It is, in a way, quite an honor to have this little independent science film suddenly subjected to a concerted internet assault, even though most of the information about "The Principle" is based solely on presumptions and innuendoes.
I am not surprised at the opposition, since it has been one of the important missions of “The Principle” to point out that some ideas are powerful enough to burn heretics, to overthrow civilizations, and to turn our world view upside down.
The Copernican Principle is certainly one of those ideas, and the reaction to our treatment of it indicates that this idea has lost none of its power over the last four centuries. Indeed, as Lawrence Krauss has stated, we could be living at a time when Copernicus is "coming back to haunt us"!
When my partner Robert Sungenis asked me to produce “The Principle”, we agreed that the controversy surrounding this question was such that only a fair, balanced, and comprehensive treatment would do. It was our intention to seek out leading cosmologists who had, in their writings and papers, addressed this Copernican Principle, as well as the recent unexpected evidence of a preferred direction in the cosmos, aligned with our supposedly “insignificant” Earth, and to ask some candid questions about the impact of these discoveries on “established” science.
It certainly appears we have shaken up the status quo, and our film has not even been released yet!
Indeed, the real takeaway from the massive media assault on this comparatively tiny little independent film, at this point, has to be, “What are they so afraid of?”
Some facts:
“The Principle”, as the title indicates, is not about geocentrism per se, but is instead an in-depth cinematic examination of the Copernican Principle itself- in its historical, cultural, religious, and remarkably unexpected modern observational aspects.
We include historical facts concerning the ancient, geocentric cosmology, the Copernican revolution, Newton’s seemingly conclusive establishment of the heliocentric model of reality......
But we also include the factual information that some of our scientific mainstream opinion-makers apparently are quite uncomfortable having you hear about- for example, Einstein’s frank admission that no optical experiment ever would, or even could, in his opinion, measure any motion of the Earth in its orbit around the Sun, or the recent, shocking large scale observations which have suggested presently-inexplicable, Earth-oriented structure on the cosmos’ largest observable scales.
On this latter point, I want to emphasize that “The Principle” is in possession of signed release forms from all of its contributors, most certainly including Lawrence Krauss.
Any suggestion to the contrary is simply a falsehood.
These releases include explicit notification of our intention to explore controversial aspects of cosmology, even highly controversial ideas and theories.
Lawrence says he has no idea how he ended up in our film.
I can tell him how he ended up in our film.
He signed a release form, and cashed a check.
I have both.
He sat for an interview of about five hours’ length.
I have the footage.
And the transcripts.
Lawrence Krauss is on record concerning the implications of some of the astonishing new cosmological observations of the cosmic background (CMB), observations with profoundly non-Copernican implications.
We researched these statements, and interviewed him, and others, about them.
I would hope that at some point, relatively soon in this process, some reporters would do some of the same research, and establish for themselves that Krauss has personally affirmed that these observations could mean that we are the center of the universe.
Yes, folks.
He has said exactly that.
Please check.
Our film is certainly dangerous- dangerous enough to have elicited this astonishingly well-executed assault from individuals who have done absolutely no research on what "The Principle" is about.
It is also dangerous, because once you view the film, you are going to see that these misrepresentations regarding "The Principle" are profound, and ought to be retracted.
I won’t hold my breath in this regard, but I promise you, our film is the ONE FILM you absolutely MUST see this year, if only to find out why so much effort has been lavished to prevent you from knowing what it is about in the first place.
A last word to the wonderful actress Kate Mulgrew.
Kate, I am sorry you were forced to this unfortunate repudiation of your fine work on our film.
We artists have, from time to time, got to be willing to take even the most excruciating heat in order to preserve the rights of filmmakers, for example, to challenge even the most entrenched and established ideas.
Otherwise, it would seem we really have come full circle, wouldn’t it?
“Cosmos” talks about Bruno being burned at the stake for challenging the medieval cosmology; have we reached the point where we are no longer allowed to examine the evidence which suggests science could be wrong about something as basic as the Copernican Principle?
