May 10th, 2014, 04:11 PM
Yeah...
narrator Kate Mulgrew said that she was misinformed as to the purpose of the documentary". Mulgrew said "I am not a geocentrist, nor am I in any way a proponent of geocentrism... I was a voice for hire, and a misinformed one, at that."[6][7]
Max Tegmark, who appears in the film, claims that DeLano "cleverly tricked a whole bunch of us scientists into thinking that they were independent filmmakers doing an ordinary cosmology documentary, without mentioning anything about their hidden agenda."[8]
Another scientist interviewed for the film, George Ellis, has said that "I was interviewed for it but they did not disclose this agenda, which of course is nonsense. I don't think it's worth responding to -- it just gives them publicity. To ignore is the best policy. But for the record, I totally disavow that silly agenda."[8]
Michio Kaku, also quoted in the production, said that the film was likely "clever editing" of his statements and that it bordered on "intellectual dishonesty."[3]
Lawrence Krauss said he had no recollection of being interviewed for the film and would have refused to be in it if he had known more about it.[9][10] DeLano, the film's main producer, responded by saying that Krauss signed a release form and was paid for a 5 hour interview for the film.[11] He also states that all participants signed releases, and that the releases contained explicit notification of the intention to explore controversial aspects of cosmology.[2] However, Delano refused to show a copy of the release he says Krauss signed to Popular Science after that magazine requested to see it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Principle
In short it's lying bullshit.
Actually, that is a bunch of hype.
Statement of The Producer Of "The Principle"
It is, in a way, quite an honor to have this little independent science film suddenly subjected to a concerted internet assault,even though most of the information about "The Principle" is based solely on presumptions and innuendoes.
I am not surprised at the opposition, since it has been one of the important missions of “The Principle” to point out that some ideas are powerful enough to burn heretics, to overthrow civilizations, and to turn our world view upside down.
The Copernican Principle is certainly one of those ideas, and the reaction to our treatment of itindicates that this idea has lost none of its power over the last four centuries. Indeed, as Lawrence Krauss has stated, we could be living at a time when Copernicus is "coming back to haunt us"!
When my partner Robert Sungenis asked me to produce “The Principle”, we agreed that the controversy surrounding this question was such that only a fair, balanced, and comprehensive treatment would do. It was our intention to seek out leading cosmologists who had, in their writings and papers, addressed this Copernican Principle, as well as the recent unexpected evidence of a preferred direction in the cosmos, aligned with our supposedly “insignificant” Earth, and to ask some candid questions about the impact of these discoveries on “established” science.
It certainly appears we have shaken up the status quo, and our film has not even been released yet!
Indeed, the real takeaway from the massive media assault on this comparatively tiny little independent film, at this point, has to be, “What are they so afraid of?”
Some facts:
“The Principle”, as the title indicates, is not about geocentrism per se, but is instead an in-depth cinematic examination of the Copernican Principle itself- in its historical, cultural, religious, and remarkably unexpected modern observational aspects.
We include historical facts concerning the ancient, geocentric cosmology, the Copernican revolution, Newton’s seemingly conclusive establishment of the heliocentric model of reality......
But we also include the factual information that some of our scientific mainstream opinion-makers apparently are quite uncomfortable having you hear about- for example, Einstein’s frank admission that no optical experiment ever would, or even could, in his opinion, measure any motion of the Earth in its orbit around the Sun, or the recent, shocking large scale observations which have suggested presently-inexplicable, Earth-oriented structure on the cosmos’ largest observable scales.
On this latter point, I want to emphasize that “The Principle” is in possession ofsigned release forms from all of its contributors, most certainly including Lawrence Krauss.
Any suggestion to the contrary is simply a falsehood.
These releases include explicit notification of our intention to explore controversial aspects of cosmology, even highly controversial ideas and theories.
Lawrence says he has no idea how he ended up in our film.
I can tell him how he ended up in our film.
He signed a release form, and cashed a check.
I have both.
He sat for an interview of about five hours’ length.
I have the footage.
And the transcripts.
Lawrence Krauss is on record concerning the implications of some of the astonishing new cosmological observations of the cosmic background (CMB), observations with profoundly non-Copernican implications.
We researched these statements, and interviewed him, and others, about them.
I would hope that at some point, relatively soon in this process, some reporters would do some of the same research, and establish for themselves that Krauss has personally affirmed that these observations could mean that we are the center of the universe.
Yes, folks.
He has said exactly that.
Please check.
Our film is certainly dangerous- dangerous enough to have elicited this astonishingly well-executed assault from individuals who have done absolutely no research on what "The Principle" is about.
It is also dangerous, because once you view the film, you are going to see that these misrepresentations regarding "The Principle" are profound, and ought to be retracted.
I won’t hold my breath in this regard, but I promise you, our film is the ONE FILM you absolutely MUST see this year, if only to find out why so much effort has been lavished to prevent you from knowing what it is about in the first place...
CONTINUED
...
A last word to the wonderful actress Kate Mulgrew.
Kate, I am sorry you were forced to this unfortunate repudiation of your fine work on our film.
We artists have, from time to time, got to be willing to take even the most excruciating heat in order to preserve the rights of filmmakers, for example, to challenge even the most entrenched and established ideas.
