"The Principle" - anti-Copernican movie

[Trebuchet]

At last count, The Interview will be opening in 262 theaters tomorrow. That's 261 more than the opening theaters for The Principle. Just sayin'.

[Jodie]

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

You did that on purpose, didn't you?

I'm a big fan of a bad pun

[Trebuchet]

Latest update: Currently showing at only one of the three theaters listed in the film's website, the other two don't list it any more. No idea if it's opened anywhere else. Total take as of a week ago was $51,207. That won't pay the bills. Weekend box office dropped from $24,145 the weekend of January 23-25 to $7120 Jan 30-Feb 1. That's not surprising, the true believers will go to the opening and nobody much else is interested.

(Largely pasted from my other forum.)

[lpetrich]

I checked the movie's Facebook and Twitter feeds:

The Principle on Facebook
The Principle Movie (@PrincipleMovie) | Twitter

Jan 30:

Quote:

However, members of the media have ignored the artistic merits of the film and its science-based arguments to instead voice baseless accusations of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial against its executive producer, Robert Sungenis.

Jan 31: Some people in Spokane WA and Orange CA saw it.

Feb 4-5: Some places where the movie may be shown next:
Madison WI
Houston, Katy TX
Indianapolis, Greenfield IN
Harrisburg, PA

They state that they are about 300 - 350 tickets away from showing the movie.


Finally, hasn't anyone here bothered to try to see it?

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Finally, hasn't anyone here bothered to try to see it?

Only if i find a way to watch it legally for free. It does not seem likely at this point.

[lpetrich]

Tee hee. Seems like those filmmakers' careers are not worth financing.

I concede that I myself might try to see it if I didn't live in such an out-of-the-way place without a lot of money for traveling.

[lpetrich]

The Principle on Facebook -- it will come out on DVD and Blu-Ray in October or November

Here's where it's been shown in movie theaters:

Chicago, IL -- 2014 Oct 14 - Oct 30, Nov 7 - Nov 13
Burbank, CA, Orange, CA, Spokane, WA -- 2015 Jan 23 - Feb 5
Madison WI, Harrisburg PA, San Diego CA -- 2015 Mar 13 - 26
Omaha NE, Cincinnati OH, New Castle PA -- 2015 Apr 24 - 30
Albuquerque NM -- 2015 May 17

Here's its total box-office take, up to April 30: $89,543 (The Principle (2014) - Box Office Mojo)

[John Nowak]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

This means that Proxima Centauri would travel 26.4 light-years around its orbit in 12 months to complete one orbit; ergo it would be traveling at 26.4 times c, the speed of light. This is clearly a physical impossibility.

I'm not sure if the original comment is quite correct, since the rotating earth is an accelerating frame of reference.

It's more an interesting mathematical curiosity than anything else. You can pick an immobile earth as your frame of reference; in fact, we do this all the time when asking directions to the nearest Starbucks, or even how to get to the bathroom on a moving aircraft.

But when you extend that frame of reference outwards you start getting very weird math. If you can do this with the accelerated frame of the rotating earth, the speed of light increases as you get further away from earth, and so on.

Obviously, nobody does that "for reals," but it's an interesting math exercise.

[Trebuchet]

Originally Posted by John Nowak

I'm not sure if the original comment is quite correct, since the rotating earth is an accelerating frame of reference.

It doesn't rotate, according to Sungenis.

[Rincewind]

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

It doesn't rotate, according to Sungenis.

well, we'd obviously be thrown off if it did!

[Mudcat]

Originally Posted by lpetrich

The Principle on Facebook -- it will come out on DVD and Blu-Ray in October or November

Should be on a streaming site relatively soon then. Been wanting to see how someone justifies a completely geocentric viewpoint for a while now, if only for the lols.

[John Nowak]

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

It doesn't rotate, according to Sungenis.

Yeah, but I'm trying to address the problems of translating from one frame of reference to another.

[Mudcat]

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

It doesn't rotate, according to Sungenis.

Wouldn't that mean that the entire universe would have to be going that much faster?

[lpetrich]

Originally Posted by Mudcat

Should be on a streaming site relatively soon then. Been wanting to see how someone justifies a completely geocentric viewpoint for a while now, if only for the lols.