Even worse- have we reached the point where we are no longer even allowed to ask the question?
“The Principle” is the one film you absolutely MUST see this year.
Rick DeLano
Producer, "The Principle"
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteMy friend, if you can believe the stars are more than 1.6 light years away, then they would need to travel faster than the speed of light to orbit the earth. Since you quoted Einstein, I can only hope that you also accept his limit on the velocity that physical objects may attain.
DeleteThis is entirely consistent with the General Theory of Relativity:
Delete"Relative to the stationary roundabout [the Earth], the distant stars would have a velocity rw [radius x angular velocity] and for sufficiently large values of r, the stars would be moving relative to O' [the observer] with linear velocities exceeding 3 x 10^8 m/sec, the terrestrial value of the velocity of light. At first sight this appears to be a contradiction…that the velocities of all material bodies must be less than c [the speed of light]. However, the restriction u < c = 3 x 10^8 m/sec is restricted to the theory of Special Relativity. According to the General theory, it is possible to choose local reference frames in which, over a limited volume of space, there is no gravitational field, and relative to such a reference frame the velocity of light is equal to c. However, this is not true when gravitational fields are present. In addition to the lengths of rods and the rates of clocks the velocity of light is affected by a gravitational field. If gravitational fields are present the velocities of either material bodies or of light can assume any numerical value depending on the strength of the gravitational field. If one considers the rotating roundabout as being at rest, the centrifugal gravitational field assumes enormous values at large distances, and it is consistent with the theory of General Relativity for the velocities of distant bodies to exceed 3 x 10^8 m/sec under these conditions." (An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, W. G. V. Rosser, London, Butterworths, 1964, p. 460)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteRaw Story had the decency to run the statement here:
ReplyDeletehttp://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-check/
A truly excellent statement Rick! Hopefully, a growing number of people will read it with an open mind and if need be wake up from their slumber.
ReplyDeleteAn open mind is a good thing, as long as it is not forgetful of facts!
DeleteCan we all agree that gravity is universal and that the force is proportional to the mass of each body? In that case, why would we expect the sun to orbit the earth, when the sun has far more mass? Small objects fall to earth (for the most part). We don't noticeably see the earth fall to a leaf, but the leaf fall to the tree.
You assume that we can ignore the mass of the rest of the universe in your calculation. Mach has shown this to be false, one hundred fifty years ago.
DeleteThe paper from Dr. Popov I link to below will provide you with a rigorous mathematical treatment.
Thanks Rick for that link.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious, though. I admit I didn't watch the movie, but I don't think I have to think long and hard to believe this movie has geocentric implications even if there is no mention of it there. Plus, you guys are open and avid advocates of geocentrism, so it is easy to figure out, people will connect the dots.
Why you guys deny this movie touches geocentrism? I know you want to get to the people step by step, and don't go out open and blast them with idea of geocentrism, but just trying to ignore those questions from people who are investigating the movie, or the story about the movie I think is not very smart move. Because of that, those journalists, like the one that written that story, can get couple remarks when connecting those geocentric dots.
Obviously it's your movie and you guys can do whatever you think is best for the movie, and how to promote it, but I'm not sure it's the way to go.
Naturally, if they just lied on that website I take all the above back. Did they?
cheers
Lucas
Lucas:
ReplyDeleteI think your comment serves to reinforce what the world learned yesterday: thje arguments of the opponents of "The Principle" are laughably illogical, to the point where one wonders why they have spent such immense amounts of time, effort, and money trying to bury our film, when all they have done is to put us on the map, where the comical illogic of the assault will inevitably wither more and more as the light of reason replaces the viral hit job.
For example: you ask whether geocentrism is covered in a film about the Copernican Principle.
I ask you to think that through for a moment.
Lucas, any film about the Copernican Principle that does not involve an examination of geocentrism is a fatally flawed film.
Our is not so flawed.
I point again to the words in the statement above which I hope you will read more carefully this time:
"“The Principle”, as the title indicates, is not about geocentrism per se, but is instead an in-depth cinematic examination of the Copernican Principle itself- in its historical, cultural, religious, and remarkably unexpected modern observational aspects.
