I have asked twice on Dr. Robert Sungenis' site, the Bellarmine Report, how the film was coming along, but I have not received any reply. Maybe my questions are not getting through, but it does seem a little odd. I am most anxious to see this film as I believe that we have to go back to the first great attack on the Church by the black cult of Scientism so that all the subsequent wrongs will be righted. May God bless you and Dr Sungenis in your magisterial work.
Glad to hear it. As Anon, I was often searching for news about it, ever since I heard Robert in a radio interview last year talking that you are going to make a full featured film about it.
Rick do you have some rough estimate as to when there will be premier of this movie? Obviously it's hard to specify an exact date, but maybe a month, or at least which quarter of the year?
Also, since I'm from an eastern country in Europe, I was wondering about availibility of the movie. Is it going to be a movie that is being shown in almost all movie theatres, just like any modern movie, or is it going to be more of an "underground" thing? If so, I would imagine, that it would be hard for me to see it in a theatre in my country. Are you planning some dvd distribution?
On a last note, I have to say that I'm waiting for it probably more than you guys ;), mostly due to the fact that I'm HOPING it will get a media exposure. Obviously people will be shaking their heads in disbilief this thing "still exists in XXI century", but it doesn't matter. What matters is that I HOPE Robert and you will be invited to many interviews, where you will crash any opponent who doesn't have a clue about this topic. And since I love the debating skills of Robert, I also can't wait for him to "crush" some of those "scientists" and show to the world how "honest" they are.
Good luck, and again, can't wait for the movie! Lucas
We have sought no publicity during the production process.
We are preparing what amounts to a critical examination of the Copernican Principle; the foundational metaphysical assumption of the modern world.
We are also working very hard to try and make a *good movie*, that is, something that the average person in this culture at this time will want to see, will be able to understand, and will derive a real benefit from having seen.
We are only just now at the point of presenting the project both to major Hollywood agencies and studios, and also to very successful independent film marketing entities.
Please be patient; we have worked very hard to come up with something quite original, powerful, and noteworthy.
Believe me, it is our expectation and hope that the controversy over the film in the media will be....extraordinary.
Please pray for the wide distribution of our project.
Hey Rick, thanks for superfast reply. Either you have a coffee break, or I'm stalling your work ;)
I will keep the prayers of this project in mind, as it's very important. I have to say I came to the topic of geocentrism by fluke, mainly because came by one of the Robert debates with James White. I've became quite a huge fan of his debating skills, which are really extraordinary in logic and clarity. And through him I discovered this topic. I didn't care for it, I'm not scientist, hated physics classes in my university where I was studying computer science, didn't put any emphasis on this issue with my faith, but after listening to your lectures, listening couple of Robert interviews, the conference you did last year, and then reading the books by Robert&Robert, I saw how it all fits together. Cosmology, creation, faith. Pretty coherent and logical knoledge, where all puzzles come together.
Just as a sidenote, I have to say, that once I heard the "copernican principle"... I have to tell you. As a computer scientist, that operates in work place solely on logic and reason, this is one of the stupidest things I ever heard, and to know it's the root in the physics world for centuries makes me dizzy even more. A guy made up a phrase, no proof, nothing that could make us test it to be sure, no divine intervention told him so, but never the less, it's something people seems to believe like it's as much of a fact as that the sky is blue. Seems almost like it's the "10 commandments" equivalent for the atheists. Just a little shorter.
BTW, the "Lukasz" that sent you an invite on facebook, that's me :). Anyway don't want to take more of your time. I would love to ask you couple questions that I had about geocentrism, and something Robert said in the conference, that's the main reason I looked you up at facebook, so maybe later, after the movie premiere, once you have a little bit more time, you will give me opportunity to ask them :)
Say hi to Robert from me the next time you see him. He should know from who it is :) And please tell him that I'm sorry if I stuffed his email mailbox ;)
Dear Mr. DeLano, it's great to see that your project is almost completed. As for me, I am about to embark on a project of my own. This spring I will be discerning a religious / priestly vocation, living in community with the Salesians for 4 months. It is largely thanks to the apologetics of Dr. Subgenis that I even decided to practice my Catholic faith. Please pray for me and be assured that your project and family are in my prayers.
God bless you for sending this comment. Please know that it means more to us that a holy vocation is being discerned, than that we should sell all the tickets in the world to "The Principle".
I will forward your note to Dr. Sungenis.
May God richly bless you as you discern your vocation.
Their is nothing in this world so necessary now, as holy Catholic priests.
You're reffering to galileowaswrong.com website, correct?
That's good news Rick. Can you give us some little insight about how the agencies responded so far to the material you and Robert showed? Do they see it as interesting, or most of them see it as a hoax story and don't want to get into that, or simply put, don't see any financial gain in going into that project?
Also I was wondering... If some "powers to be" of those studios are atheists, wouldn't they have the same reason to discriminate this movie, just as atheistic scientists discriminate and hide the geocentric proofs they find in science?