Otherwise, it would seem we really have come full circle, wouldn’t it?
“Cosmos” talks about Bruno being burned at the stake for challenging the medieval cosmology; have we reached the point where we are no longer allowed to examine the evidence which suggests science could be wrong about something as basic as the Copernican Principle?
Even worse- have we reached the point where we are no longer even allowed to ask the question?
“The Principle” is the one film you absolutely MUST see this year.
Rick DeLano
Producer, "The Principle"
In other words, "it must be true because so many people have pointed out that it is a pack of lies." This is like the ultimate conspiracy theorist argument: "the total lack of evidence just proves what a powerful conspiracy it is."
I can't help wonder if his actually so self-deluded he believes that crap. Or, far more likely, he is just lying his ass off. And laughing all the way to the bank.
Oh, and you are guilty of copyright violation.
"Max Tegmark, who appears in the film, claims that DeLano "cleverly tricked a whole bunch of us scientists into thinking that they were independent filmmakers doing an ordinary cosmology documentary, without mentioning anything about their hidden agenda."
Max Tegmark had a consulting contract with The Principle for 2 years which included many email exchanges on implications of CMB anisotropies for the Copernican Principle.
"Of course., poor Max is apparently forgetful of having signed two release forms, a scientific consulting agreement, and having exchanged dozens of emails with myself and the director over two years, over the course of two separate interviews.
Alas, I am going to have to make these things public, but Max, buddy, you coulda called me first"
Rick Delano
replying on Youtube (The Principle Documentary) to:
TimKurata
commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly - Apr 27, 2014
This should be used in future schools as the best example of quote mining... ever! 'How not to be dishonest in your science' science lesson. Or maybe even in history class when they ask you to review an article and see if it's being biased or not and who the author of the work might be.
Shameful.
(not sure how to get url to comments)
Yeah?Originally Posted by JoeSixPack
BUT:“The Principle”, as the title indicates, is not about geocentrism per se, but is instead an in-depth cinematic examination of the Copernican Principle itself
When my partner Robert Sungenis asked me to produce “The Principle”Robert A. Sungenis is ... known for his advocacy of geocentrsimAnd yet...I want to emphasize that “The Principle” is in possession ofsigned release forms from all of its contributors, most certainly including Lawrence Krauss.
Delano refused to show a copy of the release he says Krauss signed to Popular Science after that magazine requested to see it.
Bearing in mind that Delano is vastly unqualified to know right from wrong on the question - or even to recognise a valid scientific argument - then where did the basic input come from?
A known geocentrist?
Not at all.
The knee-jerk reaction in the comments and by the scientists who were interviewed is really interesting, and shows how sensitive that this topic is.
The release forms will be shown May 28th:
"The Principle" Has A Major Announcement To Make!
On Wednesday, May 28, 2014, at 8pm Eastern, on Michael Voris' "Mic'd Up" show streaming worldwide on ChurchMilitant TV, the Executive Producer and Producer of "The Principle" will officially announce our release date and additional particulars concerning our upcoming theatrical distribution!
Heads up!- we will also be addressing in delicious and hilarious detail the various claims which have been advanced concerning our alleged preternatural powers to hypnotize the smartest guys in the world into interviews so we could cleverly edit them into saying they are all geocentrists, and to somehow manage to have Captain Janeway read the entire script of the film into the microphone without ever having understood what the film was about.
Also, we will address just who might have…you know…sort of "pushed the button" on this comical media narrative, which spread throughout the internet in twenty four short hours.
Who was behind this amazing example of media buffoonery?
(HINT: It Ain't The Jews!)
Do.
Not.
Miss.
This.
One!
Tally-ho and away we go!
So? Would it be surprising if a geocentrist had an interest in the Copernican Principle?“The Principle”, as the title indicates, is not about geocentrism per se, but is instead an in-depth cinematic examination of the Copernican Principle itself BUT:
When my partner Robert Sungenis asked me to produce “The Principle”
Robert A. Sungenis is ... known for his advocacy of geocentrsim
On that we might agree. You should be ashamed. I assume Delano is beyond shame.
I assume you characterise it as "knee jerk" because it upsets your preconceptions. The "sensitivity" isn't surprising as these people were conned.
What's NOT surprising is that is that such a rabid scientifically wilfully ignorant advocate of geocentrism got someone to produce a biased film that claims (falsely) to be "a fair, balanced, and comprehensive treatment"
Maybe Max Tegmark and Lawrence Krauss should be ashamed. Especially Max. He was a consultant on the film and knew it was about the Copernican Principle.On that we might agree. You should be ashamed. I assume Delano is beyond shame.
I'm sure they feel pretty sick about being taken in by a crook.
Oh. Have you seen the film? Or are you extrapolating for a 2 minute trailer designed to generate interest and controversy? Clue: None of the scientists who have come forward have seen the film either.What's NOT surprising is that is that such a rabid scientifically wilfully ignorant advocate of geocentrism got someone to produce a biased film that claims (falsely) to be "a fair, balanced, and comprehensive treatment"
Given the sound bites on the trailer 1, and the fact that the scientists involved claim their comments were edited...
