Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: klasG4e on May 06, 2014, 04:31:09 AM
-
In a rather astounding development USA Today actually carried a tremendously positive and well informed article on the upcoming scientific docuмentary The Principle, the latter of which has already been sending ever increasing ripples of fear and trembling through a good section of the scientific -- especially the astro-physics -- community and beyond. It should! The movie has truly revolutionary (or perhaps I should say counter revolutionary) implications for the entire world of science and beyond.
Here is a link to the entire article: USA Today article (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Refuting+the+Copernican+principle.-a0366237498)
Here are two additional links to the same article: Link one (http://edc-connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/95380625/refuting-copernican-principle ) and Link two (http:// http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-3268968431.html)
The trailer for the movie is seen at The Principle movie trailer (http://youtu.be/p8cBvMCucTg)
-
.
FYI klags -- your second link did not format and display properly because you left one extra space between the = sign and the address. You have this: Link two (http:// http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-3268968431.html)
I fixed it here:
In a rather astounding development USA Today actually carried a tremendously positive and well informed article on the upcoming scientific docuмentary The Principle, the latter of which has already been sending ever increasing ripples of fear and trembling through a good section of the scientific -- especially the astro-physics -- community and beyond. It should! The movie has truly revolutionary (or perhaps I should say counter revolutionary) implications for the entire world of science and beyond.
Here is a link to the entire article: USA Today article (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Refuting+the+Copernican+principle.-a0366237498)
Here are two additional links to the same article: Link one (http://edc-connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/95380625/refuting-copernican-principle ) and Link two (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-3268968431.html)
The trailer for the movie is seen at The Principle movie trailer (http://youtu.be/p8cBvMCucTg)
This is an interesting development, but it's not surprising. USA Today is simply capitalizing on the controversy, because there is a legitimate opportunity to be on the ground floor of a new market. This is the same thing that happened when DeLano and Sungenis approached the special effects company, who agreed to do the work for the film without being paid up front, but that they would be content with sharing the profits. The thing that made the difference was, that their principle gains would be in the form of being a pioneer -- they would be among the first people in history to take on this challenge. So USA Today in this way, "gets the scoop."
That's always a good thing in the News Biz.
.
-
The article:
The Free Library
22,790,595 articles and books
Link to this page
WHAT is "The Principle"? Five-hundred years ago, you were crazy if you thought the Earth was going around the sun. Today, you are crazy if you think it is not. What changed? That is a fascinating question, one which involves profound issues of science, faith, and identity. While most people assume that it has long since been experimentally proven that the Earth is orbiting the sun, no such experimental proof ever has been obtained. As historian Lincoln Barnett states in The Universe and Dr. Einstein (which contains a foreword by Albert Einstein): "We can't feel our motion through space, nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion."
Remarkably, physics had to be reconceptualized entirely by Einstein at the beginning of the 20th century, in part because no experiment directly had been able to measure this universally-assumed motion of the Earth around the sun. What Einstein could not foresee, however, was that the reconceptualized physics he offered in his special relativity theory in order to keep the Earth moving and the speed of light constant was superseded 10 years later by his general relativity theory which, by his own covariance equations, allowed the Earth to remain fixed and the speed of light to be variable.
Like Sisyphus rolling the huge rock up the hill only to see it fall down right before he reached the peak, in a strange way the principle of relativity made Einstein's own theories relative. Perhaps he realized this truth in his 1938 book, The Evolution of Physics, in which he said: "The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of [Claudius] Ptolemy and [Nicolaus] Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: 'the sun is at rest and the Earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the Earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems."
Physicist Stephen Hawking said much the same in The Grand Design: "So which is real, the Ptolemaic or the Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the Earth or the sun to be at rest."
So, two of our greatest scientific revolutions--the Copernican revolution and relativity--intimately are associated with this question of Earth's place in the larger scheme of things.
The Copernican Principle simply states that the Earth is not in any special or central location in the cosmos. It is sometimes generalized as the "cosmological principle," which holds that there are no special locations in the cosmos. On this fundamental assumption, which modern cosmology defines as the "isotropy and homogeneity of the universe," everything will look very much the same everywhere we look, and it will look very much the same no matter where we might be looking from.
If, for instance, we examine a bottle of homogenized milk, we see that there are no lumps of fat circulating in the milk nor resting on top. The milk would look the same no matter what part of it we examined. The Copernican and cosmological principles say much the same about the universe. Its matter and space are homogenized, as it were. To say it another way, these principles state that we are not able to distinguish one place from another in the universe. There is no up nor down, no left nor right, and no place where either we nor ET can claim to be in a special or central location.
This principle is named after Copernicus, since, in the 16th century, he revived the ancient Greek Pythagorean model that took Earth out of the center and put it among the other celestial bodies. As we then grew in our knowledge of the vastness of the universe from such icons as Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton, Ernst Mach, and Edwin Hubble, it was then we found out precisely what Copernicus' removal of Earth from the center meant, as Carl Sagan stated so eerily in Cosmos: "We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost between two spiral arms in the outskirts of a galaxy which is a member of a sparse cluster of galaxies, tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people."
Did this new view of Earth's position have an effect on mankind's view of himself, his culture, and even his reason for existence? It most certainly did, and in the most profound way. As the poet Goethe put it: "But among all the discoveries and corrections probably none has resulted in a deeper influence on the human spirit than the doctrine of Copernicus ... considering all that went up in smoke as a result of realizing this change."
Historian Herbert Butterfield, in The Origins of Modern Science, indicates that the Copernican revolution "outshines everything since the rise of Christianity and reduces the Renaissance and Reformation to the rank of mere episodes, mere internal displacements, within the system of medieval Christendom ... while transforming the whole diagram of the physical universe and the very texture of human life itself, it looms so large as the real origin both of the modern world and of the modern mentality, that our customary periodization of European history has become an anachronism and an encuмbrance."
Even more profoundly, the famous God is Dead movement of the 1960s, which had its roots in the late 19th-century nihilism of Friedrich Nietzsche and moved him to write the philosophical novel, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, blames the "death of God" on the Copernican revolution. As Zarathustra, put it: "Where has God gone? I shall tell you. We have killed him--you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? ... What did we do when we unchained the Earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space?"
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
The implications and repercussions of the Copernican Principle are far-reaching, but there is one important fact that no one should forget: the Copernican Principle is not a scientific fact; rather, it is a metaphysical assumption. It is that one assumption that is the basis upon which all the evidence from our telescopes and microscopes is evaluated, and modern academia has shown itself deeply disinclined to entertain any other metaphysical assumption.
So let us ask: what if the Copernican Principle is wrong? If it is wrong, we only can conclude that everything we think we know about our universe also is wrong. For the first time in the modern age, it is precisely this question about the "metaphysical assumption" known as the Copernican Principle, and its implications, that are addressed in "The Principle."
More specifically, this film engages with the leading cosmologists, physicists, and theoreticians who presently are wrestling with the implications of recently obtained observational evidence from NASA and the European Space Agency probes that this foundational assumption of our scientific world view--the Copernican Principle--indeed may be wrong, and that our Earth may be very special after all.
The observations are numerous, but perhaps the most puzzling is the so-called "Axis of Evil," a name which was borrowed from Pres. George W. Bush's labeling of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. In cosmology, the "Axis" is dubbed "Evil" because, if it does exist, it completely nullifies the cherished Copernican Principle upon which modern cosmology presently is based, and ultimately destroys the foundation of modernity itself.
Briefly, the Axis of Evil is a never-before-seen alignment of the Earth with the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), a radiation that spans the entire known universe. In other words, it is like saying that the whole universe is centered on or aligned with our tiny Earth. A little thought will show the astounding nature of this Axis. It would be like saying that our solar system of some 6,000,000,000 miles in diameter is aligned with a basketball.
