wrong). As a Christian I agree with you that the ideas, concepts and theories of modern science are not the whole story. For instance, I believe that prayer works, but it does not have a SCIENTIFIC explanation. Science can answer some of the “how”s and “where”s, but doesn’t address (and, I believe, CAN’T address) the “why”s.

        If I understand you correctly, you are extending the discussion into the underlying “why”s of the universe around us. To do so is perfectly valid, but takes us out of science and into philosophy/religion. Just using scientific words does not bring it within the scope of science.

        The question of the shape of the Earth, however, is a simply scientific question. There MUST be one correct answer to my question above. All the evidence points to the Earth being (roughly) a sphere.

        On your other point, I strongly believe that our ancestors were no less intelligent than we are today (but, no more intelligent). What has increased in the DATA available to them. The most important stepping points for this were writing and later printing, which allowed people to share data geographically and over time. (As a side note, the internet has vastly increased the VOLUME of DATA, but also decreased the QUALITY of the data.) I think this adequately supports the outline set out above.


      • Demitra M. N. August 17, 2016 at 5:10 pm


        1- That you personally have never found reason to string together the words “3D frequency band” does not make it unscientific.

        2- Science CAN explain why prayer works, it is only our modern paradigm with its hidden agendas that ascertains that such information remain solely in the domain of the “religious”.

        3- Science is by all accounts a New Religion.

        4- The shape of the earth is every man’s concern, and not just science. However, real science would take all evidence into account not just what fits science’s programme du jour.

        5- As to your last point, it is not the volume or quality of data that determines Man’s evolutionary state but the state of his mind — his willingness to know truth no matter where it leads and his capacity to learn, unlearn, and relearn, when and if necessary.

        As I do not wish to be accused of deliberately directing this topic into esoteric areas of which others are uncomfortable, I conclude my own participation in this discussion now. Thank you for your time.


      • psybin August 17, 2016 at 10:54 pm

        People did travel all over the world way back in history. The current FE map (the one the UN, pilots etc. use) was drawn 1,000 years ago and is accurate enough that it’s still used today. Why do airline flight times and distances make sense on a FE map and not a globe? Why did Admiral Byrd claim he traveled about 60k miles around the Antarctic wall, which is very accurate on a FE map, if on a globe it should only be about 1,800mi? There’s just so many questions and things that don’t make sense unless you use a FE perspective. I keep bouncing back and forth between globe and FE but I’m leaning toward FE.

        I just found out the other day that the 10k year old (in written form, oral form goes back maybe 30k years) Hindu Vedas describe a globe earth, and they knew about quantum physics, anti-gravity (mercury imploding/expanding vortex engine) spacecraft, and so much more. That’s about the only thing that keeps me from completely going over to FE.


      • bmwmechanic August 18, 2016 at 1:24 am

        “Why do airline flight times and distances make sense on a FE map and not a globe?”

        psybin, can you provide examples? Here’s an example that other commenters have pointed out that shows clearly that the FE map is wrong: Quantas Flights 26 and 28 which go to/from Sydney and Santiago in less than 15 hours. This would be impossible on the Gleason map. Similarly, South African Airways flights 223/225 go to/from Sao Paulo and Johannesburg in less than 9 hours. Again, this would be impossible if the FE map was accurate.


  7. Manny Clay August 15, 2016 at 9:29 am Reply

    Brother Nick, the heliocentric model may fit as mathematical evidence but when it contradicts empiracle evidence which fits the definition of the scientific method I am going with that. As to matters of faith the scriptures state that God established the earth in such a way that it cannot be moved.. As you know the sun and moon came a few days later. Job stated that God hung the earth upon nothing. This Hebrew word hung is elsewhere utilized when describing the placement of shields. These two scriptures, Joshua 10, and the scripture stating that God made the sun and moon (not a tilted, rotating revolving earth) for signs and seasons coupled with much on this site has made me a believer in a flat earth. God bless you, Nick. Manny


    • Nick August 15, 2016 at 11:09 am Reply

      Manny, I share your desire to honour the God of the Bible, but I believe that you are misreading the Bible as a book of “scientific” facts. I could go into this further, but at the moment time does not allow. Where I cannot agree, though, is that the heliocentric model contradicts ANY empirical evidence. As I have said in other comments on this page, the diagram used here is either a clear misunderstanding of the claims of the heliocentric model or is deliberately misleading. As a follower of Christ I hold truth to be of vital importance and, sadly, I find little of it in the claims for FE.

