tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post8054600106093800011..comments2022-12-11T02:07:29.510-08:00Comments on Magisterial Fundies: Final CutRick DeLanohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06675522207482535734noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-16805584073910885982013-12-08T17:53:37.683-08:002013-12-08T17:53:37.683-08:00Marty: If you go to:
http://magisterialfundies.bl...Marty: If you go to:<br /><br />http://magisterialfundies.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-principle-update.html<br /><br />You will get the update, and if you go to:<br /><br />http://magisterialfundies.blogspot.com/2013/12/links-to-principle-trailer-launching.html<br /><br />You will be able to watch our trailer when it is released tomorrow, MOnday, December 9.Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06675522207482535734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-87030208304791654022013-12-07T09:57:49.852-08:002013-12-07T09:57:49.852-08:00So when is theprinciplemovie going to be available...So when is theprinciplemovie going to be available? How about a status update.<br /><br />Martymartymaherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07466072112644920249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-52025541680744003352013-06-12T14:41:52.904-07:002013-06-12T14:41:52.904-07:00Hi Alan:
We will be open to a possible screening,...Hi Alan:<br /><br />We will be open to a possible screening, please get in touch with me via email.Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06675522207482535734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-23578299476198447012013-06-12T14:32:50.275-07:002013-06-12T14:32:50.275-07:00Can I sign up to organize my own screening? thanks...Can I sign up to organize my own screening? thanksGeremiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11812810552682098086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-85894412808138573232013-03-16T11:27:41.529-07:002013-03-16T11:27:41.529-07:00Hi Rick,
I just revisited this thread today havin...Hi Rick,<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />James B. Phillips, J.D.<br /><br />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"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-4119590519860179972013-02-19T15:08:50.593-08:002013-02-19T15:08:50.593-08:00Unsurprisingly, our Anonymous has declined to put ...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.<br /><br />Anonymous says:<br /><br />"Why did real cosmologists concede to participate in your anti-science sham? Maybe you lied to them"<br /><br />Please be cordially assured of two things, Anonymous.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Second, you were very wise not to attach your name to that accusation.<br /><br />Run along now and tell your friends to get ready :-)<br /><br />Cheers!<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06675522207482535734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-76019909691315713552013-02-19T13:49:39.831-08:002013-02-19T13:49:39.831-08:00Hi Anonymous:
In light of the progressive meltdow...Hi Anonymous:<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />But that will be your last contribution here.<br /><br />Cheers!Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06675522207482535734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-52588668024418770502013-02-19T12:34:04.177-08:002013-02-19T12:34:04.177-08:00What is cute is watching you attempt to deny the v...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.<br /><br />Whether or not I understand the Axis research, is a matter of reading the words I have posted from it, above.<br /><br />Do you understand the words?<br /><br />If you do, then you see that your objections have been answered *scientifically*.<br /><br />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 :-)<br /><br /><br />As for converting people to atheism- hey, the discoverer of the Axis is himself an atheist.<br /><br />The difference between him and you is that he is a scientist, and is unafraid to follow the scientific evidence where it leads.<br /><br />He can still be a Copernican, and recognize that this universe is not Copernican.<br /><br />He just invents a multiverse :-)<br /><br />See you at the movies........Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06675522207482535734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-82313571739951784382013-02-19T12:16:36.406-08:002013-02-19T12:16:36.406-08:00It must be fun pretending to be a cosmologist. It&...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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />Your film will convert people to atheism.<br /><br />You'd be more successful than Richard Dawkins!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11348116681935974935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-3465850476142358132013-02-19T09:45:28.567-08:002013-02-19T09:45:28.567-08:00Anonymous says:
"I don't believe the low...Anonymous says:<br /><br />"I don't believe the low-order multipole moments in the CMB large-scale anisotropy are aligned with the ecliptic/galactic."<br /><br /><br />>> "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:<br /><br />"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."---<br /><br />Starkman, Copi, Huterer, Schwarz, "The Oddly Quiet Universe: How The CMB Challenges Cosmology's Standard Model", Jan 2012<br /><br />http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.2459v1.pdf<br /><br />A: "I think it is systematic error or dust."<br /><br />>> 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />It is truly a very great difficulty for the Copernicans.<br /><br /><br />"Maybe I'm wrong. Planck will answer some of that. Microphysics of dust will help, too."<br /><br /><br />>> 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.<br /><br />A: "Even if it is a real signal about the big bang, it doesn't help the case for geocentrists one bit."<br /><br />>> 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.<br /><br />It is false that it "doesn't help the case for geocentrists one bit". :-)<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />>> 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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />"Did you get Ben Stein to do the narration and ask the questions?"<br /><br />>> Nah, we couldn't afford him :-)<br /><br /><br />Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06675522207482535734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-22053493694119687382013-02-19T03:24:46.464-08:002013-02-19T03:24:46.464-08:00I don't believe the low-order multipole moment...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.<br /><br />Even if it is a real signal about the big bang, it doesn't help the case for geocentrists one bit.