Obviously, this alignment between Earth and the CMB is highly problematic, since the Copernican Principle assumes that, on the largest scales, no preferred direction or space exists in the cosmos. There is such a preferred direction in the CMB, however. Three separate missions have confirmed it--Cosmic Background Explorer in 1990, Wilkinson Microwave Anistropy Probe in 2001, and Planck in 2009. While there are many ideas concerning what this alignment might mean, the observational fact of its existence no longer can be ignored. The Axis is there and it is not going away.
Even more puzzling is the fact that this is not just any preferred direction. The direction is aligned with the ecliptic plane (the plane of the orbit of the planets around the sun), and with the equinoxes (the equatorial plane of supposedly insignificant Earth). In other words, the entire known universe is aligned within the 23.5 degree margin of tilt between the Earth and the sun. How can this be?
Physicist Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University boldly addressed the implications in 2006: " ... When you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed is, in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the Earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the Earth around the sun--the plane of the Earth around the sun--the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe."
Many other cosmologists have admitted the same. For example, in a 2010 paper, the team of Craig Copi, Dragan Huterer, Dominik Schwarz, and Glenn Starkman, which has done extensive research into the CMB anomalies, not only confirmed the Axis' alignment with Earth, but ruled out any alignment with our Milky Way galaxy, stating: "Our studies indicate that the observed alignments are with the ecliptic plane, with the equinox or with the CMB dipole, and not with the Galactic plane." This means that the CMB is Earth-centered, not galactic-centered, an astounding fact to contemplate.
This question of the Earth's placement in the larger scheme of things, which already has launched two great scientific revolutions, seems, as Krauss said, to be coming back to haunt us. As astronomer Lawrence Vescera put it: "The discovery that the CMB is cosmically aligned to the Earth should make the hair on the back of your neck stand up. It points to the fact that the Earth is at a special place in the universe and that God wants it to be known."
If we consider the dramatic changes in culture and world view that accompanied previous cosmological revolutions, it is not too early to begin to consider what it would mean for our future, and the future of our children, if it were to be established that the Earth is in a special position in the cosmos--that we truly are, in some sense, the center of the universe?
Rick DeLano is the producer of "The Principle," due for release this spring.
COPYRIGHT 2014 Society for the Advancement of Education
If they don't want their article copied then they ought to open up comments about it on their website. Readers should be able to post comments SOMEWHERE.
.
-
.
Link one:
AUTHOR(S)
DELANO, RICK
PUB. DATE
March 2014
SOURCE
USA Today Magazine;Mar2014, Vol. 142 Issue 2826, p68
SOURCE TYPE
Periodical
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
The article discusses the association between the Copernical revolution and relativity on the question of Earth's place in the larger scheme of things. It cites the Copernican Principle stating that the Earth is not in any special or central location in the cosmos and indicates that Copernican revolution reduces Renaissance and Reformation to the rank of mere episodes. It notes that if the Copernican Principle is wrong, one can only conclude that everything known about the universe is wrong.
ACCESSION #
95380625
Tags: HELIOCENTRIC model (Astronomy); ASTRONOMICAL models; GEOCENTRIC model (Astronomy); ASTRONOMY; COSMOLOGY
Note: Copernicus is not usually given any credit or attention by the know-nothing know-it-alls because A) he was Polish, and everyone makes jokes about how stupid 'Polacks' are (or at least they did when the Communists were oppressing Poland) and B) he was a Catholic priest, that is, Father Nicholas Copernicus.
.
-
I cannot find this article anywhere in USA Today's website.
-
.
TYPO --- I misspelled his name above. Should be Father Nicolaus Copernicus.
The second link:
Home » Publications » Lifestyle magazines » Political magazines » USA TODAY » March 2014 »
Recently viewed: Article: Refuting the Copernican Principle
Save
Export
Print
Cite
Refuting the Copernican Principle
USA TODAY
(http://hbr.hbrstatic.com/PubLogo/5897.gif)
USA TODAY
March 1, 2014 | DeLano, Rick | Copyright
Permalink
"... Consider what it would mean for our future; and the future of our children, if it were to be established that the Earth is in a special position in the cosmos-that we truly are, in some sense, the center of the universe?"
WHAT is "The Principle"? Fivehundred [sic] years ago, you were crazy if you thought the Earth was going around the sun. Today, you are crazy if you think it is not. What changed? That is a fascinating question, one which involves profound issues of science, faith, and identity. While most people assume that it has long since been experimentally proven that the Earth is orbiting the sun, no such experimental proof ever has been obtained. As historian Lincoln Barnett states in The Universe and Dr. …
To read the full text of this article and others like it, try us out for 7 days, FREE!
[Alternatively, to read the full text just go to CI and check out this thread (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=31568&f=4)]:
(...As historian Lincoln Barnett states in The Universe and Dr. …)
...Einstein (which contains a foreword by Albert Einstein): "We can't feel our motion through space, nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion."
Remarkably, physics had to be reconceptualized entirely by Einstein at the beginning of the 20th century, in part because no experiment directly had been able to measure this universally-assumed motion of the Earth around the sun. What Einstein could not foresee, however, was that the reconceptualized physics he offered in his special relativity theory in order to keep the Earth moving and the speed of light constant was superseded 10 years later by his general relativity theory which, by his own covariance equations, allowed the Earth to remain fixed and the speed of light to be variable.
Like Sisyphus rolling the huge rock up the hill only to see it fall down right before he reached the peak, in a strange way the principle of relativity made Einstein's own theories relative. Perhaps he realized this truth in his 1938 book, The Evolution of Physics, in which he said: "The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of [Claudius] Ptolemy and [Nicolaus] Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: 'the sun is at rest and the Earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the Earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems." ... [etc. -- see post above (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=31568&min=0#p2)]
.
-
.
The second link:
.
I tried all 3 links. I did not get what you got...
-
I cannot find this article anywhere in USA Today's website.
Thanks for checking. This seems to happen a lot. As soon as you find something really interesting and you want to share it, if you pass around a link to the website, within a day or two you get e-mails from friends saying the link doesn't work or the page cannot be found.
In this case, the linked web page "second link" has "javascript:void(0);" as the address for this link, "USA TODAY" next to the thumbnail I copied, above.
Don't be surprised if the thumbnail disappears next week. Actually, here, I'll upload it to CI so it can be on file until the cows come home. (I know, it's a terrible photo, but it looks like it would be an inappropriate image for CI if it were much clearer anyway!) :
-
.
The second link:
.
I tried all 3 links. I did not get what you got...
I don't know what else to tell you, s2srea. I see content on each of these 3 links.
Just to be sure, I'm referring to my copy of the OP, as follows:
.
FYI klags -- your second link did not format and display properly because you left one extra space between the = sign and the address. You have this: Link two (http:// http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-3268968431.html)
I fixed it here:
In a rather astounding development USA Today actually carried a tremendously positive and well informed article on the upcoming scientific docuмentary The Principle, the latter of which has already been sending ever increasing ripples of fear and trembling through a good section of the scientific -- especially the astro-physics -- community and beyond. It should! The movie has truly revolutionary (or perhaps I should say counter revolutionary) implications for the entire world of science and beyond.
Here is a link to the entire article: USA Today article (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Refuting+the+Copernican+principle.-a0366237498) <---[here]
Here are two additional links to the same article: Link one (http://edc-connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/95380625/refuting-copernican-principle ) and Link two (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-3268968431.html) <---[and here]
The trailer for the movie is seen at The Principle movie trailer (http://youtu.be/p8cBvMCucTg) [I've already seen the trailer -- AND the movie!]
