Worldnetdaily Again Promotes Geocentrist Documentary

The Worldnetdaily is once again promoting a documentary that advocates geocentrism. No, this is not a misprint from the 15th century and it isn’t from The Onion. The documentary that Kate Mulgrew was tricked into doing the narration for is hitting at least a few theaters next week.

“The Principle” is the first-ever film devoted to examining and questioning a widely accepted scientific concept that has defined mankind’s place in the cosmos: the Copernican Principle.

“Conventional wisdom dictates that the idea of Earth being at the center of the universe is a holdover from an ancient, superstitious age,” the filmmakers explain. “Modern science has, for centuries, maintained that the human species is nothing special in the context of the cosmos. ‘The Principle’ re-examines and challenges that assumption.”

“This film may become renowned as one of the most controversial documentaries ever made,” says writer/producer Rick Delano. “It has already inspired tempestuous debate, and that’s before anyone has even seen the film. We’re bringing new scientific evidence to the table that challenges a 400-year-old worldview, and we encourage people to decide for themselves what these new revelations mean.”

As WND reported, “The Principle” boldly challenges the widely accepted principle, named after Renaissance astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus. He famously argued Earth revolves around the sun and went further to suggest Earth is in no central or favored place in the universe…

Citing Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein and various current astronomers and defenders of the Copernican Principle, the documentary makes the case that the data science is discovering indicate the entire known universe is pointing directly at Earth.

“We are in a special place,” argues one of the voices quoted in the documentary. “I do believe that the universe was created by God.”

Yes, it “cites” Einstein and Newton to support a geocentrist universe. Because that’s totally credible.

""Cognitive Dissonance?! You can't handle the Cognitive Dissonance!!""

AL Cop: We Were Told to ..."
"Sorry, Idiot has some minimal qualification, which Wrinklie here doesn't seem to meet..."

Catholic School to Punish Students for ..."
"Ahhhh, the ole Befehl is Befehl argument.Same ole medieval mindset, same ole medieval results.Don't let ..."

Catholic School to Punish Students for ..."
"Too much chance of a resonant cavity causing an explosion, ruining equipment that is FAR ..."

Palin’s Pointless Appeal

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    What twaddle! I can’t believe there are people who still believe such nonsense! The entire known universe doesn’t point at Earth. It points at me!

  • busterggi

    Wish Kate Mulgrew had known what she was getting into. She’s good enough to have done the narration with sufficient sarcasm in her voice to have made it funny.

  • Chiroptera

    lol

    At least they’re past flat earthism, so they’ve moved into the first millenium BCE. Mayve eventually they’ll get to the 16th century CE.

  • http://www.pandasthumb.org Area Man

    BUT DON’T CALL US CREATIONISTS!

  • Stevarious, Public Health Problem

    So how did the probes get to Mars? Their courses were plotted assuming that the solar system was… well, just that, as opposed to an Earthar system. Would those probes have just crashed into the sun?

  • http://artk.typepad.com ArtK

    @Stevarious,

    They never landed on Mars. It’s all Photoshop and a landscape built on a sound stage at Sony. I live near the studio and heard it from a barman whose 2nd cousin knows someone who works there.

  • caseloweraz

    According to Time, she only narrated the trailer.

  • Reginald Selkirk

    … the data science is discovering indicate the entire known universe is pointing and laughing directly at Earth.

    FIFY.

  • caseloweraz

    WND: …the documentary makes the case that the data science is discovering indicate the entire known universe is pointing directly at Earth.

    Heh. Reminds me of the National Lampoon parody that contains, “You are a fluke of the universe.”

  • caseloweraz

    WND: “We are in a special place,” argues one of the voices quoted in the documentary. “I do believe that the universe was created by God.”

    It’s interesting that they refrain from identifying this individual.

  • http://artk.typepad.com ArtK

    @caelowaraz

    Deteriorata.

    You are a fluke of the universe.