We include historical facts concerning the ancient, geocentric cosmology, the Copernican revolution, Newton’s seemingly conclusive establishment of the heliocentric model of reality......
But we also include the factual information that some of our scientific mainstream opinion-makers apparently are quite uncomfortable having you hear about- for example, Einstein’s frank admission that no optical experiment ever would, or even could, in his opinion, measure any motion of the Earth in its orbit around the Sun, or the recent, shocking large scale observations which have suggested presently-inexplicable, Earth-oriented structure on the cosmos’ largest observable scales."
Our film has been drastically underestimated, as well aqs misrepresented, Lucas.
I must say that it has, and will, redound to our great advantage.
Since your film is not flawed, how do you explain the motions of the planets and their retrograde behavior? Do you believe that their orbits consist of epicycles? If so, what physical force would account for the epicycles?
DeleteHow is the validity of my film in any way at all dependent upon the validity of the opinions and views expressed by the contributors? The purpose of my film is to examine the Copernican Principle, and I have chosen to include the rebels, dissidents, and yes, even the geocentrists, since they have the best evidence which has appeared in five hundred years to support this admittedly radical hypothesis.
DeleteAs to your question concerning orbits and epicycles, the Tychonic system is defended by two of the geocentrists in the film. The planets orbit the Sun, the sun and stars orbit the Earth, and a moment's reflection will confirm that all observations would be exactly the same, under this system, as under the Copernican/Keplerian/Newtonian systems.
As for forces, there are several theses being pursued by geoicentrists. The first simply puts Earth at the center of mass of a rotating universe, and can account for all observations by means of Machian principles and Newtonian gravitation.
This theory was recently published in a developed mathematical treatment by Dr. Luka Popov in the European Journal of Phuysics (Jan 2013) and can be viewed here:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.6045.pdf
Other geocentrists include Dr. Bennet, whose ALFA model can be reviewed here:
http://alfachallenge.blogspot.com
And Dr. John Byl, who accepts the Theory of Relativity as provisionally valid, and hence advancers geocentrism on theological and metaphysical grounds.
Thanks for your interest.
"... The first simply puts Earth at the center of mass of a rotating universe, ..."
DeleteIf that were true, the mass of all nearby stars would have collapsed to this center and instead of the earth, there would be a hugely massive black hole. We would be the center of the Milky Way (and more!).
I just scanned Dr. Popov's paper, and of course his calculations do *not* account for the gravitational potential that earth's position would have to have to cause the rest of the universe to orbit it. So he has the massive sun orbiting the earth's center, but mars only responds to the "usual" gravitational pull of earth and the sun. Science says that it cannot be both ways, either there is a *tremendous* gravitational center where the earth is located or there is not.
1. If there is a tremendous gravitational center, then the orbit of mars would be influenced by it more than the sun or earth and the trajectory would be different.
2. If there is not, than there is no reason to believe that the universe is orbiting the earth.
What am I missing?
If you believe you have identified an error in Dr. Popov's paper, I would encourage you to submit your criticism to the peer review committee at the European Journal of Physics.
DeleteI am skeptical of your claim, since you apparently have not considered the centrifugal force, and the Earth does not in any way have to "cause the universe to orbit it", if the initial condition of rotation is postulated.
Dr. Popov does allude to this point at the end of his paper.
"The kinematical equivalence of the Copernican (heliocentric) and the Neo-tychonian (geocentric) systems is shown to be a consequence of the presence of pseudo-potential (4.4) in the geocentric system, which, according to Mach, must be regarded as the real potential originating from the fact of the simultaneous acceleration of the Universe. This analysis can be done on any other celestial body observed from the Earth. Since Sun and Mars are chosen arbitrarily, and there is nothing special about Mars, one can expect to come up with the same general conclusion.
