If published reports are to be believed, Executive Producer Robert Sungenis is a holocaust denier and has argued that Jewish people conspired with Satan to rule the world.
If true, then I'm deeply troubled that Kate Mulgrew has leant her name and voice to this production.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/07/star-trek-actress-lends-her-grav itas-to-film-promoting-idea-that-sun-revolves-around-earth/
Deeply troubling that anyone over the age of 12 would think geocentrism is where it's at, but it's one thing to be associated with stupid and another to be associated with this guy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sungenis
In 2014, Sungenis funded the production of a geocentrist film called The Principle, which is narrated by Kate Mulgrew and features an interview with Lawrence Krauss; the latter has since said he was featured in the film without permission and agrees with the scientific community that geocentrism has been thoroughly debunked. Mulgrew's public statement on her Facebook page announces that her beliefs fall in line with Krauss's assertions, and mentions that she was "a voice for hire, and a misinformed one, at that."[14] Of the film, Krauss said that if people ignore it, “Maybe then it will quickly disappear into the dustbin of history, where it belongs.”[15]
Lawrence Krauss has written about this nonsensical film in an article on Slate:
I Have No Idea How I Ended Up in That Stupid Geocentrism Documentary
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/04/08/lawrence_krauss_on_ ending_up_in_the_geocentricism_documentary_the_principle.html
Kate Mulgrew along with several others were duped into doing this. She was a voice for hire, others also had clips taken out of context.
Had she known the true intention of this "documentary", she would have declined. It was a voiceover job to her, nothing more. She was just given her text to read, and what *she* said didn't ring any alarms.
These right-wing freaks simply cannot do anything without trickery.
http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2014/04/08/3424505/kate-mulgrew-duped /
In her own words, from the above link:
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 was hired to do it, she should complain to her agent.
As far as I know, Krauss wasn't quoted out of context. He was interviewed for more than 5 hours for the movie due to his previous remarks on the geocentric orientation of the CMB poles. Here's what he said in 2006:
That is, we live in one universe, so we're a sample of one. With a sample of one, you have what is called a large sample variance. And maybe this just means we're lucky, that we just happen to live in a universe where the number's smaller than you'd predict. But 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.
The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we're the center of the universe, or maybe the data is imply incorrect, or maybe it's telling us there's something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there's something wrong with our theories on the larger scales. And of course as a theorist I'm certainly hoping it's the latter, because I want theory to be wrong, not right, because if it's wrong there's still work left for the rest of us.
http://edge.org/conversation/the-energy-of-empty-space-that-isn-39t-zero
I'm pretty sure that's what he was hired to talk about in the movie, and that's perfectly within the context, since with the release of the Planck probe data and confirmation that the issue is not a data blip, there's no other current explanation for the phenomenon other than coincidence. That Krauss claims he has no idea how he ended in a movie about geocentrism after admitting how the CMB orientation could show that the Earth is truly the center of the universe seems dishonest.
I don't know what the other physicists are talking about, but I doubt they are being quoted out of context.
Unfortunately, Krauss was corrected in his assertions, since the CMB anomalies - even if they are real - don't magically prove the Earth is at the center of the universe.
Not only were the maps made from the L2 point, and not Earth (meaning that, if you want to play that game, then it's the L2 point that is at the center of the universe, and not Earth), but also the anomaly would exist for every body in the solar system and every stellar system in the universe with an inclination the same as ours.
So, if you want to claim the CMB means the Earth inhabits a "special place", then it also means that every body in the solar system also does, and so does every stellar system in the universe with the same inclination.
Whoops.
And, yes, the other physicists are being quoted out of context. Shortly after getting in touch with Barbour about this, he released a statement explaining that his much-touted by geocentrists paper, "Gravity and Inertia in a Machian Framework" (co-authored with Bertotti, in 1977), actually has the Earth moving around the Sun, making it not a geocentric paper in the first place.
Do any of the physicists involved explain the fact that the universe doesn't act like it has Sungenis' magical center of mass, as they would if anybody explicitly asked them about his conjectures?
If it really was a "fair and balanced film" - and not just a polemic that puts even Michael Moore to shame, as it clearly appears to be - then it would include these points.
Unfortunately, Krauss was corrected in his assertions, since the CMB anomalies - even if they are real - don't magically prove the Earth is at the center of the universe.
Not only were the maps made from the L2 point, and not Earth (meaning that, if you want to play that game, then it's the L2 point that is at the center of the universe, and not Earth)
but also the anomaly would exist for every body in the solar system and every stellar system in the universe with an inclination the same as ours.
So, if you want to claim the CMB means the Earth inhabits a "special place", then it also means that every body in the solar system also does, and so does every stellar system in the universe with the same inclination.
And, yes, the other physicists are being quoted out of context.