Response has been very gratifying thus far. It is rather difficult to view our film as a "hoax", since it incorporates fascinating and ground-breaking interviews with the leading cosmologists in the world, including interviews with the discoverer of the CMB Axis himself, describing for us on camera exactly what happened the night he became the first human being ever to view the "Axis of Evil" in the CMB :-)
It is going to be very difficult to dismiss "The Principle".
We worked very hard to make a film that is just too powerful to ignore.
It has become quite clear that the subject is too fascinating and the science is too compelling to ignore.
"Since the release of the WMAP data, several groups have claimed detections of significant non-Gaussianities (Tegmark et al. 2003; Eriksen et al. 2004b; Copi et al. 2003; Vielva et al. 2004; Hansen et al. 2004; Park 2004; Larson & Wandelt 2004; Cruz et al. 2005). Almost all of these claims imply that the CMB fluctuations are not stationary and claim a preferred direction or orientation in the data. Hajian et al. (2005) argue that these detections are based on a posteriori selection of preferred directions and do not find evidence for preferred axes or directions. Because of the potential revolutionary significance of these detections, they must be treated with some caution. Galactic foregrounds are non-Gaussian and anisotropic, and even low level contamination in the maps can produce detectable non- Gaussianities (Chiang et al. 2003; Naselsky et al. 2005), but have only minimal effects on the angular power spectrum (Hinshaw et al. 2003). Similarly, point sources can be a source of non-Gaussianity at small angular scales (Eriksen et al. 2004b). Because of the WMAP scan pattern, the variance in the noise in the maps is spatially variable. There is significant 1/f noise in several of the Difference Assemblies (DAs) (particularly W4)— which leads to anisotropies in the two-point function of the noise. Finally, most of the claimed detections of significant non-Gaussianities are based on a posteriori statistics. Many of the claimed detections of non-Gaussianity can be tested with the three year WMAP data (available at lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov). Future tests should use the simulated noise maps, Monte Carlo simulations and the difference maps (year 1 − year 2, year 2 − year 3, etc.) to confirm that the tests are not sensitive to noise statistics and the multi-frequency data to confirm that any claimed non-Gaussianity has a thermal spectrum. Claims of non-Gaussianity incorporating data close to the galactic plane (within the Kp2 cut) should be treated with caution, as the foreground corrections near the plane are large and uncertain." (Spergel et al, 2007)
I think the interview with Tegmark adequately points out that all of these objections have been pretty thoroughly taken apart by the Copi, Huterer, Starkman team.
Those interested in delving deeper into the scientific back-and-forth can check below:
The 2007 paper above is, in my opinion, very persuasively answered (and several years' worth of additional objections to the Axis as well) in Copi, Huterer et al 2010:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.5602v2.pdf
Relevant excerpts:
"While not all of these alignments are statistically independent, their combined statistical significance is certainly greater than their individual significances. For example, given their mutual alignments, the conditional probability of the four normals lying so close to the ecliptic, is less than 2%; the combined probability of the four normals being both so aligned with each other and so close to the ecliptic is less than 0.4% × 2% = 0.008%. These are therefore clearly surprising, highly statistically significant anomalies — unexpected in the standard inflationary theory and the accepted cosmological model. Particularly puzzling are the alignments with solar system features. CMB anisotropy should clearly not be correlated with our local habitat. While the observed correlations seem to hint that there is contamination by a foreground or perhaps by the scanning strategy of the telescope, closer inspection reveals that there is no obvious way to explain the observed correlations. Moreover, if their explanation is that they are a foreground, then that will likely exacerbate other anomalies that we will discuss in section IV B below......."
From Section IV:
"Finally, the angular correlation function in its simplest form is a direct pixel based measure (see below). Thus it does not rely on the reconstruction of contaminated regions of the sky to employ. This makes it a simple, robust measure even for partial sky coverage..........
".....For example, Hajian [34] defined a statistic that explicitly takes into account the covariance in the quantity C(θ).......With this statistic and assuming the concordance model it is found that less than 1% of realizations of the standard model have a A(0.53) less than those found for the masked skies. For the full sky ILC map approximately 8% of realizations have a smaller value. Though less constraining than making no assumptions about the theory through the use of the S1/2 statistic, these results are consistent with those we previously found."
In other words, even given Hajian's own *a priori* adoption of the Copernican Principle, Copi, Huterer show that the skies are non-Copernican at 99% CL.
The full article really does pretty much demolish all the Axis objections, in my view.
1. Independent 2. Highly controversial 3. Essentially complete, and 4. Really, really, really good :-)
#'s 3 and 4 above (especially), place us in a fairly rare category; one in which almost anything can happen.
Three principals favor three approaches to distribution, and so all three are simultaneously (and cooperatively) pursuing their favored options:
1. We have been quite surprised at the degree of early interest (based on our trailer and one sheet) from "mainstream" distributors. The film will be shown to two of these this coming week. We expect to show it to others in the weeks ahead.
