Flat Earther's NEW model ... which still doesn't work

Overview

The video argues that a newly promoted “observer-based” flat-Earth sky model—claimed to work without any globe assumptions—is fundamentally flawed and not truly accurate.

Flat-Earth “New Model” Claims

The presenter says flat-Earth arguments have historically recycled the same points and lacked a working model. However, the video focuses on a newer proposal promoted by Shane St. Pierre (and attributed to “Alan of Space Odyssey”) that claims:

• “100% accurate” predictions
• Unrefuted by criticism
• Uses only Ptolemaic epicycles
• Requires no globe constraints
• Requires no radius
• Requires no AU

Core Model Mechanics (As Described)

The model is presented as a geocentric/flat-Earth setup where each observer has a personal “dome of vision.” Key behavior claims include:

• Stars and planets move at a constant altitude above Earth
• Observers supposedly see the Sun’s daily path as a straight east–west track with no curved motion
• The presenter argues this implies no “rim effect” (a ceiling-fan-like interpretation of how distant objects should appear to move with a limited horizon)

Presenter’s Rebuttal: “Geocentric” ≠ “Flat Earth”

The video stresses that “geocentric” means Earth at the center, not that Earth is flat. It argues:

• The mathematical foundation (e.g., Ptolemy / Almagest-style epicycles) was developed in a spherical Earth context
• The model still depends on something like a celestial sphere, but rendered improperly (e.g., “shrunk” or partially rendered)
• This alleged rendering causes objects to “crash into the ground” or disappear, according to the presenter

Usability Critique

Beyond accuracy, the presenter claims the model’s interface and controls are clunky and hard to evaluate properly—potentially preventing fair testing.

Eclipses Test (Major Evidence Claim)

The video claims the model was tested against a solar eclipse prediction for July 21, 2028, using coordinates attributed to Shane St. Pierre. The presenter’s alleged results:

• For a location in the path of totality (example: Sydney), the model shows a partial eclipse rather than a total eclipse
• For a contrasting location near Russia, the model predicts essentially the same heavily eclipsed Sun, where little or no eclipse should occur

The presenter attributes this failure to the model placing the Sun and Moon at the same distance, eliminating the parallax effects needed for eclipse magnitude to vary by observer location.

Jupiter Moons Objection (Additional Accuracy Concerns)

The video claims the model renders Jupiter’s moons using Ptolemaic epicycles, but the presenter argues it does not handle:

• The correct foreground/background positions relative to stars and other objects
• Visibility ordering consistent with the dome-based rendering logic

The presenter argues this produces contradictions, such as stars appearing in front of planets in ways that don’t match how distant celestial bodies should be observed.

Antarctic “24-Hour Sun” Problem

A central critique is that the model supposedly cannot explain Antarctica’s 24-hour Sun phenomenon without major inconsistencies. The presenter claims:

• St. Pierre and others say the model covers it, but checks reportedly contradict observations
• Shane allegedly “fixes” the issue by switching to different maps (e.g., treating Antarctica differently)
• This is portrayed as altering the underlying premise to fit one observation while breaking others

The video also references objections involving the Transglobe expedition and claims Shane dismisses the difference between maps vs. model assumptions, while the presenter argues that maps are necessary to place celestial objects correctly on Earth.

Satellites and Broader Physical Feasibility

The presenter additionally criticizes the inclusion of satellite positions on a flat Earth as implausible and claims the simulated paths behave inconsistently (e.g., satellites seemingly crashing into the ground).

Conclusion / Alternative Recommendation

The presenter concludes the model is:

• Not 100% accurate
• Not capable of correctly predicting eclipses or the Antarctic 24-hour Sun
• Inconsistent across Earth without contradictions or map swaps

As alternatives, the video recommends Stellarium and heliocentric models, arguing they can produce accurate eclipse predictions globally (including Antarctica’s 24-hour Sun behavior).

People and Tools Mentioned

Main presenter

• Dave McGigan

Flat-Earth model promoters / contributors mentioned

• Shane St. Pierre
• Alan of Space Odyssey
• Austin Whitsitt

Referenced third parties / tools

• Ptolemy
• R.H. Van Gent
• Eratosthenes
• Stellarium