There is another interesting remark that follows from this analysis. If one could put the whole Universe in accelerated motion around the Earth, the pseudo-potential corresponding to pseudo-force (4.2) will immediately be generated. That same pseudo- potential then causes the Universe to stay in that very state of motion, without any need of exterior forces acting on it."
I wish to point out that Raw Story, and its Editor Tony Ortega, have gone a considerable way toward rectifying the falsehoods in the original hit-piece story, by publishing an immortal howler of a headline, along with my full statement above, here:
ReplyDeletehttp://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-check/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+(The+Raw+Story)
Lucas:
ReplyDeleteSince your question is essentially repeated, so is my answer:
Lucas, any film about the Copernican Principle that does not involve an examination of geocentrism is a fatally flawed film.
Our is not so flawed.
Please read the words, three or four times if necessary, until you grasp them.
Thanks.
"Krauss has personally affirmed that these observations could mean that we are the center of the universe."
ReplyDeleteCan you provide a link or a reference for that?
I think it is important that people do the homework in this matter.
DeleteIs this the quote you're referring to?
ReplyDeleteIn an article, "The Energy of Space That Isn't Zero", Lawrence Krauss stated (2006):
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.
From that quote, you could certainly cherry-pick a snippet that would imply Dr Kraus believed that the Earth was at the center of the universe, but if you take the entire thought, it sounds more like he's not sure how to interpret the data and he's saying more study is necessary.
BRAVO!
DeleteYou did the homework.
I quite agree that the comment presents this as only one solution among others.
If you were going to make a doc on the Copernican Principle, let me suggest you would certainly ask Krauss about that statement.
We did.
You would certainly carefully preserve his answer, especially if it were a truly, truly interesting one…
Which we did, and which it was.
You would then sit back and watch in amazement as Krauss frantically tried to disassociate himself from the most dangerous science movie in many a long year, because the bravest.
See you at the movies.
Well, I see Mark Shea is continuing his venomous attacks on the Principal and it's creators. The man has an absolute hatred of anything that smacks of tradition and an uncritical love of modernity. "Liars For Jesus", "reactionaries", Anti-Semites", my how the poison flows from his keypad! Keep your lawyer and yourselves informed of this feces throwing nonsense, it may come in handy in a court of law or for your next documentary, "The Wit(?) And Wisdom(?) of Mark Shea" www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2014/04/liars-for-jesus-3.html
ReplyDeleteI beg and beseech you to offer prayers for Mark and his family in your daily rosary.
DeleteIt may well be argued that Krauss is merely representative of so much that is deeply flawed in the science/scientism community, particularly the astro-physics crowd with their Big Bang, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, etc. Krauss simply helps to raise the volume by his clownish antics and now his absurd universe from nothing (including God!) arguments.
ReplyDeleteThe science establishment has, of course, been deeply entrenched with and by its Copernican Principle which it has pushed on the rest of society for so long. Now it is scrambling more and more -- e.g., multiverse -- in order to save their sacred cow. They would do well to read Proverbs 26:27 -- "He that diggeth a pit shall fall into it."
Look at atheist art (J. Pollock, e.g.). Look at atheist music (A. Schoenberg, e.g.) Why should atheist science be any less ridiculous?
DeleteYes, please pray for Mark and his family right now. His mom is dying, and he needs all the prayers he can get. Let's hope that our prayers can be a cause of softening his bitter heart.
ReplyDeleteWell, I see that Mark Shea is still pushing his Liars For Jesus meme concerning The Principal. And now Live Science is getting in on the fun as well. This thing that these folks claim they didn't know what they were getting into is astonishing. These are the best scientific minds in the world. You mean to tell me that if they didn't want to be in this film, they weren't smart enough to talk to Rick or Bob about what The Principal was all about? Or are they outright lying about what's going on? Well, if they were really misrepresented, they can take it to court. If they were not misrepresented, they should just stuff it, lest they make themselves look like lying fools.
ReplyDeleteWe are preparing for the Holy Triuduum, and Easter, and are content to allow the liars to lie, and the dupes to be duped.
