I could use some entertainment and would like to procrastinate on work I'm supposed to be doing. Will one of Sungenis's followers please come explain how the sun and the other planets, let alone the rest of the universe, could possibly revolve around the Earth. How could we have sent anything to Mars if that were true?
shareHow bout we wait till the movie is released so we know what it's thesis is. That might be the 'scientific' thing to do. Michio Kaku is apparently in it so maybe it's about string theory and other nonsense.
share[deleted]
Sorry, but you should investigate the matter a little further before falling for that.
Anyone familiar with the subject knows that Krauss is in the movie because of his work on the geocentric orientation of the Cosmic Microwave Backround. For those unfamiliar with the subject, it has been observed for some time that the CMB has some large scale anisotropy that could affect our understanding of the whole universe, but more recently with the WMAP probe data, that large scale anisotropy was shown to have some anomalous features, the most disturbing of them being poles aligned with the ecliptic plane and equinoxes. This was later confirmed to a higher degree of precision with the Planck data. Basically, it shows that the CMB in the whole universe is somehow aligned with the Earth's equatorial plane and following Earth's rotation. Physicists nicknamed this phenomenon the "Axis of Evil". It's strong evidence that Earth is somehow located in central position in the universe, and as far as I know, there's currently no alternate explanation other than coincidence.
Krauss himself said this in 2006 about the Axis of Evil, before the Planck data:
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 (s)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.
It's worth mentioning that the data being incorrect is no longer a realistic possibility.
Frankly, I think he's being dishonest when he claims he has no idea how he ended up in a movie related to geocentrism. Most of his internet-atheists fans are unaware of the issue above and will believe he's being quoted out of context if he says so.
I'm not pretty, and not a Sungenis follower, whatever that means, but I'll explain it to you.
First of all, the central thesis of the movie is not geocentrism, it's questioning the Copernican Principle, the belief that Earth is not in a privileged location in the universe. Basically, all of modern astrophysics and cosmology depends on that belief, that can't be verified. Some people, including Sungenis and his co-author, Dr. Bennet, believe that if the Copernican Principle is ignored, all other observational evidence available points to a purely newtonian Earth-centered universe strongly resembling the tychonean model. That's not the only possible outcome.
Will one of Sungenis's followers please come explain how the sun and the other planets, let alone the rest of the universe, could possibly revolve around the Earth.
How could we have sent anything to Mars if that were true?
I've seen a pre-screening of this film, and I wouldn't say geocentrism is the "central thesis". It is one of many viewpoints presented.
shareThe producers of the film are known to regard geocentrism as an article of Faith. They believe that scientists conspire to conceal it in order to promote atheism.
The Catholic Church disagrees with them, but they think the recent popes are modernists who tolerate heresy.
And there is all the Jew-paranoia.
See
geocentrismdebunked.org
I've read the books by Sungenis and Dr. Bennett and as far as I could tell, at no point they regard geocentrism as an article of faith. It's a very exhaustive work of scientific research, and I rarely meet people who read the books and address that. I spent a few weeks going over the whole book and its references with a colleague, and it took us considerable effort to find a flaw. I contacted Sungenis directly and he gave a reasonable answer, explaining it's an open issue that requires further research, not at all treating it like an article of faith.
Also, at no point I see they claiming scientists conspire to conceal it, quite the opposite. A conspiracy is a concerted conscious effort to misrepresent something in order to deceive, and they don't claim that at all. What they describe fits very well what philosopher Jean Borella calls an epistemic closure.
They are not alone in believing the recent popes are modernists who tolerate heresy. There's a huge chasm between modernist and traditional catholics.
Finally, I never investigated the antisemitism claims because that's obviously irrelevant to the physics involved.
Please see the site www.geocentrismdebunked.org
In particular, see http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/the_principle_is_about_geocentrism/
> They are not alone in believing the recent popes are modernists who tolerate heresy. There's a huge chasm between modernist and traditional catholics.
Besides modernist and lefebvrists, there are faithful Catholics, who actually believe in the Church (including the Second Vatican Council and human rights).
Lefebvrists, ultra-reactionaries who demand theocracy and decry religious liberty as a heresy, are thankfully a tiny minority. They are extremely vocal on the internet, but are practically non-existent in the real world.
I am criticizing lefebvrists, not the Tridentine Mass. One can prefer the Tridentine Mass without being a lefebvrist. In fact, I blame the lefebvrists for having associated the Tridentine Mass with ultra-reactionary politics.
I know that site, and it's little more than a collection of rants. I'd love to find substantive comprehensive criticism on the science behind the book Galileo Was Wrong, but all I could find were rants like that, written by people who never actually read it and try to imagine what it's about. Every single article in that site comes up with objections that are either strawmen, or are already answered in the Q&A sections.
Frankly, all critics I ever met betray the fact that they never read the book as soon as they try to present an argument. It's incredibly frustrating, because I am really puzzled by it and would like to see some serious criticism, without obvious ideological motivations.
If you're mentioning that site trying to say their conclusions are supported by their faith, you're between a rock and a hard place, since the whole issue exists because the Cosmological Principle is also a matter of faith.
As one who does not know much at all about the science of this, I'll feel free to throw in a comment. I have not seen the movie yet, but have noticed quite a bit of debate on the net about it. It seems like the Copernican principle thing is some sort of third rail. I don't understand why so many people have such visceral emotions about it. Quite a few even try to drag religion into it. Anyway, I gotta see this movie, if for no other reason than to find out what all the hubbub is about. pjwerneck-421-313928, you have some of the most reasoned posts I have seen on this subject, and I find them informative. Thanks.
shareYou're welcome.
shareSo you are admitting you want to discredit Sungenis and his geocentristic claims because you are a liberal novus ordite and hate "Lefeburists" and the Catholic faith.
"ultra-reactionary" politics? You mean catholic politics? Disgusting! How dare they.
[deleted]
In an interview the producer brought up that science can't tell us whether earth moves around a fixed universe or the universe moves around a fixed earth, as either one is a possibility Einstein's general relativity theory leaves open.
shareYou could use some entertainment? That's not condescending, dismissive, rude, elitist, arrogant, defensive, or insecure at all, at all.
I'd suggest, for your entertainment purposes only of course, actually researching these topics, perhaps even in great detail, and coming to your own conclusions.
Or you could just smugly and embarrassingly make stupid little comments misrepresenting yourself and your intentions with pitiful and translucent attempts to engage those, and those theories, that you've already made up your petty little mind about.
Either way.
I owe my solitude to other people.