"The Principle" - anti-Copernican movie

[lpetrich]

The Principle is now playing at a theater in Chicago, but it may soon be playing elsewhere also.

Executive Producer Robert Sungenis:

Destined to become one of the most controversial films of our time, The Principle brings before the public eye surprising results from recent large-scale surveys of our universe – surveys which disclose unexpected evidence of a preferred direction in the cosmos, aligned with our supposedly insignificant Earth.

(Galileo Was Wrong: The Principle at "Galileo Was Wrong, The Church was Right", which advocates geocentrism)

Peter Woit speculated about the film some months back in The Principle | Not Even Wrong:

As near as I can tell from all this, without having yet seen the full film, it appears that what probably happened is the following. Sungenis decided that the anthropic principle business in cosmology supported his views, so he went and got physicists like Kaku, Krauss and Tegmark to say silly things on camera, then edited this to suit his case. Maybe the trailer is misleading, and these people actually make a cogent case against Sungenis’s nonsense and for solid science, we’ll see…

 

[lpetrich]

Opening Weekend And Moving Forward Update | The Principle
THE PRINCIPLE COMES TO DOWNTOWN CHICAGO NOVEMBER 7! | The Principle
It's already playing at a movie theater elsewhere in Chicago, and its creators are arranging for it be played in other cities.

Robert Sungenis » The Private Lives of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton and Einstein claiming that those gentlemen weren't exactly very nice. Fortunately, science doesn't depend on their personalities.

Protecting Faith from Pseudoscience: A Review of The Principle | Truth & Charity

Camille M. Carlisle is the science editor at Sky & Telescope magazine.

I was recently asked to review a new movie called The Principle, being released this month. The film, produced by Catholic theologian Robert Sungenis, uses science to raise the specter of geocentrism — the theory that Earth is at the physical center of the universe. With breathtaking cinematography and intellectual one-two punches, it paints a compelling argument that geocentrism might be right and the world’s scientists are willfully blind to the evidence.

Compelling, that is, if you know nothing about astrophysics.

If you do, you’ll soon see that the movie is a combination of science, bogus science, and conspiracy theory, tied up in a Gordian knot that would take much more than a blog to fully unravel.

The reason I’m writing about it in a Catholic blog is this: the movie has the potential to erode the scientific literacy of believers and convince nonbelievers that science and Christianity don’t mix.

She then criticized the movie for several scientific errors.

Even if the Earth is at a central spot, it could not be exactly at the Universe's center, because it moves around the Sun, the Sun moves around our Galaxy's center, and our Galaxy moves along with the other Local Group galaxies, and the Local Group is at the edge of a supercluster of galaxies.

John Hartnett has claimed that the Earth has a special position in the Universe because of certain cosmic structures, but Tom Bridgman has rebutted it in several blogs on this subject.

The movie also argues that dark matter and dark energy are "patches", efforts to save a failing paradigm with fudge factors.

The movie's creators also have some grudge against Albert Einstein.

But my biggest complaint is the movie’s underlying philosophical argument. The movie claims that moving Earth from the physical center of everything implies that “man means nothing,” that if the universe doesn’t revolve around Earth, we aren’t special.

This dichotomy is a materialist lie. As Stephen Barr brilliantly lays out in his book Modern Physics and Ancient Faith, we need to separate scientific results from the philosophy that uses them to make its case.

I myself don't see why we have to have some cosmic significance. Would it really be heartbreaking if the Universe wasn't created with us in mind?

Response to Sky and Telescope Re: The Principle | The Principle, by Robert Sungenis.

RS has to invent some pseudophysical gibberish to explain how the Sun orbits the Earth, despite the Sun being much more massive. He also stated about geocentrism that it is the teaching of the Bible and the "tradition of the Catholic Church".

 

[Keith&Co.]

I myself don't see why we have to have some cosmic significance. Would it really be heartbreaking if the Universe wasn't created with us in mind?