While a "negative pickup" (distributor buys the rights) type deal is unusual in the case of an independent film, the quality of the film is such that it might happen.
2. We have caught the interest of independent film marketing/distribution entities who have been involved with some of the biggest independent films of all time. We will be showing the film at the end of the month to one of these.
This type of deal involves a coordinated viral internet/media campaign designed to create a "buzz" (I certainly expect that this film is capable of creating a very significant "buzz" indeed), while at the same time investor groups specializing in "P and A" (prints and advertising) budgets are solicited in order to facilitate a limited initial theatrical release.
This happens to be my preferred option :-)
3. The film is a dream come true for viral internet marketing, and we happen to live at a time where the technology is now available whereby an independent film can be produced, marketed, and delivered via streaming and downloading over the internet, including via a wholly-owned website.
This type of deal involves maximum control of the campaign by the filmmakers (important to us!) and happens to also involve the retention of ownership (copyright) and first-in-line revenues for the producing partnership.
By the middle of March we will know which way we are going to go :-)
Rick, which option is (for now) preferred by Robert? ;)
As for option 1, doesn't "giving away the rights" make it able for the distributor, to alternate the message of the content, either by the other type of marketing or other means, which I guess is something that you guys would hate to happen?
I mean if the distributor gets involved, then it's up to him HOW the movie is marketed, and such and such? Or is it constructed in such a way, that the movie format is unchangable and totaly up to you and Robert?
I think Bob is probably leaning toward option #2 along with me at this point, but we want to take a look at all possibilities.
As far as the situation you outline above, there are a number of ways to address these questions in terms of how the contract is structured, but like everything else, it all comes down to who you decide to form a business relationship with.
I don't believe the low-order multipole moments in the CMB large-scale anisotropy are aligned with the ecliptic/galactic. I think it is systematic error or dust. Maybe I'm wrong. Planck will answer some of that. Microphysics of dust will help, too.
Even if it is a real signal about the big bang, it doesn't help the case for geocentrists one bit.
Good job making a quality anti-science "documentary". If it's as as good as you claim, it'll the best production of its kind since Expelled.
Did you get Ben Stein to do the narration and ask the questions?
"I don't believe the low-order multipole moments in the CMB large-scale anisotropy are aligned with the ecliptic/galactic."
>> "Believe" is an excellent choice of words in this case, since it is a matter of scientific fact that they *are* aligned with the ecliptic:
"Note that the normals cluster together on the sky, implying that quadropole plane and the three octopole planes are nearly aligned. Moreover, the normals are near the ecliptic plane, implying that not only are these four planes aligned but the are nearly perpendicular to the ecliptic. Furthermore the normals are near the dipole, meaning that the planes are not just aligned and perpendicular to the ecliptic but oriented perpendicular to Solar System’s motion through the Universe."---
Starkman, Copi, Huterer, Schwarz, "The Oddly Quiet Universe: How The CMB Challenges Cosmology's Standard Model", Jan 2012
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.2459v1.pdf
A: "I think it is systematic error or dust."
>> It might be that, or maybe elephants sucking the photons with their trunks from another dimension, or perhaps it is magical fairy dances occurring in the quantum domains.
As far as *scientific* observations are concerned, there is no evidence of either dust, or ofr systematic error. Indeed, if one wishes to ascribe the alignments to dust, or systematic error, then one is confronted with the problem that all of the CMB data which has been used to support inflation and Big Bang cosmology, must therefore also be attributed to errors in the scanning beam, or dust.
It is truly a very great difficulty for the Copernicans.
"Maybe I'm wrong. Planck will answer some of that. Microphysics of dust will help, too."
>> That is a very encouraging sentence. Perhaps there is at least a vestigial commitment to science remaining within you. Your commitment to the metaphysical assumption of the Copernican Principle is, of course, much stronger than your commitment to scientific observation, but that is only to be expected at this early stage of the process.
A: "Even if it is a real signal about the big bang, it doesn't help the case for geocentrists one bit."
>> It is the Copernican Principle that is challenged by the CMB (and other, similarly powerful observational evidence, as we cover in "The Principle"). It is true that the mere fact that the Copernican Principle is observationally challenged does not, in itself, prove geocentrism.
It is false that it "doesn't help the case for geocentrists one bit". :-)
"Good job making a quality anti-science "documentary". If it's as as good as you claim, it'll the best production of its kind since Expelled."
>> It is you, of course, who is actually anti-science, since you are prepared to substitute imaginary entities (never-observed dust clouds) for actual scientific observations (the CMB multipole alignments) in order to uphold your *metaphysical* assumption of the Copernican Principle.
It is exactly this interesting irony which is the basis for "The Principle"; how our modern scientific paradigm is foundation ally predicated upon a *metaphysical* assumption, which is now in fact directly contrary to actual observations.
"Did you get Ben Stein to do the narration and ask the questions?"
It must be fun pretending to be a cosmologist. It's cute to watch you try. Like when kids dress up in suit and tie and pretend to report the news.