DeleteMy statement above should be read carefully by all liars and dupes, since I am not a liar, nor am I a dupe, and my words will stand.
I repeat:
"On this latter point, I want to emphasize that “The Principle” is in possession of signed release forms from all of its contributors, most certainly including Lawrence Krauss.
Any suggestion to the contrary is simply a falsehood.
These releases include explicit notification of our intention to explore controversial aspects of cosmology, even highly controversial ideas and theories.
Lawrence says he has no idea how he ended up in our film.
I can tell him how he ended up in our film.
He signed a release form, and cashed a check.
I have both.
He sat for an interview of about five hours’ length.
I have the footage.
And the transcripts.
Lawrence Krauss is on record concerning the implications of some of the astonishing new cosmological observations of the cosmic background (CMB), observations with profoundly non-Copernican implications.
We researched these statements, and interviewed him, and others, about them.
I would hope that at some point, relatively soon in this process, some reporters would do some of the same research, and establish for themselves that Krauss has personally affirmed that these observations could mean that we are the center of the universe.
Yes, folks.
He has said exactly that.
Please check.
Our film is certainly dangerous- dangerous enough to have elicited this astonishingly well-executed assault from individuals who have done absolutely no research on what "The Principle" is about.
It is also dangerous, because once you view the film, you are going to see that these misrepresentations regarding "The Principle" are profound, and ought to be retracted.
I won’t hold my breath in this regard, but I promise you, our film is the ONE FILM you absolutely MUST see this year, if only to find out why so much effort has been lavished to prevent you from knowing what it is about in the first place.
A last word to the wonderful actress Kate Mulgrew.
Kate, I am sorry you were forced to this unfortunate repudiation of your fine work on our film.
We artists have, from time to time, got to be willing to take even the most excruciating heat in order to preserve the rights of filmmakers, for example, to challenge even the most entrenched and established ideas.
Otherwise, it would seem we really have come full circle, wouldn’t it?
“Cosmos” talks about Bruno being burned at the stake for challenging the medieval cosmology; have we reached the point where we are no longer allowed to examine the evidence which suggests science could be wrong about something as basic as the Copernican Principle?
Even worse- have we reached the point where we are no longer even allowed to ask the question?
“The Principle” is the one film you absolutely MUST see this year."
We will be back after Easter with our side of the story.
Hey Rick, I'm not sure if you or Sungenis have become aware of this, but I just stumbled across this today. It was posted just yesterday, I think, by some guy named Nathan Dickey. It is just amusing, to say the least. :) you can find it here:
ReplyDeletehttp://nathandickey.wordpress.com/tag/the-principle-film/
Another review by a guy who never saw the film.
DeleteYawn.
As I say, it seems we ought to already be a lock in the Special Category "Most Reviewed Film By Those Who Have Never Bothered To Watch It First".
Now, I have the advantage of actually having seen "The Principle", and that is the ace up my sleeve, since, once it is released, the hysterical avalanche of lies will be fully exposed as just exactly that, and my statement above will be seen to have truthfully situated the facts ;-)
My article is not a review of the film itself, nor do I present it as such. At most, it's a comment on the trailer's content and a report on the responses of the individuals duped into appearing in the film upon being informed of its actual import.
ReplyDeleteThe meat of my post is a critical review/debunking of Sungenis' written arguments for geocentrism, which I have read. If you want to "truthfully situate the facts," I suggest you and the commenter who linked to me address those points directly.
Unless Sungenis' upcoming film has added any new arguments for the strong anthropic principle or the ancient belief in geocentrism, never before encountered by either myself or any of his other critics, we are completely warranted in criticizing his project.
“My article is not a review of the film itself, nor do I present it as such.”
Delete>> “The public will soon be subjected to The Principle, an upcoming documentary film by Robert Sungenis that promotes the doctrine of geocentrism.
“We are treated only to brief clips of Krauss and Kaku talking on screen, so it is difficult to ascertain exactly what they are talking about, which is almost certainly the point.
“Also appearing in the trailer is the filmmaker himself, letting us know the purpose of his ridiculous movie."