This is an interesting development, but it's not surprising. USA Today is simply capitalizing on the controversy, because there is a legitimate opportunity to be on the ground floor of a new market. This is the same thing that happened when DeLano and Sungenis approached the special effects company, who agreed to do the work for the film without being paid up front, but that they would be content with sharing the profits. The thing that made the difference was, that their principle gains would be in the form of being a pioneer -- they would be among the first people in history to take on this challenge. So USA Today in this way, "gets the scoop."
That's always a good thing in the News Biz.
.
The "second link" does not display the entire article but only part of the first two paragraphs, ending with an offer for viewing 7 days for free. That means the site is a subscription-based site. Maybe you've already had your free trial last year or whatever? So then they shut you out so you can't see anything anymore? Just guessing.
In the OP, klags posted a site that has a copy of the article but it's not the USA Today site. It could be that USA Today does not post all of its articles online unless you have a subscription and register with the "online edition" or whatever. The Remnant is like that. But CFN only offers a sampling of articles and most of the CFN articles never appear online unless someone types them in. There could be copyright infringement in such cases. So we have to be judicious with such postings.
In any event, if you cannot find these pages there must be other people who can't find them too, and that means that other people won't be reading what we can read and the movie isn't getting the free publicity it would get if the online readers (like you) could see what I can see (for whatever reason).
I don't have any subscription, nor have I signed up for any free trials. I'm just copy/pasting what I found there.
.
-
In the OP, klags posted a site that has a copy of the article but it's not the USA Today site. It could be that USA Today does not post all of its articles online unless you have a subscription and register with the "online edition" or whatever.
.
I'm guessing that's what it is... Thanks Neil.
-
.
For anyone interested, I'd like to leave my commentary on the Article linked in the OP...................
The article:
The Free Library
22,790,595 articles and books
Link to this page
WHAT is "The Principle"? Five-hundred years ago, you were crazy if you thought the Earth was going around the sun. Today, you are crazy if you think it is not. What changed? That is a fascinating question, one which involves profound issues of science, faith, and identity. While most people assume that it has long since been experimentally proven that the Earth is orbiting the sun, no such experimental proof ever has been obtained. As historian Lincoln Barnett states in The Universe and Dr. Einstein (which contains a foreword by Albert Einstein): "We can't feel our motion through space, nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion."
When I read this far, I was thinking, "This is too good to be true. How could a modern magazine get an entire paragraph so right without sneaking in a few weasel words from the very start?"
And then I read the second paragraph and my suspicions were validated.
Remarkably, physics had to be reconceptualized entirely by Einstein
It did?? Gee. I wonder what their reason for that would be???
at the beginning of the 20th century, in part because no experiment directly had been able to measure this universally-assumed motion of the Earth around the sun.
I'm glad they said "in part" because it's true that is a PARTIAL answer. But the part they don't mention is FAR MORE INTERESTING but might be the part they left out, because as Tod Tamberg told me in 1998, "It's not a question of prudence but rather one of intelligence." In order to be an editor of a major periodical (like USA Today) you have to be smart enough to know which side your bread is buttered on, and what your MASTERS demand of you, even though they are not specifically giving you orders on what to do and how to do it. You could get in real trouble for saying something like the following;
Einstein had to re-conceptualize physics by bending the rules to match observed data. They tried to say the measuring stick stretched (or shrank) as an explanation, and that didn't fly with the general population even though most of them were uneducated in science, so then along came Mr. Fuzzyheadstein to announce that TIME shrank (or stretched) and THAT is the reason the Michelson-Morely experiment of 1887 could not verify that the earth is moving through the aether. Since the experiment is repeatable, and now, we could even use a more sophisticated apparatus, the undesirable results had to be explained away so as to accomplish the number one priority, which is, to protect the hypothesis (some say it rises to the level of a "theory") that the earth orbits the sun and revolves on its axis.
What Einstein could not foresee, however, was that the reconceptualized physics he offered in his special relativity theory in order to keep the Earth moving and the speed of light constant was superseded 10 years later by his general relativity theory which, by his own covariance equations, allowed the Earth to remain fixed and the speed of light to be variable.
This seems to be a fair assessment.
Like Sisyphus rolling the huge rock up the hill only to see it fall down right before he reached the peak, in a strange way the principle of relativity made Einstein's own theories relative. Perhaps he realized this truth in his 1938 book, The Evolution of Physics, in which he said: "The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of [Claudius] Ptolemy and [Nicolaus] Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: 'the sun is at rest and the Earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the Earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems."
What amazes me is that some physics courses are able to get through this material without addressing this matter, which is on record. Nor has there been any students who have successfully SUED their school for supporting the unjust discrimination of a liberal professor who habitually passes judgment against the work of any of his students who have shown that they support the alternative "theory" which even the demigod Einstein said was not to be discarded for it "could be used with equal justification."
Nor has the philosophy department stepped in and said that this is rather a matter for philosophical discussion and not for inquiry by natural scientific investigation, because it is outside the realm of physics, chemistry, engineering, astronomy or mathematics. But the philosophy departments are all a joke now, anyway, for they do not have sanity anymore, so it's no big surprise. They crank out garbage like the "hemeneutic of continuity" of B16, which is good for a birdcage liner. Provided the bird can't read.
Physicist Stephen Hawking said much the same in The Grand Design: "So which is real, the Ptolemaic or the Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the Earth or the sun to be at rest."
Sometimes I wonder if Hawking isn't a goldfish. It's funny he defers to one.
So, two of our greatest scientific revolutions--the Copernican revolution and relativity--intimately are associated with this question of Earth's place in the larger scheme of things.
Correction: The "Copernican revolution" was not scientific. It was theological, and indirectly philosophical, but so-called science ripped it off.
The Copernican Principle simply states that the Earth is not in any special or central location in the cosmos.
Which is a philosophical proposition outside of the realm of science to address.
It is sometimes generalized as the "cosmological principle," which holds that there are no special locations in the cosmos. On this fundamental assumption, which modern cosmology defines as the "isotropy and homogeneity of the universe," everything will look very much the same everywhere we look, and it will look very much the same no matter where we might be looking from.
Rick DeLano has a lot to say about this. The hecklers like to hurl this "isotropy" topic at him and his movie as though he and it are some kind of willful enemy of the truth. This might be actually where the real battle lines are now drawn. They have the advantage of knowing that the general public doesn't really know nor do they care, what isotropy is or what it means. As for homogeneity, they're a lot more interested in another kind of homo-something. And I don't mean milk.
If, for instance, we examine a bottle of homogenized milk, we see that there are no lumps of fat circulating in the milk nor resting on top. The milk would look the same no matter what part of it we examined. The Copernican and cosmological principles say much the same about the universe. Its matter and space are homogenized, as it were. To say it another way, these principles state that we are not able to distinguish one place from another in the universe. There is no up nor down, no left nor right, and no place where either we nor ET can claim to be in a special or central location.
Every now and then you hear something that clashes with all of right reason, like RU-486 or gun control or "inciting racial unrest" just by stating historical fact. And this is one of those times. Any amateur astronomer can tell you that the North Star, Polaris, is always found in the same place in the sky, and that it processes in a little circle that takes some 24,000 years to make one cycle. He can tell you that the various nebulae and star clusters are identifiable by appearance alone and they are nothing like each other. They can tell you that the horrendous variety of galaxies all over the sky and therefore the universe spin in different ways and are oriented in different directions, and they at least seem to be that way in a most stable manner for they are not showing up as changing direction or flipping over any time soon.
But here is the know-nothing know-it-alls saying that there are "principles" which demand that "We are not able to distinguish one place from another in the universe. There is no up nor down, no left nor right, and no place where either we nor ET can claim to be in a special or central location."