You clearly don't understand how dust is connected to cosmology. I doubt you understand Huterer's research. It's fun to see you fake it.
If your film is successful, it'll be seen by lots and lots of people. It probably won't happen, but I hope it does. I hope everyone in America sees your film.
What is cute is watching you attempt to deny the very scientific observations which we present to the public in our film, directly from the mouths of the *real* cosmologists who have discovered them.
Whether or not I understand the Axis research, is a matter of reading the words I have posted from it, above.
Do you understand the words?
If you do, then you see that your objections have been answered *scientifically*.
Since you do not bother to address, or in any way refute, the points, I think it is very safe to say that you will be even more uncomfortable when you are confronted with the actual interviews in the film :-)
As for converting people to atheism- hey, the discoverer of the Axis is himself an atheist.
The difference between him and you is that he is a scientist, and is unafraid to follow the scientific evidence where it leads.
He can still be a Copernican, and recognize that this universe is not Copernican.
In light of the progressive meltdown you seem to be experiencing over the course of our exchange (and in light of certain accusations which you advance in your most recent), may I say that I will be delighted to post it, but only if you have the courage of your convictions, and attach your name to them.
Actually, I will wait and see if you have the courage to attach your name to your claims, and if you don't, I will go ahead and post them anyway.
Unsurprisingly, our Anonymous has declined to put his name behind his words, and so I will reproduce only the accusation, so that it can be addressed definitively.
Anonymous says:
"Why did real cosmologists concede to participate in your anti-science sham? Maybe you lied to them"
Please be cordially assured of two things, Anonymous.
First, we have in our possession complete documentation for all interviewees, including release forms (signed by all), which explicitly address the nature and intention of our film.
Second, you were very wise not to attach your name to that accusation.
Run along now and tell your friends to get ready :-)
I just revisited this thread today having been away since my earlier post on February 14th. It's great to see you taking on the scoffers like Anonymous who appear to enjoy taking their silly pot shots from their cover of darkness. I'm glad to see you shining the light on and through their pathetic attempts to debunk your own much deserved and well documented debunking of what might be referred to as the "mother of scientism," the Copernican Principle.
As you say, the movie The Principle is going to be way too big to be ignored. I hope and pray it will kick the hornet's nest of the scientific establishment something fierce. This movie will surely set the stage for a gigantic/monumental clash between those who are honestly seeking the truth in good faith wherever it may lead and those who will be desperately trying to maintain the false paradigm given to us by the infamous Copernican Principle.
God speed Rick! The truth and the Truth are on the side of you and the indefatigable Dr. Sungenis in your efforts to show forth the wonder and splendor of God's creation to a world which has been lied to for hundreds of years by a scientific establishment which should be ashamed of itself for not being more open and accepting of God's cosmological truth which has been staring itself in their face for oh so very long.
James B. Phillips, J.D.
P.S. I will be referring folks of all kinds to this terrific thread as a great reference point on the Internet to prep them for the coming blockbuster The Principle. (For others who would like to do the same the link to this thread is http://magisterialfundies.blogspot.com/2013/01/final-cut.html.) Thanks so much for having taken it upon yourself to put this on the Internet. In addition to learning about The Principle, hopefully people will pick up on so many other good things you have on this blogsite such as your discourses/threads on "Mary's bones"
I have asked twice on Dr. Robert Sungenis' site, the Bellarmine Report, how the film was coming along, but I have not received any reply. Maybe my questions are not getting through, but it does seem a little odd. I am most anxious to see this film as I believe that we have to go back to the first great attack on the Church by the black cult of Scientism so that all the subsequent wrongs will be righted. May God bless you and Dr Sungenis in your magisterial work.
ReplyDeletePaul
Hi Paul:
ReplyDeleteSorry to hear about the difficulties in getting a response through Bob's site.
I imagine it may have a little something to do with the fact that we are both utterly up to our eyebrows in completing "The Principle" :-)
We are getting very close, and I promise you it will be impossible not to hear about it when we are finally ready to pull the wraps off :-)
Hi Rick
ReplyDeleteGlad to hear it. As Anon, I was often searching for news about it, ever since I heard Robert in a radio interview last year talking that you are going to make a full featured film about it.
Rick do you have some rough estimate as to when there will be premier of this movie? Obviously it's hard to specify an exact date, but maybe a month, or at least which quarter of the year?
Also, since I'm from an eastern country in Europe, I was wondering about availibility of the movie. Is it going to be a movie that is being shown in almost all movie theatres, just like any modern movie, or is it going to be more of an "underground" thing? If so, I would imagine, that it would be hard for me to see it in a theatre in my country. Are you planning some dvd distribution?
On a last note, I have to say that I'm waiting for it probably more than you guys ;), mostly due to the fact that I'm HOPING it will get a media exposure. Obviously people will be shaking their heads in disbilief this thing "still exists in XXI century", but it doesn't matter. What matters is that I HOPE Robert and you will be invited to many interviews, where you will crash any opponent who doesn't have a clue about this topic. And since I love the debating skills of Robert, I also can't wait for him to "crush" some of those "scientists" and show to the world how "honest" they are.
