This was inevitable. We’ve all realized that the scriptural literalists are being wildly inconsistent in refusing to say that The Earth Is Flat and that The Earth Does Not Move. In those two posts we quoted numerous scripture passages that consistently describe our world’s flat shape and central location in the universe. Further, no scripture passages say otherwise — unless a few phrases (mentioned in those posts) are horribly distorted.
So what’s been holding the creationists back from completely adopting the primitive worldview that prevailed at the time of the Babylonian Empire when Genesis was first written? They already promote that worldview regarding the age of the Earth, Six-Day creation, Adam & Eve, and Noah’s Flood, but they’ve been unwilling to go all the way. Why? Our guess is that even their extreme form of apologetics hasn’t given them the confidence to challenge the virtually unanimous view of science concerning the shape of the Earth and its place in the universe. So they’ve been ignoring those subjects — until now.
What’s changed is that the creationists now have a “documentary” to which they can refer, and it makes enough (totally wrong) references to science that some are beginning to uncloset themselves as full-blown geocentrics. We wrote about this goofy film a couple of months ago — see WorldNetDaily: The Earth Doesn’t Move!, and now we have the opportunity to do so again.
As before, we were alerted to this by the Drool-o-tron™, with its blaring sirens and flashing lights. The blinking letters of its wall display said WorldNetDaily (WND). As you know, WND was an early winner of the Curmudgeon’s Buffoon Award, thus the jolly logo displayed above this post.
WND’s article is Bold new movie challenges science without God. It’s subtitled: “This film may become one of the most controversial documentaries ever made.” It was written by Drew Zahn, WND’s very own movie reviewer, who guides their readers in matters of popular culture. Zahn says, with bold font added by us:
A controversial new documentary that boldly challenges some of science’s godless assumptions will be hitting theaters beginning Jan. 23. “The Principle” is the first-ever film devoted to examining and questioning a widely accepted scientific concept that has defined mankind’s place in the cosmos: the Copernican Principle.
Oooooooooh — how exciting! At last the creationists have a courageous documentary that dares to challenge the blasphemous Copernican principle. Zahn tells us:
“Conventional wisdom dictates that the idea of Earth being at the center of the universe is a holdover from an ancient, superstitious age,” the filmmakers explain. “Modern science has, for centuries, maintained that the human species is nothing special in the context of the cosmos. ‘The Principle’ re-examines and challenges that assumption.”
At last, at last! This is what the creationists have been waiting for. Let’s read on:
“This film may become renowned as one of the most controversial documentaries ever made,” says writer/producer Rick Delano. “It has already inspired tempestuous debate, and that’s before anyone has even seen the film. We’re bringing new scientific evidence to the table that challenges a 400-year-old worldview, and we encourage people to decide for themselves what these new revelations mean.”
Oh the joy! If that nasty Copernican worldview can be overturned, mankind will once more be able to appreciate The Truth™ of scripture. Zahn continues:
According to the Copernican Principle, we inhabit, in famous cosmologist Carl Sagan’s words, “an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people.” Hogwash, the makers of “The Principle” say. “Everything we think we know about our universe is wrong,” the movie’s trailer asserts.
You can see that trailer at the WND article. Aren’t you thrilled? Here’s more:
DeLano declares the “question of our place in the cosmos is the greatest scientific detective story in all of history. The world has been shaped by two great assertions: One places us in the center of it all, and the other one relegates us to utter insignificance. Amazingly, ‘The Principle’ is the first documentary to examine this persistent puzzle at the heart of modern science.”
We know you’re going to click over to WND to read the whole article and see the trailer, so we’ll only give you one more excerpt:
“[E]very experiment tells us we are indeed in a special place, which the scientific community sees as impossible. For them to even remotely consider that the Bible could be true is a laughable joke. It’s beyond ignorant,” DeLano said. “The arrogance of the scientific atheist is unbelievable. But as the Bible says, ‘Pride [goeth] before a fall.’”
This documentary is certain to have a major impact. At the moment, it seems that only WND is promoting it, but we expect the other creationist websites will be emboldened follow their example. This is big, dear reader. And it’s going to get bigger. Today it’s the geocentric universe; tomorrow it’ll be flat Earth. Aren’t you thrilled?
Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The Sensuous Curmudgeon 
Another Priviledged Planet film. Ho Hum.