      I freely acknowledge that some scientific claims may not make sense at first sight and that scientific education must bear much of the blame for so many misunderstandings. I also acknowledge that scientists can be guilty of pushing INTERPRETATION of scientific data too far. For instance, it is sometimes claimed that “dark matter exists” when a truly scientific statement would be “current models for the universe, as observed, strongly suggest that there is mass present which cannot be seen”.

      If you do think there are examples of real contradictions, please point them out to me. I do welcome an open, honest and well-mannered discussion of these issues.


  8. jwlpeace August 16, 2016 at 2:59 pm Reply

    Good discussion and part of the reason I am reposting comments again is to encourage this kind of civil discourse on the FE model. If I am wrong on my postings, I want to correct asap and this is one I can see both sides of the debate.
    Maybe you all are forgetting about the procession of the equinox in the helio head model i regards to axial tilt. Because of the 23.5 degree tilt we are said to have our seasons, with a fixed position of the sun. The hemisphere on front side of the tilt is facing the Sun and is summer time while rotating at “close to” 24 hours in one day. (minutes are irrelevant to this point) Noontime summer in Tokyo and exactly six months later is noon NYC (or wherever is exactly 12 hours opposite). Irregardless of the fixed Sun, the Earth rotation should have its “high noon” on the opposite side of Earth after the Earth has traveled……some 266 million miles… 12 pm in Tokyo is 12 pm in NYC with the same exact sun position 6 months later time. It about the Earth spinning, independent of the Sun, that is the point, not the misleading “sun at noon” false premise. Thoughts?


    • Manny Clay August 16, 2016 at 4:06 pm Reply

      If I understand Nick (and perhaps the others) correctly, if the earth were merely rotating on its axis with no revolution around the sun it would take the 23h, 56m, and 4s but since it does in the helio model it takes the full 24. Per the graphic we would be six hours off at the fall equinox. 91 days x 4 minutes is approx 6 hours. Another six hours a the winter solstice yields 12 hours. The math appears to work out if I am looking at it correctly but no small task to prove via the scientific method…


      • bmwmechanic August 17, 2016 at 9:18 pm

        Here is the math. It’s very simple.

        A day is 23h54m4s or 86044 seconds, which is 3m56s less than 24 hours. 3m56s is 236 seconds.

        A year is 365.24219 days. (That extra quarter-day is why we have leap years.)

        Half a year is 182.621095 days.

        236 seconds times 182.621095 days is 43098.57842 seconds.

        43098.57842 is 718.3096403333 minutes.

        718.3096403333 minutes is 11.9718273388 hours ,or 11 hours 58 minutes 12 seconds.

        So, using jwlpeace’s example, Tokyo is facing the Sun at noon, and half a year later it is once again facing the Sun at noon, because the Earth has rotated an extra half day (or 11 hours 58 minutes 12 seconds) during that half year.

        So, as anyone can see based on the math, the timing of noon at various places and times is fully consistent with a round Earth going around the Sun.

        “minutes are irrelevant to this point”

        I think I have demonstrated that the minutes (and seconds) are very much relevant.

        Can anyone point out where the math is wrong? Using math, not meta physics I mean – math is nice because there’s no way to change definitions or come to different conclusions. We’re either in a universe where 2+2=4 or we aren’t.


    • SG Today August 17, 2016 at 2:30 am Reply


      Thanks for posting this. I thought that language was clear. However, I didn’t quite get the significance of the “some 266 million miles” mention, and how this connects with the main “noon” topic.


