Shane St Pierre's banner
Shane St Pierre's profile picture

Shane St Pierre

@AntiDisinfo8612,215 subscribers

https://t.co/eQwUtIaQHO https://t.co/7m2w23JluM

Shorts

India Landed on the Moon you guys!

India Landed on the Moon you guys!

176,924 просмотров

Videos

AntiDisinfo86's profile picture

The possibilities of the moon landing

Shane St Pierre

68,220 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

AntiDisinfo86's profile picture

Challenger Astronauts Alive? We Demand New Investigation!

Shane St Pierre

80,515 просмотров • 1 год назад

Some basic logic
1:05

Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

AntiDisinfo86's profile picture

Some basic logic

Shane St Pierre

62,648 просмотров • 1 год назад

AntiDisinfo86's profile picture

Hey True Earthers... If you get tired of globers bitching about a model, or sunrise angles, or star trails, or sunlight, or eclipses, anyone can ALWAYS reference THIS MODEL The reason it is called "Shane's Mode;" is strictly so YOU can use it, and I can take all the criticism, insults, ridicule, jokes, attacks, etc. The general idea is that the community gets the considerable benefit of presenting an accurate model and using it to explain several normal phenomena at once. Then, only I get the drawbacks of all that will surely come from it, and everyone else will benefit. I planned it this way, because I largely don't care about what any of the globers piling the hate over here so we can press forward. Or.. you know, f*ck me for saying the word model, and for bendy light or for whatever. If that's the case, no hard feelings. One last thing, the smaller dome in the model simply represents the limit of an observers view, a spherical limit with a radius of 3959. The math that supports that is here... and here. The descriptions are entirely reworked, mostly spelling error free, and entirely plausible. So feel free to bring it up in debates, forums, streams, podcasts, or whatever you like. The model adequately emulates and explains all of these observations: Sunrise, Sunset, Moonrise, Moonset, Moon Phases, Moon's apparent rotation, Sun's position on Equinox, Seasons, some aspects of Solar and Lunar Eclipses, Star trails, 24 hours Day/Night at the North-pole and Antarctica, Celestial Poles, Why people south of the equator can see the same Stars rotate clockwise around a singe celestial pole at the same time at different continents [Southern Cross Observations] Cheers everyone! The FULL Description is below, and it is LONG. Sorry. The Model This model does not assume a physical Sun nor Moon which will show a collective convergence for every observer on Earth. It only matches their apparent positions as observed across the plane. The Bislin model acknowledges this and moves all celestial bodies to a nearly infinite distance away. This does nothing more than create a triangle large enough that you can mathematically abstract your way into the inverse of everything you experience. The truth is there is a limit to one's visual space. And this limit is necessarily geometrically spherical. Because one never observes objects in anything but their 'apparent location' within one's personal celestial sphere, there is no need to explain a tiny ball of heat mysteriously powering itself along at 3100 miles above the plane. This is not reality. We feel we only have to model the exact apparent position for each observer. We do not have to provide an explanation for what you think should be required. This model relays the apparent size and positions of Sun, Moon and star constellations. It depicts their paths as well as the day-night terminator. Simply by observing reality and plotting that data on a planar map we demonstrate that the Sun, Moon and stars can move beyond the limit of one's vision and become unresolvable by the naked eye. We show how this can be conflated with the assertion that objects ACTUALLY drop down below the horizon when, in reality, they are only apparently dipping below the horizon when exceed limit of your vision. It is elegantly simple and easy to understand without the bullshit. Sun/Moon tracks: In 24 hours, the fixed stars rotate about 1 degree more than 360 degrees so that, in 365.25 days, the star constellations return to the same place in the sky. This is seen by incrementally advancing DayOfYear (click the field and use Arrow Up or Down). The Dome grid will advance each day by about 1 degree. Advance the time in 24 hours steps and the Sun noticeably moves between the Solstice lines. The Sun will also trace a figure 8. This is caused by the Sun's Ecliptic plane at 23.44 degrees to the orbital plane. The paths of the Sun and Moon are visible against the fixed star background (Dome Grid) by checking the options Sun track and Moon track. For a description of the tracks, click the Eclipses button. They correspond to observable reality. The tracks are derived from the solar and lunar cycles and are absolutely not exclusive to either model. It would be extremely dishonest to claim anything else. Sorry, Walter. Retrograde Motion of the Moon's track: The Sun's path stays fixed on the Dome Grid. But, the Moon's path slowly rotates retrograde against the Dome Grid and rotates one full rotation in 6,798 days. This is due to the oscillation and intersection of the Moon's orbit caused by the distant