Slashdot Mirror
Scientists/Actress Say They Were 'Tricked' Into Geocentric Universe Movie
EwanPalmer (2536690) writes "Three scientists and Star Trek actress Kate Mulgrew say they were duped into appearing in a controversial documentary which claims the Earth is the center of the Universe. The Principle, a film which describes itself as 'destined to become one of the most controversial films of our time', argues the long-debunked theory of geocentrism – where the earth is the center of the Universe and the Sun resolves around it – is true and Nasa has tried to cover it up. The film features the narration of actress Mulgrew, who played the part of captain Kathryn Janeway in Star Trek Voyager, as well as three prominent scientists."
Supposedly a large # of the actors in the film Innocence of Muslims were duped into appearing in the film and had their lines (sloppily) edited after the fact to be about Mohammed instead of generic desert villain.
Monstar L
It doesn't really affect the "Best Star Trek Captain" discussions (I always answer with the *vision* the creators had for the character not how it was acted)...but Kate Mulgrew is kind of a ditz
In interviews (like in The Captains film: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... ) she was clearly just doing Trek purely as a 'gig' for a paycheck...she had no personal connection to science or space whatsoever and did not see her role as a way to educate herself or broaden her horizons to improve her acting
to her it was all just "technobabble" which angers me to no end as a person who advocates for women in science...but it's her life and career so I'm not judging her choices necessarily...i just think it's unprofessional and lazy...her performance in Orange is the New Black is equally as bad, IMHO...very perfunctory
Mulgrew read the ***narration*** of the whole film...how could she do that and not know the film as about the earth being the *actual* center of the universe?
answer is in the subject line
Thank you Dave Raggett
I believe her. I fell that Kate is totally capable of being tricked into making a movie with such claims. I'm not sure that she has much of an argument though. She was paid to do something really really stupid and she did something really really stupid, and likely something that she even believed at the time until someone else explained it to her. By her argument she seems to be claiming that she shouldn't be permitted to make any films (which I completely support). If she finds out that there really isn't any "Starfleet" will she go after the Trek franchise too?
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
"He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." - Psalm 104:5
"The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises." - Ecclesiastes 1:5
I believe at one point god makes a circle with a diameter of 10 and a circumference of 30, which is a hell of a trick even for YHWH.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
I can just see that press conference now.
Pope declares: "Turns out this 'god' thing was a load of crap. Sorry everyone. You can all go home and get real jobs now."
But the Earth is the center of the universe! Look at your general theory of relativity! Any object can be consider the unmoving center of a frame of reference. Earth is at (0,0,0) and not rotating. Of course this implies large gravitional fields to keep the sun and the planets and the stars rotating around the Earth every 24 hours, and complex stuff like that. But that just makes the math more complicated. It is still a valid frame of reference.
But hey, why stop there? *** I *** am the center of the universe! All you people rotate around me! No need to bow down...
Oops, Wrong article. You were looking for :
The Amoeba That Eats Human Intestines, Cell By Cell
Or, Maybe Not.
Draw it on a globe.
The earth is the centre of the visible universe and thanks to Einstein's relativity, everything moves around us. So there is absolutely nothing wrong with the geocentrist idea, it just complicates the orbital mechanics equations when you want to fly a space ship to Mars somewhat, that's all.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Same way you define the center of anything: the thing around which other things rotate.
Occam's Razor rules out the sheer complexity of any model showing our solar system orbiting any body other than the Sun.
If you want to be precise about it, the Earth does not rotate around the Sun.
Rather, the Sun and the Earth rotate around their mutual center of gravity, or barycenter. Same goes for the other planets. The barycenter of the Sun and the Earth is within the Sun, but is not at the center of the Sun. The barycenter of the Sun and Jupiter, on the other hand, is not contained within the Sun at all.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
...are you being serious?
I have to wonder how the folks here got through middle school lit if terms like "sun rises" and "earth's foundations" are presenting problems for them.
It's worth noting that the Ecclesiastes verse is not in the context of astronomy, but rather highlighting the relative impermanence of human works. Humans and their ambitions come and go, but the days keep coming and the wind keeps blowing.
There's no reason to think it isn't referring to the apparent position of the sun, relative to an Earth-bound observer.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
The Biblical authors were simply advanced in their understanding of proper measurement technique.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Congratulations! Please obey all traffic laws and posted signs, and enjoy your new GPS navigation system.
I live in Thailand; I can't even READ the posted signs. But smile and wave to the police and there is no problem. I don't have a Global Positioning System, I only have a MPS (Me Positioning System). Works fine, but it makes me cross-eyed.
Well, you wrote "a film depicting the truth", unqualified. The qualification of Muhammad as a sex-mad warlord is, on both counts, not something that is readily apparent from scripture, or recorded historical accounts.