And there is NO "controversy", apart from the one that film itself has manufactured.
1 At least three lies - two blatant and one that gives the lie to the claim "not about geocentrism".
The Copernican Principle is sacrosanct to the religion of Scientism that any evidence challenging it may only be managed by the High Priests of the religion.
Clue: The Planck satellite was supposed to yield data that showed the anisotropies found by WMAPO were anomalies. Planck yielded an even more detailed picture of the ansisotropies. Lawrence Krauss interviewed before the release of the Planck data. Lawrence Krauss admits (2005) that the WMAP data makes it appear that we are in the center of the universe:
THE ENERGY OF EMPTY SPACE THAT ISN'T ZERO | Edge.org
"...when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe..."
Wrong. They did not say their statements were edited. Krauss says he "does not remeber the interview". Does this mean it did not happen? No. Kaku said "their statements were cleverly edited". Obviously he cannot speak for the others, so he means the way the statements were combined in the trailer, not that the statements themselves were edited.Given the sound bites on the trailer 1, and the fact that the scientists involved claim their comments were edited...
And there is NO "controversy", apart from the one that film itself has manufactured.
1 At least three lies - two blatant and one that gives the lie to the claim "not about geocentrism".
This is silly. These guys are suddenly scared. They weren't when they cashed their checks, I imagine.
I am curious why anyone with this sort of attitude would post on a science site. Except, perhaps, just to stir up an argument for the sake of it. For the craic, as they say. Sounds an awful lot like trolling, rather than an interest in a serious discussion.
The film is about The Copernican Principle. Once you are challenging the Copernican Principle, geocentrism is of interest. Geocentrists were interviewed. As were non-geocentrists. Krauss say basically that we may be special, but that does NOT mean the universe was created for us. Does this sound like a mis-represntation of his views? Kaku says that if we end up in a special place that God must have erred. Does this sound like a misrepresntation of him?
I am referring to the reaction of the scientists. A bit of hyperbole perhaps.I am curious why anyone with this sort of attitude would post on a science site. Except, perhaps, just to stir up an argument for the sake of it. For the craic, as they say. Sounds an awful lot like trolling, rather than an interest in a serious discussion.
I'm sorry but anyone who refers to "the religion of Scientism" has lost all respect. You have a closed mind and obviously have no interest in science if it challenges your preconceptions. You might be more successful posting on one of the many religion or crank-science forums. (Unless you really are more interested in trolling.)
Yeah?
Or:
Oh wait, you just said I was "wrong" for saying that the scientists claimed they were edited, and now you're quoting Kaku saying exactly that?Kaku said "their statements were cleverly edited".
That's an assumption on your part.so he means the way the statements were combined in the trailer, not that the statements themselves were edited
Apart from the fact that the film claims "everything you know about the universe is wrong" - one of those things being the Copernican principle.The film is about The Copernican Principle. Once you are challenging the Copernican Principle, geocentrism is of interest.
I'll quote Delano:
the ancient Catholic cosmology is, in important ways, a more truthful representation of reality, of the way things really areYeah.As were non-geocentrists.
I wonder what they really said...
Cosmology is more philosophy than science. The standard model, the big bang theory, and the basic foundations of accepted cosmology are based on assumptions. These assumptions include universal isotropy, homogeneity, and redhsift as expansion. These things and the ideas that are built upon them are presented as fact, when in fact they are not. Scientists should welcome questioning and probing of ideas. But that is not what happens. Question the Copernican Principle, and you are attacked and ridiculed. Yet, there are real and scientific reasons to question it. That is the sentiment that leads to the statement about the religion of Scientism.I'm sorry but anyone who refers to "the religion of Scientism" has lost all respect. You have a closed mind and obviously have no interest in science if it challenges your preconceptions. You might be more successful posting on one of the many religion or crank-science forums. (Unless you really are more interested in trolling.)
I am all for science properly applied. I work in the area of science, and have for a long time. I do know where science stops and philosophy starts, but a lot of cosmology try and blur that line. Take a look at the comments on The Principle trailer. This is symptomatic of the response to challenging fundamental BELIEFS such as the Copernican Principle. Sorry, but certain aspects of cosmology have risen to the level of a religion.
Well, for starters, go see the 90 minute fim instead of the 2 minute trailer. In the 90 minute film the scientists will speak for minutes at a time uninterrupted.
In the trailer Lawrence Krauss says basically, we may be special but the universe was NOT made for us. Where is the misrepresentation? Sounds like Krauss to me.
Kakau says that IF we end up in a special place, God must have made a mistake. Does that sound like a misrepresentation?
Listen to what these scientists say, and tell me where they were misquoted.
Wrong.
Wrong.These things and the ideas that are built upon them are presented as fact
Which shows exactly how much you know about science...Scientists should welcome questioning and probing of ideas. But that is not what happens.
Really?Yet, there are real and scientific reasons to question it.
And they would be... what?
Yet you persist in showing that you know bugger all about it.I am all for science properly applied.
And you've also shown you know bugger all about philosophy.I do know where science stops and philosophy starts
And wrong again.This is symptomatic of the response to challenging fundamental BELIEFS such as the Copernican Principle. Sorry, but certain aspects of cosmology have risen to the level of a religion.