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />Did you get Ben Stein to do the narration and ask the questions?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08697321910611549478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-35474536948665615672013-02-17T16:07:32.124-08:002013-02-17T16:07:32.124-08:00I think Bob is probably leaning toward option #2 a...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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />We will be very careful, you may rest assured.<br /><br />Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06675522207482535734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-92209355580823552562013-02-17T15:35:14.634-08:002013-02-17T15:35:14.634-08:00Rick, which option is (for now) preferred by Rober...Rick, which option is (for now) preferred by Robert? ;)<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />cheers<br />LucasLukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13808451913811818262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-65960168544641105652013-02-17T15:23:11.144-08:002013-02-17T15:23:11.144-08:00Alan:
The film is:
1. Independent
2. Highly cont...Alan:<br /><br />The film is:<br /><br />1. Independent<br />2. Highly controversial<br />3. Essentially complete, and <br />4. Really, really, really good :-)<br /><br />#'s 3 and 4 above (especially), place us in a fairly rare category; one in which almost anything can happen.<br /><br />Three principals favor three approaches to distribution, and so all three are simultaneously (and cooperatively) pursuing their favored options:<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />This happens to be my preferred option :-)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />By the middle of March we will know which way we are going to go :-)<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06675522207482535734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-85066046868542971802013-02-17T00:40:00.450-08:002013-02-17T00:40:00.450-08:00Nice to hear. How will the film be distributed? Th...Nice to hear. How will the film be distributed? ThanksGeremiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11812810552682098086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-18601137200841905222013-02-15T13:15:12.136-08:002013-02-15T13:15:12.136-08:00I think the interview with Tegmark adequately poin...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.<br /><br />Those interested in delving deeper into the scientific back-and-forth can check below:<br /><br />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:<br /><br />http://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.5602v2.pdf<br /><br />Relevant excerpts:<br /><br />"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.<br />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......."<br /><br />From Section IV:<br /><br />"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..........<br /><br />".....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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The full article really does pretty much demolish all the Axis objections, in my view.<br /><br />Planck should tell us more.Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06675522207482535734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-77637696666612623342013-02-15T10:03:11.472-08:002013-02-15T10:03:11.472-08:00"Since the release of the WMAP data, several ..."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)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08697321910611549478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-27536472063107659442013-02-15T09:14:26.832-08:002013-02-15T09:14:26.832-08:00Rick, stop teasing us!!! ;)
Your synapsis of movi...Rick, stop teasing us!!! ;)<br /><br />Your 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 ;)<br /><br />BTW, Name of the domain makes sense :]<br /><br />cheers<br />LucasLukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13808451913811818262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-83422934351791795462013-02-14T23:15:41.751-08:002013-02-14T23:15:41.751-08:00BTW, the film's website will be:
www.theprinc...BTW, the film's website will be:<br /><br />www.theprinciplemovie.com<br /><br />Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06675522207482535734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-91229753423315727052013-02-14T23:11:08.726-08:002013-02-14T23:11:08.726-08:00Response has been very gratifying thus far. It is ...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 :-)<br /><br />It is going to be very difficult to dismiss "The Principle".<br /><br />We worked very hard to make a film that is just too powerful to ignore.<br /><br />It has become quite clear that the subject is too fascinating and the science is too compelling to ignore.Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06675522207482535734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-50302863506193352542013-02-14T22:16:33.175-08:002013-02-14T22:16:33.175-08:00You're reffering to galileowaswrong.com websit...You're reffering to galileowaswrong.com website, correct?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />cheers<br />LucasLukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13808451913811818262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-10047994941891355992013-02-14T16:30:08.889-08:002013-02-14T16:30:08.889-08:00Hi James:
We already have a trailer, which we are...Hi James:<br /><br />We already have a trailer, which we are showing to agencies for narrators and to selected companies for possible distributions.<br /><br />That one is private for now.<br /><br />As soon as we have decided to pull the wraps off the website, we will post the general-audience trailer on our website.<br /><br />Soon ;-)Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06675522207482535734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-61860583856777983062013-02-14T12:33:20.552-08:002013-02-14T12:33:20.552-08:00Hi Rick!
Do you think you will release a trailer ...Hi Rick!<br /><br />Do you think you will release a trailer before the actual release of the film and if so do you have an ETA for same?<br /><br />Best wishes,<br />JamesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-18580132011771324942013-02-14T09:17:06.481-08:002013-02-14T09:17:06.481-08:00FYI Lucas: I have checked spam folders- nothing. P...FYI Lucas: I have checked spam folders- nothing. Perhaps you had best post here.Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06675522207482535734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-57966030718476952702013-02-09T14:15:10.890-08:002013-02-09T14:15:10.890-08:00Lucas:
I have not received anything from you as o...Lucas:<br /><br />I have not received anything from you as of today......Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06675522207482535734noreply@blogger.com