Not heartbreaking, but scary.
If I am not the purpose of creation, then it's possible that God does not have a vested interest in my happiness. He may not even care if I survive. He may not lift a hand to protect me from the zombies, the wolves, ebola... EBOLA!

But if Earth is the center of all that exists, i'm standing much closer to the center of God's attention. This significance, or proximity to significance, is much more comforting scientifically valid, once you take an honest view of the physics with an open mind.

 

[lpetrich]

The Principle Movie (@PrincipleMovie) | Twitter
The Principle on Facebook
The Principle Movie - YouTube
 The Principle

Much more to come as The Principle opens in Los Angeles and more cities in January. Take a minute and demand the movie in your town here

Demand It | The Principle

Are we significant, or just a cosmic accident?

The videos include

▶ Copernican Principle - YouTube -- a woman appears in a hologram and briefly explains the Copernican principle. The makers of "The Principle" hired the special-effects company BUF to make the movie's special effects.

The cast:

• Kate Mulgrew -- Narrator ***
• Charissa Saverio -- Hologram
• Lawrence M. Krauss -- interviewee: physicist ***
• Michio Kaku -- interviewee: physicist ***
• Robert Sungenis -- interviewee: producer, theologian, geocentrist
• Max Tegmark -- interviewee: physicist ***
• Robert Bennett -- interviewee: physicist, geocentrist
• Martin Selbrede -- interviewee: theologian
• John Hartnett -- interviewee: physicist, creationist
• Julian Barbour -- interviewee: physicist ***
• Bernard Carr -- interviewee: physicist
• John Byl -- interviewee: theologian, physicist
• George F.R. Ellis -- interviewee: physicist ***
• Ron Hatch -- interviewee: physicist

*** -- people who have disavowed the movie

 

[Kharakov]

They'll probably say that the metric expansion of space is due to angular momentum.

 

[lpetrich]

The Producer of The Principle, the Documentary Promoting Geocentrism, Finally Answered My Questions

Hemant Mehta gave his questions in full, and also producer Rick DeLano's answers in full.

In, “The Principle,” many different viewpoints have contributed to this dialogue.

I am not a scientist, however, this is not an issue because there is no need to be a scientist to produce a film about a question involving science.

(HM question) If you really want to challenge the Copernican Principle, why not write a scientific paper?

Because of the latest findings in cosmology, some scientists have at least considered the idea that the earth may be in a favored or special place in the universe. ...

And keep in mind that represented in the film are wide ranging and varied viewpoints concerning the Copernican Principle.

So he was Just Asking Questions?

Hemant Mehta concludes:

Much of what DeLano says about the voluntary participation of different scientists is in stark contrast to what they themselves have said. Krauss said that if he filmed anything for this film, it was under “false pretenses.” ...

DeLano managed to scoop up a couple of folks on the fringe of this issue and is now passing their views off as if they’re mainstream.

 

[Togo]

The movie claims that moving Earth from the physical center of everything implies that “man means nothing,” that if the universe doesn’t revolve around Earth, we aren’t special.

This dichotomy is a materialist lie. As Stephen Barr brilliantly lays out in his book Modern Physics and Ancient Faith, we need to separate scientific results from the philosophy that uses them to make its case.

I myself don't see why we have to have some cosmic significance. Would it really be heartbreaking if the Universe wasn't created with us in mind?

No, but it's certainly worth making the point that:
a) Physical centre of the universe <> man is important or unimportant. The two are entirely and utterly unrelated.
b) The idea that two are related would only make sense if you first assume a particularly narrow version of materialism - which is exactly what the film argues against.

He also stated about geocentrism that it is the teaching of the Bible and the "tradition of the Catholic Church".

Copernicus held a post in the catholic church...

