Wednesday, August 6, 2014

Finally! Someone Who Has Actually SEEN "The Principle" Tells Us What He Thinks.......

By way of introducing our new blog over at "The Principle" movie website, we offer this reflection concerning "The Principle" by someone who, unlike those who have reviewed it pre cognitively, has actually seen it first!


  1. I think your undeniable proofs that earth is at the center,has to be confirmed from all science community in order to be widely acceptable.Till then nothing is sure.

    In my opinion (as a christian also) is that ''the heavens declare the glory of God''

    1. I think if you are looking for irrefutable proofs from the operational domain of science, you definitely need to see "The Principle".

      It will help disabuse you of the notion that irrefutable proofs proceed from that most excellent, but necessarily contingent, domain.

      If you believe the Scriptures proceed from God- well, that would be a different matter altogether.

  2. But geocentrism was supported from the catholic church so its not a different matter at all.Even we eastern orthodox dont believe earth is the center of the universe

  3. Is there a single Easteren Father who asserts the Scriptures to teach heliocentrism?

  4. Both western & eastern fathers asserted the Scriptures to teach humility.Geocentrism obviously is the opposite.I dont say that we are not significant as beings,but i suppose its so egocentric to think we are the least in my opinion

    1. I assume both Western and eastern Fathers agree that nothing is contrary to humility in God's decision to write the very first verse of Scripture as follows:

      "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the..............."




      The Earth.

      Your opinion is noted, but not worth much compared to the Scriptures and the
      Fathers, I am sure we can agree.

      Juyst so you know, *not a single eastern Father ever so much as hinted at anything other than the plain meaning of scripture: a geocentric universe*.

      Only modern Christians struggle with this.

    2. I never said my opinion is compared with the Fathers that would be crazy.

      St Basil and other early fathers accepted geocentrism because they didnt had telescopes or anything else to proove the opposite.

      In the meantime why Heliocentrism doesnt prove that we are special?

      We are special again.Its just had to be some logic explanation for the earth any anything else.

      So the galaxy we live in is moving around us?What about the core of galaxy?

      Is there any proof for that in the upcoming documentary?

    3. "St Basil and other early fathers accepted geocentrism because they didnt had telescopes or anything else to proove the opposite."

      >> That is completely false. The heliocentric argument was well-known in the ancient world. St. Basil, and every Father, rejected this view, on the grounds that it contradicted Sacred Scripture.

      Only the modern mind could be so thoroughly deluded as to imagine that a telescope can tell us whether we are moving, or what we see through the telescope is moving.

      It is laughable.

      It is also tragic, since one would accept the non-testimony of a telescope as sufficient to overturn the plain words of genesis 1:1.

      A true mystery, that such an awful thing should have befallen us.

      "In the meantime why Heliocentrism doesnt prove that we are special?"

      >> There are no heliocentrists. Heliocentrism was experimentally falsified in 1887 by the Michelson Morley experiment.

      The heliocentrists invented relativity, which requires its adherent to grant intellectual assent to the following metaphysical absurdity:

      "The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS [coordinate system] could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves', or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest', would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS [coordinate systems]."
      ---"The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, New York, Simon and Schuster 1938, 1966 p.212

      You mention the spiral galaxies.

      In "The Principle". Michio Kaku kindly gives us to understand that the spiral galaxies do not obey the law of gravity upon which the heliocentrists persuaded the minds of men- even of Christians!- that the Scriptures and all the Fathers were just too stupid to understand physics until Galileo came along with his telescope to straighten them out, and Newton came along with his gravitational theory, which is so drastically wrong on galactic scales as to require us to invent 95.9% of the missing mass and energy out of thin air, call it "dark matter" and "dark energy", and pontificate at great length about these "things".

    4. The word ''laughable'' is a little bit of ironic and i suppose its not kind.

      Im not a scientist and definately english is not my mother language.

      When i mentioned telescopes etc i mean all the modern tools required to study the universe.

      So from your point of view is there any spiritual meaning on this documentary (which im waiting to see) or clearly scientific evidence?

    5. The Copernican Principle is perhaps the most powerful idea in the history of civilization since the promulgation of the Gospel.

      It lies directly at the incredibly volatile point of intersection between science, philosophy, culture, and faith.

      No one has ever made a documentary examine this.

      Until now.

      The spiritual implications are so enormous that the film has been subjected to an astonishing media hoax designed to discredit it before its release.

      It has failed.

      I hope you enjoy the film.

  5. When is "The Principle" scheduled for release?

  6. The Earth? ........... It's certainly central to me!