      • Nick August 17, 2016 at 8:27 am

        jwlpeace, I’m afraid I’m struggling to understand what you are saying here. Could you try to rephrase it? It is quite possible I’m just being a bit thick! 😦


  9. Ruwan Wijekoon September 16, 2016 at 7:20 am Reply

    Now when the earth is rotating around the sun

    1) At day “ONE”, when the sun is at the highest point above the earth (Noon), you use your digital clock to set the time to 12.00 pm, so at day 0 your noon occurred at 12 PM

    2) At day “TWO “Even though the earth takes only 23 hrs 56 mins 4s to complete one revolution , you have to take in to consideration the fact that the earth rotates around the sun. Therefore unlike in my previous comment, after 23 hrs 56 mins 4s, my solar noon would not occur at 11.56.04 AM, but it would take another 236 seconds for the noon to occur, which is 12PM

    3) After day “THREE” again it will take 23 hrs 56 mins 4s to complete one revolution, but since the earth is rotating around the sun, after 23 hrs 56 mins 4s, my solar noon would not occur at 11.56.04 AM, but it would take another 236 seconds for the noon to occur, which is 12PM

    so as you can see that when the days go by, even after six months, according to your digital clock, the noon occurs at 12 PM always.


  10. Keith C. December 5, 2016 at 8:14 pm Reply

    OK, here is the real answer. It is the year that is short by basically a 1/4 of a day every year. Has nothing to do with the hours. What I’m saying is when the earth orbits the sun, after exactly 365 days, it hasn’t gotten back to the point where the year started, it is 6 hours short. So this accumulates for four years, then we add 1 day to keep our seasons straight. Now, as the earth processes around the sun, noon is always when you are facing the sun. What that means is that after 3 months, we have lost 6 hours, and after 6 months that is 12 hours, due to the fact that the earth’s spin rate is 23 hours 56 mins and 4 secs/day. But the position of the sun has changed by 180 (relative to the earth), so our noon is still facing the sun.

    You may be confusing sidereal day with solar day, but UTC time is calculated on solar days.


  11. steve pesce February 8, 2017 at 8:45 pm Reply

    I think this is an excellent discussion. The one thing I want to add is that the Moon always faces the Earth despite spinning on its axis about once a month. The Earth always faces the Sun despite spinning about once per day. I find these two fact to be extremely unlikely probabilities. Yet, I see from the math that these are the actualities (in a heliocentric model). The sheer unlikeliness of these two scenarios is what I find distressing.


  12. steve pesce February 8, 2017 at 9:58 pm Reply

    One other thing… So, when people were defining the number of hours and seconds to account for a “day”, they created units adding up to 24 hours. But it was actually 23hours 56minutes and 4seconds. Why would they do that? And why would that be the exact amount required to create the perfect offset to keep the Earth facing the sun at noon (in the same geographic location) all year round. That seems particularly odd.


  13. steve pesce February 8, 2017 at 10:48 pm Reply

    “In 1884, the universal day of 24 hours was proposed and accepted at the International Meridian Conference, which also began to standardize time zones.”

    People in 1884 determined to create this offset? Does that strike anyone else as odd?

    “Today, the standard definition for time is no longer based on the rotation of the Earth around the Sun, but on atomic time. A second is defined as: “9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.”

    Clearly that was picked to fit the length of a second.


    • Keith Chamberlin February 9, 2017 at 4:34 am Reply

      The 24 hour day was decided to make noon face the sun every day at noon. The sidereal day, which is a little shorter is the actual time it takes for the earth to rotate 360 degrees, using the measurement of 1 second as defined by the 24 hour day. Wikipedia has an ok explanation here. Basically, if you had two cameras and 1 was set up to take a picture at solar noon every day, it would take a picture of the sun. If the other was set up to take a picture at sidereal noon, after 6 months it would take a picture looking directly away from the sun. Sidereal time is used for stargazing, but isn’t too useful otherwise.

      Twenty four hour day was determined to be the easiest for the masses to understand. Unfortunately, it isn’t that convenient for years as the earth takes 365.25 days to orbit the sun, that is why we have leap day every 4 years.


      • Steve pesce February 9, 2017 at 5:53 pm

        Leap seconds are even added every so often to keep the atomic clocks in alignment with actual time.