    You have no right to be here,

    and whether you can hear it or not,

    the universe is laughing behind your back.

    A steady diet of Dr. Demento in my youth has left a permanent mark on my brain.

  • caseloweraz

    Wait a minute — could this be Gentry Lee? Judging from the content of Rama Revealed, he might well believe it.

  • Synfandel

    From Kate Mulgrew’s Facebook page, April 8, 2014:

    I understand there has been some controversy about my participation in a documentary called THE PRINCIPLE. Let me assure everyone that I completely agree with the eminent physicist Lawrence Krauss, who was himself misrepresented in the film, and who has written a succinct rebuttal in SLATE. I am not a geocentrist, nor am I in any way a proponent of geocentrism. More importantly, I do not subscribe to anything Robert Sungenis has written regarding science and history and, had I known of his involvement, would most certainly have avoided this documentary. I was a voice for hire, and a misinformed one, at that. I apologize for any confusion that my voice on this trailer may have caused.

    Kate Mulgrew

    And here is Lawrence Krauss’s article in Slate, titled “I Have No Idea How I Ended Up in That Stupid Geocentrism Documentary”. He mentions that producer Rick Delano is not just a geocentrist, but also apparently a Holocaust denier, and remarks, “It is tempting to say that both claims are obscene nonsense, but I believe that does a disservice to the word nonsense.”

  • aziraphale

    “…the entire known universe is pointing directly at Earth.”

    You mean each star changes position in the course of a year by just the right amount to make it look as if the Earth orbits the Sun? That’s…..awesome. Think of the information needed to co-ordinate it all.

    Truly God is great.

  • Reginald Selkirk

    Condensed anti-relativity nonsense:

    GEOCENTRICITY’S CRITICS REFUSE TO DO THEIR HOMEWORK

    A Special Chalcedon Position Paper by Martin G. Selbrede

    Ó 1994 Chalcedon. Used by permission.

    In a surprising turn of events, Dr. Gary North…

    Yes, that Gary North.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    caseloweraz “According to Time, she only narrated the trailer.”

    Small world. I trailed the narrator. Reviewers called my performance “creepy and off-putting”.

  • Larry

    Douglas Adams said it best:

    Earth is “an utterly insignificant little blue-green planet far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the galaxy”

    Why is it so important to these mouth-breathers that it be anything else?

  • tvoyumat

    These…people…that post this stupid anti-science stuff on the ‘Net, they make me wonder: if all science is wrong, then how do the computers they use to upload these screeds work? Do they think there are little angels inside?

    And, if that is so, *how* do they know the computers aren’t full of little demons?

  • eric

    “This film may become renowned as one of the most controversial documentaries ever made,” says writer/producer Rick Delano.

    Bwa ha ha. Ha. Ha.

    “It has already inspired tempestuous debate

    About your professional ethics, blockhead, not about geocentrism.

  • http://heb712.blogspot.com heddle

    I’m sure the documentary is BS, but questioning the Copernican Principle (which is absolutely not necessarily the same as advocating geocentricism) is scientifically valid. It has, in fact, the Copernican Principle has never been tested, and dark energy can be jettisoned of the universe has a peculiar mass distribution.

    I find the dark energy much more plausible, but the Copernican Principle has to be tested with better precision cosmic background data.

  • gardengnome

    “I do believe that the universe was created by my God.”

  • whheydt

    Re: tvoyumat @ #18…

    The only ones with daemons inside are the one running Linux or unix. Hmmm…wonder what OS WNDs servers use…?

  • chirez

    It’s worth being a little cautious when dealing with claims of geocentrism. Generally speaking, fanatical geocentrists will use valid scientific information to support unwarranted conclusions.

    Physically, and mathematically speaking, there is no reason to place the sun at the ‘center’ of the solar system. All it does is simplify the diagram, it’s not any more correct than placing the earth there.