The alleged pedophilia is, it seems to me, a selective application of modern mores onto ancient history. If we did the same to Christendom or Judaism or basically basically any other -ism, I expect we'd find that in those circles back then it was (also) pretty regular practice to consider women adults (in the sense of ready for sexual relations) after their first menstruation.
Likewise, there is no shortage of violence and brutal killings in the history of Christianity and Judaism. And similar to Islam, there continue to be extremist, violent and racist, fringes to those religions to this day.
At any rate, the makers of IoM are not scholars and have no authority to make any claims in these matters.
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
There is no description of the earth's foundations (and I'm sorry, but the original text is NOT the King's English anyway). For all we know, this "foundation" could be a reference to the orbit the Earth is set upon and a statement that the Earth cannot be moved from that foundation (not be moved by the readers, anyway). There's LITERALLY nothing there describing the "foundation" - not size, not shape, not composition, nothing. It's also true that land is often referred to as Earth, so it could even be a reference to that what supports dry land above the Earth's molten core. You can actually choose to take the Bible totally literally (even with a talking serpent) and still see that it is NOT an engineering or astrophysics text book with cutaway drawings, dimensions, etc. The texts (taken literally or metaphorically) simply lack details... and that's just FINE. Nobody complains when Richard Dawkins or Stephen Hawkingwrites a book that lacks every little detail about the universe. I see no ammunition here for arguing pro/con this bit of scripture.
As for the sun, allow me to point out that we all (of all, and no, religions) use these expressions. Even those of us who fully understand celestial mechanics involved still say to our kids "be home by sunset" or "we'll be having dinner when the sun goes down" rather than "be home by the time this spot on the Earth's surface has rotated sufficiently away from the sun that it is no longer visible" or some other such nonsense. This is about as silly as when Bill Nye tried to slam the Bible as anti-science because it has a verse that refers to the moon as a light (and HE points out that it's not a source of light, just reflecting sunlight). Apparently in Mr. Nye's world, couples do not go out for a romantic stroll in the "moonlight", nobody goes for a "moonlight" swim, etc. The man's an idiot.
What it all really comes down to is something every person working Guidance and Navigation at the Johnson Space Center is quite familiar with: "Frame of Reference". If you set your frame of reference to the center of the sun, then everything (including all the other galaxies) goes around the sun. If you set your frame of reference to the center of the Earth, then everything, including the sun and the rest of the universe, goes around the Earth (and this is a common frame of reference used in orbital spaceflight). You could set your frame of reference to the center of the moon, or the ISS in Low Earth Orbit, or any other arbitrary point in space. It's all relative (in the basic geometric sense rather than the Einstein sense). Taking a Bible verse about sunrise and sunset an using it to claim that the book is wrong, would be like running down the street denouncing every person who speaks of sunrise or sunset - sheer lunacy. The biggest joke of all in this argument about taking the Bible "literally" is that most of those (both for and against the Bible) who claim to be taking it "literally" are actually NOT; they're almost always projecting lots of junk onto it that is plainly (literally?) NOT there.
Allow me to propose a simple rule-of-thumb for Bible readers (both "the faithful" and the skeptics) as follows: Do not criticize it any differently than you criticize every other book (i.e. use consistent standards) and do not take individual sentences out-of-context from ANY book. Bible "verses" are just sentences and they were NOT numbered in the original text (the numbers were added to aid in navigating the text). If person A gets to use individual Bible sentences, person B gets to use individual sentences from any other book. If person A gets to heap his own interpretations onto the clear text of the Bible, then person B gets to do likewise with other books.
>but the pedophilia, brutal killings, etc. are all spot on.
Perhaps - but hardly unique - exactly the same things were happening as standard fair in Europe among Christians at the same time. Hell Christianity would keep it up for at least the next 400 years - average marriage age for women didn't go past 16 until the early 20th century and age-of-consent laws weren't passed anywhere until well after that.
So whether it's true or not- it says absolutely NOTHING about Islam. There is nothing in there about Muhammed that wasn't also true of Richard the Lionhearted.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
The qualification of Muhammad as a sex-mad warlord is, on both counts, not something that is readily apparent from scripture, or recorded historical accounts.
Seriously, you know that little about what's in the Qur'an? How can you be so ignorant on the subject? Muhammad was quite literally a warlord. An army leader. The "sex-mad" part is of course a subjective appreciation, but it suffices to say his proposition and practice of polygamy was non-standard at the time.
The alleged pedophilia is, it seems to me, a selective application of modern mores onto ancient history.
Irrelevant. He was either a pedophile or not. By the accounts of the Qur'an he was. Next thing you know you're gonna deny that slavery was practiced in the United States and you're gonna insist that we call it something else lest we have a "selective application of modern morals onto ancient history". Facts are facts, you can be more or less judgemental of them depending on how flexible your moral code is, but that doesn't change the underlying truth.
