I would like to provide information to forum members about the motion picture entitled The Principle, a scientific documentary which brings into question the prevailing assumptions about the structure of the Cosmos.
What is the scientific basis -- the hypothesis and the testing of the hypothesis?
Is the idea of a stationary Earth at the center of the Universe nothing more than a ridiculous holdover from an irrational and superstitious age?
It is mathematically orders of magnetude more difficult to model than what scientists currently use to model earth, the solar system, the milky way galaxy and the rest of the universe in a self-consistent system.
To model it you basically take the current model math and then change the reference system. The model for gravity falls apart in many ways.
Modern science has long maintained that the human species is nothing special in the context of the cosmos. ...
Actually science does not address the question of whether one species is more "special" than another, as that concept is either not testable (and thus not science) or falsified by the evidence of no apparent difference at any measurable level for one species compared to another.
... Indeed, in Carl Sagan’s words, the Earth is nothing more than an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people. ...
Anyone is entitled to their opinion, but opinion is not science.
... Now this worldview is founded upon what amounts to religious faith in the Copernican Principle, ...
It always amuses me when religious people try to disparage science by claiming it is a religion.
The Copernican Principle is old cosmology, long since superseded by newer concepts that more accurately explain the observed evidence.
Curiously that is all science is or attempts to be: the best explanation of the observed evidence. In this way all it does is explain the creation and how it works, not why it is the way it is.
... the core dogma underpinning the evolutionist origins paradigm.
To be specific here "evolution" is used in the cosmological sense rather than the biological sense (which has no preference for what is happening off the earth surface).
There is no relation between cosmic evolution and biological evolution, other than that both are sciences working on providing the best explanation for the observed evidence.
"The Principle" provides a format with which to re-examine the modern cosmological assumptions, by publishing, in a visually stunning manner, the astonishing experimental data collected from recent large-scale surveys of the Universe, such as the Planck probe. The evidence discloses a preferred direction, an Earth-oriented alignment in the cosmos, which clearly indicates, not that the Earth is an insignificant orb of dust (as posited by evolutionists), but rather that it occupies a very unique and compelling place in the macrocosm.
Do you happen to have any of that evidence that you can share here? Preferably in peer reviewed scientific journals (you claim it is science)?
The Principle features narration by Kate Mulgrew (Star Trek Voyager, Orange Is The New Black, and Ryan’s Hope); stunning animations by BUF Compagnie Paris (Life of Pi, Thor"); and interviews with scientists and thinkers, some of whom are the most prominent evolutionist cosmologists of our time - George Ellis, Michio Kaku, Julian Barbour, Lawrence Krauss, Max Tegmark.
Do I need to look into your other purported "expert" testimony (actors commenting on science? really?), or will you concede that this is fraud rather than science?
quote:As near as I can tell from all this, without having yet seen the full film, it appears that what probably happened is the following. Sungenis decided that the anthropic principle business in cosmology supported his views, so he went and got physicists like Kaku, Krauss and Tegmark to say silly things on camera, then edited this to suit his case. Maybe the trailer is misleading, and these people actually make a cogent case against Sungenis’s nonsense and for solid science, we’ll see
Update: For a different point of view on this, from someone worried that geocentrists will discredit the Catholic Church, see here.
Why the controversy? Because the clear implications of the data point to an alternative model for the structure of the Universe.
There is no scientific controversy.
What you have are some people with a belief at odds with observations and with the simplest explanation for them.
Like YEC beliefs (where there is also no scientific controversy that the earth is very very old).
That some people place their beliefs at odds with science does not create a controversy, it creates a group of people in denial of science but without scientific evidence to back their claims.
A controversy in science only arises when there is a scientific disagreement and evidence for both sides.
The first principle of evolutionism is that of material origin or first cause. ...
Nope.
... Whereas both Natural Theology and Divine Revelation recognize One, Omnipotent, Uncreated, Eternal, Intelligent, Simple, and Good First Cause (Creator), In Whom there is no matter, no composition, no material extension, and no potency, Who is pure Act and Pure Spirit, and from Whom came forth the material, finite, created Universe; ...
Or more simply stated, some people believe it was all created. It is a religious belief.
... the evolutionary worldview posits a material first cause. ...
Again, nope.
... Matter was, matter is, and matter will be. ...
Nope.
... All things that exist are products of cosmological and biological material causes. ...
Cause implies purpose. Purpose is not considered in science, which is interested in providing the best explanation of the observed evidence.