    Relativity implies that the laws of physics can be constructed from any frame of reference. The important point is that while it’s perfectly fine to say the earth is the center of the universe, for consistency you have to acknowledge that so is absolutely everywhere else.

    The danger obviously is ridiculing a geocentric statement for being geocentric, only to find that it’s based on actual science, rendering everything else you say suspect.

  • raven

    This film may become renowned as one of the most controversial documentaries ever made,” says writer/producer Rick Delano.

    He is part right. “The principle” will be the Reefer Madness of the 21st century. People will watch it with various mind altering substances, snack food, and laugh a lot.

    IMO, this is another own goal. Xians showing how morally and intellectually bankrupt their religion is. I may have to discover another syndrome.

    Rick Delano is suffering from Fundie Xian Induced Brain Necrosis. It seems to be a common disease.

    Parents, this is your brain on religion. Have that talk with your child today!!!

  • Michael Heath

    Wingnut

    “We are in a special place,” argues one of the voices quoted in the documentary. “I do believe that the universe was created by God.”

    [Heath bolded]

    So if we disprove that the central distinguishing claim(s) made in The Principle, does that mean God didn’t create the universe? Not in Winglandia it doesn’t.

    This illustrates why I abandoned the use of ‘believe’ and ‘belief’ to describe my own conclusions.

  • http://heb712.blogspot.com heddle

    It’s worth being a little cautious when dealing with claims of geocentrism.

    But again, just reading Ed’s post, they are challenging the Copernican Principle, which is not the same as advocating geocentrism. Geocentrism is simply the most obvious way to violate the Copernican Principle. We are, in fact, not sure that the Copernican Principle is valid, even though most of us believe that it is.

    Now I have no doubt they are drawing religious conclusions, but still you should be careful not to equate the two.

    Physically, and mathematically speaking, there is no reason to place the sun at the ‘center’ of the solar system.

    That’s insane. Of course there is. Placing it there, and using Newton’s gravitational (modulo SR and GR corrections) you reproduce everything, including (trivially) retrograde motion. There is no need to put the solar system at the center of the universe, but there is a compelling reason to put the sun at the center of the solar system.

    The important point is that while it’s perfectly fine to say the earth is the center of the universe,

    Actually it isn’t. If you put the earth at the center you have stars ad galaxies rotating around the earth at enormous distances, once per day, which requires them to be traveling much faster than the speed of light. Relativity does not mean that “every thing is relative.” That is a common misuse. In fact, what (special) relativity depends on is the opposite of “everything is relative”, it is based entirely on something not being relative at all: the speed of light.

  • colnago80

    Re chirez #24

    One of my pet peeves is the effort by geocentrists to use General Relativity to argue that it somehow makes some sort of weird sense to maintain that the Sun goes around the Earth. General Relativity has nothing to do with anything. In fact, for most problems in celestial mechanics, Newtonian physics is more then adequate, with relativistic effects treated by perturbation theory (e.g. the relativistic contribution to the precession rate of the orbit of Mercury), and those perturbations are very, very small. The relativistic contribution to the orbit of Mercury, which precesses in space, amounts to 43 seconds of arc per century. That’s 1 degree every 10 thousand years!

    Consider the Sun/Earth system in isolation, a good approximation as the interactions with the other planets and relativistic effects can be calculated by perturbation theory. The Sun and the Earth actually revolve around the center of mass of the two objects. However, the resultant 2 body problem can be reduced to an equivalent 1 body problem with the Earth having a reduced mass given by (m+M)/mM, (where m is the mass of the earth and M is the mass of the Sun) revolving around a stationary Sun. Since M >> m, it is completely senseless to claim that the Sun goes around the Earth.

  • colnago80

    Re #27

    All fuck, the reduced mass is given by mM/M+m).

  • mildlymagnificent

    Douglas Adams said it best:

    Earth is “an utterly insignificant little blue-green planet far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the galaxy”

    Why is it so important to these mouth-breathers that it be anything else?

