New Movie Warms Up Geocentrism Nonsense

[toast]

A controversial new documentary that argues the earth is the center of the universe is the logical result of

reading the Bible as a scientific document—and proves that most evangelical creationists aren’t nearly as

consistent as they think.An astonishing documentary is drawing fire for its attempt to resurrect geocentrism,

the ancient/medieval cosmology that placed the Earth at the center of the universe. Featuring commentary

by leading secular scientists like Lawrence Krauss and Michio Kaku, and narration by Star Trek’s “Captain

Janeway” (Kate Mulgrew, when she is not piloting a starship), The Principle boldly goes where no sane

person has gone for several centuries.

Full article : http://www.thedailyb...looks-like.html

Based on the target audience and its quantity by ppl I would bet this movie will become a block buster.

Cheers!

Edited April 23, 2014 by toast

[+and-then]

Based on the target audience and its quantity by ppl I would bet this movie will become a block buster.

Cheers!

Sounds like a yawner to me. When part of the argument about geocentrism is the verse that - "the earth is established and shall not be moved" - supposedly meaning that the earth is the un-moving center, any Sunday school child can tell you it only means the earth isn't going to disappear. And the Bible was written for every generation beginning nearly 3500 years ago. Since humanity had no grasp of things outside the visible atmosphere, it only makes sense that they would think the world was the center. Today we know better.

[Border Collie]

Thought the world was flat?

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

Thought the world was flat?

This site is always good fun:

http://www.tfes.org/

I have never quite figured out whether they are serious or not.

Edited April 23, 2014 by Noteverythingisaconspiracy

[Rafterman]

This week's Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast does a segment on this.

The guy is a Galactic Creationist (yeah, it's a thing) and if you go to the guy's blog, he has twisted himself into so many knots trying to explain his theory that he contradicts himself.

But hey, gotta "teach the controversy", right?

Edited April 23, 2014 by Rafterman

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

After watching the trailer, i have a very hard time believing that Lawrence Krauss and Nichiu kaku were willing participants in this BS.

It s looked to me like a number of clips taken completely out of context. But if you wan't it to look Scientific, i guess that is the only way you can do it

[rashore]

Found an interesting NPR article about this... http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/04/08/300609595/why-physicists-are-in-a-film-promoting-an-earth-centered-universe

Sounds like a couple folks weren't too pleased about being in the trailer...

[ServusDei.inFieri]

"The Principle" Fights Back! See It Live!

http://new.livestream.com/churchmilitanttv/events/3016104

The link above takes you to the actual site of the show, which will go live Wed May, 28 2014 8:00 PM EDT!

http://magisterialfundies.blogspot.ca/2014/05/important-news-link-to-principle-under.html

The Principle website:

http://www.theprinciplemovie.com/

[Peter B]

"The Principle" Fights Back! See It Live!

http://new.livestrea.../events/3016104

The link above takes you to the actual site of the show, which will go live Wed May, 28 2014 8:00 PM EDT!

http://magisterialfu...iple-under.html

The Principle website:

http://www.theprinciplemovie.com/

I see they're happy to list the names of scientists appearing in the movie who claim they were quoted out of context - like Kaku and Krauss.

[DONTEATUS]

Didnt you all see the strings on all the puppets in this movie ? Its called Money !

[stereologist]

The same sort of thing happened with the movie Expelled. That is what created the spoof called Sexpelled in which people claimed they were denied jobs due to their belief in LATT, the large avian transport theory. It is the belief that storks bring babies.

[Taun]

If the universe were truly infinite, then these guys "theory" would technically be (more or less) correct, since every point is "the center" - dependant upon local perception...

Unfortunately for their "theory" the Universe.... Aint....

[Peter B]

The same sort of thing happened with the movie Expelled. That is what created the spoof called Sexpelled in which people claimed they were denied jobs due to their belief in LATT, the large avian transport theory. It is the belief that storks bring babies.

Sounds like someone needs to make a spoof of this movie called, say, "The Principal". In it, a headmaster with an interest in astronomy explains in simple terms why geocentrism is a load of old cobblers.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

Sounds like someone needs to make a spoof of this movie called, say, "The Principal". In it, a headmaster with an interest in astronomy explains in simple terms why geocentrism is a load of old cobblers.