That sounds too much like Roe vs. Wade, the Federal Reserve, or the new Obamacare legislation. We're supposed to vote our approval without thinking about its consequences, because arguing it in court would be too 'expensive'.
This principle is named after Copernicus, since, in the 16th century, he revived the ancient Greek Pythagorean model that took Earth out of the center and put it among the other celestial bodies.
Actually, he wrote a book about his wild imaginings and that book would have set on his shelf unnoticed until after he had died, had not a protestant friend of his found it one day and had encouraged him to go "public" with it. It's not too different from how the protestants contributed to Vat.II.
As we then grew in our knowledge of the vastness of the universe from such icons as Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton, Ernst Mach, and Edwin Hubble, it was then we found out precisely what Copernicus' removal of Earth from the center meant, as Carl Sagan stated so eerily in Cosmos: "We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost between two spiral arms in the outskirts of a galaxy which is a member of a sparse cluster of galaxies, tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people."
If Sagan wanted to be REALLY "eerie" he should have had a poet work for him. Imagine what Poe or Shakespeare could have done with that.
What Sagan claimed that we had found was just his own wild imagination coming to life -- or should I say death? He said "we are nothing" and that's supposed to be fun? What a dolt. Now, the know-nothing know-it-alls are saying that "In the beginning there was nothing, and then nothing exploded and so here we are, with everything." Everything from nothing, eh? How can we be so sure that it won't then suddenly UN-explode one not-so-fine day?
Hmmm???
Did this new view of Earth's position have an effect on mankind's view of himself, his culture, and even his reason for existence? It most certainly did, and in the most profound way. As the poet Goethe put it: "But among all the discoveries and corrections probably none has resulted in a deeper influence on the human spirit than the doctrine of Copernicus ... considering all that went up in smoke as a result of realizing this change."
Go for it, Goethe! What went up in smoke? Speak for yourself! The so-called doctrine (it wasn't doctrine) of Copernicus amounted to the cockle sown in the field and both grain and Goethe have grown therein.
Historian Herbert Butterfield, in The Origins of Modern Science, indicates that the Copernican revolution "outshines everything since the rise of Christianity and reduces the Renaissance and Reformation to the rank of mere episodes, mere internal displacements, within the system of medieval Christendom ... while transforming the whole diagram of the physical universe and the very texture of human life itself, it looms so large as the real origin both of the modern world and of the modern mentality, that our customary periodization of European history has become an anachronism and an encuмbrance."
Just remember, clowns like this Butterfield actually make a LIVING writing this kind of nonsense. While the Copernican revolution is more profoundly significant than Galileo, even though most eggheads think the opposite, the proposition that it defines our future is simply bilgewaterscuм.
Even more profoundly, the famous God is Dead movement of the 1960s, which had its roots in the late 19th-century nihilism of Friedrich Nietzsche and moved him to write the philosophical novel, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, blames the "death of God" on the Copernican revolution. As Zarathustra put it: "Where has God gone? I shall tell you. We have killed him--you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? ... What did we do when we unchained the Earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space?"
How exactly does one "feel the breath of empty space?" Don't forget this is the kind of thinking that says that "First there was nothing and then it exploded, and now, it's everything." If Friedrich Nietzsche wasn't possessed by the devil then there is no such thing as demonic possession.
Hey, maybe Newchurch can Newcanonize him, along with Rasputin and the demigods Charlie! Now there's a project. Throw in Karl Marx for good measure.
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
The implications and repercussions of the Copernican Principle are far-reaching, but there is one important fact that no one should forget: the Copernican Principle is not a scientific fact; rather, it is a metaphysical assumption. It is that one assumption that is the basis upon which all the evidence from our telescopes and microscopes is evaluated, and modern academia has shown itself deeply disinclined to entertain any other metaphysical assumption.
Another fair statement. Rack 'em up. Note the non-sequitur: modern academia contains departments called "philosophy" and they have topics called "metaphysics." But this metaphysical discussion is one that is not addressed because they are "disinclined to entertain any other metaphysical assumption."
IOW, the philosophy departments are incapable of philosophizing. So what good are they?
So let us ask: what if the Copernican Principle is wrong? If it is wrong, we only can conclude that everything we think we know about our universe also is wrong. For the first time in the modern age, it is precisely this question about the "metaphysical assumption" known as the Copernican Principle, and its implications, that are addressed in "The Principle."
Oh! That sounds like a good reason to hide this article so s2srea and others can't read it!
More specifically, this film engages with the leading cosmologists, physicists, and theoreticians who presently are wrestling with the implications of recently obtained observational evidence from NASA and the European Space Agency probes that this foundational assumption of our scientific world view--the Copernican Principle--indeed may be wrong, and that our Earth may be very special after all.
Now THAT'S what should be in bold font. Here. I'll fix it. There. Fixed.
The observations are numerous, but perhaps the most puzzling is the so-called "Axis of Evil," a name which was borrowed from Pres. George W. Bush's labeling of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. In cosmology, the "Axis" is dubbed "Evil" because, if it does exist, it completely nullifies the cherished Copernican Principle upon which modern cosmology presently is based, and ultimately destroys the foundation of modernity itself.
..............and, that would be a GOOD thing................
(Note -- he didn't say "Modernism" but rather "modernity." -- Perhaps because he doesn't know what Modernism is, or, perhaps it's not a question of prudence but rather one of intelligence, because he knows which side his bread is buttered on.)
Briefly, the Axis of Evil is a never-before-seen alignment of the Earth with the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), a radiation that spans the entire known universe. In other words, it is like saying that the whole universe is centered on or aligned with our tiny Earth. A little thought will show the astounding nature of this Axis. It would be like saying that our solar system of some 6,000,000,000 miles in diameter is aligned with a basketball.
Poor analogy. A basketball gets to move all over the place. He should say the dome of St. Peter's Basilica or the Rock of Gibraltar or the gallows of Greenwich.
Obviously, this alignment between Earth and the CMB is highly problematic, since the Copernican Principle assumes that, on the largest scales, no preferred direction or space exists in the cosmos. There is such a preferred direction in the CMB, however. Three separate missions have confirmed it--Cosmic Background Explorer in 1990, Wilkinson Microwave Anistropy Probe in 2001, and Planck in 2009. While there are many ideas concerning what this alignment might mean, the observational fact of its existence no longer can be ignored. The Axis is there and it is not going away.
The Axis is there and it's not going away -- how true! The know-nothing know-it-alls are most severely flummoxed over the thought that they are going to DIE and they will not be able to change this Axis in their lifetime. That means that no amount of doublespeak or propaganda is going to make it just go away. And that makes them really TICKED OFF.
Even though the foibles irk me, nonetheless, we ought to all be reading this nice article before we go see "The Principle" because it is a great introduction. I have no doubt that Rick DeLano would not disagree.
Even more puzzling is the fact that this is not just any preferred direction. The direction is aligned with the ecliptic plane (the plane of the orbit of the planets around the sun), and with the equinoxes (the equatorial plane of supposedly insignificant Earth). In other words, the entire known universe is aligned within the 23.5 degree margin of tilt between the Earth and the sun. How can this be?
Don't forget that The Principle has a scene in it regarding Stonehenge in the Salisbury pain of England where it shows how the ancient stone columns are arranged so as to also align with this same 23.5 degree margin, and unless one considers this margin, the stone columns make no sense whatsoever. Did the ancient British know something we moderns have forgotten?? Were they destroyed in the Flood of Noah, for example?
Physicist Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University boldly addressed the implications in 2006: " ... When you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed is, in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the Earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the Earth around the sun--the plane of the Earth around the sun--the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe."
What's funny is, Krauss can't even broach the topic without getting in his barbs of denial, once, twice, thrice, four times (in bold, above) before he gets to the point.