    Because their shrivelled hearts and tiny minds can’t comprehend the glorious fantastic minuscule chance of the fates that they’re here at all. Talk about a magnificent payoff from a game you weren’t even playing!

    Gratitude is the appropriate feeling. And even that simple feat is beyond them.

  • Al Dente

    Why is it so important to these mouth-breathers that it be anything else?

    The problem is trying to fit the creator of billions of galaxies and trillions of stars into the persona of a bronze age tribal god. It’s difficult if not impossible to reconcile the universe creator with a deity who’s concerned about your sex life.

  • Chiroptera

    chirez, #23: The danger obviously is ridiculing a geocentric statement for being geocentric, only to find that it’s based on actual science, rendering everything else you say suspect.

    Not really. The point of geocentrism is that the earth is special because it is the center of the universe. But, to quote Syndrome from The Incredibles (almost), if every point can be a center of the universe, then no point is the center of the universe.

  • Vicki, duly vaccinated tool of the feminist conspiracy

    Yes, you can model things with the earth at the center of the universe, but all that does is make your calculations a lot more complicated. Epicycles on epicycles on epicycles.

    The point is—and this is the Copernican principle again—that you can put any other solar system body into the first sentence, and it’s just as true. You could model the universe with Europa at the center. With enough processing power, you could model it everything going around a specific particle in one of Saturn’s rings.

    Doing so is neither true nor elegant. Not everything elegant is true, nor vice versa. But if you’re trying to make a simpler model to help you think about things, it should be simpler. (I don’t argue or object if someone says that Jupiter orbits the sun, although it’s more precise to say the two bodies orbit a common center.)

  • dannorth

    “Yes, it “cites” Einstein and Newton to support a geocentrist universe. Because that’s totally credible.”

    Actually there is an argument from the theory of relativity and the Big Bang model from which it can be argued that the Earth is at the center of the Universe.

    Since the Universe is expanding at the speed of light which is constant in every directions then the Universe is expanding from Earth at the same speed in every directions and that place the Earth at the center of the Universe, as seen from the Earth.

    Of course the same is true for every other point of the Universe, so Modus is right in saying that the Universe is pointing at him.

  • dingojack

    This film may become renowned as one of the most controversial documentaries ever made” — but it probably won’t.

    It’s more likely to fade into the background amongst the ever-increasing legion of piss-poor Christian-themed films.

    (In short: “Coming to a church basement near you!”)

    @@ Dingo

    —————

    SLC (## 27&28) – why not call it ‘μ’ and be done with it. 😉

  • weatherwax

    #24 Raven: “He is part right. “The principle” will be the Reefer Madness of the 21st century. People will watch it with various mind altering substances, snack food, and laugh a lot.”

    Delano wishes. I agree with Dingo, it will be good for a couple laughs and then disappear. I don’t think it will even qualify for the church basement rack.

  • raven

    The danger obviously is ridiculing a geocentric statement for being geocentric, only to find that it’s based on actual science, rendering everything else you say suspect.

    Not really. As many commenters have already pointed out, if you adopt the Relativistic viewpoint, then every single point in the universe can be the center. And if that is true, then there is no one center, There sre an infinite number of them.

    It certainly doesn’t prove Geocentrism. If you follow it through, it proves the opposite.

    It then follows that…the exact center of the univese is…me. Although the cat acts like it is her.

    I’m going to say it again. If their religion was true, the xians wouldn’t have to lie all the time about everything. More proof that xianity is just modern lies piled on ancient lies. It’s lies all the way down.

  • http://zenoferox.blogspot.com/ Zeno

    The entire known universe doesn’t point at Earth. It points at me!

    Modusoperandi goes Ptolemy one better: His system isn’t geocentric, it’s egocentric.

  • http://heb712.blogspot.com heddle

    dannorth ,

    Actually there is an argument from the theory of relativity and the Big Bang model from which it can be argued that the Earth is at the center of the Universe.