 

[lpetrich]

On Facebook, along with The Principle, one can also get some info from the producer's account, Rick DeLano. I find from it this info:

It will open at AMC Theatres on Friday January 23, 2015 at
Burbank, CA -- LA County
Orange, CA -- Orange County
Spokane, WA
They are also hoping to get into Charlotte, NC.

They plan to get their followers to get into theaters to get good box-office numbers, so they can get the movie into theaters in 10 - 15 more cities.

 

[lpetrich]

The Principle on Facebook -- it will come out on DVD and Blu-Ray in October or November

Here's where it's been shown in movie theaters:

Chicago, IL -- 2014 Oct 14 - Oct 30, Nov 7 - Nov 13
Burbank, CA, Orange, CA, Spokane, WA -- 2015 Jan 23 - Feb 5
Madison WI, Harrisburg PA, San Diego CA -- 2015 Mar 13 - 26
Omaha NE, Cincinnati OH, New Castle PA -- 2015 Apr 24 - 30
Albuquerque NM -- 2015 May 17

Here's its total box-office take, up to April 30: $89,543 (The Principle (2014) - Box Office Mojo)

 

[Bronzeage]

In the year 2015, it's a silly idea. Whose mind will be changed by seeing this movie?

If you take any group of objects which move in relation to each other, each object appears to be the center of rotation, from that point of view. The problem with this planetary point of view is the arithmetic gets very complicated. I remember a line from a freshman physics text book. Apparently the concept of gravity came to Newton fairly early in his career, but he could not prove it, "because he had to invent calculus, first."

I've always considered myself to be a young Newton when it comes to things like this. I get the general idea, but I can't do the math. I'll have to take Isaac's word on faith.

Astrophysics vs. Genesis has always been fun to observe from a distance. It's sort of like tennis with a ten foot tall net. The balls just bounce back, no matter how hard they are hit. The basic problem is simple. The Earth looks flat and it looks like the Sun rotates around the Earth, along with the rest of the visible universe. On one hand, we ask people to not believe in an unseen being who created Heaven and Earth in seven days, and on the other hand, ask them to not believe what can be seen with the naked eye.

 

[PyramidHead]

In the year 2015, it's a silly idea. Whose mind will be changed by seeing this movie?

If you take any group of objects which move in relation to each other, each object appears to be the center of rotation, from that point of view. The problem with this planetary point of view is the arithmetic gets very complicated. I remember a line from a freshman physics text book. Apparently the concept of gravity came to Newton fairly early in his career, but he could not prove it, "because he had to invent calculus, first."

I've always considered myself to be a young Newton when it comes to things like this. I get the general idea, but I can't do the math. I'll have to take Isaac's word on faith.

Astrophysics vs. Genesis has always been fun to observe from a distance. It's sort of like tennis with a ten foot tall net. The balls just bounce back, no matter how hard they are hit. The basic problem is simple. The Earth looks flat and it looks like the Sun rotates around the Earth, along with the rest of the visible universe. On one hand, we ask people to not believe in an unseen being who created Heaven and Earth in seven days, and on the other hand, ask them to not believe what can be seen with the naked eye.

To paraphrase Wittgenstein: what would it look like if it DIDN'T look like the earth were flat and the center of everything?

 

[fromderinside]

The right answer is to ask anyone holding the geocentric view how they would project that view if they were looking from Mars, Venus, Ganymede, etc.

 

[PyramidHead]

Yes. The Copernican view is exactly what we see with the naked eye. Being on an extremely large (relative to a person) spherical body that orbits the sun along with the other planets cannot possibly look any different than it looks to the naked eye, because that's the situation we're actually in. Bronzeage was implying that it looks more like we are on a flat surface that's in the middle of everything, than it looks like being on a round surface that orbits something else. Unaided observation is compatible with both models, but the former one requires additional assumptions (like retrograde motion). The issue is not getting people to accept something that contradicts their observations, it's getting them to accept something that contradicts their interpretation of what they observe.