But here’s another related story about creationists in the media:
http://www.cnet.com/news/fight-between-science-and-creationism-continues-at-espn/#ftag=YHF65cbda0
Our Curmudgeon proclaimed
When she read those words, Olivia cried out in blood-chilling horror and ran out of the room screaming hysterically, “No! No! Never again! HIDE ME!!! ”
I’ve no idea what’s upset her so…
Answers in Genesis actually came out against geocentrism several years ago (see, e.g.: this article). And I’m not entirely sure whether Drew Zahn noted that this film was arguing for something a bit stronger than “privileged planet” status (the article doesn’t actually mention that the film argues that the sun orbits the Earth).
It’s probably worth noting that a geocentric cosmology doesn’t support the Biblical creation account more than it does, e.g. the Norse account of the Aesir making the world out of the corpse of Ymir (never mind the Babylonian or Egyptian or Greek creation accounts).
Enuf. Enuf. . My brain shut down
I wonder if they try to quote mine Newton? His formulations contain no functional references to the grand designer’s (yes yes, blessed be he) influence on the motions observed in the cosmos, ergo Persecution!
Will Newton’s works be put on the chopping block of the fast buck as well?
@Dean
They don’t need to quote mine Newton. He believed that God’s hand was needed to keep the Solar System in order.
The famous quote of Laplace, that he had no need of the God hypothesis, was in reference to L’s correction of N’s mistake.
I have long pointed out that Newton’s assumption that terrestrial mechanics works in the heavens is exactly the same “micro-macro” assumption – after all, how did he know, was he there? – as in biology.
And I think that very few people could provide good direct, repeatable observations that the Earth is in orbit around the Sun. (It is a bit easier for the daily rotation of the Earth.) Remember this, that the geometry and kinematics can be described no matter what one chooses as the coordinate system, and to describe the dynamics requires more than simple physics.
Like a fresh cardboard box in my kitchen, which we call a ‘cat trap’, this movie will find which creationists want to jump in with all four feet. For ‘scientific’ creationists, you might have to pick them up and put them in the box and see what they do.
“So Ken/Kent/Casey/et al., why haven’t you considered the scientific evidence in The Principle that supports the bible?”
When it comes to netflix I may watch it cuz there are days when I just love to abuse myself with excessive mental pain.
It is odd that most creationists, particularly Hambo, do not support biblical literalism on geocentrism and compromise the plain wording in scripture that the Earth is the center of the Universe and does not move. The usual explanation is that the creationists fear they would look ridiculous if they claimed that the Sun orbits the Earth. They do not seem to realize that claiming the Universe is only 6,000 years old makes them look as ridiculous to the scientific community as believing in geocentrism would.
Funny title: “Bold new movie challenges science without God.” Most WND stuff tries to bludgeon science using God as blunt instrument.
I wonder how the geocentiproponists would try to reconcile with Nöther’s Theorem. (Assuming they know anything about it.) Basically, Nöther’s work shows that non-isotropic space would entail non-conservation of momentum.
Doctor Stochastic says:
I think they intended to say “godless science,” but one never really knows what they’re thinking.
Of course it all depends on what you mean by “special.” (I’d say it also depends on what you mean by “experiment”; looking something up in Scripture doesn’t qualify.) Is Earth the only known habitable planet? Yes, for now — but twenty-five years ago there were no planets definitely known to exist outside our solar system, and fifty years ago the then-popular “collision hypothesis” of planet formation suggested there might be no planets anywhere else. But are we in a position to say that we know for sure that Earth is in the only place in the universe where life is possible? Not even close. For DeLano to argue as he does is beyond ignorant; it’s either stupid or deliberate deception.
And, uh . . . did anyone notice that reference to the Bible? ID’ers like to pretend, if only for legal reasons, that they’re “bringing new scientific evidence to the table,” but Zahn lets the cat out of the bag. (Not that its head and front paws weren’t poking out already.) I don’t think the AiG folks will be pleased, since this pretty much destroys the chances for this mockumentary to be shown in public schools without a guaranteed legal challenge.
Er . . . that should be “ignorant.” What I wouldn’t give to be able to fix typos here. . . .
[*Voice from above*] That makes two of us.
I’m so confused. I wish creationists would get their stories straight, get on the same page and tell us exactly what the deal is. No two creationists will tell me the same thing about the universe, earth, life.
Oh this is the crapfest Kate Mulgrew said she was duped in to narrating. Can’t talk much more about this nonsense in fear of having a few neurons wither and die.
Because it will divide creationists – splintering them into the loony and very loony categories. If you are already loony – is it that much of a leap to very loony?
Copernicus was wrong, his solar system had the orbits as perfect circles it took Kepler to determine they were ellipses with the sun at one focus.
Oh, I get it; THE PRINCIPLE. Rick Delano is the center of the universe; therefore anything that touches him must be at the center also.
And isn’t Hell at the center of the center?
I’m so excited I almost wet my pants.