    Very, very wrong. There is no such argument, unless you include “not even wrong suggestions” as arguments.

    Since the Universe is expanding at the speed of light which is constant in every directions then the Universe is expanding from Earth at the same speed in every directions and that place the Earth at the center of the Universe, as seen from the Earth.

    The universe is not expanding at the speed of light. Its actually faster. (And that does not violate relativity.) The universe is about 14 billion years old and yet the visible universe is about 40 billion light years in extent. And even “as seen from” is not correct, since local galaxies are not moving away from us–gravity puts local galaxies on collision courses.

    Even forgetting all that, the statement “there is an argument from the theory of relativity and the Big Bang model from which it can be argued that the Earth is at the center of the Universe” is ass backwards. There is an argument from ignorance that puts the earth at the center because of the expansion. But as soon as you understand relativity and the big bang, that argument is utterly destroyed. It is not, in any way, supported.

  • lpetrich

    This movie’s home page: The Principle | In Selected Theatrical Outlets Now!

    It had played in some theaters in Chicago, and starting this Friday, it will play in theaters in Burbank CA, Orange CA, and Spokane WA.

    Click on the triplet of lines at the top of the sidebar on the right, and it will move leftward, exposing links to the site’s content. In the videos, there are various snippets from the movie, like interviews and a special-effects hologram of a woman stating various definitions.

  • roggg

    I think it’s extremely charitable to call geocentrism controversial. It’s dead. It’s rotting corpse has been buried for centuries. This film is a scientific re-imagining of “Weekend at Bernies”.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Yes, you can model things with the earth at the center of the universe, but all that does is make your calculations a lot more complicated.

    Doesn’t it also require us to scrap a huge chunk of the laws of physics whose validity we’ve established over the last few centuries?

    …the Copernican Principle has never been tested…

    Please state exactly which principle has “never been tested.” The bit about the planets orbiting the Sun has been tested, and it’s been proven true, at least by the fact that the rockets we build and operate based on that principle, actually get where they’re supposed to go. So what, exactly, still has to be tested?

    …the Copernican Principle has to be tested with better precision cosmic background data.

    That sounds like it’s been tested and validated with the data we have, but more precise data might change things. That’s not the same thing as saying the principle has “never” been tested. Which is it, heddle?

  • http://heb712.blogspot.com heddle

    RB

    The bit about the planets orbiting the Sun has been tested, and it’s been proven true, at least by the fact that the rockets we build and operate based on that principle, actually get where they’re supposed to go. So what, exactly, still has to be tested?

    You are missing the boat and confusing, as others are, the Copernican Principle with non-Geocetricism. The Copernican Principle is much stronger than “the earth is not at the center of the solar system” which is beyond dispute (in spite of the nonsense in some of the comments here about “relativity means you can put the earth or any other point at the center”). Rather it is something like “our position in the universe is more or less indistinguishable from any other, in terms of gross features.” Or, “On an appropriate scale, the mass distribution of the universe is homogeneous”. Something like that. It is the homogeneity that hasn’t been sufficiently tested to rule out the possibility that the expansion of the universe is not due to dark energy, but instead due to us being in a peculiar position in the universe visa-vis its mass distribution. That is what has not been tested. Until that possibility, as we all expect, is ruled out experimentally, the Copernican Principle remains unconfirmed.

  • colnago80

    Re Heddle @ #42

    It is the homogeneity that hasn’t been sufficiently tested to rule out the possibility that the expansion of the universe is not due to dark energy, but instead due to us being in a peculiar position in the universe visa-vis its mass distribution.

    A little elaboration is in order. The “us” cited here refers to the entire Milky Way Galaxy and probably the entire galactic cluster to which it belongs. Thus, if there are other planets in those galaxies which have intelligent life, they would also see themselves as being in that peculiar position. Of course, the creationists maintain that there is no other life in the universe, or at least intelligent life. Of course, 20 years ago, they maintained that there were no other solar systems in the universe.