Sun. Currently, the Moon Ecliptic is such that the path of the Moon extends the path of the Sun, North/South, by about five degrees. Approximately 3,400 days later, the path of the Moon moves inside the path of the Sun by about 5 degrees. This observation is simply translated to the planar model. Eclipses: The intersection points of the Sun and Moon's paths are called Knots. Two Knots are marked by a green dot. If the Sun and Moon are on two opposing Knots, a Lunar Eclipse occurs. The Sun and Moon on the same Knot will result in a Solar Eclipse (play Demo Eclipses from Step 6 on). This Flat Earth model can predict Solar and Lunar Eclipses. It can also absolutely predict the optical effect conflated with the Moon's alleged shadow on Earth during a Solar Eclipses or vice versa. It uses a ratio of the cycle that is based on the radius of a shadow, as postulated by Phillippe de La Hire, in the 1700s. It was first calculated for a Lunar Eclipse. But, the ratio applies to all future eclipses which belong to an appropriate series. This ratio is then applied to the predicted path to dynamically widen or shorten the path in order to accommodate the penumbral and umbral radial intersection as a visible sphere on the plane. We then apply this integer as a scalar to correctly approximate the size of the optical effects conflated with shadows. All of the maps onto which the eclipse can be projected use the same globular coordinate system, unfortunately. Now, it can be shown that heliocentrism cannot predict eclipses at all. They can only interpret the cycle data in the same way the ancients did and apply more refined mathematics. Moon Phases and Orientation: The model shows the Moon phases and the orientation of the Moon with respect to the Observer's horizon. The apparent rotation of the Moon during the day is due to the fact that the camera's up vector remains perpendicular to the surface of Earth while following the path of the Moon. This perfectly matches reality. Equinox: This model produces the correct apparent Sun positions during an Equinox. The Sun rises due East at 6:00 AM and sets due West at 6:00 PM. Poles: This model produces a 24 hour day and night on the North Pole and in Antarctica. Heliocentric Model: Simple observations mathematically translated to this planar projection perfectly map the paths of the Sun, Moon and stars (star trails) as they appear to the Observer inside their personal celestial sphere. As with all other celestial observations, the Equinox, the Solstice Knots and the Day-Night terminator can be derived from basic observation and data applied to the planar projection. No need for baseless assumption. The Heliocentric model utterly fails here. Newton's laws can be reduced to exclude mass and still manage to describe the same periodicity and, thusly, the same relationship. No need for an exclusivity claim here at all, is there, Walter? Shapes on the Dome: The shape of Sun, Moon and star constellations appear on the personal celestial sphere exactly as they do in reality, and when projected onto the globe. Again, because we invoke the same radius to describe the spherical limit of our celestial view, the very same observations become easily explainable when using all of the normal conventions, with no need to invent branches of physics and invert reality. All features of this model are derived only from observations of the sky. Observations of the sky have always been kinematically equivalent - equally applicable to geocentric and heliocentric model. This was rather the point of the invention of Special and General Relativity (nonsense). Problems with the Shane's Flat Earth Model Distances: Many people misunderstand distances on map projections. On the AE map, distances measured in an exactly North-South direction are correct. Other measurements are also proportionately correct. Data translation between projections is tied to the coordinates we use. The longitude and latitude we use in any of the appropriate 200 map projections will ensure the distances between those points remain accounted for, at scale. Please learn how map scaling works if this seems inadequate to you. Only an absolute moron would expect visual distance to be equal in an equal area, or equal distance, cartographic transformation. Right, Walter? Personal Celestial Sphere: The Sun and Moon trace specific paths across the celestial sphere. The paths of the celestial bodies are directly mapped from observation to the planar projection. They also follow the cycle of the Heavens, with no need for gravity, Newton, nor the very lackluster performance of gravity based predictions of systems with 2 or more bodies. It was jaw dropping to see that poor Walter actually wrote that gravity caused this. I assume it was because he knew he would never have to answer any challenges. Show me the math which uses the gravitation from all of the forces Walter listed and I will immediately remove this section. Moon Phases and Field Rotation: Moon phase and apparent orientation, as shown, perfectly represent what every observer on Earth sees, correct to their location. The 15 year solar cycle and the 18 (10/11) month lunar cycle have been understood for so long that people eventually forgot and are now incorrectly perceive their paths. Only in modernity do the vast majority of people wander about