Go to the link to read what didn't copy.

http://beforeitsnews.com/science-and-technology/2014/06/top-scientists-freak-out-over-new-docuмentary-questioning-copernican-principle-which-they-appeared-in-2699776.html

Top Scientists Freak Out Over New Docuмentary Questioning Copernican Principle- Which They Appeared In!
Sunday, June 8, 2014 12:38


(Before It's News)

In a previous article, I reported on a new docuмentary, The Principle, which discusses new evidence questioning the Copernican Principle. Many eminent scientists were interviewed for the film, including Lawrence Krauss, Michio Kaku, Max Tegmark, Julian Barbour, and George Ellis. The film was narrated by Kate Mulgrew (Captain Janeway of Star Trek). All of them signed releases, were paid, and agreed to be interviewed for a film that would address controversial as well as main stream cosmological ideas. All of them interviewed before the Planck satellite returned its results in 2013 (except Max Tegmark who came for a second interview after the results were released).

When the trailer was put up in December 2013, things were quiet for a while, but suddenly in April 2014, there was a media fury (Google search “Krauss Mulgrew geocentrism”). Media outlets from Rawstory to Time to Der Spiegel were onto the story. It started when Lawrence Krauss denounced the movie on Slate, followed immediately by Kate Mulgrew claiming she was not a geocentrist, and apologizing to her Star Trek fans for her involvement! Of course none of the denouncers had even seen the movie, so it is not clear what they were denouncing. It turns out they were denouncing a movie that a minor Catholic blogger stated was trying to prove geocentrism. In fact geocentrists were interviewed in the docuмentary, which would make sense in a piece about the Copernican Principle, especially given the obsevations that are discussed (correlations of the universe at large with the earth). Nevertheless, this led to the movie being known as the “most reveiwed film ever by reviewers who had never seen it”. The media blitz proclaimed, without consulting obvious sources (such as the producers), that the scientists and Kate Mulgrew were tricked into interviewing for the movie.

There are two interesting facets to this event. Why would the scientists interview, cash their checks, and go on with their lives for three years, then suddenly make this an issue? The producers believe that the media storm was ignited by two causes. The first was the intervention of the Catholic blogger, which embarrassed Lawrence Krauss. Second, and more interestingly, is the fact that most of the interviews were done before the release of the Planck satellite results. As explained in the previous article, and explained in more depth in these linked articles, the Planck results packed a significant and unexpected blow to the Copernican Principle, practically a dogma to mainstream cosmology.

The producers discuss these issues, plus show some of the release forms, and some very interesting clips from raw footage of the interviews on Michael Voris’ Mic’d Up show on May 28th. The story continues to change, and grow more interesting. The Principle will be released September 19th. Stay tuned for further updates.

 



 

Many thanks Marie. While your posted article has been noted and discussed already the links given in your site show the scientific basis on which the geocentric earth is said to be shown. I have never seen these before and are essential to try to understand the authority of the lads' movie THE PRINCIPLE.
Again thanks.

God Bless.

.

A new page, linked today, has this:


http://beforeitsnews.com/media/2014/06/media-colludes-to-hide-astonishing-fact-about-glaring-signal-in-the-cosmos-scientists-scramble-to-explain-away-2482848.html



Media Colludes to Hide Astonishing Fact About Glaring Signal
in The Cosmos. Scientists Scramble to Explain Away.

Monday, June 9, 2014 8:46
0
Get FREE private and secure Email and Messaging click now!

(Before It's News)

In 2003, the first results of the WMAP satellite were presented to the public. Scientsits could not believe their eyes. There appeared to be a glaring signal at the farthests reaches of the cosmos, but according to their theories this was impossible. Some of the more honest ones referred to it as “The Axis of Evil” because it played havoc on their theories, plus this was around the time that George Bush Jr. gave his axis of evil speech. The signal pointed right back at the earth, yet they believed the signal was embedded in the very beginning of the big bang, 14 billion light years away! The scientists managed to convince themselves and most news outlets that this was likely an instrumentation  error in the WMAP satellite, or perhaps an error in how the satellite scanned the outer edges of the visible universe. In any case, they all put the onus on the Planck mission (planned launch 2009 and planned first data release 2013) to referree the WMAP results. Many scientists were convinced that Planck’s superior optics, more advanced infrared scanners, and more advanced and optimized scanning pattern would solve the problem, and show that the glaring signals were in fact anomalies.

 

In 2011, Rick Delano and Robert Sungenis were making a docuмentary film about the Copernican Principle aptly called The Principle. They interviewed many famous scientists including Lawrence Krauss, Michio Kaku, Julian Barbour, Max Tegmark,  George Ellis, and others, and asked them about the earth’s position in the cosmos, the WMAP results, etc. They discussed the issues and even at that time gave some astounding answers. Recent observations have in fact turned modern cosmological theories on their head. Keep in mind that these scientists were quite frank because they likely believed the Planck results in 2013 would vindicate them (Max Tegmark, the scientists who first discovered the amazing signal, said as much in his 2011 interview).