Good luck, and again, can't wait for the movie!
Lucas
Hi Lucas:
ReplyDeleteWe have sought no publicity during the production process.
We are preparing what amounts to a critical examination of the Copernican Principle; the foundational metaphysical assumption of the modern world.
We are also working very hard to try and make a *good movie*, that is, something that the average person in this culture at this time will want to see, will be able to understand, and will derive a real benefit from having seen.
We are only just now at the point of presenting the project both to major Hollywood agencies and studios, and also to very successful independent film marketing entities.
Please be patient; we have worked very hard to come up with something quite original, powerful, and noteworthy.
Believe me, it is our expectation and hope that the controversy over the film in the media will be....extraordinary.
Please pray for the wide distribution of our project.
Hey Rick, thanks for superfast reply. Either you have a coffee break, or I'm stalling your work ;)
ReplyDeleteI will keep the prayers of this project in mind, as it's very important. I have to say I came to the topic of geocentrism by fluke, mainly because came by one of the Robert debates with James White. I've became quite a huge fan of his debating skills, which are really extraordinary in logic and clarity. And through him I discovered this topic. I didn't care for it, I'm not scientist, hated physics classes in my university where I was studying computer science, didn't put any emphasis on this issue with my faith, but after listening to your lectures, listening couple of Robert interviews, the conference you did last year, and then reading the books by Robert&Robert, I saw how it all fits together. Cosmology, creation, faith. Pretty coherent and logical knoledge, where all puzzles come together.
Just as a sidenote, I have to say, that once I heard the "copernican principle"... I have to tell you. As a computer scientist, that operates in work place solely on logic and reason, this is one of the stupidest things I ever heard, and to know it's the root in the physics world for centuries makes me dizzy even more. A guy made up a phrase, no proof, nothing that could make us test it to be sure, no divine intervention told him so, but never the less, it's something people seems to believe like it's as much of a fact as that the sky is blue. Seems almost like it's the "10 commandments" equivalent for the atheists. Just a little shorter.
BTW, the "Lukasz" that sent you an invite on facebook, that's me :). Anyway don't want to take more of your time. I would love to ask you couple questions that I had about geocentrism, and something Robert said in the conference, that's the main reason I looked you up at facebook, so maybe later, after the movie premiere, once you have a little bit more time, you will give me opportunity to ask them :)
Say hi to Robert from me the next time you see him. He should know from who it is :) And please tell him that I'm sorry if I stuffed his email mailbox ;)
cheers
Lucas
You can ask your questions any time, Lucas.
ReplyDeleteI typically answer my emails and blog posts while I am waiting for stuff to render out in the editing room.
Thanks for your interest, and especially for your very welcome remembrance of our project in your prayers.
Rick
I see :)
ReplyDeleteIs your email public, so that I can find it somewhere Rick?
cheers
Lucas
catholicdad@gmail.com
ReplyDelete:-)
Thanks Rick. Email sent :)
ReplyDeletecheers
Lucas
Dear Mr. DeLano, it's great to see that your project is almost completed. As for me, I am about to embark on a project of my own. This spring I will be discerning a religious / priestly vocation, living in community with the Salesians for 4 months. It is largely thanks to the apologetics of Dr. Subgenis that I even decided to practice my Catholic faith. Please pray for me and be assured that your project and family are in my prayers.
ReplyDeleteMirari:
DeleteGod bless you for sending this comment. Please know that it means more to us that a holy vocation is being discerned, than that we should sell all the tickets in the world to "The Principle".
I will forward your note to Dr. Sungenis.
May God richly bless you as you discern your vocation.
Their is nothing in this world so necessary now, as holy Catholic priests.
Rick, I'm not trying to rush you, just want to make sure you get my email. So did you? ;)
ReplyDeleteFeel free to respond to it, whenever you have time.
cheers
Lucas
Lucas:
DeleteI have not received anything from you as of today......
FYI Lucas: I have checked spam folders- nothing. Perhaps you had best post here.
ReplyDeleteHi Rick!
ReplyDeleteDo you think you will release a trailer before the actual release of the film and if so do you have an ETA for same?
Best wishes,
James
Hi James:
ReplyDeleteWe already have a trailer, which we are showing to agencies for narrators and to selected companies for possible distributions.
That one is private for now.
As soon as we have decided to pull the wraps off the website, we will post the general-audience trailer on our website.
Soon ;-)
You're reffering to galileowaswrong.com website, correct?
ReplyDeleteThat's good news Rick. Can you give us some little insight about how the agencies responded so far to the material you and Robert showed? Do they see it as interesting, or most of them see it as a hoax story and don't want to get into that, or simply put, don't see any financial gain in going into that project?