Shortly after getting in touch with Barbour about this, he released a statement explaining that his much-touted by geocentrists paper, "Gravity and Inertia in a Machian Framework" (co-authored with Bertotti, in 1977), actually has the Earth moving around the Sun, making it not a geocentric paper in the first place.
Do any of the physicists involved explain the fact that the universe doesn't act like it has Sungenis' magical center of mass, as they would if anybody explicitly asked them about his conjectures?
If it really was a "fair and balanced film" - and not just a polemic that puts even Michael Moore to shame, as it clearly appears to be - then it would include these points.
Nobody says the CMB anomalies alone prove the Earth is at the center of the universe, that's just another piece of the puzzle.
If Krauss were intellectually honest, the correct attitude would be saying something like:
"Years ago I made an statement that supported some geocentrist claims about the CMB anomalies and they hired me to talk about that in a documentary. That statement was later corrected and I no longer support it, but I needed the money so I did the documentary anyway."
Wait... first you said that the CMB anomalies don't magically prove the Earth is at the center of the universe, but now your argument is that if the satellites were at L2, that would mean the center of universe is at L2? Please, make up your mind. If you're going to use that straw man as an argument, try to at least make it consistent with your other arguments, because it makes you look like a fool.
Obviously that's a straw man. First of all, nobody claims the CMB anomalies prove the Earth is at the center of the universe. They claim some of the modes show some mutual alignment between themselves, the equinoxes and the ecliptic plane, which breaks the assumption of isotropy. That's all, nothing more, nothing less. Second, the fact that the measurement is made from L2 is irrelevant, since the issue is the alignment, not whether there's some magic property in the CMB that says the Earth is at the center. There's your straw man again.
Sure, and wouldn't exist for all the others. Where's your isotropic universe now, huh?
"So, if you want to claim the CMB means the Earth inhabits a "special place", then it also means that every body in the solar system also does, and so does every stellar system in the universe with the same inclination."
Nobody is making that claim. That's your straw man again.
"Let us first consider the case when the massive body is a rigid, uniform shell of mass Mo and radius Ro [e.g., the universe]. The test body [e.g., the Earth] is near the center of the shell (coincident with the center of the cosmological shell and the origin of co-ordinates); thus ri << Ro.
That looks very geocentric to me. If he's saying that's not geocentric, I'm curious to read the statement he released, but I couldn't find that anywhere. Can you share a link?
"Do any of the physicists involved explain the fact that the universe doesn't act like it has Sungenis' magical center of mass, as they would if anybody explicitly asked them about his conjectures?"
You're repeating the same rant you came up in the other topic.
Please, read the answers to Alec MacAndrew, and if that doesn't settle it for you, we can discuss your objections
The book Galileo Was Wrong is pretty fair and balanced
so I see no reason to believe the documentary by the same authors won't be fair and balanced too.
From what I heard about it by people who saw it, it was terrific and even some die hard skeptics were moved by it.
I saw you admitted you actually haven't read the book.
Yet you somehow exactly know what it contains, by hearsay (or is it omniscience?).
In light of that, I don't know how you could possibly be entitled to criticising it at all.
What kind of person would do such a thing?
The more you speak the more you sound like that dreadful feller CHL's teen fans who fancy themselves "scientists".
So is she not recommending this film?
shareIt's very hard to believe that Mulgrew, especially after signing a release form and reading the film's entire script, still had no idea what it's about.
The same goes for Dr. Krauss:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/09/i-can-tell-you-how-lawrence- krauss-ended-up-in-our-film-he-signed-a-release-form-and-cashed-a-chec k/
Sources, please. I have never heard of Robert Sungenis denying Hitler's genocide.
shareI've never heard of Robert Sungenis. Are you sure it's not Subgenius?
§ "Jewish people conspired with Satan to rule the world"
Delusions of Control by "the Jews" is a sure sign of mental illness.
Three More Years! Climate Apocalypse! $17½ trillion!
See this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvR7pMqAEso , which discusses whether they are anti-Semitic or not.
shareTheir anti-Semitism has been duly documented. See
geocentrismdebunked.org
Oh my!
The filthy dog should be burned at the stake for blasphemy against the Shoah and Science!
Hi TigerTanaka,
I was just wondering what all of that had to do with this film? Hmm? Anything?
This film, this production, deals with the scientific understanding of the nature of the earth and our 'place' in the cosmos. I'm pretty sure the holocaust and 'jewish people' are not the topic. I'm deeply troubled that you would choose to limit your comment to completely unrelated and irrelevant (and slanderous but that's beside the point) topics.
Sometimes it's easier to attack the messenger than the message? Sometimes it's easier to wrap an ignorant cowardly wrongful attack on a theory you've been brainwashed into believing is ludicrous up in a fanboy trekkie defense of an actress you have no business being "deeply" pleased or "troubled" about period? Are you her father or something?
Honestly, you want to make fun of others and other theories to make yourself and your theories seem more solid, right? Don't lie.
I owe my solitude to other people.