Judging from the Videos | The Principle, it's because of cosmological-scale structures like the "Axis of Evil" showing that the Earth has a cosmically special position. (Planck shows almost perfect cosmos – plus axis of evil | New Scientist, What Is Evil About The Axis Of Evil? - "The Principle" Movie)

That's grasping at straws, because at best, it shows that it is the Local Group that has a cosmically special position. Our Galaxy doesn't have a special position in the Local Group, the Sun doesn't have a special position in our Galaxy, and the Earth does not have a special position in our Solar System.

The movie's makers have a hashtag #areyousignificant about being cosmically significant.

Bertrand Russell once wrote The Theologian's Nightmare, about discovering how cosmically insignificant our planet is. That seems to describe the viewpoint of "The Principle"'s makers very well.

[Trebuchet]

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

It doesn't rotate, according to Sungenis.

Originally Posted by Rincewind

well, we'd obviously be thrown off if it did!

Originally Posted by John Nowak

Yeah, but I'm trying to address the problems of translating from one frame of reference to another.

Originally Posted by Mudcat

Wouldn't that mean that the entire universe would have to be going that much faster?

You are trying to apply logic to a loon. To quote Adam Savage: "Now THERE'S your problem".

Sungenis is also a raving holocaust denier and anti-semite. His own church has ordered him to tone that down or stop using "Catholic" on his hate sites.

[Mudcat]

Originally Posted by lpetrich

The movie's makers have a hashtag #areyousignificant about being cosmically significant.

The true irony here is that they are over reaching looking for that.

I say that because from my understanding (so take that with a grain of salt) on the mater is that the universe is spherical. One of the special properties of a sphere, as a geometric shape, is that any and all points on the sphere are at the center. Including the earth.

Why must believers make things more complicated than they strictly need to, right?

[Rincewind]

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

You are trying to apply logic to a loon. To quote Adam Savage: "Now THERE'S your problem".

Sungenis is also a raving holocaust denier and anti-semite. His own church has ordered him to tone that down or stop using "Catholic" on his hate sites.

Please, please!

Oh no, I'm not trying to apply logic...

I'm poking fun at...

[lpetrich]

Originally Posted by Mudcat

I say that because from my understanding (so take that with a grain of salt) on the mater is that the universe is spherical. ...

Where's that from?

In the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker cosmology, the Universe's dimensions split up into 3 space and 1 time dimension. The 3 space dimensions have "maximal symmetry", as it's called. There are three possibilities: plane-like, circle-like, and hyperboloid-like (zero, constant positive, and constant negative curvature).

From the most recent measurements, the 3-space part of the Universe's space-time has a curvature of less than 1% the overall space-time curvature, using the Universe's present overall density as a measure (Lambda-CDM model^WP).

[Mudcat]

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Where's that from?

The Milne model of the universe.

[Trebuchet]

Originally Posted by Rincewind

Please, please!

Oh no, I'm not trying to apply logic...

I'm poking fun at...

Yes, you were, sorry. Can we just turn Sungenis over to your Luggage?

[Rincewind]

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

Yes, you were, sorry. Can we just turn Sungenis over to your Luggage?

If you can find it...

And is that fair to the luggage?

[Mudcat]

Just for ***** and giggles I decided to see if anyone out there had any legitimate arguments for a geocentric universe. Unsurprisingly the most arguments for it stems from the proposed authority of the bible, the rest had arguments that went along the lines of "If we assume geocenticricy is true then the conclusion that we live in a heliocentric universe is wrong and so are the observations that lead to that conclusion."

Yeah, I'm going to just leave it alone that we don't live in a heliocentric universe and conclude that you're a moron now, thanks.

[turingtest]

Originally Posted by Mudcat

Just for ***** and giggles I decided to see if anyone out there had any legitimate arguments for a geocentric universe. Unsurprisingly the most arguments for it stems from the proposed authority of the bible, the rest had arguments that went along the lines of "If we assume geocenticricy is true then the conclusion that we live in a heliocentric universe is wrong and so are the observations that lead to that conclusion."

Yeah, I'm going to just leave it alone that we don't live in a heliocentric universe and conclude that you're a moron now, thanks.

Interesting; from the ICR article:

Quote:

Perhaps the most important lesson to be learned from the history of geocentricity is in connection with the question, "What role should scientific discovery play in the interpretation of the Bible?" It is surely ironic to see the incident of Galileo's trial before the Inquisition paraded as a supposedly unarguable illustration of the "mistake" recent-creationists make when they insist on a literal, supernatural, six-day creation and fail to yield to modern scientific views of how the universe came to be. "After all," we hear, "the theologians said that Galileo's heliocentric viewpoint was heresy, but now everybody knows that the theologians were wrong and Galileo was right."