Also I was wondering... If some "powers to be" of those studios are atheists, wouldn't they have the same reason to discriminate this movie, just as atheistic scientists discriminate and hide the geocentric proofs they find in science?
cheers
Lucas
Response has been very gratifying thus far. It is rather difficult to view our film as a "hoax", since it incorporates fascinating and ground-breaking interviews with the leading cosmologists in the world, including interviews with the discoverer of the CMB Axis himself, describing for us on camera exactly what happened the night he became the first human being ever to view the "Axis of Evil" in the CMB :-)
DeleteIt is going to be very difficult to dismiss "The Principle".
We worked very hard to make a film that is just too powerful to ignore.
It has become quite clear that the subject is too fascinating and the science is too compelling to ignore.
BTW, the film's website will be:
Deletewww.theprinciplemovie.com
Rick, stop teasing us!!! ;)
DeleteYour synapsis of movie sounds great, can't wait, and can't wait for reactions of people who never heard of this stuff. "Axis of Evil" hehe ;)
BTW, Name of the domain makes sense :]
cheers
Lucas
"Since the release of the WMAP data, several groups have claimed detections of significant non-Gaussianities (Tegmark et al. 2003; Eriksen et al. 2004b; Copi et al. 2003; Vielva et al. 2004; Hansen et al. 2004; Park 2004; Larson & Wandelt 2004; Cruz et al. 2005). Almost all of these claims imply that the CMB fluctuations are not stationary and claim a preferred direction or orientation in the data. Hajian et al. (2005) argue that these detections are based on a posteriori selection of preferred directions and do not find evidence for preferred axes or directions. Because of the potential revolutionary significance of these detections, they must be treated with some caution. Galactic foregrounds are non-Gaussian and anisotropic, and even low level contamination in the maps can produce detectable non- Gaussianities (Chiang et al. 2003; Naselsky et al. 2005), but have only minimal effects on the angular power spectrum (Hinshaw et al. 2003). Similarly, point sources can be a source of non-Gaussianity at small angular scales (Eriksen et al. 2004b). Because of the WMAP scan pattern, the variance in the noise in the maps is spatially variable. There is significant 1/f noise in several of the Difference Assemblies (DAs) (particularly W4)— which leads to anisotropies in the two-point function of the noise. Finally, most of the claimed detections of significant non-Gaussianities are based on a posteriori statistics. Many of the claimed detections of non-Gaussianity can be tested with the three year WMAP data (available at lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov). Future tests should use the simulated noise maps, Monte Carlo simulations and the difference maps (year 1 − year 2, year 2 − year 3, etc.) to confirm that the tests are not sensitive to noise statistics and the multi-frequency data to confirm that any claimed non-Gaussianity has a thermal spectrum. Claims of non-Gaussianity incorporating data close to the galactic plane (within the Kp2 cut) should be treated with caution, as the foreground corrections near the plane are large and uncertain." (Spergel et al, 2007)
ReplyDeleteI think the interview with Tegmark adequately points out that all of these objections have been pretty thoroughly taken apart by the Copi, Huterer, Starkman team.
ReplyDeleteThose interested in delving deeper into the scientific back-and-forth can check below:
The 2007 paper above is, in my opinion, very persuasively answered (and several years' worth of additional objections to the Axis as well) in Copi, Huterer et al 2010:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.5602v2.pdf
Relevant excerpts:
"While not all of these alignments are statistically independent, their combined statistical significance is certainly greater than their individual significances. For example, given their mutual alignments, the conditional probability of the four normals lying so close to the ecliptic, is less than 2%; the combined probability of the four normals being both so aligned with each other and so close to the ecliptic is less than 0.4% × 2% = 0.008%. These are therefore clearly surprising, highly statistically significant anomalies — unexpected in the standard inflationary theory and the accepted cosmological model.
Particularly puzzling are the alignments with solar system features. CMB anisotropy should clearly not be correlated with our local habitat. While the observed correlations seem to hint that there is contamination by a foreground or perhaps by the scanning strategy of the telescope, closer inspection reveals that there is no obvious way to explain the observed correlations. Moreover, if their explanation is that they are a foreground, then that will likely exacerbate other anomalies that we will discuss in section IV B below......."
From Section IV:
"Finally, the angular correlation function in its simplest form is a direct pixel based measure (see below). Thus it does not rely on the reconstruction of contaminated regions of the sky to employ. This makes it a simple, robust measure even for partial sky coverage..........
".....For example, Hajian [34] defined a statistic that explicitly takes into account the covariance in the quantity C(θ).......With this statistic and assuming the concordance model it is found that less than 1% of realizations of the standard model have a A(0.53) less than those found for the masked skies. For the full sky ILC map approximately 8% of realizations have a smaller value. Though less constraining than making no assumptions about the theory through the use of the S1/2 statistic, these results are consistent with those we previously found."
In other words, even given Hajian's own *a priori* adoption of the Copernican Principle, Copi, Huterer show that the skies are non-Copernican at 99% CL.
The full article really does pretty much demolish all the Axis objections, in my view.