... Whatever form their existence might take at any moment of measurement, observation, or apprehension, owes all of its attributes to random physical causes, and not to the intelligently determined design of an omnipotent Creator.
Not really. Once again science attempts to explain the observed evidence. If the observed evidence can be simply explained by simple theories then that is what science will try to determine -- how the system works, not why it is that way.
The Copernican Principle (CP) underpins the Big Bang Theory (BBT) of the origin of the Universe. ...
Nope.
... This theory posits a material first cause. Something - in some versions so small that it amounts to virtually nothing - exploded, cooled, and gelled. ...
Nope.
... And this took billions, and billions of years.
That is what the evidence says, not the theory.
The next principle is perpetual change. In the evolutionary/copernican/relativist paradigm, there is no stable, immovable, absolutely at rest body. ...
Again, this is what is observed, not theoretical.
... If absolutely nothing in the material Universe is at rest, then no motion whatsoever is capable of measurement; ...
Wrong.
... for all measurement requires a standard for comparison. ...
Nope. Any assumed frame of reference will work.
... . Furthermore, if absolutely nothing in the material Universe is at rest, then there can be no objective direction. There is no up, no down, and no center. All motion is relative, i.e. subjective, i.e. based on perception and vantage point and nothing more. ...
Nope. Relative is not subjective, relative measurements are very objective.
... Indeed Big Bang Cosmology posits just this: an acentric universe with no objective direction ...
Again, that is what is observed, that is the objective evidence.
... and no objectively measurable motion.
Wrong.
According to Natural Philosophy and Divine Revelation, the Earth is a fixed, stable body at rest in the center of the spherical, finite Universe. A fixed Earth conforms to common sense, and, being fixed, provides the basis and foundation for all measurement of all motion. ...
Common sense tells you nothing about reality, senses are easily fooled.
... Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Einstein and the modern scientist establishment posited that the Earth is not fixed, but rather revolves around the sun and rotates on its own axis, in addition to hurtling through outer space with its sun, moon, planets, and galaxy. ...
And again, that is what is observed, that is the objective evidence.
... This destroys the objective existence of a body at rest in the created cosmos, destroys all true measurement of motion, ...
Wrong. The evidence invalidates an incorrect hypothesis.
... and - not incidentally - destroys belief in the literal sense and inerrancy of Sacred Scripture.
Oh boo hoo. What it shows is that such belief is delusion:
Likewise biological evolutionism posits perpetual change in the matter-form composition of generic biological forms. ...
Curiously that is what is observed, that is the objective empirical evidence.
... Sacred Writ reveals that the Eternal Word created all things according to their kinds (genera). ...
Interesting -- you equate "kinds" with genera ... How many are there just out of curiosity?
... Sacred Theology and Scholastic Philosophy teach that the kinds of plants and animals made by God during the Six Days of Creation are immutable substances, which, though subject to the changes of growth and corruption, are not subject to transubstantiation or transmutation. ...
Ah, I think I know where you are going ...
,,, Evolution holds for the absurd idea that a lower being has the power, through material causality, to transmute itself into a higher being, ...
Absolutely false. Transmutation is not a biological process but a creationist fantasy.
... Amoeba has no lungs and no legs, but by some magic (called billions and billions of years), its offspring has lungs and legs. ...
Do you realize that amoeba are eukaryotes, and that you are skipping some 2 billion years of evolution?
Do you realize that time is not magic?
... Ape has no rationality, but, by the power inherent in matter cum quasi-infinite magnitudes of time, can transmute itself into man.
Curiously some apes are as intelligent as some people. We share a common ancestor some 10 million years ago.
Evolutionism gives to matter creative power OVER TIME. Matter creates OVER TIME. ...
LOL When you are wrong you go whole hog don't you?
Because time is the essential requisite for the evolutionary system to have any possibility at all, ...
Nope. The process of evolution occurs every day.
... the entire construct is qualified by the attribute of perpetual change, a function of time. ...
Nope.
... In the case of man, matter is alleged to have created both a body and an immaterial soul. ...
Nope.
... But this is absurd because there is no intellectual or spiritual power or capacity in matter. ...
Nope, it is absurd all on it's own.
... . For this cause the evolutionary paradigm is constrained to categorize man, not as rational animal, but as just plain animal, ...
Nope.
... and to deny the existence of his immaterial, rational, immortal soul. ...
Nope.
... But this flies in the face of observable reality.
Really? what is your evidence?
Evolution posits that the observable and measurable created kinds are not immutable forms, but rather transitional forms, always in the process of becoming, ...
No, that is what the evidence shows.