In actual fact, as we have seen above, the current scientific consensus is that "Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory [which Galileo held] is 'right' and the Ptolemaic theory [which the theologians held] 'wrong' in any meaningful physical sense."

The generally overlooked lesson here is that scientific theories do not provide a very secure basis from which to interpret Scripture. In the course of the last five hundred years the weight of scientific consensus has rested in turn with each of three different theories about the form of the universe: first geocentricity, then helio-centricity, and now relativity.

This is the way it is with scientific theories—they come and go. But the Word of God endures forever. Let us be immovable in upholding what the Bible clearly teaches.

About as perfect a case of needing to be able to eat your cake and have it too as I've ever seen- even when religion is wrong, it's right, because it never changes; and even when science is right, it's wrong, because it does change. And that last (highlighted) bit is especially ironic, in view of the fact that the author had just spent a good bit of his article excusing the theologians (who were persecuting Galileo for espousing heliocentricity) on the ground that the Bible doesn't actually "clearly teach" geocentricity at all. The whole thing is, in effect, an exhortation to be "immovable" by waffling as the case for faith may require it.

[Mudcat]

Originally Posted by turingtest

Interesting; from the ICR article:

I love how they try to use Einstein to back their argument.

Originally Posted by turingtest

About as perfect a case of needing to be able to eat your cake and have it too as I've ever seen- even when religion is wrong, it's right, because it never changes; and even when science is right, it's wrong, because it does change.

I've seen that argument used a lot as if that's supposed to be a legitimate argument for religion and against science when it's laughably easy to dispute.

But yeah. More Geocentric eccentricity:

Originally Posted by Alantean Conspiracy

Because the earth's atmosphere is magically Velcroed to the earth and rotates with it.

...Wait, what? How about you try gravity? Drooling idiot.

[turingtest]

Originally Posted by Mudcat

But yeah. More Geocentric eccentricity:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alantean Conspiracy
Because the earth's atmosphere is magically Velcroed to the earth and rotates with it.

...Wait, what? How about you try gravity? Drooling idiot.

I haven't read the article (yet); but, if this guy really thinks anyone has ever said anything about the atmosphere being "magically velcroed to the earth," I'd invite him to look up "Coriolis force"- go stand in the middle of a hurricane (as I have, several times, including Katrina), and tell me about it. A line from Blue Oyster Cult's "Astronomy" occurs to me- "you'll want to know where winds come from."

[Mudcat]

Originally Posted by turingtest

I haven't read the article (yet); but, if this guy really thinks anyone has ever said anything about the atmosphere being "magically velcroed to the earth," I'd invite him to look up "Coriolis force".

I think it's garden variety "I don't understand so therefore magic."

[turingtest]

Originally Posted by Mudcat

I think it's garden variety "I don't understand so therefore magic."

Along with a lot of "I don't believe it, therefore something else"; as in his answer to "why do the sun and the moon appear to be the same size?"

Quote:

GC [GeoCentric- his idea]: Because they are the same size.

HC [HelioCentric- the idea he opposes]: They only appear to be the same size because of an incredibly perfect parallax perspective from Earth. Actually the Sun is 1.392x10^6 km in diameter and 1.496x10^8 km from Earth. The Moon is 3474 km in diameter and 384,403 km from the Earth. And these just happen to be the EXACT diameters and distances necessary for a viewer from Earth to falsely perceive them as being the same size.

I just went outside on the balcony of my apartment, held up my right thumb, and covered perfectly an SUV in the parking lot down the street. There's one of two things going on here- either my thumb and that SUV really are the same size, or...perspective. Nothing magical or "incredibly perfect" about it, just the way the universe works; the moon and the sun are the same apparent size in obedience to the age-old law of "**** happens."

That kind of brings up what is, to me, an interesting point- how woo-slingers, CTists, and religiously-addled people must depend on "philosophy" to back their conclusions rather than, you know, just empirically testing for them. (There's a poster on this forum, who shall remain here nameless, who insists on this approach) They begin with an idea, but then, instead of trying by experiment to falsify it, they decide that simply arguing will suffice to "prove" it. It's all sitting around the BS table and debating for them; reality is determined by who makes the best points (or can outlast the other). So you end up with things like messages from the dead in radio commercials, "the Mafia killed JFK!" and the Shroud Of Turin being, for them, just as likely as anything evidence can show; you find yourself spinning plots, reality be damned.