 

[Bronzeage]

Yes. The Copernican view is exactly what we see with the naked eye. Being on an extremely large (relative to a person) spherical body that orbits the sun along with the other planets cannot possibly look any different than it looks to the naked eye, because that's the situation we're actually in. Bronzeage was implying that it looks more like we are on a flat surface that's in the middle of everything, than it looks like being on a round surface that orbits something else. Unaided observation is compatible with both models, but the former one requires additional assumptions (like retrograde motion). The issue is not getting people to accept something that contradicts their observations, it's getting them to accept something that contradicts their interpretation of what they observe.

Perception is reality. The idea that the Earth is sphere, is very old and goes back to the ancient Greeks and who knows beyond that. There were very few people who were concerned with this. It wasn't the sort of thing that presented a problem in everyday life.

It seems to treat people of earlier ages as either the possessors of lost wisdom, or ignorant to the point of stupidity. In any case, most of them were able to collect enough information from the skies to make life easier. It was important enough for them to drag multi-ton pieces of rock many miles, and stack them to line up with the sun on the exact day.

That was then. I'm still asking my original question, which is, "What's the point?" Is this guy impaired in someway, or is he just fucking with us.

 

[skepticalbip]

That was then. I'm still asking my original question, which is, "What's the point?" Is this guy impaired in someway, or is he just fucking with us.

My guess is that one of two things is the point.

The first being that he blindly accepts the Christian idea that humans and so the Earth are special to god in some way so the center of god's attention and the purpose of the universe. So he accepts anything, no matter how absurd, that supports this idea in any way.

The second being that he has observed that any movie that panders to Christians' beliefs makes a hell of a lot of money (example "The Passion of Christ"). He just wants to make a hell of a lot of money.

 

[Perspicuo]

Christians destroying Christianity with tireless effort.

That's a show worth seeing. And it doesn't cost a dime.

 

[lpetrich]

The movie's makers have a hashtag #areyousignificant about being cosmically significant.

Bertrand Russell once wrote The Theologian's Nightmare, about discovering how cosmically insignificant our planet is. That seems to describe the viewpoint of "The Principle"'s makers very well.

 

[Underseer]

In the year 2015, it's a silly idea. Whose mind will be changed by seeing this movie?

If you take any group of objects which move in relation to each other, each object appears to be the center of rotation, from that point of view. The problem with this planetary point of view is the arithmetic gets very complicated. I remember a line from a freshman physics text book. Apparently the concept of gravity came to Newton fairly early in his career, but he could not prove it, "because he had to invent calculus, first."

I've always considered myself to be a young Newton when it comes to things like this. I get the general idea, but I can't do the math. I'll have to take Isaac's word on faith.

Astrophysics vs. Genesis has always been fun to observe from a distance. It's sort of like tennis with a ten foot tall net. The balls just bounce back, no matter how hard they are hit. The basic problem is simple. The Earth looks flat and it looks like the Sun rotates around the Earth, along with the rest of the visible universe. On one hand, we ask people to not believe in an unseen being who created Heaven and Earth in seven days, and on the other hand, ask them to not believe what can be seen with the naked eye.

Teach the controversy!

You just want to suppress the truth getting out because your Copernicanism religion is finally being challenged by real scientists!!!!!!

There is no evidence for Copernicanism, and yet we pollute children's minds and indoctrinate them with these lies as part of the Liberal Agenda!

You just believe in Copernicanism because you don't want your choices to have consequences. You want an excuse to deny god and do whatever evil thing you want!

Information theory and the second law of thermodynamics proves that Copernicanism is impossible!

 

[fromderinside]

Information theory and the second law of thermodynamics proves that Copernicanism is impossible!

Hey. That's my line.

 

[lpetrich]

ScreeningNOW -- "The Principle", now available for purchase on DVD or Blu-Ray. It will be available for rent on December 8, 2015, presumably by streaming online.

So you can now see what it's about, though you must be willing to make the great sacrifice of supporting its creators' careers.