If you could get Morgan Freeman as the pricipal that would be absolutely amazing. He is god afterall

[preacherman76]

If the universe were truly infinite, then these guys "theory" would technically be (more or less) correct, since every point is "the center" - dependant upon local perception...

Unfortunately for their "theory" the Universe.... Aint....

How do you know? Both sides of this argument always amazed me. Bottom line, anyone who says they know anything about where the earth is in existance is full of crap. The further we can see outward, the more universe we find. We have no idea how far it goes, or if it ever ends at all.

[stereologist]

In 1610, Galileo created a device that revolutionized our understanding of the Earth's place in the universe. There were 3 observations that showed that the Earth was not at the center of everything.

1. Galileo saw the moons of Jupiter. They were definitely not moving around the Earth

2. Galileo saw that Venus had phases like the Moon. No matter how he positioned the Sun adn Earth he could not have Venus go around the Earth and still have the phases he observed.

3. Galileo watched a comet. The comet could not be going around the Earth

In a short period of time Galileo had a great deal of data that showed we are not at the center of the universe.

We are not at the center of the solar system

Our solar system is not at the center of the Galaxy

Our galaxy is not at the center of the local group

We are not at the center of anything. Does it matter?

[simplybill]

If the universe were truly infinite, then these guys "theory" would technically be (more or less) correct, since every point is "the center" - dependant upon local perception...

Unfortunately for their "theory" the Universe.... Aint....

Taun (and others) -

I'm being serious, and not challenging anyone. If you're aware of a textbook that has the answer to my question, then I'll order it from Amazon. I love this kind of stuff.

I understand the Big Bang and all, and that the universe is expanding.

My question is: if the universe is expanding in all directions at a constant rate, from which point in the universe is it expanding from? It seems reasonable to me that the Big Bang created the "first location" in the universe, because previous to the Big Bang, "location" wouldn't have existed. In other words, the Big Bang was the first event, as well as the first location in what would become an expanding Universe.

Therefore, it seems reasonable to me that physicists should be able to discover that original location, or "center", by reverse-engineering the mathematics that were used to calculate the expansion, and then calculating the expansion back to the original location.

Forgive me if my question is unsufferably naive.

Edited to add:

I'll look this over, but I'd still like to hear some other opinions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_the_Universe

Edited May 22, 2014 by simplybill

[Stellar]

Taun (and others) -

I'm being serious, and not challenging anyone. If you're aware of a textbook that has the answer to my question, then I'll order it from Amazon. I love this kind of stuff.

I understand the Big Bang and all, and that the universe is expanding.

My question is: if the universe is expanding in all directions at a constant rate, from which point in the universe is it expanding from? It seems reasonable to me that the Big Bang created the "first location" in the universe, because previous to the Big Bang, "location" wouldn't have existed. In other words, the Big Bang was the first event, as well as the first location in what would become an expanding Universe.

Therefore, it seems reasonable to me that physicists should be able to discover that original location, or "center", by reverse-engineering the mathematics that were used to calculate the expansion, and then calculating the expansion back to the original location.

Forgive me if my question is unsufferably naive.

Edited to add:

I'll look this over, but I'd still like to hear some other opinions:

http://en.wikipedia....of_the_Universe

Picture the universe as the surface of a balloon that is being inflated. Where is the centre of the universe? There is none. The centre of the balloon is not part of the universe.

[stereologist]

I am also of the understanding the the expanding universe is not doing so at a constant rate, even after inflation was over.

[simplybill]

Picture the universe as the surface of a balloon that is being inflated. Where is the centre of the universe? There is none. The centre of the balloon is not part of the universe.

Thank you, Stellar.

I'm picturing the balloon, but I'm having a hard time grasping the idea that there's no center. Unless: the idea of a "Big Bang" is merely a phrase coined by physicists to help less-knowledgable people (such as myself) understand the concept by using a familiar word-picture.

My concept is probably wrong, but I was assuming that all of the matter (mass) of the universe was originally condensed into an almost infinitesimally small unit that "exploded", and sent particles outward from a centerpoint of that unit. It's because of that concept that I envision a center that is now hollow, or (at most) contains a few remnants left behind as the energy dissipated.