When a trailer, for a purported "balanced look" film, includes lies and is slammed by the participants then there's obviously something flawed about it.
When we KNOW that the film was made by a scientific illiterate at the request of KNOWN science-denying nutcase then the apprehension grows.
Folks- Let's stop here and not get caught up in hype. I will tone down my comments also.
Please listen to Krauss, Kaku, Tegmark and tell me where it sounds like they were misquoted.
Keep in mind none of these guys have seen the film.
I am looking for a serious reasoned conversation.
Which doesn't mean that I'll get to see what they really said.
Since I don't have access to the original conversations then, naturally, I can't say where they were "misquoted" (which isn't a claim I made anyway).Listen to what these scientists say, and tell me where they were misquoted.
"However we are not able to makeWrong.
cosmological models without some
admixture of ideology."
Ellis and Hawking,
The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time
Most principles of modern cosmology are assumptions:
"...all this evidence that the universe looks the
same whichever direction we look in might
seem to suggest there is something special
about our place in the universe. In particular,
it might seem that if we observe all other
galaxies to be moving away from us, then
we must be at the center of the universe..."
He supplies an alternative,
"There is, however, an alternate
explanation: the universe might look the
same in every direction as seen from any
other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen,
was Friedmann’s second assumption. We
have no scientific evidence for, or against,
this assumption. We believe it only on
grounds of modesty: it would be most
remarkable if the universe looked the same
in every direction around us, but not
around other points in the universe."
A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking
Yeah, fail.
If they were misquoted in the trailer, it should be obvious. I do not hear Kaku or Krauss saying, hey we are in the center of the universe (in the trailer). What they say in the trailer sounds like them.Which doesn't mean that I'll get to see what they really said.
Since I don't have access to the original conversations then, naturally, I can't say where they were "misquoted" (which isn't a claim I made anyway).Listen to what these scientists say, and tell me where they were misquoted.
You REALLY should learn to read.
I didn't, at any point, say they were misquoted.
Ok, show me where they were misrepresented (which would be in what they say, which would be a misquote) . Or lay out in a few simple sentences what the issue is.You REALLY should learn to read.
I didn't, at any point, say they were misquoted.
Those actually involved are denouncing the movie.Krauss, Kate and Michio have all renounced this movie. Krauss (his announcement is available on 'the slate') and Michio have been hijacked from public domain material; Mulgrew was "duped" and "misinformed" when used as a voice over (she has a comment on her face book page).
Your comprehension as well as your reading is flawed.
One more time: go back and read post #24.
EDITING.
Not misquoting.
Are you proud of being this ignorant?
They do. It's their job.Scientists should welcome questioning and probing of ideas.
Unlike religious nuts who think that if reality disagrees with their preconceptions, then it must be reality that is wrong.
There may be scientific reasons and you would not be attacked for that. But using deception and lies will invite ridicule.Question the Copernican Principle, and you are attacked and ridiculed. Yet, there are real and scientific reasons to question it.
You mean science that confirms your prejudices.I am all for science properly applied.
Don't lie. You are looking for confirmation of your beliefs.
Editing? This is a 2 minute trailer. What does anyone expect?Your comprehension as well as your reading is flawed.
One more time: go back and read post #24.
EDITING.
Not misquoting.
Listen to what they said. They represent their views exactly as you would expect. No one has misrepresented them. Trailers are trailers.
They (Krauss, Kaku especially) basically say they do not accept that we are in a special place, others say otherwise. This is a controversial film.
Also, I do not believe that any footage of Krauss was taken from other sources. Either he actually did forget as he implies, or he is lying. If he forgot, than that is the explanation. I am sure he is interviewed a lot. We will have to wait until the 28th for verification on that when Delano presents the contracts, email trails, etc.
Ok. What scientific discover led to demonstrating universal isotropy?Are you proud of being this ignorant?
Tell me what observation tells us that the universe looks the same form anywhere in the universe.
Tell me what observations tell us that the universe is homogeneous on large scales.
Tell me what observations confirmed that the universe is expanding.
Be careful what you present. I do not want to see equations and correlations, but actual observations and measurements that directly confirm these things.
I don't agree, but if that is what you interpret it as, are you any different?Don't lie. You are looking for confirmation of your beliefs.
I think Joe has an agenda here. He is not here to learn more about science. I think it is a bit disingenuous for him not to state his agenda up front -- first post -- but instead let it seep out little by little.Don't lie. You are looking for confirmation of your beliefs.
And you appear to be forgetting that the scientists involved were misled as to the nature of the "documentary".
A "documentary" with an agenda - one those scientists do not subscribe to.
Or Delano is lying about having those documents.Also, I do not believe that any footage of Krauss was taken from other sources. Either he actually did forget as he implies, or he is lying.
IF he does...We will have to wait until the 28th for verification on that when Delano presents the contracts, email trails, etc.
The 28th is not too far away.And you appear to be forgetting that the scientists involved were misled as to the nature of the "documentary".
A "documentary" with an agenda - one those scientists do not subscribe to.
Or Delano is lying about having those documents.Also, I do not believe that any footage of Krauss was taken from other sources. Either he actually did forget as he implies, or he is lying.