under their own personal clock without the ability to read it. How sad. The Day/Night Terminator: The shape that matches reality is a bit peculiar and it changes over the course of a year. The shape not only depends on the location of the Sun but its height and speed as well. Again, we know the Sun circles the plane at a 23.4 degree tilt. And this perfectly defines the terminator line. There is absolutely no reason to invoke bendy light in order to explain any of these observations. The model simply matches what we see. It represents reality. Missing The Third Dimension: We need to correct the inherent misunderstanding in the assumption of the physicality of any 'dome'. Modeled here is a personal celestial sphere. It uses a radius. It just so happens that Shane has been arguing this concept and this radius since the day he showed Walter Bislan's model as evidence, amid the jeers of the uneducated masses. As it turns out, the personal celestial sphere is a visual limit imposed on one's spherical view of the heavens. It most simply describes the particular visible slice of the heavens. And it moves that amount with you where ever you go. This is such an elegant, beautiful explanation to what had been perplexing the flat Earth community for years: how the stars work. The personal celestial sphere, once properly understood, is a perfect explanation for everything we see in the sky. It explains the curved nature of the arcs of summer and winter, the behaviors of the Sun and Moon, as well as the apparent non movement of the static stars in relation to each other. Every single stellar observation is explained as well as, if not better than, any Heliocentric explanation. Any person who incorrectly assumes a visual distance scale also assumes things to be visually identical in size and demonstrates a massive misunderstanding of proper distance scaling inherent in all map projections - particularly in the AE map. It's as if everyone has forgotten that the AE map is equal to the Globe map, which is also equal to 199 other map projections. The choice of projection does not matter. They are all the same. They all represent the same distances. We can make predictions based on cycles as well as the next guy. So, we wont need help there. As we keep saying, every observation in the sky is equal between geocentric and heliocentric perspectives. People seem to be INTENTIONALLY misunderstanding that, at this point. Light-Bending: absolutely not required in any way shape nor form. Observable reality matches the model in every way; I cannot imagine a better fit. To now try to invent a need for bendy light would only publicly highlight the ineptitude of a lower tier glober - and their inability to learn and adapt, a vital skill in these times. Our model perfectly represents azimuth and elevation of every celestial object in its apparent position. This is all that we ever see. There is no need to explain what has never been observed. The visualization of the South Pole in action is actually what brought Shane to the ultimate understanding of the celestial wheels. So, thank you again, Walter! Light Bending Over Night-Shadow: to match the 24 hour Daylight in Antarctica data from the light forms a shape congruent to a coffee cup caustic effect. Shadows Of Eclipses: although this model can predict the date of Eclipses, it was argued that it can be used for nothing else. Please check the provided links to review the absurdity of those claims. Conclusion Some observations, like the positions of the Sun, Moon and Star Constellations as well as Sun/Moon-rise/set can be explained by a Flat Earth Model - if we allow ourselves to adhere to the mathematical principle of equivalence. What a concession. Some final thoughts: 1) Distances on the AE Map are 100% 1:1 equivalent when you comprehend how to accordingly use the scale provided with the ruler which represents longitude. 2) LEARN ABOUT MAPS. Hopefully, the covariant scaling and lossless unlimited translations between the projections will teach you this valuable lesson. Equinox, Solstice, Azimuth, Elevation This model draws a perfectly circular orbit of the Earth around the Sun and a perfectly circular orbit of the Moon around the globe Earth. This is because the planar Earth has no moronic need for elipicity because they didn't back themselves into a logical corner by making shit up. This model chooses to match: Spring Equinox at 12:00 UT, March 20, 2017 Solar Eclipse at 18:00 UTC, August 21, 2017 Azimuth and Elevation of the Sun and Moon are also slightly inaccurate (according to the assumed Heliocentric requirement) due to the use of circular instead of elliptical orbits. This affects also Moon phase. Computing Day-Night Terminator The Day-Night terminator is derived from to match reality as follows: 1. A circle perpendicular to the Earth-Sun axis in the Sun coordinate system is computed depending on the Sun's position at a point in time relative to the intersection knot of the Equatorial plane of the Earth and the ecliptic plane of the Sun. This is entirely possible in both models. 2. This circle is then transformed to the globe Earth coordinate system. There is no way around using this coordinate system. If Walter Bislan comes asking for his source code, tell him thank again, from shane. Any questions can be sent to [email protected]