  • dingojack

    Isn’t there a project that has feed the data, collected in several large scale scans of the universe, to create a large scale three-dimensional model of the local area of the universe? Granted, it’s nowhere near the whole visible universe, but it’s pretty big and pretty homogeneous…

    Dingo

  • Trebuchet

    I’ve been following the news about this “documentary” for months due to a thread on the CosmoQuest forum.

    Rick DeLano has only become the public face of the film fairly recently. The real power behind it is Robert Sungenis, a “Catholic Apologist” who has notably been sanctioned by his own church for his holocaust denial and general anti-Semitism. That kept turning up in articles on the film so they’ve turned to DeLano to keep Sungenis’ baggage in the background. The two have interestingly different educational backgrounds: DeLano is proud of never having graduated High School, while Sungenis has a fake PhD from a diploma mill in Vanuatu.

    The film has been released through the same company that put out “Expelled” and DeSouza’s Obama film, but lacking the built-in audiences of either, has struggled at the box office. Of course, according to DeLano, that’s the resuilt of a conspiracy by “a promininent left-wing hate group”. That would be the SPLC.

  • http://heb712.blogspot.com heddle

    For those interested,

    This explains it better than I can in short comments. And the journal of publication, Physical Review Letters, is arguably the premiere peer-reviewed physics journal in the world.

  • paul

    how do the computers they use to upload these screeds work? Do they think there are little angels inside?

    From a song parody I was working on once:

     

     

    There’s a box of fairies sitting on my desk

    I don’t much about them, except that they are pests

    I don’t know where they come from, how they live, or what they do

    But those fairies don’t like “Debian” or “FC2”.

  • lofgren

    This explains it better than I can in short comments. And the journal of publication, Physical Review Letters, is arguably the premiere peer-reviewed physics journal in the world.

    I would be more convinced if PRL would respond to my emails explaining how the supposed “dark energy” is just an artifact of the alien’s cloaking devices. What are you hiding, Physical Review Letters? WHO GOT TO YOU?

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Rather it is something like “our position in the universe is more or less indistinguishable from any other, in terms of gross features.” Or, “On an appropriate scale, the mass distribution of the universe is homogeneous”. Something like that.

    Those are two very different assertions there. The former can be true if our galaxy is not that “distinguishable” from the many other galaxies known to exist; while the latter says something totally different about MASS distribution, which is a lot more specific than “indistinguishable in terms of gross features.” Also, the former has been kinda sorta tested, based on what we currently observe, while the latter — though trying to be more specific — is still kind of vague if it fails to distinguish different types of mass. (If one half of the Universe is mostly dark energy, and the other half is mostly matter and energy as we know it, that’s not really a homogeneous distribution.)

    And neither of these statements really have all that much to do with geocentrism vs. heliocentrism, except that they’re named after Copernicus. So I’m not sure why this Copernican Principle is even relevant to a discussion of old-school know-nothingism.

  • http://heb712.blogspot.com heddle

    RB,

    Your statements make no sense physics wise. For example, there is no current theory or model or speculation that would accommodate “half of the Universe is mostly dark energy, and the other half is mostly matter and energy as we know it”. Dark Energy is a proposed anti-gravity property of spacetime–and it either it is ubiquitous or it is nowhere. The vacuum cannot be different at two different locations in the universe. Perhaps you are thinking of dark matter.

    And the homogeneity has to be on larger scales than galaxies. Galaxies are in fact distinguishable. The universe is not homogeneous on the scale of galaxies. Both ways I worded it are about the mass distribution and are equivalent.

  • colnago80

    Re Raging Bee @ #49

    Currently, it is posited that 75% of the matter in the universe is dark energy, 20% is dark matter (they are not the same), and 5% is observable matter (e.g. protons, neutrons, electrons, photons, and neutrinos).