IF he does...We will have to wait until the 28th for verification on that when Delano presents the contracts, email trails, etc.
I am always interested in learning more about science, thank you.I think Joe has an agenda here. He is not here to learn more about science. I think it is a bit disingenuous for him not to state his agenda up front -- first post -- but instead let it seep out little by little.Don't lie. You are looking for confirmation of your beliefs.
Forty four posts and - as far as I can see - no one has pointed out that science is not conducted via documentaries. This has as much relevance as a survey of the brand preferences of leading scientists for their underwear or lingerie. (And the latter would at least have the benefit of being mildly interesting.)
This is true. But it is a documentary about science and cosmology containing interviews by well known scientists (Krauss, Kaku, Tegmark, Ellis, Barbour, Carr, Hatch, etc.) as well as some controversy concerning science and scientists. So true, it is not a peer reviewed documentary (), but it is of interest to those interested in science, and its topic is of real interest to those interested in science and cosmology.
It is religious propaganda with some invented controversy. Rather like cretinists "teach the controversy" idiocy.
Maybe (as you appear to be one) you can tell me why religious fundamentalists don't like modern cosomlogy: we are in the center of the (observable) universe and the big bang model can be interpreted as including a "creation" event.
It is a documentary in the sense that a film was made and people were involved. However, it is of note that many of those on and off camera have stated that they were tricked into participating. The dishonest tactics of the filmmakers reveals the unethical, non-scientific bias that lies at the heart of the film. The film, therefore, is not of interest to those truly interested in science. It is an intellectual cousin of "What the (bleep) do you know?" and "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." It's the cousin that the rest of the family only speaks of in whispers and in shame. The younger family members point and giggle.This is true. But it is a documentary about science and cosmology containing interviews by well known scientists (Krauss, Kaku, Tegmark, Ellis, Barbour, Carr, Hatch, etc.) as well as some controversy concerning science and scientists. So true, it is not a peer reviewed documentary (
That is the controversy. I say it is largely bunk. I would say they are upset that (as Max Tegmark said) it was a not an "ordinary cosmology documentary". Even though it appears he had a 2 year consulting contract with the producers, and a chain of emails during that time that explicitly discussed implications for the Copernican Principle of WMAP/Planck anisotropies in the CMB.It is a documentary in the sense that a film was made and people were involved. However, it is of note that many of those on and off camera have stated that they were tricked into participating. The dishonest tactics of the filmmakers reveals the unethical, non-scientific bias that lies at the heart of the film. The film, therefore, is not of interest to those truly interested in science. It is an intellectual cousin of "What the (bleep) do you know?" and "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." It's the cousin that the rest of the family only speaks of in whispers and in shame. The younger family members point and giggle.This is true. But it is a documentary about science and cosmology containing interviews by well known scientists (Krauss, Kaku, Tegmark, Ellis, Barbour, Carr, Hatch, etc.) as well as some controversy concerning science and scientists. So true, it is not a peer reviewed documentary (
So yes, claims were made.
I shall not argue whether or not the documentary is of interest to those interested in science. That would derail the discussion, since some members are disparaging of well produced documentaries that others admire.This is true. But it is a documentary about science and cosmology containing interviews by well known scientists (Krauss, Kaku, Tegmark, Ellis, Barbour, Carr, Hatch, etc.) as well as some controversy concerning science and scientists. So true, it is not a peer reviewed documentary (
The point is that you appear to be seeking to place scientific value on the thesis of the documentary. Documentaries cannot determine the value of a hypothesis. Peer reviewed science, carefully welded into a self-supporting structure can do so. That is not present here and so, while the documentary may or may not be interesting, and while the hypothesis may or may not have substance, there is no meaningful conclusion can be formed from a bunch of talking heads.
Granted. The discussion is going that direction. It is the subject that creates the controversy for sure. I have a seperate thread on possible invalidation of the Copernican Principle also. This thread should focus more on the documentary and controversy surrounding it perhaps.I shall not argue whether or not the documentary is of interest to those interested in science. That would derail the discussion, since some members are disparaging of well produced documentaries that others admire.This is true. But it is a documentary about science and cosmology containing interviews by well known scientists (Krauss, Kaku, Tegmark, Ellis, Barbour, Carr, Hatch, etc.) as well as some controversy concerning science and scientists. So true, it is not a peer reviewed documentary (
The point is that you appear to be seeking to place scientific value on the thesis of the documentary. Documentaries cannot determine the value of a hypothesis. Peer reviewed science, carefully welded into a self-supporting structure can do so. That is not present here and so, while the documentary may or may not be interesting, and while the hypothesis may or may not have substance, there is no meaningful conclusion can be formed from a bunch of talking heads.
Is this forum meant to be a place for advertisements?
You have to wonder if Joe is some sort of shill.
I don't wonder.You have to wonder if Joe is some sort of shill.
Is someone feeling threatened?
Seriously. Go see the comments on the Youtube video. I know people here are probably much more knowledgeable about science and cosmology, but the comments are really wild. Lawrence Krauss makes a simple unsupportable statement, and Kate Mulgrew follows, and suddenly everyone starts throwing accusations, insults, etc. without any investigation or even possibly questioning. Later Kaku and later still Tegmark came forward, and it grew louder still. But I think what is going to be presented May 28th will be interesting.