Shane St Pierre

90,809 просмотров • 2 лет назад

AntiDisinfo86's profile picture

In the words of your own experts "There is NO experiment to prove that the earth is in motion." You just choose to BELIEVE IT, as a direct result of the Copernican principle. 📍 Cool, but difficult thought process. Right? I mean, that's, that's essentially what's happening when you're on a plane. I mean, if you're throwing a ball up in the air and catching it on the plane, it's happening at a much smaller scale, right? Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you're flying at whatever, 600 miles an hour relative to the ground. Yeah. But it doesn't seem, but seem like it when you're sitting there. Yeah. And Einstein elevated that to a principle and said, if you're moving at, if you're not accelerating, you're just moving at a constant speed in a plane or now. I mean, that's essentially what we're doing now. We're. Moving around the sun effectively, constant speed, then you can't tell. So there's no experiment you can do. We could look at the decay of a radioactive nuclear, so some electricity and magnetism, or bounce a ball, have a pendulum, whatever it is, and there's no experiment you can do to tell you whether you're moving or not. Therefore, that concept has no meaning because you can't measure it. And that that's led Einstein to relativity. I'm gonna really drive this home for the last three minutes. Einstein, Hubble Hawking, Arthur Edington, you name 'em. You name 'em, Wolfgang Polly. They all explain. You can't prove that the earth is moving from the Earth. You cannot including stellar aberration. And they will tell you point blank that they can create a model for you that explains alleged parallax, which doesn't actually happen. Retrograde motion. Stellar aberration, all in a geocentric model with the earth stationary, and you cannot prove that it's spinning or revolving on the, the earth itself. It's impossible. Stephen Hawking in 2007 explained it quoting Einstein from his writings in special and general theory, relativity his paper on the combined two theories explaining that you cannot prove that the Earth is spinning. They choose to believe in the Copernican principle because they have a religion that triggers people because they, they think they hate religion. They, they hate God oftentimes. But that is a religion. It's a belief system built upon the doctrine of men void, of empirical, verifiable evidence, and in fact, contrary and antithetical to the actual evidence, despite what the evidence says. I just now read him point blank, say, it can never be disproven. We disregard that possibility because of the horror of a special and unique position. Right, and I have plenty of quotes here from Georis or Heliocentric explaining. You can never prove it. You can't prove that the Earth is STA or that the earth is not stationary. But we don't want to believe that because that would mean the Earth is special. So then what do we do? We go look out at the background distribution, the energy coming away from the earth that shows the Earth's in the center. So what do they do? They call it the axis of evil. Then they come up with a new idea. Well, oh, it does look like we're the center. But that must mean that no matter where you are in the universe, it would look like you're in the center or we're just in the center. That they don't want to say what it is because it has spiritual implications. It has philosophical ramifications. And that is that the earth had to be placed there. It has a special, unique position. They want you, they want to believe that there are a time spec of dust and ever expanding universe of nothingness for everything came from nothing and there's a preexisting energy. Let's not talk about that part. Oh, lightning struck al soup and all this nonsense and And you know why? That's a good question. Probably 'cause they're scared. Scared of like moral accountability, I would guess. But this is the point. This is the problem. It is portrayed as science and we're brainwashing, indoctrinated with this idea as if it is science and it's proven and it's not questionable when you actually go look behind the curtain. It's philosophy and they admit it. So I, that's why I gave specific quotes and it was walked past us. The crux of the whole issue. There is a philosophy that leads to atheism and nihilism and materialism portrayed onto the world as if it is in fact scientific fact. You can't prove that the earth is moving. If the earth is the ball that spins with the objectively isn't. We falsified it. Everything gives us the illusion.

Shane St Pierre

54,527 просмотров • 1 год назад

AntiDisinfo86's profile picture

The shining example of earth curve …. That isn’t earth curve

Shane St Pierre

24,180 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

AntiDisinfo86's profile picture

Debunking flat earth [Rob Skiba]

Shane St Pierre

25,070 просмотров • 1 год назад

AntiDisinfo86's profile picture

The geocentric path of the luminaries

Shane St Pierre

21,839 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

AntiDisinfo86's profile picture

15 of the most basic reasons flat earthers exist

Shane St Pierre

23,916 просмотров • 1 год назад

AntiDisinfo86's profile picture

If the earth was spinning … and then stopped. 😂

Shane St Pierre

19,999 просмотров • 1 год назад

AntiDisinfo86's profile picture

Should NASA be audited and defunded ?

Shane St Pierre

15,512 просмотров • 1 год назад