Many other cosmologists have admitted the same. For example, in a 2010 paper, the team of Craig Copi, Dragan Huterer, Dominik Schwarz, and Glenn Starkman, which has done extensive research into the CMB anomalies, not only confirmed the Axis' alignment with Earth, but ruled out any alignment with our Milky Way galaxy, stating: "Our studies indicate that the observed alignments are with the ecliptic plane, with the equinox or with the CMB dipole, and not with the Galactic plane." This means that the CMB is Earth-centered, not galactic-centered, an astounding fact to contemplate.
As I recall, this statement from the team of Craig Copi, Dragan Huterer, Dominik Schwarz, and Glenn Starkman is not mentioned in the movie, or, if it is, it came when I was too overwhelmed with data to avoid being brain-numbed. Nor are these 4 names mentioned. The editors had to make judicial decisions. This movie could be a hundred hours long, but they kept it down to one hour and twelve minutes. They don't want people to walk out before it's over. And they would if the pounding hard line were to go on for an hour and a half, which it very easily could have done.
This question of the Earth's placement in the larger scheme of things, which already has launched two great scientific revolutions, seems, as Krauss said, to be coming back to haunt us. As astronomer Lawrence Vescera put it: "The discovery that the CMB is cosmically aligned to the Earth should make the hair on the back of your neck stand up. It points to the fact that the Earth is at a special place in the universe and that God wants it to be known."
Actually, the fact that The Principle is being released means that God wants this cosmic alignment pointing to the Earth being in a special place to be known.
If we consider the dramatic changes in culture and world view that accompanied previous cosmological revolutions, it is not too early to begin to consider what it would mean for our future, and the future of our children, if it were to be established that the Earth is in a special position in the cosmos--that we truly are, in some sense, the center of the universe?
Hey, we might actually have to start capitalizing the word, "Earth."
Rick DeLano is the producer of "The Principle," due for release this spring.
COPYRIGHT 2014 Society for the Advancement of Education
If they don't want their article copied then they ought to open up comments about it on their website. Readers should be able to post comments SOMEWHERE.
.
-
.
FYI klags -- your second link did not format and display properly because you left one extra space between the = sign and the address. You have this: Link two (http:// http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-3268968431.html)
Thanks for your help with my glitch Neil. I couldn't figure out what I was doing wrong.
Also, I think it's good that you have taken the trouble to copy and paste in the article and other stuff relating to same that's seen online since I should not have assumed everyone would be able to link on to it.
Finally, I found it very interesting about what you mentioned was likely the motivation behind USA Today agreeing to publish the article. Seems to make pretty good sense!
-
.
For anyone interested, I'd like to leave my commentary on the Article linked in the OP...................
The article:
The Free Library
22,790,595 articles and books
Link to this page
WHAT is "The Principle"? Five-hundred years ago, you were crazy if you thought the Earth was going around the sun. Today, you are crazy if you think it is not. What changed? That is a fascinating question, one which involves profound issues of science, faith, and identity. While most people assume that it has long since been experimentally proven that the Earth is orbiting the sun, no such experimental proof ever has been obtained. As historian Lincoln Barnett states in The Universe and Dr. Einstein (which contains a foreword by Albert Einstein): "We can't feel our motion through space, nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion."
When I read this far, I was thinking, "This is too good to be true. How could a modern magazine get an entire paragraph so right without sneaking in a few weasel words from the very start?"
And then I read the second paragraph and my suspicions were validated.
Remarkably, physics had to be reconceptualized entirely by Einstein
It did?? Gee. I wonder what their reason for that would be???
at the beginning of the 20th century, in part because no experiment directly had been able to measure this universally-assumed motion of the Earth around the sun.
I'm glad they said "in part" because it's true that is a PARTIAL answer. But the part they don't mention is FAR MORE INTERESTING but might be the part they left out, because as Tod Tamberg told me in 1998, "It's not a question of prudence but rather one of intelligence." In order to be an editor of a major periodical (like USA Today) you have to be smart enough to know which side your bread is buttered on, and what your MASTERS demand of you, even though they are not specifically giving you orders on what to do and how to do it. You could get in real trouble for saying something like the following;
Einstein had to re-conceptualize physics by bending the rules to match observed data. They tried to say the measuring stick stretched (or shrank) as an explanation, and that didn't fly with the general population even though most of them were uneducated in science, so then along came Mr. Fuzzyheadstein to announce that TIME shrank (or stretched) and THAT is the reason the Michelson-Morely experiment of 1887 could not verify that the earth is moving through the aether. Since the experiment is repeatable, and now, we could even use a more sophisticated apparatus, the undesirable results had to be explained away so as to accomplish the number one priority, which is, to protect the hypothesis (some say it rises to the level of a "theory") that the earth orbits the sun and revolves on its axis.
What Einstein could not foresee, however, was that the reconceptualized physics he offered in his special relativity theory in order to keep the Earth moving and the speed of light constant was superseded 10 years later by his general relativity theory which, by his own covariance equations, allowed the Earth to remain fixed and the speed of light to be variable.
This seems to be a fair assessment.
Like Sisyphus rolling the huge rock up the hill only to see it fall down right before he reached the peak, in a strange way the principle of relativity made Einstein's own theories relative. Perhaps he realized this truth in his 1938 book, The Evolution of Physics, in which he said: "The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of [Claudius] Ptolemy and [Nicolaus] Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: 'the sun is at rest and the Earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the Earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems."
What amazes me is that some physics courses are able to get through this material without addressing this matter, which is on record. Nor has there been any students who have successfully SUED their school for supporting the unjust discrimination of a liberal professor who habitually passes judgment against the work of any of his students who have shown that they support the alternative "theory" which even the demigod Einstein said was not to be discarded for it "could be used with equal justification."
Nor has the philosophy department stepped in and said that this is rather a matter for philosophical discussion and not for inquiry by natural scientific investigation, because it is outside the realm of physics, chemistry, engineering, astronomy or mathematics. But the philosophy departments are all a joke now, anyway, for they do not have sanity anymore, so it's no big surprise. They crank out garbage like the "hemeneutic of continuity" of B16, which is good for a birdcage liner. Provided the bird can't read.
Physicist Stephen Hawking said much the same in The Grand Design: "So which is real, the Ptolemaic or the Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the Earth or the sun to be at rest."
Sometimes I wonder if Hawking isn't a goldfish. It's funny he defers to one.
So, two of our greatest scientific revolutions--the Copernican revolution and relativity--intimately are associated with this question of Earth's place in the larger scheme of things.
Correction: The "Copernican revolution" was not scientific. It was theological, and indirectly philosophical, but so-called science ripped it off.
The Copernican Principle simply states that the Earth is not in any special or central location in the cosmos.
Which is a philosophical proposition outside of the realm of science to address.
It is sometimes generalized as the "cosmological principle," which holds that there are no special locations in the cosmos. On this fundamental assumption, which modern cosmology defines as the "isotropy and homogeneity of the universe," everything will look very much the same everywhere we look, and it will look very much the same no matter where we might be looking from.
Rick DeLano has a lot to say about this. The hecklers like to hurl this "isotropy" topic at him and his movie as though he and it are some kind of willful enemy of the truth. This might be actually where the real battle lines are now drawn. They have the advantage of knowing that the general public doesn't really know nor do they care, what isotropy is or what it means. As for homogeneity, they're a lot more interested in another kind of homo-something. And I don't mean milk.
If, for instance, we examine a bottle of homogenized milk, we see that there are no lumps of fat circulating in the milk nor resting on top. The milk would look the same no matter what part of it we examined. The Copernican and cosmological principles say much the same about the universe. Its matter and space are homogenized, as it were. To say it another way, these principles state that we are not able to distinguish one place from another in the universe. There is no up nor down, no left nor right, and no place where either we nor ET can claim to be in a special or central location.