I see this affair as really interesting and a very powerful indicator of the state of especially cosmology today. Cosmology is very different than a lot of other sciences. I.e., it is highly speculative; it cannot be empirically reproduced (i.e., multiverses aside, you cannot create universes to test your hypothesis); It rests on a lot of unproven assumptions that are stated up front (though they are tested for, generally within the framework of all the assumptions combined- i.e., the theory); It is the only science that one cannot step out of and look into (i.e., one cannot go out of the universe and observe it, etc.).
Of course the people commenting on Youtube are mostly not cosmologists, but they are influenced by their work. They are influenced by the media outlets that purvey "normal cosmological" films, books, etc. There is an establishment behind cosmology (including, but not limited to NASA, ESA, universities, etc.), and a lot of money is riding on certain theories, ideas and assumptions. When those theories, ideas, and assumptions are threatened or questioned (especially outside the establishment's peer review control), there is going to be a reaction, and this reaction is interesting.
Last edited by JoeSixPack; May 11th, 2014 at 11:52 AM. Reason: typo
Sorry, this question was skipped.
There were two mainstream scientists who were consultants on the film. The only one I can state with documentary support is Max Tegmark.
Wow. So anyone subscribing to geocentrism has a different status under the Constitution and first amendment?What's NOT surprising is that is that such a rabid scientifically wilfully ignorant advocate of geocentrism got someone to produce a biased film that claims (falsely) to be "a fair, balanced, and comprehensive treatment"
I challenge you to go read Volume I of Galileo Was Wrong. I know you probably will not, but I suspect if you did, you would be surprised about its contents, argumentation, claims and conclusions.
Yes, I agree.
Cosmology is constantly being attacked by crackpots and religious nuts.
Y'know the kind - all they have are some random ideas plucked from their nether-regions and a YouTube account.
If you want to see evidence of the decline of mankind, by all means read some YouTube comments. Then go read AOL comments and Fox News comments and . . .
"However we are not able to make
cosmological models without some
admixture of ideology."
Ellis and Hawking,
The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time
Most principles of modern cosmology are assumptions:
"...all this evidence that the universe looks the
same whichever direction we look in might
seem to suggest there is something special
about our place in the universe. In particular,
it might seem that if we observe all other
galaxies to be moving away from us, then
we must be at the center of the universe..."
He supplies an alternative,
"There is, however, an alternate
explanation: the universe might look the
same in every direction as seen from any
other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen,
was Friedmann’s second assumption. We
have no scientific evidence for, or against,
this assumption. We believe it only on
grounds of modesty: it would be most
remarkable if the universe looked the same
in every direction around us, but not
around other points in the universe."
A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking
So, Ellis and Hawking failed in your mind? Let me add this one (emphasis mine):
George Ellis, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995
People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. "You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
I do agree, actually. But the specificity of these comments are interesting.If you want to see evidence of the decline of mankind, by all means read some YouTube comments. Then go read AOL comments and Fox News comments and . . .
Cosmology is being challenged from inside its own circles as we speak. It is not a loud or very public challenge, but iti is occurring. And this documentary have top cosmologists/scientists on record talking about it. You can say what you want in general, but please do not apply it to this documentary until you have actually seen it.Yes, I agree.
Cosmology is constantly being attacked by crackpots and religious nuts.
Y'know the kind - all they have are some random ideas plucked from their nether-regions and a YouTube account.
You really should work on your reading comprehension.
How you managed to get that from what I wrote I have no idea...
(And, as an aside, WTF do the "Constitution" and "first amendment" have to do with me?)
It's unlikely that I will read any of of it.I challenge you to go read Volume I of Galileo Was Wrong. I know you probably will not, but I suspect if you did, you would be surprised about its contents, argumentation, claims and conclusions.
For one thing I don't have $114 to spare. (Especially for crank books).
And another comprehension failure on your part.
[QUOTE=Dywyddyr;565350]
It's unlikely that I will read any of of it.
For one thing I don't have $114 to spare. (Especially for crank books).[quote]
The PDF version is pretty cheap.
No, a little rhetorical sleight of hand.And another comprehension failure on your part.
This narrowly missed being trashed. Joe don't post pseuo crap in the hard science parts of the forum. Also get in the habit of commenting on materials you link to.
It's still a crank book. And still too expensive.
In other words you ignored the point and attempted a diversion.No, a little rhetorical sleight of hand.
And you've also ignored my other point/ question:
How you managed to get that from what I wrote I have no idea...Wow. So anyone subscribing to geocentrism has a different status under the Constitution and first amendment?
You really should work on your reading comprehension.
Absolutely. He's trolling. Ignore him.I think Joe has an agenda here. He is not here to learn more about science. I think it is a bit disingenuous for him not to state his agenda up front -- first post -- but instead let it seep out little by little.Don't lie. You are looking for confirmation of your beliefs.
No, it is the dishonesty of the film makers.
Of course it is. That is how science works. That is how people get Nobel Prizes.
The important point, though, is that it is being challenged by science: evidence, theory, testable predictions. It is not being seriously challenged by a bunch of religious nuts.