Planck should tell us more.
Nice to hear. How will the film be distributed? Thanks
ReplyDeleteAlan:
ReplyDeleteThe film is:
1. Independent
2. Highly controversial
3. Essentially complete, and
4. Really, really, really good :-)
#'s 3 and 4 above (especially), place us in a fairly rare category; one in which almost anything can happen.
Three principals favor three approaches to distribution, and so all three are simultaneously (and cooperatively) pursuing their favored options:
1. We have been quite surprised at the degree of early interest (based on our trailer and one sheet) from "mainstream" distributors. The film will be shown to two of these this coming week. We expect to show it to others in the weeks ahead.
While a "negative pickup" (distributor buys the rights) type deal is unusual in the case of an independent film, the quality of the film is such that it might happen.
2. We have caught the interest of independent film marketing/distribution entities who have been involved with some of the biggest independent films of all time. We will be showing the film at the end of the month to one of these.
This type of deal involves a coordinated viral internet/media campaign designed to create a "buzz" (I certainly expect that this film is capable of creating a very significant "buzz" indeed), while at the same time investor groups specializing in "P and A" (prints and advertising) budgets are solicited in order to facilitate a limited initial theatrical release.
This happens to be my preferred option :-)
3. The film is a dream come true for viral internet marketing, and we happen to live at a time where the technology is now available whereby an independent film can be produced, marketed, and delivered via streaming and downloading over the internet, including via a wholly-owned website.
This type of deal involves maximum control of the campaign by the filmmakers (important to us!) and happens to also involve the retention of ownership (copyright) and first-in-line revenues for the producing partnership.
By the middle of March we will know which way we are going to go :-)
Can I sign up to organize my own screening? thanks
DeleteHi Alan:
DeleteWe will be open to a possible screening, please get in touch with me via email.
Rick, which option is (for now) preferred by Robert? ;)
ReplyDeleteAs for option 1, doesn't "giving away the rights" make it able for the distributor, to alternate the message of the content, either by the other type of marketing or other means, which I guess is something that you guys would hate to happen?
I mean if the distributor gets involved, then it's up to him HOW the movie is marketed, and such and such? Or is it constructed in such a way, that the movie format is unchangable and totaly up to you and Robert?
cheers
Lucas
I think Bob is probably leaning toward option #2 along with me at this point, but we want to take a look at all possibilities.
DeleteAs far as the situation you outline above, there are a number of ways to address these questions in terms of how the contract is structured, but like everything else, it all comes down to who you decide to form a business relationship with.
We will be very careful, you may rest assured.
I don't believe the low-order multipole moments in the CMB large-scale anisotropy are aligned with the ecliptic/galactic. I think it is systematic error or dust. Maybe I'm wrong. Planck will answer some of that. Microphysics of dust will help, too.
ReplyDeleteEven if it is a real signal about the big bang, it doesn't help the case for geocentrists one bit.
Good job making a quality anti-science "documentary". If it's as as good as you claim, it'll the best production of its kind since Expelled.
Did you get Ben Stein to do the narration and ask the questions?
Anonymous says:
ReplyDelete"I don't believe the low-order multipole moments in the CMB large-scale anisotropy are aligned with the ecliptic/galactic."
>> "Believe" is an excellent choice of words in this case, since it is a matter of scientific fact that they *are* aligned with the ecliptic:
"Note that the normals cluster together on the sky, implying that quadropole plane and the three octopole planes are nearly aligned. Moreover, the normals are near the ecliptic plane, implying that not only are these four planes aligned but the are nearly perpendicular to the ecliptic. Furthermore the normals are near the dipole, meaning that the planes are not just aligned and perpendicular to the ecliptic but oriented perpendicular to Solar System’s motion through the Universe."---
Starkman, Copi, Huterer, Schwarz, "The Oddly Quiet Universe: How The CMB Challenges Cosmology's Standard Model", Jan 2012
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.2459v1.pdf
A: "I think it is systematic error or dust."
>> It might be that, or maybe elephants sucking the photons with their trunks from another dimension, or perhaps it is magical fairy dances occurring in the quantum domains.
As far as *scientific* observations are concerned, there is no evidence of either dust, or ofr systematic error. Indeed, if one wishes to ascribe the alignments to dust, or systematic error, then one is confronted with the problem that all of the CMB data which has been used to support inflation and Big Bang cosmology, must therefore also be attributed to errors in the scanning beam, or dust.
It is truly a very great difficulty for the Copernicans.
"Maybe I'm wrong. Planck will answer some of that. Microphysics of dust will help, too."
>> That is a very encouraging sentence. Perhaps there is at least a vestigial commitment to science remaining within you. Your commitment to the metaphysical assumption of the Copernican Principle is, of course, much stronger than your commitment to scientific observation, but that is only to be expected at this early stage of the process.
A: "Even if it is a real signal about the big bang, it doesn't help the case for geocentrists one bit."