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by turingtest

Along with a lot of "I don't believe it, therefore something else"; as in his answer to "why do the sun and the moon appear to be the same size?"

The apparent similarity in size is, of course, temporary as the moon is moving away from the earth. They will only appear roughly the same size for a small percentage of the earth's existence. So the only even slightly remarkable fact is that our species happened to evolve during that brief window.

[Mudcat]

Originally Posted by turingtest

So you end up with things like messages from the dead in radio commercials.

If the person or persons that made the radio commercial(s) is/are dead, wouldn't they be 'messages from the dead'?

[Tolls]

Originally Posted by turingtest

Along with a lot of "I don't believe it, therefore something else"; as in his answer to "why do the sun and the moon appear to be the same size?"


I just went outside on the balcony of my apartment, held up my right thumb, and covered perfectly an SUV in the parking lot down the street. There's one of two things going on here- either my thumb and that SUV really are the same size, or...perspective.

It's all very Father Ted.

"These are small… but the ones out there are far away."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dS12p0Zqlt0

[Syameese]

wrong thread

[lpetrich]

ScreeningNOW -- "The Principle", now available for purchase on DVD or Blu-Ray. It will be available for rent on December 8, 2015, presumably by streaming online.

So you can now see what it's about, though you must be willing to make the great sacrifice of supporting its creators' careers.

[asydhouse]

Originally Posted by lpetrich

ScreeningNOW -- "The Principle", now available for purchase on DVD or Blu-Ray. It will be available for rent on December 8, 2015, presumably by streaming online.

So you can now see what it's about, though you must be willing to make the great sacrifice of supporting its creators' careers.

Can't be arsed.

[deaman]

The Earth is not the center of the Universe but, it's very close, because I AM the center of the Universe, obviously!

[Major Major]

At the risk of necroing this thread, I can report that The Principle is still going, along with a documentary on the topic of "Thoughtcrime: The Conspiracy to Stop The Principle"

http://www.theprinciplemovie.com/buythemovie/

You may now resume your excursion into the world of sanity.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

Wait! People still believe that the Earth is the center of the universe, and are not participating in satire?

I weep for humanity should such nonsense ever gain mass appeal.

An unpleasantly large number of people are uneducated, many of them by their own choice, on the realities of the Universe. The majority of them base this ignorance and refusal to learn on their religion so I must logically blame it on their religion!!!!!! And the Universe knowledge is not the only problem religion causes or assists.

[fuelair]

Or even glorifies.

[CORed]

Originally Posted by Mudcat

How do these people reconcile the fact that if we lived in a geocentric universe then objects revolving around us further out, just in this galaxy alone, would be going faster than the speed of light?

Einstein is clearly wrong. Relativity is bunk. Heck, once you buy into geocentrism, denying relativity, and probably Newtonian physics as well is a piece of cake. You weren't really expecting rationality or even internal consistency from cranks like that, were you?

[Mudcat]

Originally Posted by CORed

Einstein is clearly wrong. Relativity is bunk. Heck, once you buy into geocentrism, denying relativity, and probably Newtonian physics as well is a piece of cake. You weren't really expecting rationality or even internal consistency from cranks like that, were you?

Not really but damn if the whole thing don't make me cringe. I mean you don't have to go far before things would be traveling faster than light just to match what we observe, and even then we'd be able to tell if that was happening.

It just makes me wonder just how do these mouth breathing morons think these celestial bodies stay in orbit of Earth. Haven't they ever hear of centrifugal force? What's keeping all of these celestial bodies from flying off faster than the speed of light? Critical failure of geocentrism at every scale! Fractal failure at its finest!

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Mudcat

Not really but damn if the whole thing don't make me cringe. I mean you don't have to go far before things would be traveling faster than light just to match what we observe, and even then we'd be able to tell if that was happening.

It just makes me wonder just how do these mouth breathing morons think these celestial bodies stay in orbit of Earth. Haven't they ever hear of centrifugal force? What's keeping all of these celestial bodies from flying off faster than the speed of light? Critical failure of geocentrism at every scale! Fractal failure at its finest!

A key problem in your last paragraph lies in the assumption clearly obvious by the phrase "mouth breathing morons think", in which the word "think" is clearly an unwarranted assumption!!!