 

2013 came, and the Planck results were released. To the utter shock and dismay of many scientists, not only did Planck validate the WMAP results, but in fact amplified them! Now those scientists had to deal with not only the objective results (there is a glaring signal at the farthest reaches of the cosmos pointing right back to the earth), but they have to deal with what they said in the interviews for The Principle!

 

As I outlined in the last article, once The Principle started to get some attention, some of these top scientists freaked out and started to distance themselves from it, even going so far as to make it sound like they were tricked into interviewing for the film. We are supposed to believe seven or eight of the smartest men in the world plus Kate Mulgrew (Captain Janeway of Star Trek, and the film’s narrator) were tricked into into interviewing for a film and were made to say things they did not mean! But the media glommed on and a wave of negative publicity arose. Yahoo, Time, Der Spiegel, Slate, and many others wrote screeds reporting how these poor scientists were tricked into interviewing for the docuмentary. Most of the articles focused on poor Kate Mulgrew and Lawrence Krauss. All but one or two outlets even bothered to call the producers to get their viewpoint, and all but one that did bother twisted the interview to fit the party line (that we are insignificant, go on scurrying about like rats, you are an accident, you live in a nowhere on a rock, plus these poor guys were tricked, etc.).

 

But The Principle has survived intact, and the wave of negative publicity was publicity never the less. The Principle is due to be released September 19 in a major city, and will be followed by a more general release. This is the one film everyone needs to see, and many do not want you to see!


.

In 1978 Penzias and Wilson received the NOBEL PRIZE in physics for their discovery of the CMR in 1965. it will be difficult for the EARTHMOVERS to change their interpretation of this phenomena (seemingly makes it presence as a noise) without the boyos giving back the money they got from the Nobel institute.

But back to gentry, for in his 1986 book Creation's Tiny Mystery he wrote:

'Since then (1965), it has been widely claimed that this pervasive radiation field is a relic of the time eons ago when radiation quanta decoupled from matter in the primeval fireball (J. Silk: The Big Bang, W.H. Freeman & Co. San Fransisco, 1979).... But if the radiation from this primeval fireball is assumed not to interact with matter after the time of decoupling, then how did this initially hot radiation [3000degreesK] lose its energy, or temperature to later become the 3degreesK CMR? The standard explanation is that the general relativistic analysis of the space-time expansion of the Big Bang predicts that the decoupling radiation quanta will lose energy just as a result of the expansion of the universe. There is however, nothing in modern experimental physics that suggests that radiation quanta change energy by moving through free space.' (page 284-5)

So, one problem for THE PRINCIPLE MOVIE will be to avoid 'proving the Big Bang happened' while defending the noise (CMRB) showing the earth is at the centre of the universe

Nuclear physicist Gentry, who knows what he is talking about, goes on to say that all experiments that 'confirm' the theory of relativity actually prove nothing, for these experimental results cannot be used as confirmations of the special or general theory of relativity because there are other, albeit far lesser known, theories which predict similar results. Gentry continues:

'irrespective of how it originated, the most important fact about the CMR is that it represents unequivocal evidence of an absolute reference frame in the universe.., I suggest the evidence [now CMRB] which has received worldwide acclaim of confirmation of the Big Bang is really its death knell for, ironically, it is now clear that the existence of the CMR essentially falsifies the fundamental postulates of the theory of relativity [that there is no reference frame in the universe]... In simple terms, the theory of relativity has been falsified because a major prediction of the theory is now known to be contradicted by an umambigious experimental result.

OK, now back to our level of understanding it all. It is very simple. The M&M experiment of 1887 is at the crux of THE COPERNICAN PRINCIPLE'S PROBLEMS. It used a light beam to SHOW the supposed orbital movement of the earth around the sun but it failed, showing instead that the earth does not move. SCIENCE had reached a crossroads, Galileo's PRINCIPLE was shown to be false. But unlike today, when geocentrists had begun to expose these facts of science since 1960, there was no geocentrists around in 1887 to defend the result. So, for 17 years the world's heliocentric scientists tried every ad hoc theory to PREVENT THE 1887 geocentrism taking hold among the people. These theories were so far-fetched they were ridiculous, but they were so designed that they could not be proven false. And that is science, you can prove nothing because anyone can propose a theory that can prevent any evidence becoming a fact.

Eventually they found a champion who volunteered to front all their ridiculous ad hocs, Albert Einstein. His main theory was that light has a constant speed and so the earth's movement through space cannot be detected so that is why the M&M test never showed the earth orbiting at 70,000 mph. From then on, all cosmology has to adhere to Einstein's theories. If einstein is shown to be wrong then the M&M test has to be taken as showing the earth does not orbit.