>> It is the Copernican Principle that is challenged by the CMB (and other, similarly powerful observational evidence, as we cover in "The Principle"). It is true that the mere fact that the Copernican Principle is observationally challenged does not, in itself, prove geocentrism.
It is false that it "doesn't help the case for geocentrists one bit". :-)
"Good job making a quality anti-science "documentary". If it's as as good as you claim, it'll the best production of its kind since Expelled."
>> It is you, of course, who is actually anti-science, since you are prepared to substitute imaginary entities (never-observed dust clouds) for actual scientific observations (the CMB multipole alignments) in order to uphold your *metaphysical* assumption of the Copernican Principle.
It is exactly this interesting irony which is the basis for "The Principle"; how our modern scientific paradigm is foundation ally predicated upon a *metaphysical* assumption, which is now in fact directly contrary to actual observations.
"Did you get Ben Stein to do the narration and ask the questions?"
>> Nah, we couldn't afford him :-)
It must be fun pretending to be a cosmologist. It's cute to watch you try. Like when kids dress up in suit and tie and pretend to report the news.
ReplyDeleteYou clearly don't understand how dust is connected to cosmology. I doubt you understand Huterer's research. It's fun to see you fake it.
If your film is successful, it'll be seen by lots and lots of people. It probably won't happen, but I hope it does. I hope everyone in America sees your film.
Your film will convert people to atheism.
You'd be more successful than Richard Dawkins!
What is cute is watching you attempt to deny the very scientific observations which we present to the public in our film, directly from the mouths of the *real* cosmologists who have discovered them.
ReplyDeleteWhether or not I understand the Axis research, is a matter of reading the words I have posted from it, above.
Do you understand the words?
If you do, then you see that your objections have been answered *scientifically*.
Since you do not bother to address, or in any way refute, the points, I think it is very safe to say that you will be even more uncomfortable when you are confronted with the actual interviews in the film :-)
As for converting people to atheism- hey, the discoverer of the Axis is himself an atheist.
The difference between him and you is that he is a scientist, and is unafraid to follow the scientific evidence where it leads.
He can still be a Copernican, and recognize that this universe is not Copernican.
He just invents a multiverse :-)
See you at the movies........
Hi Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteIn light of the progressive meltdown you seem to be experiencing over the course of our exchange (and in light of certain accusations which you advance in your most recent), may I say that I will be delighted to post it, but only if you have the courage of your convictions, and attach your name to them.
Actually, I will wait and see if you have the courage to attach your name to your claims, and if you don't, I will go ahead and post them anyway.
But that will be your last contribution here.
Cheers!
Unsurprisingly, our Anonymous has declined to put his name behind his words, and so I will reproduce only the accusation, so that it can be addressed definitively.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous says:
"Why did real cosmologists concede to participate in your anti-science sham? Maybe you lied to them"
Please be cordially assured of two things, Anonymous.
First, we have in our possession complete documentation for all interviewees, including release forms (signed by all), which explicitly address the nature and intention of our film.
Second, you were very wise not to attach your name to that accusation.
Run along now and tell your friends to get ready :-)
Cheers!
Hi Rick,
ReplyDeleteI just revisited this thread today having been away since my earlier post on February 14th. It's great to see you taking on the scoffers like Anonymous who appear to enjoy taking their silly pot shots from their cover of darkness. I'm glad to see you shining the light on and through their pathetic attempts to debunk your own much deserved and well documented debunking of what might be referred to as the "mother of scientism," the Copernican Principle.
As you say, the movie The Principle is going to be way too big to be ignored. I hope and pray it will kick the hornet's nest of the scientific establishment something fierce. This movie will surely set the stage for a gigantic/monumental clash between those who are honestly seeking the truth in good faith wherever it may lead and those who will be desperately trying to maintain the false paradigm given to us by the infamous Copernican Principle.
God speed Rick! The truth and the Truth are on the side of you and the indefatigable Dr. Sungenis in your efforts to show forth the wonder and splendor of God's creation to a world which has been lied to for hundreds of years by a scientific establishment which should be ashamed of itself for not being more open and accepting of God's cosmological truth which has been staring itself in their face for oh so very long.
James B. Phillips, J.D.
P.S. I will be referring folks of all kinds to this terrific thread as a great reference point on the Internet to prep them for the coming blockbuster The Principle. (For others who would like to do the same the link to this thread is http://magisterialfundies.blogspot.com/2013/01/final-cut.html.) Thanks so much for having taken it upon yourself to put this on the Internet. In addition to learning about The Principle, hopefully people will pick up on so many other good things you have on this blogsite such as your discourses/threads on "Mary's bones"
So when is theprinciplemovie going to be available? How about a status update.
ReplyDeleteMarty
Marty: If you go to:
Deletehttp://magisterialfundies.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-principle-update.html
You will get the update, and if you go to:
http://magisterialfundies.blogspot.com/2013/12/links-to-principle-trailer-launching.html
You will be able to watch our trailer when it is released tomorrow, MOnday, December 9.