        But you’re suggesting that the actual rotation of the Earth is in perfect synchronization with the relative position of the sun at noon? Seems a stunning coincidence.

        Does any other planet or moon in our solar system do this? Jupiter? Moons of Saturn? I suspect not.

        But yet both the Earth and Moon align perfectly; the Earth so it’s always noon on the correct side and the moon so it always faces the Earth. Just being able to measure it, doesn’t make it any less odd.

        And since the Earth has an elliptical orbit, shouldn’t there be a relativity variance as well? The speed/time travels should be slightly askew depending on the path around the sun. Shouldn’t atomic clocks need to account for that?

        Seems highly unlikely 1884 technology was up to the task.

        And noon hasn’t changed over millennia? Or has it?

        I read that the moon is pulling away from the Earth, a tiny bit a thousand years, so why is the Earth’s orbit not also varying? I presume it must be.

        Let me look for any other planets/moons that turn perfectly to stay facing one another or the sun.


      • Steve pesce February 9, 2017 at 5:57 pm

        Callisto is also tidally locked.

        I am surprised and proven wrong regarding moons.


      • Steve pesce February 9, 2017 at 5:59 pm
      • Steve pesce February 9, 2017 at 6:01 pm

        Parent Body Tidally-locked Satellites
        Sun Mercury[18][19][11]
        Earth Moon
        Mars Phobos · Deimos[20]
        Jupiter Metis · Adrastea · Amalthea · Thebe · Io · Europa · Ganymede · Callisto
        Saturn Pan · Atlas · Prometheus · Pandora · Epimetheus · Janus · Mimas · Enceladus · Telesto · Tethys · Calypso · Dione · Rhea · Titan · Iapetus
        Uranus Miranda · Ariel · Umbriel · Titania · Oberon
        Neptune Proteus · Triton
        Pluto Charon (Pluto is itself locked to Charon)


      • Steve pesce February 9, 2017 at 6:05 pm

        “The planet’s rotation is slowing down overall because of tidal forces between Earth and the moon. Roughly every 100 years, the day gets about 1.4 milliseconds, or 1.4 thousandths of a second, longer.”


      • Keith Chamberlin February 9, 2017 at 6:08 pm

        There is NO coincidence. It was setup SPECIFICALLY to be that way. Totally intentional.


      • Steve pesce February 9, 2017 at 6:20 pm

        2002 AA29 Is kind of interesting. Still no references to other planets having synchronous orbits with the sun, however, the likelihoid of it seems greater to me now — based on the lunar gravity effects referenced.


      • Steve pesce February 9, 2017 at 6:25 pm
      • Steve pesce February 9, 2017 at 6:27 pm


        Finally, in some cases where the orbit is eccentric and the tidal effect is relatively weak, the smaller body may end up in a so-called spin-orbit resonance, rather than being tidally locked. Here, the ratio of the rotation period of a body to its own orbital period is some simple fraction different from 1:1. A well known case is the rotation of Mercury, which is locked to its own orbit around the Sun in a 3:2 resonance.

        Many exoplanets (especially the close-in ones) are expected to be in spin–orbit resonances higher than 1:1. A Mercury-like terrestrial planet can, for example, become captured in a 3:2, 2:1, or 5:2 spin-orbit resonance, with the probability of each being dependent on the orbital eccentricity.[9]


      • Steve pesce February 9, 2017 at 6:35 pm

        Sounds like this is proposing that all the planets in the solar system will not only be brought into some form of synchronous orbit, but will eventually become tidally locked.


      • Steve pesce February 9, 2017 at 6:36 pm

        Based on what I just read, I sounds like my previous points are invalid. Tidal locking and synchronous orbits are commonplace in the universe.


  14. Tom February 9, 2017 at 12:42 am Reply


    Do you believe reality should be different so that you are not distressed, or that things never seem odd to you? 😦

    Or should reality be what it is, and people should try to accept these minor irritations? 🙂


    • Steve pesce February 9, 2017 at 3:33 am Reply

      No, but I think weird coincidences that defy all rationality are to be questioned.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: