You'd have an accumulative top average at the equator. In addition, note the direction of the rays. In all models, it's from the opposite side, opposite tilt. Which is very important, as it puts the equator in the middle of the hottest rays, not the bottom, allowing that area to receive maximum sunlight.
This is how you know you have fallen for controlled opposition. As almost all arguments of this nature are crafted in this manner to sound correct, but are based off of a false premise and can be easily discredited.
Think on basic things, such as how star maps should be spherical. And yet how we only have one nights sky all year round. Fewer logical connections needing to be bridged, means harder to disprove, and even more importantly, harder to injected with falsehoods.
You'd have an accumulative top average at the equator. In addition, note the direction of the rays. In all models, it's from the opposite side, opposite tilt. Which is very important, as it puts the equator in the middle of the hottest rays, not the bottom, allowing that area to receive maximum sunlight.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=earth%27s+tilt+sun&iax=images&ia=images&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fletstalkscience.ca%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fstyles%2Fwidth_800px%2Fpublic%2F2019-10%2FEarth_orbit_seasons.png%3Fitok%3DtOTq2qIt
This is how you know you have fallen for controlled opposition. As almost all arguments of this nature are crafted in this manner to sound correct, but are based off of a false premise and can be easily discredited.
Think on basic things, such as how star maps should be spherical. And yet how we only have one nights sky all year round. Fewer logical connections needing to be bridged, means harder to disprove, and even more importantly, harder to injected with falsehoods.