Every now and then you hear something that clashes with all of right reason, like RU-486 or gun control or "inciting racial unrest" just by stating historical fact. And this is one of those times. Any amateur astronomer can tell you that the North Star, Polaris, is always found in the same place in the sky, and that it processes in a little circle that takes some 24,000 years to make one cycle. He can tell you that the various nebulae and star clusters are identifiable by appearance alone and they are nothing like each other. They can tell you that the horrendous variety of galaxies all over the sky and therefore the universe spin in different ways and are oriented in different directions, and they at least seem to be that way in a most stable manner for they are not showing up as changing direction or flipping over any time soon.
But here is the know-nothing know-it-alls saying that there are "principles" which demand that "We are not able to distinguish one place from another in the universe. There is no up nor down, no left nor right, and no place where either we nor ET can claim to be in a special or central location."
That sounds too much like Roe vs. Wade, the Federal Reserve, or the new Obamacare legislation. We're supposed to vote our approval without thinking about its consequences, because arguing it in court would be too 'expensive'.
This principle is named after Copernicus, since, in the 16th century, he revived the ancient Greek Pythagorean model that took Earth out of the center and put it among the other celestial bodies.
Actually, he wrote a book about his wild imaginings and that book would have set on his shelf unnoticed until after he had died, had not a protestant friend of his found it one day and had encouraged him to go "public" with it. It's not too different from how the protestants contributed to Vat.II.
As we then grew in our knowledge of the vastness of the universe from such icons as Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton, Ernst Mach, and Edwin Hubble, it was then we found out precisely what Copernicus' removal of Earth from the center meant, as Carl Sagan stated so eerily in Cosmos: "We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost between two spiral arms in the outskirts of a galaxy which is a member of a sparse cluster of galaxies, tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people."
If Sagan wanted to be REALLY "eerie" he should have had a poet work for him. Imagine what Poe or Shakespeare could have done with that.
What Sagan claimed that we had found was just his own wild imagination coming to life -- or should I say death? He said "we are nothing" and that's supposed to be fun? What a dolt. Now, the know-nothing know-it-alls are saying that "In the beginning there was nothing, and then nothing exploded and so here we are, with everything." Everything from nothing, eh? How can we be so sure that it won't then suddenly UN-explode one not-so-fine day?
Hmmm???
Did this new view of Earth's position have an effect on mankind's view of himself, his culture, and even his reason for existence? It most certainly did, and in the most profound way. As the poet Goethe put it: "But among all the discoveries and corrections probably none has resulted in a deeper influence on the human spirit than the doctrine of Copernicus ... considering all that went up in smoke as a result of realizing this change."
Go for it, Goethe! What went up in smoke? Speak for yourself! The so-called doctrine (it wasn't doctrine) of Copernicus amounted to the cockle sown in the field and both grain and Goethe have grown therein.
Historian Herbert Butterfield, in The Origins of Modern Science, indicates that the Copernican revolution "outshines everything since the rise of Christianity and reduces the Renaissance and Reformation to the rank of mere episodes, mere internal displacements, within the system of medieval Christendom ... while transforming the whole diagram of the physical universe and the very texture of human life itself, it looms so large as the real origin both of the modern world and of the modern mentality, that our customary periodization of European history has become an anachronism and an encuмbrance."
Just remember, clowns like this Butterfield actually make a LIVING writing this kind of nonsense. While the Copernican revolution is more profoundly significant than Galileo, even though most eggheads think the opposite, the proposition that it defines our future is simply bilgewaterscuм.
Even more profoundly, the famous God is Dead movement of the 1960s, which had its roots in the late 19th-century nihilism of Friedrich Nietzsche and moved him to write the philosophical novel, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, blames the "death of God" on the Copernican revolution. As Zarathustra put it: "Where has God gone? I shall tell you. We have killed him--you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? ... What did we do when we unchained the Earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space?"
How exactly does one "feel the breath of empty space?" Don't forget this is the kind of thinking that says that "First there was nothing and then it exploded, and now, it's everything." If Friedrich Nietzsche wasn't possessed by the devil then there is no such thing as demonic possession.
Hey, maybe Newchurch can Newcanonize him, along with Rasputin and the demigods Charlie! Now there's a project. Throw in Karl Marx for good measure.
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
The implications and repercussions of the Copernican Principle are far-reaching, but there is one important fact that no one should forget: the Copernican Principle is not a scientific fact; rather, it is a metaphysical assumption. It is that one assumption that is the basis upon which all the evidence from our telescopes and microscopes is evaluated, and modern academia has shown itself deeply disinclined to entertain any other metaphysical assumption.
Another fair statement. Rack 'em up. Note the non-sequitur: modern academia contains departments called "philosophy" and they have topics called "metaphysics." But this metaphysical discussion is one that is not addressed because they are "disinclined to entertain any other metaphysical assumption."
IOW, the philosophy departments are incapable of philosophizing. So what good are they?
So let us ask: what if the Copernican Principle is wrong? If it is wrong, we only can conclude that everything we think we know about our universe also is wrong. For the first time in the modern age, it is precisely this question about the "metaphysical assumption" known as the Copernican Principle, and its implications, that are addressed in "The Principle."
Oh! That sounds like a good reason to hide this article so s2srea and others can't read it!
More specifically, this film engages with the leading cosmologists, physicists, and theoreticians who presently are wrestling with the implications of recently obtained observational evidence from NASA and the European Space Agency probes that this foundational assumption of our scientific world view--the Copernican Principle--indeed may be wrong, and that our Earth may be very special after all.
Now THAT'S what should be in bold font. Here. I'll fix it. There. Fixed.
The observations are numerous, but perhaps the most puzzling is the so-called "Axis of Evil," a name which was borrowed from Pres. George W. Bush's labeling of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. In cosmology, the "Axis" is dubbed "Evil" because, if it does exist, it completely nullifies the cherished Copernican Principle upon which modern cosmology presently is based, and ultimately destroys the foundation of modernity itself.
..............and, that would be a GOOD thing................
(Note -- he didn't say "Modernism" but rather "modernity." -- Perhaps because he doesn't know what Modernism is, or, perhaps it's not a question of prudence but rather one of intelligence, because he knows which side his bread is buttered on.)
Briefly, the Axis of Evil is a never-before-seen alignment of the Earth with the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), a radiation that spans the entire known universe. In other words, it is like saying that the whole universe is centered on or aligned with our tiny Earth. A little thought will show the astounding nature of this Axis. It would be like saying that our solar system of some 6,000,000,000 miles in diameter is aligned with a basketball.
Poor analogy. A basketball gets to move all over the place. He should say the dome of St. Peter's Basilica or the Rock of Gibraltar or the gallows of Greenwich.
Obviously, this alignment between Earth and the CMB is highly problematic, since the Copernican Principle assumes that, on the largest scales, no preferred direction or space exists in the cosmos. There is such a preferred direction in the CMB, however. Three separate missions have confirmed it--Cosmic Background Explorer in 1990, Wilkinson Microwave Anistropy Probe in 2001, and Planck in 2009. While there are many ideas concerning what this alignment might mean, the observational fact of its existence no longer can be ignored. The Axis is there and it is not going away.
The Axis is there and it's not going away -- how true! The know-nothing know-it-alls are most severely flummoxed over the thought that they are going to DIE and they will not be able to change this Axis in their lifetime. That means that no amount of doublespeak or propaganda is going to make it just go away. And that makes them really TICKED OFF.