So here we find the CMR in 1965 showing Einstein is wrong. But how serious did science take that. They ignored it and just carried on. Now we have the 2013 CMRB showing the earth is at the centre of the universe, but this time a movie called THE PRINCIPLE is telling everybody.

There is however a further aspect to THE PRINCIPLE MOVIE few would be aware of. It could also revolutionise the science of electromagnetism. Walter van der Kamp, the greatest geocentrist who ever lived, made reference to it in his books. Walter wrote:

‘The electromagnetic equations developed by Maxwell fitted in fact only with an Earth as a preferred frame of reference in absolute space. And an Earth at rest in space is, we are all taken to think we know, is “unthinkable.”’

Now look up any science book on Maxwell's earth framed electromagnetic equasions and it will state the M&M experiment showed him wrong. CAN YOU BELIEVE IT? What they should have said was that it was Einstein's WHACKO interpretation of the M&M experiment that supposedly falsified Maxwell's equations. THE PRINCIPLE MOVIE however will restore Maxwell's earth-centred equations. This in turn will enhance the huge interest in the study of the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE.

So the bad news for THE PRINCIPLE MOVIE is that like every other bit of evidence that pointed to geocentrism and geostatism they will find ad hocs everywhere to attack their own findings, just as they have done for centuries, first with the Airy test, then the M&M test, and nowwith the CMRB test.

So, again it will come down to ideologies or faiths if you want another word for it. Christians will have the greatest choice to make, believe the chancers making millions out of keeping the world ignorant of the true interpretations of the evidence, or start believing in the doctrine of geocentrism again, that biblical revelation of the universe and God's creation of it geocentric so that all could see in it His presence. The latter cause however will not have any help from those running the Catholic Church. Rome has long backed the ad hocs even against papal decrees. Rome has long praised the discoveries of Catholic astronomers Copernicus and Galileo. Rome has long praised Galileo's Copernicanism as the foundation of modern Catholic exegesis and hermeneutics. Rome is up to its eyeballs in Einstein and his theories of relativity. Indeed it is impossible to find a pope who didn't accept the Big Bang since it was first mooted in the 1929.

Ah yes, THE PRINCIPLE MOVIE has the ability to bring down the Copernicans in both Church and State. But do not hold your breath, there is a battle ahead and start chosing your side now.

I googled in The Electric universe. I came across this introduction, worth repeating:

“We live in an electric world. Our cities are visible from space at night, blazing with electric lights. The electricity courses invisibly in the darkness over great distances along thin power lines. We find electricity indispensable. Nature does the same since all matter is electrical. Yet astronomy is stuck in the gas-light era, unable to see that stars are simply electric lights strung along invisible cosmic power lines that are detectable by their magnetic fields and radio noise.

It is now a century since the Norwegian genius Kristian Birkeland proved that the phenomenal ‘northern lights’ or aurora borealis is an earthly connection with the electrical Sun. Later, Hannes Alfvén the Swedish Nobel Prize winning physicist, with a background in electrical engineering and experience of the northern lights, drew the solar circuit. It is no coincidence that Scandinavian scientists led the way in showing that we live in an Electric Universe.

Why have they been ignored? The answer may be found in the inertia of prior beliefs and the failure of our educational institutions. We humans are better storytellers than scientists. We see the universe through the filter of tales we are told in childhood and our education systems reward those who can best repeat them. Dissent is discouraged so that many of the brightest intellects become bored and drop out. The history of science is sanitized to ignore the great controversies of the past, which were generally ‘won’ by a vote instead of reasoned debate. Today NASA does science by press release and investigative journalism is severely inhibited. And narrow experts who never left school do their glossy media ‘show and tell,’ keeping the public in the dark in this ‘dark age’ of science. It is often said, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.” History shows otherwise that entrenched paradigms resist extraordinary disproof.

This website is for the curious, those who are eager to discover some reasonable answers about life, the universe and everything (as far as it is possible today) free of old beliefs that have shackled progress for centuries. It requires a beginner’s mind and a broad forensic approach to knowledge that is not taught in any university. The payoff is the spark that lights up lives.”

Signed WAL THORNHILL.

NON SEQUITUR by Wiley Millar

[Galileo]:'So, tell me about this new method of maths you have invented.
[Newton]: 'It is easy really, instead of the old hard way, I start with the answer, then go back to make up an equation that fits it, and presto, I am always right.

ME: And now you know how Newton - they claim - was always right.

Mathematics is a great tool but it isn’t physics. A lucrative prize has been recently awarded to an Australian astrophysicist who encourages students to emulate him and “look at things as math problems rather than as physical problems.” This is from a person who gave us imaginary ‘dark matter’ to allow the math to match the physical problem.