Obviously, I only recently became interested in this stuff. Thank you for the input.

Edited May 23, 2014 by simplybill

[Peter B]

Thank you, Stellar.

I'm picturing the balloon, but I'm having a hard time grasping the idea that there's no center.

Perhaps I might lend a hand.

1. When astronomers look at the universe, they see that Everything Else is moving away from the Local Group of galaxies (which are bound together by gravity). They also see that the more distant objects are moving away the fastest. At first thought this makes it look like we're at the centre of the universe.

2. But if you imagine someone in one of those mightily distant galaxies looking at the universe around them, they'd be seeing exactly the same thing - everything moving away from them, and the most distant things moving the fastest.

3. What this means is that every part of the universe is moving away from every other part of the universe (at the scale of galaxies, anyway).

4. Now lets look at Stellar's balloon. When you blow it up, every point on the surface of the balloon is moving away from every other point on the surface of the balloon. It's important to realise the comparison is being made between the entire volume of the universe and the surface of the balloon.

5. It's easy to see where the centre of the balloon is - roughly, well, in the centre! But where's the centre of the surface of the balloon? You could either point to the centre of the balloon, or you could say the question is meaningless. But either way, it's nowhere on the surface of the balloon.

6. So let's return to the universe, remembering that we're comparing the universe with the surface of the balloon (and not with the whole balloon). Just like the centre of the surface of the balloon doesn't exist on the surface of the balloon, so with the universe: the centre of the universe is not in the universe.

Unless: the idea of a "Big Bang" is merely a phrase coined by physicists to help less-knowledgable people (such as myself) understand the concept by using a familiar word-picture.

Not really. When scientists first developed the concept, they didn't use the term Big Bang. That term was actually coined by a critic of the theory - English physicist Fred Hoyle. He had his own theory, the Steady State theory, which proposed that the universe was eternal and that new matter kept being created as the universe expanded. As it turned out, the evidence of the following decades consistently supported the Big Bang theory over the Steady State theory. (Incidentally, this is not to criticise Hoyle - he was responsible for major advances in our knowledge of how stars work, and was arguably unlucky not to be awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics for it.)

My concept is probably wrong, but I was assuming that all of the matter (mass) of the universe was originally condensed into an almost infinitesimally small unit that "exploded"...

Yes, that's pretty much it.

...and sent particles outward from a centerpoint of that unit. It's because of that concept that I envision a center that is now hollow, or (at most) contains a few remnants left behind as the energy dissipated.

Not really, but the difference can be tricky to explain. The terminology usually used is that it's space-time which is expanding, and matter is just being carried along for the ride. While this might be true it's unclear exactly what this means. Hence the use of the balloon analogy. Another example I've seen is to imagine a cake or loaf of bread rising in the oven - there's no expanding gap in the centre, rather the whole cake is expanding.

Obviously, I only recently became interested in this stuff. Thank you for the input.

I can only hope that my explanations have made things a little clearer, rather than confusing you.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

3. What this means is that every part of the universe is moving away from every other part of the universe (at the scale of galaxies, anyway).

That is pretty much the essence of it Peter B

On the "small" scale things are held together by gravity, such as stars, planets and galaxies, but on the large scale everything is moving away from each other. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy)

No matter where you are in in the universe, you will observe eveything (on the large scale) moving away from you

Its a difficult concept to wrap your head around and wouldn't pretend that i know the answer, but this explanation is the one that makes sense to me !

Edited May 23, 2014 by Noteverythingisaconspiracy

[simplybill]

Thank you PeterB. That does help! I'll print your reply to refer back to. The two analogies of the balloon and the cake work well together.

[Peter B]

You're welcome.

[simplybill]

Okay, I think I got it.

I was imagining a firecracker exploding inside the cake, causing the cake to be scattered away from the the firecracker. But there is no firecracker; the expansion itself is the "explosion", or "Big Bang".

So, in a sense, the "Big Bang" has never actually ended. We will exist in a continual Big Bang as long as enough energy exists for the universe to continue to expand.

Am I on the right track?