Even though the foibles irk me, nonetheless, we ought to all be reading this nice article before we go see "The Principle" because it is a great introduction. I have no doubt that Rick DeLano would not disagree.
Even more puzzling is the fact that this is not just any preferred direction. The direction is aligned with the ecliptic plane (the plane of the orbit of the planets around the sun), and with the equinoxes (the equatorial plane of supposedly insignificant Earth). In other words, the entire known universe is aligned within the 23.5 degree margin of tilt between the Earth and the sun. How can this be?
Don't forget that The Principle has a scene in it regarding Stonehenge in the Salisbury pain of England where it shows how the ancient stone columns are arranged so as to also align with this same 23.5 degree margin, and unless one considers this margin, the stone columns make no sense whatsoever. Did the ancient British know something we moderns have forgotten?? Were they destroyed in the Flood of Noah, for example?
Physicist Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University boldly addressed the implications in 2006: " ... When you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed is, in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the Earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the Earth around the sun--the plane of the Earth around the sun--the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe."
What's funny is, Krauss can't even broach the topic without getting in his barbs of denial, once, twice, thrice, four times (in bold, above) before he gets to the point.
Many other cosmologists have admitted the same. For example, in a 2010 paper, the team of Craig Copi, Dragan Huterer, Dominik Schwarz, and Glenn Starkman, which has done extensive research into the CMB anomalies, not only confirmed the Axis' alignment with Earth, but ruled out any alignment with our Milky Way galaxy, stating: "Our studies indicate that the observed alignments are with the ecliptic plane, with the equinox or with the CMB dipole, and not with the Galactic plane." This means that the CMB is Earth-centered, not galactic-centered, an astounding fact to contemplate.
As I recall, this statement from the team of Craig Copi, Dragan Huterer, Dominik Schwarz, and Glenn Starkman is not mentioned in the movie, or, if it is, it came when I was too overwhelmed with data to avoid being brain-numbed. Nor are these 4 names mentioned. The editors had to make judicial decisions. This movie could be a hundred hours long, but they kept it down to one hour and twelve minutes. They don't want people to walk out before it's over. And they would if the pounding hard line were to go on for an hour and a half, which it very easily could have done.
This question of the Earth's placement in the larger scheme of things, which already has launched two great scientific revolutions, seems, as Krauss said, to be coming back to haunt us. As astronomer Lawrence Vescera put it: "The discovery that the CMB is cosmically aligned to the Earth should make the hair on the back of your neck stand up. It points to the fact that the Earth is at a special place in the universe and that God wants it to be known."
Actually, the fact that The Principle is being released means that God wants this cosmic alignment pointing to the Earth being in a special place to be known.
If we consider the dramatic changes in culture and world view that accompanied previous cosmological revolutions, it is not too early to begin to consider what it would mean for our future, and the future of our children, if it were to be established that the Earth is in a special position in the cosmos--that we truly are, in some sense, the center of the universe?
Hey, we might actually have to start capitalizing the word, "Earth."
Rick DeLano is the producer of "The Principle," due for release this spring.
COPYRIGHT 2014 Society for the Advancement of Education
If they don't want their article copied then they ought to open up comments about it on their website. Readers should be able to post comments SOMEWHERE.
.
Great idea to add your running commentary to the article Neil! Educating, entertaining, humorous, and inspiring! It really is a superb enhancement to the piece which as I mentioned in the subheading was actually co-authored by Sungenis and DeLano, although for some strange reason (see Rick's comment on this at Rick's comment (http://magisterialfundies.blogspot.com/2014/05/link-to-usa-today-magazine-piece.html)) only DeLano's name is mentioned.
-
.
For anyone interested, I'd like to leave my commentary on the Article linked in the OP...................
Great idea to add your running commentary to the article Neil! Educating, entertaining, humorous, and inspiring! It really is a superb enhancement to the piece which as I mentioned in the subheading was actually co-authored by Sungenis and DeLano, although for some strange reason (see Rick's comment on this at Rick's comment (http://magisterialfundies.blogspot.com/2014/05/link-to-usa-today-magazine-piece.html)) only DeLano's name is mentioned.
Dear klags,
I've had the inestimable pleasure of meeting Rick and spending a few precious hours with him. I've read some of his blog posts on several sites and I have tried to give some manner of aspect to these comments, above, such as he might have given.
I'm sure he'd have a lot more to say. I'm flattered by your compliment. But I'm sure my poor attempt falls far short of the master's. We are very fortunate to have Mr. DeLano in this boxing ring, on these front lines, for as forthwith an advocate of open research and truth that Robert Sungenis has been for many years, still, I find it noteworthy that he sits back and gives the floor to DeLano, even in person. Rick's energy level is contagious. He has the ability to capture the imagination of a roomful of people, and keep them engaged, and then, after the movie and conference when jaded ones file out, he can take on the core of hard-nosed die-hards and even go out to dinner with a select few for another 2 hours. I had the great honor of doing all 4, and it was time I'll never forget as long as I live. He gave me the unique compliment of stopping his topic and focusing on my comment and smiling at me as he said, "I like that!" I wasn't looking for his 'gold star' but I couldn't help but share with him my burgeoning thoughts.
This whole subject is poised to be truly enormous.
When I wrote that post, above, I was not thinking that DeLano and Sungenis were the co-authors because it frankly doesn't sound like them. It sounds like a journalist who is trying to keep from being fired and still fulfill an assignment.
Like Tod Tamberg said so presciently, "It's not a matter of prudence, but rather it's a matter of intelligence." So here, Sungenis and DeLano managed to fool me, and produce an article that somehow sits in the throne of what an editor might let pass through his filter, his chopping block, his scalpel. I hope they don't get offended.
And I really hope this movie is a success, because what Rick told me about his NEXT project really has me tied up in knots. If you think that The Principle will do some damage against the lies of modern scientism, just wait for round two. It will destroy the demigods Charlie and overturn the fables for grown-ups that you see all over the textbooks of academia today.
.
-
.
The source page has this in the sidebar -- but I did not read the sidebar before I did my interspersed commentary:
Article Details Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation: Science & Technology
Author: DeLano, Rick
Publication: USA Today (Magazine)
Date: Mar 1, 2014
Words: 1921
Previous Article: Everybody (well, almost) lies ... to their doctor.
Next Article: Heart and lights.
.
-
If they don't want their article copied then they ought to open up comments about it on their website. Readers should be able to post comments SOMEWHERE.
.
Exactly! I had submitted the following comment a few times days ago only to find that it never took. Thus, I present it here in toto:
It is incredibly refreshing to see such a plain speaking and straight forward article relating to the latest cosmological findings with respect to the Copernican Principle. Mr. DeLano, the author, [at the time of submission I had not realized that it was actually co-authored with Robert Sungenis] certainly does not try to "snow" the reader with a lot of hype or technical jargon. If one were nevertheless inclined to think this article is too technical he or she [forgive my bow to politically correct gender inclusion!] would do good to simply examine some of the peer reviewed cosmology papers set out in the scientific literature and accessible online. More and more of these papers, although often extremely hard, if not impossible, to decipher for the average layman, actually support and support very strongly exactly what the author sets forth here.
After studying the arguments for and against the Copernican Principle for a good number of years, I am absolutely convinced that science -- true observational science that is -- is inexorably on the side of powerfully refuting the Copernican Principle. We should not deceive ourselves, however, in terms of how easy it may be to over-ride the long reigning and well established collective world view which holds fast to the immensely powerful Copernican Principle. It will not go gently into the night. That's for sure! In the wise and often quoted words of Arthur Schopenhauer: "Truth passes through three phases. First it is ridiculed. Second it is fiercely and violently opposed. Third, it becomes self-evident." Numerous examples in the history of science have shown Schopenhauer to be entirely correct. The bigger the stakes the bigger the struggle and it doesn't get much bigger than the Copernican Principle.