Research Funding
Consensus science and the desperate need to publish papers in a few ‘recognized’ journals drives peer-review censorship, selective data publication, confirmatory bias, and in some cases fraud. Requests for research funding should be subject to public cross-examination. If the research cannot be explained and justified to well-educated arbitrators, drawing upon qualified criticism, what is the basis for confidence in today’s multi-billion dollar scientific adventures? “Trust us, we’re the experts,” is not acceptable. Blind trust has led to misbegotten multi-billion dollar projects like the $9 billion Large Hadron Collider and the $16 billion, 30 year long International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), which when viewed critically, fall far short of the scientific justification the public has every right to expect

Cosmology as Myth
Today’s cosmology, in attempting to give us the biggest picture, competes with religion by investing in an alternative creation myth, one that shatters the observed laws of physics. The myth is called ‘the big bang’ and it makes no sense. What we observe is that matter ‘locks up’ electromagnetic energy, which manifests as mass according to E = mc2 (no hypothetical Higgs boson is required).  But we have no idea how energy can create matter (whatever that ultimately is). So we can say nothing about creation of the universe. Though it purports to explain observed phenomena, the big bang requires one to rationalize an immense field of accuмulating anomalies, forcing cosmologists to devote most of their time to inventing ways around the contradictions by introducing purely theoretical constructs like dark matter, dark energy, black holes and much more. The exotic vocabulary that has emerged fails every reasonable test of Occam’s Razor. Unexpected results are met with ad hoc solutions. There is always an answer.

The big bang myth, with its bizarre portrayal of our situation in the universe, afflicts society through its hopelessness and waste of money and resources. Modern cosmology is exposed as a competing secular religion with its creationism and end of the world scenarios. Science has not yet thrown off the shackles of our misunderstood past.

Awww, 'another creation myth,' and I thought these guys were 'could be geocentrists.' Gas, isn't it, all that wisdom just to make way for their own kind of Copernicanism.

.

The ink dried.  

The video logo says "NASA - JPL California Institute of Technology"
(National Aeronautics and Space Administration;  Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Cal Tech)

At 1:26:10 Dr. Lawrence reads a question from a sheet that someone has asked by Internet:

"'What is the biggest surprise from the CMB data?' (I'll take that to mean from Planck.)"

Again, he appears rather ill-at-ease having to answer this, and he hems and haws over what to say and what not to say.

"There weren't .. there weren't the kind of surprises that we get here, that result in, statements that you SOMETIMES hear scientists make, like, um, 'WOW!  Everything we thought yesterday turns out to be wrong!!' Heh, heh.  Now, you've seen how it works:  we've got, got, a model that fits better than ever, with parameters that we've measured better than ever, [pause, shuffle, squirm] so, perhaps, let me just talk and flip back here, it'll take a while to get back to the slide I want to show you.  Perhaps the question about the anisotropy, difference between two halves of the sky, still being there, that, that's potentially quite important.  The fact that the cold spot is still there.  The fact that the Hubble constant .. let me add one more thing about the Hubble constant.  The reason that Planck gets a low Hubble constant is because the mass that we determine is high, and higher than before:  higher mass, lower Hubble constant;  and that comes from these bumps and wiggles out here that have never been measured before.  So, uh, it's not that anybody before was wrong, it's just that the data didn't exist before to do that.   But the fact that the Hubble constant is as low as it is, intention, that's interesting, there are some numbers about clusters of galaxies, that maybe initially looked a little surprising but that's going to be sorted out.  But there's one thing that I didn't mention, and this is another interesting fact, and maybe this starts to look like a little bit of a surprise.  You see this red line [points to first part of curve in "Planck TT Spectrum" graph] going through these points here?  Except your impression by eye, that there are more points on the low side here than on the upper side, is correct.  This, this model doesn't fit these measurements down here [points below the red 'best-fit' line in the graph], as well as it does down here [points on both sides of lower graph].  You can kind of see it in the residuals down here.  They're more on the negative side than on the positive side.  You can, you can try to turn the knobs on the model lots of ways.  And there are some things that for a while look kind of promising.  You can fit these fit these points... That's maybe a bit of a surprise.

"...We've got some things that's like, 'Is this the kind of thing I should be lying awake at night worrying about'?" ...


Another audience member asks if this Planck data gives any new insights regarding the shape of the universe, since a few hundred years ago, we thought the 'earth was flat', but now we know it's a sphere.  [Actually, we've known that Earth is a sphereoid for about 90 years.]

Dr. Lawrence answers that now we know that light travels in straight lines, that outer space is not curved (as Einstein postulated), and that now we believe that the universe is flat (instead of the earth).  

So, therefore, while we once thought that the universe is a sphere and the earth is flat, now we've grown up to believe that the earth is sphereoid and the universe is flat.  

How d'ya like that for progress?  


.