But those people are not you and they don't support your documentary.
Are those the scientists denouncing your documentary?
Are those the scientists that claim to have had their interviews cherry-picked with intellectually dishonest editing?
It sounds like they aren't actually on your side.
Actually, I think I'll use inductive reasoning to safely predict that your documentary will be utter bunk.
All you have is some random idea you dreamed up while stoned and thought you'd try to cash in on it with a disingenuous documentary - with the intention of boosting your book sales.
As someone said earlier, you are just repeating the same deception as the creationists' "Teach the controversy!".
I think it is a sales pitch.
He's relying on "A fool and his money are soon parted." to sell as many books as he can.
Mff. who is Robert Sungenis and what does he want? See here.
In short, a wacko.
And he's a holocaust denier?
He's ticking all the fucktard boxes.
Another regularly fallback of the crackpot: "ooh you are angry/frightened so I must be on to something". Except no one is feeling threatened (apart, perhaps, from religious fundies who find that reality disagrees with their interpretation of their Book). So you can't even use this pathetic bit of amateur psychology to justify your stance.
yepAnd he's a holocaust denier?
He's ticking all the fucktard boxes.
And yet if you just them then it's "Your afraid to engage with me."Another regularly fallback of the crackpot: "ooh you are angry/frightened so I must be on to something".
This is not pseudo-science. Can we move this to News or Events or something? I do not want to participate in this thread under pseudoscience.
If Lawrence Krauss is a pseudoscientist, then this is pseudo science. Goes for Kaku, George Ellis, Bernard Carr, Max Tegmark, etc.
Actually, it is.
A better fit is "Trash"Can we move this to News or Events or something?
The typical crank argument.I do not want to participate in this thread under pseudoscience.
If Lawrence Krauss is a pseudoscientist, then this is pseudo science. Goes for Kaku, George Ellis, Bernard Carr, Max Tegmark, etc.
Given that the etc. are all condeming this piece of fiction, a fact which J6P continually overlooks and dismisses, the trash would be a better place.
You're not "participating." There is no discussion here.
Your logic fails on several levels. You are, in effect, saying that merely having a credible scientist appear on camera automatically confers legitimacy on the film's central thesis. That is obviously false.If Lawrence Krauss is a pseudoscientist, then this is pseudo science. Goes for Kaku, George Ellis, Bernard Carr, Max Tegmark, etc.
It is clear that your primary purpose is to generate publicity for the film. This thread should be trashed for that reason. The forum should not be exploited by dishonest shills.
Is someone feeling threatened?
Joe, I should prefer to have seen this idea discussed under the Alternative Ideas sub-forum. I often feel some of our regular members are too quick to dismiss ideas on a gut feel that they are pseudo-science without properly assessing them in an objective manner. They are then acting in a pseudo-scientific manner themselves. Their conclusions are valid - their methodology stinks. (You know who you are.)
However, in this case pseudo-science is the right place for it and that is entirely your fault. Your approach has been to come here with a clearly decided view on this and to preach a justification for it, rather than arguing a justification. Therefore, regardless of the merits of the idea the format of presentation renders it pseudo-science. And that is disappointing, since it reduces this thread to a slanging match between two opposing ideologies. (And that's the heart of pseudoscience.)
Everyone is guilty of being "too quick."
Give up Joe:-
His Holiness has decreed that no obstacles exist for those who sustain Copernicus’ affirmation regarding the earth’s movement in the manner in which it is affirmed today, even by Catholic authors. (1820)
*****************
There must be no denial, by the present or by future Masters of the Sacred Apostolic Palace, of permission to print and to publish works which treat of the mobility of the earth and of the immobility of the sun, according to the common opinion of modern astronomers…those who would show themselves to be reluctant or would disobey, should be forced under punishments at the choice of [this] Sacred Congregation, with derogation of [their] claimed privileges, where necessary. (1822)
That was the Pope in 1820-22.
It's over.
P.S. Why are there so many utterly mad Catholics in the USA?
Regarding Krauss, I suggest reading this: Lawrence Krauss on ending up in the geocentrism documentary The Principle.
He's not a pseudoscientist of course and nobody is suggesting he his. As you are well aware.
What is however being suggested is that he has been misrepresented - and is fairly annoyed about it.
So dishonesty is abroad, yet again, among those determined to shoehorn religion into science.
‘I can tell you how Lawrence Krauss ended up in our film. He signed a release form and cashed a check’Regarding Krauss, I suggest reading this: Lawrence Krauss on ending up in the geocentrism documentary The Principle.
He's not a pseudoscientist of course and nobody is suggesting he his. As you are well aware.
What is however being suggested is that he has been misrepresented - and is fairly annoyed about it.
So dishonesty is abroad, yet again, among those determined to shoehorn religion into science.
Krauss never said that he did not sign a release form. He did, however -- as exchemist pointed out very clearly -- participate without knowing what the film was to be about.‘I can tell you how Lawrence Krauss ended up in our film. He signed a release form and cashed a check’Regarding Krauss, I suggest reading this: Lawrence Krauss on ending up in the geocentrism documentary The Principle.
He's not a pseudoscientist of course and nobody is suggesting he his. As you are well aware.