... and therefore never actually participating in true existence according to a true essence or nature. ...
LOL. We'll settle for real existence.
... Absurd consequences follow: True taxonomic measurement ceases to be possible because there are no immutable biological forms (no beings at rest, ...
You mean reality invalidating incomplete hypotheses is absurd? Fascinating.
... we might say) upon which to base a true branch of science. ...
You can say whatever wrong thing you like, that doesn't make it true.
... No category of living being can be anything other than a transitional, relative existence (relative to what, they never say); and this unmoors the entire science of taxonomy. ...
Nope.
I don't want this reply to go on forever, wherefore I hope I have sufficiently addressed your question.
Indeed that is waay to many mistaken statements -- each one worthy of a separate thread to discuss the details of why you are so wrong, and to add to it would just pile error on top of error.
Your concept of modern evolution is wrong.
Your concept of modern cosmology is wrong.
If I were to try to distill your post into a set of points that are correct there would be no post.
If you want to take any of those points and start a separate thread on them, I will be happy to show you why you are wrong.
But to be succinct: if you are going to argue about evolution then you need to discuss the actual science of evolution and not some fantasy version of it. Same goes for cosmology.
I suggest you take what you think is your best argument and start a thread on it, then we can work back to the others.
... but that would not be nithe.
It's not so much a matter of being "nithe" but of using the language and current knowledge of science the way that science uses it.
For instance you talk about the "Copernican Principle, the core dogma underpinning the evolutionist origins paradigm" when it has nothing to do with cosmic evolution and nothing to do with biological evolution.
Copernicus formulated a heliocentric system (but not the first to do so) with circular orbits, and these are considered falsified concepts in modern astronomy\astrophysics\cosmology -- in other words you think you are arguing against a central governing tenet, when in fact you are arguing against a discarded incomplete concept.
When your whole argument is based on straw man versions of evolution and cosmology then no conclusions you reach can be valid.
Copernicus never went that far, as he assumed the sun was the center of the universe.
Using his name can certainly lead to confusion and the conflation of concepts, or to the wrongful attribution of ideas.
More to the point, in modern cosmology a more appropriate term would be the cosmological principle:
quote:In modern physical cosmology, the cosmological principle is the notion that the distribution of matter in the universe is homogeneous and isotropic when viewed on a large enough scale, since the forces are expected to act uniformly throughout the universe, and should, therefore, produce no observable irregularities in the large scale structuring over the course of evolution of the matter field that was initially laid down by the Big Bang.
Which you will note refers to cosmological "evolution of the matter field", again not something that Copernicus envisaged, but which Suzanne Romano refers to ...
I've been very busy on a writing project. I've been studying the history of the helio/geo debate and have been looking at the evidences and experiments discussed in the GWW DVD set.
If one is not physics oriented (that be me) it is all-consuming.
So you are not educated in physics, but are self-teaching by only looking at material that conforms to your a priori beliefs, from someone who also is not a physicist, rather than actually learn real physics.
In other words you are not competent to judge if your electrical engineer is competent in what he says, but happily take it on faith.
Re: Galileo Was Wrong...about circular planetary orbits
Any thoughts on the mass of the sun being waaay too huge for it to revolve around the Earth? See Message 59.
More to the point, why does relativistic warping of space due to mass explain the Mercury orbit anomaly if the mass is not that huge. See msg 44 on the "Galilio was wrong" thread.
As with Faith I think Suzanne Romano has trouble with the concept of what empirical evidence is and how it is used in science to validate theory.
The answer to your question is that the entire universe rotates around its center of mass, carrying the stars and the Sun with it. The Earth being the universe's center of mass, the stars and the Sun rotate around the Earth.
Which fails to explain the orbit of Mercury and why it is in the gravity well of the sun but not in the rest of the universe and why that gravity well causes the anomalous behavior.
What you posit for the universe pulling the sun around the earth would mean that the orbit of Mercury would be elongated in the purported direction of the sun's movement.
Of course you would need to understand relativity to see why this is a problem, and high school physics education is just not sufficient.
But we do not live in a two body universe; wherefore Newton's law of two bodies cannot accurately measure reality. According to Ernst Mach, though the huge mass of the Sun has a great force of gravity, the combined masses of the stars have a corresponding force of gravity, which influences other bodies in the universe.
Which would distort the gravity well around the sun and pull Mercury into a different orbit -- one extended in the direction of the purported solar orbit. Can you explain how the forces of the universe would cancel out for Mercury but not for the sun?
™ Version 4.2
(1)