If we did the same to Christendom or Judaism or basically basically any other -ism, I expect we'd find that in those circles back then it was (also) pretty regular practice to consider women adults (in the sense of ready for sexual relations) after their first menstruation.
You're severely confused. Aisha's marriage is supposed to have happened before womanhood. That's part of the islamic teachings. And the source for many islamic authorities' teachings that girls can be given into marriage as early as 2 years young. Not only morally dubious by the standards of the day, but the source of hideous moral atrocities today, in parts of the world where Sharia is the law, the only law
In addition I never shy away from casting moral judgement on past events using modern standards and I think nobody should. Slavery was wrong then. is wrong now. It matters less what religion commended it.
Likewise, there is no shortage of violence and brutal killings in the history of Christianity and Judaism. And similar to Islam, there continue to be extremist, violent and racist, fringes to those religions to this day.
Islam's violence is far from a fringe phenomenon. Please feel free to condemn all violence equally but do not take me for a fool and tell me that Islam's teachings are equally dangerous to Christianity. At the very core they're all equal, but Christianity has been dragged kicking and screaming into something that's closer to the 21st century than the middle ages where vast portions of Islam still reside.
All that being said, IoM is a pile of steaming crap. I doubt anyone here disagrees. But it's not a pile of crap because of any major historical errors or for misrepresenting islam (by much). It's complete crap because it lacks any artistic value.
At any rate, the makers of IoM are not scholars and have no authority to make any claims in these matters.
Yes. And you should not speak on IoM because you are not a filmmaker or film historian and you should have no say in the matter. How about that?
How about judging the message less than the messenger? A pile of crap, or a masterpiece, is either one or the other irrespective of it's author.
"She is but 14 years old"
"And younger than her are happy mothers made"
William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliette.
That's Renaissance England - and it remained common until the early 20th century. The REAL reason it changed was World War 1- with most of the young men gone to war for several years, women had to take over the work-force and do so without many potential suitors around.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
None of the 35 million Muslims in my city have ever celebrated an atrocity, none of their priests have ever encouraged anybody to do the same. In fact - you walk into a Muslim owned shop here you will see signs on the walls that say things like:
I
Shall
Love
All
Mankind
Encouraging each other to live in peace with the non-muslim community here ( which is only slightly smaller at around 30 million the vast majority of whom are protestant Christians and who have their shops decorated with signs that spread the same message in the name of Jesus instead) - these communities live among each other, with each other, in perfect peace and harmony - both are convinced that the other's religion is wrong but neither group thinks violence is justified or allowed and in fact both groups spend most of their time trying to convert the other by competing over who can do the most charity for the poor population of the city !
The deadliest religious atrocity we have are pot luck dinners ! The worst problem we face is that these two religions are VERY happy to cooperate on the things they agree on - which means a constant stream of political jockeying against our laws allowing gay marriage and legal abortions which is funded and attended by both groups. A current law banning corporal punishment is being vehemently opposed by religious leaders- FROM BOTH religions, working TOGETHER.
These aren't good things to be doing -but it's interesting that they are quite happy to put aside their differences and lobby collectively for the things they agree on (even when those things are wrong).
I LIVE among the proof of how wrong you are.
The only thing I can conclude from your Islamophobia is that you don't actually, personally, KNOW a single Muslim. Not really *know*.
Like all discrimination - Islamophobia can ONLY exist in ignorance.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
"She is but 14 years old"
"And younger than her are happy mothers made"
William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliette.
That's Renaissance England
By the way, even a cursory glance at Wikipedia would demonstrate your error regarding Shakespeare's time:
Still, in most of Northwestern Europe, marriage at very early ages was rare. One thousand marriage certificates from 1619 to 1660 in the Archdiocese of Canterbury show that only one bride was 13 years of age, four were 15, twelve were 16, and seventeen were 17 years of age while the other 966 brides were at least 19 years of age at marriage. And the Church dictated that both the bride and groom must be at least 21 years of age to marry without the consent of their families; in the certificates, the most common age for the brides is 22 years. For the grooms 24 years is the most common age, with average ages of 24 years for the brides and 27 for the grooms. While European noblewomen married early, they were a small minority and the marriage certificates from Canterbury show that even among nobility it was very rare to marry women off at very early ages.
Keep in mind that Romeo and Juliet, while written by an Englishman, was set in Italy. The lines you quoted were probably meant to be either a joke or intended to shock the audience, as a jab at young aristocratic marriage ages (which were particularly associated with Catholic countries like Italy).
and it remained common until the early 20th century. The REAL reason it changed was World War 1- with most of the young men gone to war for several years, women had to take over the work-force and do so without many potential suitors around.
Also, after poking around a bit, I discovered my previous post was slightly in error at least for the U.S. -- the lowest median age for first marriage according to census data, apparently occurred in 1956, with women marrying then on average at age 20.1 years.
So the theory about WWI -- not true either.