It is perhaps best as a general rule not to jump to any quick judgments concerning people's individual motivations in rejecting, even rejecting out of hand, the mounting evidence that places the Copernican Principle in serious question. Many basically good people, people of good faith, have indeed rejected out of hand, and will no doubt in the future reject out of hand, the solid evidence presented to them that clearly serves to refute and refute unequivocally the Copernican Principle.
How can this be you might ask. Much of this seemingly knee jerk non thinking reaction may be attributable to what is known as cognitive dissonance. If the new evidence conflicts with one's world view (especially a world view with which they have been indoctrinated with nearly all their life) so as to actually upset their psychological comfort zone it is often much easier to simply dismiss the evidence than to -- in plain layman's language -- deal with it.
In effect, it may be much easier to simply go with the flow or follow the herd/"sheeple" mentality of abiding by the conventional consensus than to seriously question that consensus. This may be why a very significant part of the struggle to challenge and proceed to overthrow the dominant paradigm of the Copernican Principle will be to help people recognize and understand their own cognitive dissonance when facing the conflict between what they have always been taught and what they have come to accept with the striking and unmistakable evidence that clearly refutes it.
The sense of real liberation one experiences upon opening their mind and discovering and accepting the utter falsity of the Copernican Principle is certainly no small consolation after they pass through the discomfort of abandoning their long cherished Copernican Principle world view. Yes, indeed, the truth shall set us free -- if we are ready, willing, and able to handle it.
James Phillips
-
.
I think I can see why comments were disabled on the website now. Since Rick DeLano is the author of the USA Today article, the article is something that Rick hopes will stand on its own, and so the websites that display it should not be cluttered with all the rabble of dissenters that would inevitably arise.
In another thread his new announcement is posted in which he provides the date (May 28th) when the release date (we don't know it yet) will be announced.
He gives a most revealing statement there:
Also, we will address just who might have…you know…sort of "pushed the button" on this comical media narrative, which spread throughout the internet in twenty four short hours.
Who was behind this amazing example of media buffoonery?
(HINT: It Ain't The Jєωs!)
The Producers were surprised by the sudden eruption of Internet comments attacking The Principle that seemed to come out of thin air. But apparently Rick has sniffed out what the source was, or else he has friends who could help him do so.
Considering all this, it seems to me that Rick composed this article for publication with the deliberate purpose in mind to make it palatable for the general public, so that they would actually READ it and not turn the page after the first two paragraphs. He really stuck his neck out in the first paragraph, but that was only to SHOCK the readers into thinking, "What the..." and hopefully that would draw them into the second paragraph, where he took a different tack: one that the readers might have expected from the very start.
And so it proceeds to the end, going from one extreme to the other, and it therefore left me with an abiding urge to comment line by line. So his scheme worked on me! I can only imagine it also worked on those who are of the opposite mind to mine, that is, those who buy into the Copernican principle, Galileo's lies, the fairy tales of big bang bad hypothesis and 'evolution' to boot.
And by having comments disabled, all of these reactions are therefore going to take place on DIFFERENT websites, where readers will not be influenced by the writings of other readers with whose views they disagree.
So disabling comments is all a part of Rick's "fancy footwork" to promote a fair assessment of his film, leaving the feeding-frenzy of knee-jerk reactions in their own little bubble out there, where they can repeatedly stick their foot in their mouth for all to see. And we well will see it all, all in due time. Some of it we'll see on May 28th.
.
-
.
You know, of course, it would be really stinky if WWIII erupts before this Movie makes it to the theaters.
Don't laugh. Look what happened when Vat.I was about to define Papal Infallibility. War in Italy! Vat.I was adjourned and not closed, left for being re-convened at a later time, and Vat.II never re-convened Vat.I - so it had the wrong name, so to speak, a name of DECEPTION.
Look what happened when Pope St. Pius X began implementing Pascendi (1907) with ever-increasing penalties and proscriptions, with Lamentabili sane exitu (1907) and Sacrorum antistitum (1910) -- World War I (1914)!
Look at what happened when Pope Pius XI failed to consecrate Russia -- WWII (1939)!
Look what happened when the forgettable problems of Korea got out of hand -- the Korean War (1950) ("the forgotten war")!
Look at what happened when the newly converted Catholics of Vietnam started singing the Rosary in heavenly angelic tones that swept the countryside with the Glories of Mary -- VIETNAM WAR (1954)!
Look what happened when Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Our Lady (1950) and was preparing to define Mary Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix (1958) -- Vatican II (1962)!
But today, we don't have any pope about to define or consecrate anything. He's just too busy trying to bless the latest heresy (Vat.II) and putting out the BAIT to lure in the Trads (that big Quasitrad show on Quasimodo Sunday).
One could say the stage is set, to prevent this earthshaking movie, the devil might pull out the stops and go full-throttle on an all-new war.
.
-
This article has nothing to do with the well known newspaper "USA Today". It is published in a lesser known conservative magazine coincidentally named "USA Today Magazine" as shown here:
http://www.usatodaymagazine.net/
-
.
This article has nothing to do with the well known newspaper "USA Today". It is published in a lesser known conservative magazine coincidentally named "USA Today Magazine" as shown here:
http://www.usatodaymagazine.net/
Thank you Paul9 -- I did not do any checking on this. I pretty much just shot from the hip, presuming it was the USA Today that I know of. I didn't know there was "another magazine" by the same name. (I forgot that the one I knew of was a newspaper because it's been several years since I've looked at one.)
Only the current issue is somewhat viewable. And there are "featured articles" but the one by DeLano is not "featured." If you want a copy of a back issue (like March 2014, for example) there is a method for that:
Please mail a check or money order in the amount of $18.25 per copy
($12.50 per issue plus $5.75 postage and handling each) to:
USA Today
766 Bermuda Rd.
Suite 2
West Babylon, NY 11704
Please be sure to specify which issue you are requesting
and include a complete mailing address for shipment.
It's listed on a search for March 2014, which has this cover:
(http://www.usatodaymagazine.net/CP201403.gif)
It's the 12th article listed on THIS (http://www.usatodaymagazine.net/searchfield.php?fid=1&mt=March%202014&sid=5) page, which shows up with this text:
Category: Science & Technology Published: March 2014
Refuting the Copernican Principle
Rick DeLano
Consider what it would mean for our future, and the future of our children, if it were to be established that the Earth is in a special position in the cosmos--that we truly are, in some sense, the center of the universe?
Click on the name "Rick DeLano" on that page, and get the same article described alone on the following page:
http://www.usatodaymagazine.net/searchfield.php?fid=2&sid=5&mt=Rick%20DeLano
There are embedded links in this listing but none of them provide a view of the article itself. So that's apparently why another website was provided here on this CI thread, with the whole article (less the illustration, whatever that is).
.
-
.
I have not found ANY of this magazine's articles showing up online at all. Apparently they want you to order the hard copy or else subscribe to their magazine.
There is a Subscriptions button in their left sidebar. Below that is found the same postscript that appears on the article copy found earlier in this thread, "The Society for the Advancement of Education" (With Really Bad Resolution!) :
(http://www.usatodaymagazine.net/SAE-Logo3.gif)
(c) 2014 The Society for the Advancement of Education. All Rights Reserved.
This site designed for 800 x 600 screen size
Question: How does illegible screen resolution serve to advance education?
.
-
Here's where the link brought me:
-
The release of The Principle is getting closer...
-
Everyone does know that geocentrisim is not necessary for the Church; that St. Thomas admitted that were there another system discovered by astronomers which was better than the prevailing system of the day, that it would pose no problem for the Church or Her theology/philosophy- right?