What is however being suggested is that he has been misrepresented - and is fairly annoyed about it.
So dishonesty is abroad, yet again, among those determined to shoehorn religion into science.
Either your moral compass is so broken that you can't recognize the inherent dishonesty involved in securing Krauss' participation, or you believe that acts of dishonesty are a valid and moral tactic to advance your agenda.
He was not misrepresented. Even in the trailer he obviously speaks his opinion. I think his cold feet came later (perhaps after the Planck results were released?). Watch this tomorrow. There will be some interesting information from the other side (the producer)- The Principle - Under Attack on LivestreamKrauss never said that he did not sign a release form. He did, however -- as exchemist pointed out very clearly -- participate without knowing what the film was to be about.‘I can tell you how Lawrence Krauss ended up in our film. He signed a release form and cashed a check’Regarding Krauss, I suggest reading this: Lawrence Krauss on ending up in the geocentrism documentary The Principle.
He's not a pseudoscientist of course and nobody is suggesting he his. As you are well aware.
What is however being suggested is that he has been misrepresented - and is fairly annoyed about it.
So dishonesty is abroad, yet again, among those determined to shoehorn religion into science.
Either your moral compass is so broken that you can't recognize the inherent dishonesty involved in securing Krauss' participation, or you believe that acts of dishonesty are a valid and moral tactic to advance your agenda.
Your explanation fails the "sniff test" miserably, JSP.
As for "interesting information from the other side," I'll pass.
Well HE clearly thinks he has been, and has been quite vociferous to that effect.He was not misrepresented. Even in the trailer he obviously speaks his opinion. I think his cold feet came later (perhaps after the Planck results were released?). Watch this tomorrow. There will be some interesting information from the other side (the producer)- The Principle - Under Attack on LivestreamKrauss never said that he did not sign a release form. He did, however -- as exchemist pointed out very clearly -- participate without knowing what the film was to be about.‘I can tell you how Lawrence Krauss ended up in our film. He signed a release form and cashed a check’Regarding Krauss, I suggest reading this: Lawrence Krauss on ending up in the geocentrism documentary The Principle.
He's not a pseudoscientist of course and nobody is suggesting he his. As you are well aware.
What is however being suggested is that he has been misrepresented - and is fairly annoyed about it.
So dishonesty is abroad, yet again, among those determined to shoehorn religion into science.
Either your moral compass is so broken that you can't recognize the inherent dishonesty involved in securing Krauss' participation, or you believe that acts of dishonesty are a valid and moral tactic to advance your agenda.
Your response is to suggest he has changed his position in some way. But do you think we, on this forum, are more likely to trust his version of events, or yours?
May 28th, 2014, 05:42 PM
The Principle - Under Attack
Date
Wed May, 28 2014 5:00 PM PST — Wed May, 28 2014 6:00 PM PST
About
The Principle has become “the most reviewed movie never to be seen by its reviewers” in the history of films. The sad part is, every review been filled with lies, accusations and insinuations. Some of these lies include such things as: “the participants have no knowledge of ever giving permission to use their names, photos or words in the film,” “the producers of The Principle obtained clips from Youtube, not actual interviews,” “the producers of The Principle duped the participants into doing a movie about geocentrism,” “the producer of The Principle is an anti-semite and holocaust denier,” and many other things. LIVE tonight, producers Rick DeLano and Bob Sungenis, will be defending themselves against these lies. They will be showing the signed release forms. They will also bring a copy of the script to show that Kate Mulgrew knew precisely what she was saying when she did the recording; She was sent the script for her approval weeks in advance of her recording in New York.
Just more shilling for this piece of crap film.
You were pretty quick to accept the denouncements in earlier threads, why not hear the other side? Oh, of course. Scientists do not want to hear opinions that conflict with their beliefs, right?
The scientists involved with this piece of nonsense ALL claimed to have been duped and ripped off. The producers and their shills say ' we have signed releases', which says nothing about the scientist's claims.
This is just a piece of crankery,
Typical flawed argument: "Both sides are equally valid and thus deserve equal consideration."You were pretty quick to accept the denouncements in earlier threads, why not hear the other side? Oh, of course. Scientists do not want to hear opinions that conflict with their beliefs, right?
I propose that we consider cannibalism to solve the dual problems of overpopulation and famine. Hear me out! Teach the controversy! You can't handle the truth!
You were pretty quick to denounce the scientists who revealed that they were duped into appearing in this film earlier, why not hear their side? Oh, of course. You do not want to hear opinions that conflict with your beliefs, right?
The difference, of course, is that what you call the "beliefs" of scientists are corroborated by objective observations. So they are not mere beliefs.You were pretty quick to accept the denouncements in earlier threads, why not hear the other side? Oh, of course. Scientists do not want to hear opinions that conflict with their beliefs, right?
Whereas the idea of geocentrism is so pointless it was abandoned by the then Pope in the early 1800s.
... boasting about how they duped a bunch of otherwise rational people to appear to support irrational ideas.
There were some technical snafoos (livestream for one). Here is a finalized video: http://youtu.be/OvR7pMqAEso
| « Equations and Factors of Real Doppler Effect | Kent Hovind "Doctor Dino" » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
42Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