Again, Nathan, I have correctly discerned you as yet another in a long line of reviewers of “The Principle”, who are united in their ignorance of the actual content of the film they review.
“At most, it's a comment on the trailer's content and a report on the responses of the individuals duped into appearing in the film upon being informed of its actual import.”
>> Another absurd claim to know the “import” of a film you admit you have never seen in the first place. You contradict yourself all over the place, Nathan, but it is easy to see that you have only one objective, which is to tell us all about that which you yourself have not the slightest bit of actual *knowledge*.
Cute.
More of the same here:
Delete“When they cannot find support for their crazy views from any reputable scientists, people like Sungenis often resort to collecting out-of-context quotes from disparate clips and editing them together to create the illusion that the real scientist is saying something he or she never said or intended to convey.”
>> Which you have precisely zero evidence has been done in “The Principle”, and which, I am willing to hope even in the face of your hysterical bias, are words which will come back to haunt you when the film is released. You are wrong. I know. You don’t. Perhaps there is hope for you. Perhaps you will have the intellectual integrity to retract.
I won't hold my breath ;-)
“The meat of my post is a critical review/debunking of Sungenis' written arguments for geocentrism, which I have read. If you want to "truthfully situate the facts," I suggest you and the commenter who linked to me address those points directly.”
>> Why should I? I am not required to address the various “something from nothing” arguments advanced by the proponents of the multiverse in the film. I simply present them since, unlike you, I consider these questions of sufficient import that the contributors ought to be able to make their own cases, and the audience decide for themselves which viewpoints are worthy of further attention.
If you have an objection I suggest you bring it to the attention of Dr. Sungenis.
I can tell you that there is nothing new, or interesting, or challenging, so far as I can determine, in your objections. Bob has addressed all of them many times on public sources, and you could have done your homework and discovered that for yourself.
“Unless Sungenis' upcoming film has added any new arguments for the strong anthropic principle or the ancient belief in geocentrism, never before encountered by either myself or any of his other critics, we are completely warranted in criticizing his project.”
>> I am the Producer/writer of “The Principle”, and I am ultimately responsible for what appears on the screen. I decline to accept your notion of what my film “ought” to be about, since after all that is not up to you. I decline also to accept the absurd notion that anyone was “duped” into anything, other than uncritically swallowing the hysterical narrative “Scientists and Captain Janeway Hypnotized Into Film They Have No Remote Clue What They Said and What They Read From The Script” ;-)
An immortal SNL skit, maybe.
But entirely inadequate as a review of “The Principle” (which is the Copernican Principle, Nathan, not the anthropic principle. The latter is of course touched upon in the course of the examination).
You are a completely biased and anti-intellectual propagandist, and I have made a truly wonderful film that does all the things you flatter yourself into imagining you actually support:
Address an important issue
Include the views of both the mainstream and the dissidents
Do so with rigorous fairness
End up with a beautiful colloquium of ideas, which brings to the public both the authentic voices of the participants, and the astonishing new science bearing on the question.
“The Principle” is a beautiful, spiritually and intellectually uplifting film, involving an examination of a question foundational to the human experience: are we significant? Or just a cosmic accident?
You will never view your place in the cosmos the sme way again, after seeing “The Principle”.
If Mr. Dickey were to ever see the movie I believe he'd be very surprised, perhaps nearly as surprised as the creator of Cosmos may well have back in 1996 when he met the Creator of the cosmos.
ReplyDeleteDo you have a release date??
ReplyDeleteYes, Lynda, we do. We could announce it tomorrow, but please be patient. We have a number of options before us now, and we want to be sure to select the one that gives us the best chance to achieve the widest possible distribution of "The Principle".
DeleteThanks for your interest!
Rick?
ReplyDeleteI believe XKCD has scooped you: http://xkcd.com/1365/
:-)
If that's the best "XKCD" can do, they'd best go "back to the drawing board."
DeleteToday, they tackle Relativity: http://xkcd.com/1366/
DeleteI think it's kinda funny :-)