@Doctor Stochastic
re: Noether’s Theorem
While it would seem easy for geocentrists to deny something based on
Newtonian mechanics if they deny heliocentrism, they do seem to try to use Lagrangians to prove their point, so your point ought to cause them some trouble. You may have a novel attack. See:
http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/
Doctor Stochastic notes:
Jason Lisle, astrophysicist extraordinaire, says that light travels at infinite speed toward every point in space and at c/2 when leaving every point.
In fact, he is more explicit when he claims that, relative to any observer, the speed of light is c/(1 – cos(theta)), where theta is the angle of the photon velocity vector with respect to a line joining the observer and the photon.
It’s the ultimate me-centered universe.
The desperation of YECism produces some very strange stuff.
They really don’t seem to care how stupid, ignorant and crazy they look to the rest of us as long as they keep producing “red meat” for their followers.
Ptolemy’s epic ylcles are just a method of expanding ellipses in yicles. Of course, Ptolemy didn’t treat them as a power series.
As we all (should) know I’m a big fan of Flat Earth Theory. My creationist dream is The Good Rev. defending it, so this is one step closer. To support this noble case I have decided to apply Ken’s methodology (Creacrap Wisdom 511) to no one less than physicist Sean Carroll. Yup! He defends geocentrism!
“The answer would be that it is possible to choose whatever coordinate system you like, including ones centered on the Earth, and then say “in that coordinate system the Sun goes around the Earth.” It’s possible to choose coordinate systems in which neither the Earth nor the Sun move at all!”
OK, it’s not Flat Earth yet, but it’s a firm step. The source:
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/01/18/why-the-sun-doesnt-go-around-the-earth/
“Aren’t you thrilled?”
Absolutely!
@mnbo
But geocentrists will not accept the relativity of motion. Their Bible says that the Earth does not move. Their Bible does not say that everything is
relative.
Carroll observes:
‘Note, however, that while you can say “I am using a coordinate system where the Earth is at the center,” you can not say “Coordinate systems where the Sun [or the Solar System’s barycenter] is at the center are wrong.” So “geocentrism” is flatly incorrect.’
As I understand it, the Earth and the sun go around each other, or rather around a common centre of gravity. It’s just that this centre of gravity is within the sun, and it moves somewhat, depending on the position of all the planets. The sun, of course, is no more fixed than the Earth is. From a couple of light years off, a good observer would be able to perceive that it wobbles slightly.
By the way, I believe the number of known extrasolar planets is now in the hundreds. Does anyone know whether anyone has ever done a count of stars with planets detected from light diminuation by occultation by such planets? That method can only work for stars whose plane of the ecliptic is roughly planar to a direct line from us to them. The ratio of these compared to similar stars at similar distances where NO planets have been detected by this method might say something about whether the distribution of planes of the ecliptic was random.
May make an observation on the difficulty in geocentrism, even though I am not a scientist? Even though the dynamics of the Solar System cannot, in principle, distinguish between the geocentric and heliocentric models, there are other ways to reject geocentrism. To be brief about it, nothing in astronomy makes sense except in the light of heliocentrism.
TomS kicks in an open door: “Carroll observes:….”
Everybody can read that for themselves – that’s why I gave the link and announced out that I would use Ken’s methodology. I suggest you to reread the header of Creacrap Wisdom 511.
“nothing in astronomy makes sense except in the light of heliocentrism.”
Either I get Poeed or this is blatant nonsense. See the link I gave above. Dumb things like geocentrism perfectly can make sense.
On JAC’s site Torbjörn Larsson – I happen to know he’s a physicist too – wrote
“All coordinate systems are by convenience. And a heliocentric one is a lot more convenient.”
Geocentrism is so inconvenient that it’s “particularly dumb”. But it does make sense.
I get so tired of this nonsense. There is such a thing as acceleration. Here is something that I posted on WEIT:
In order to take the Earth as stationary, you need to invent all sorts of fictitious forces to account for the movement of everything else. For example, the Earth orbits the Sun, which orbits our galaxy while oscillating perpendicularly to the plane of its orbit; our galaxy is orbiting the centre of mass of the local cluster of galaxies, which in turn orbits the Virgo supercluster, and the whole lot is being pulled by the Shapley supercluster at 630 km/s relative to the cosmic microwave background. That view of the relative motion of the Earth with respect to the nearby Universe can be described simply with Newton’s laws of gravitation and motion. Anybody who wants to justify a stationary Earth needs to derive the fictitious forces emanating from the Earth that would cause the Shapley supercluster to follow the exact inverse of the motions described above. Good luck with that!
@mnbo and Richard Bond
I did not say that geocentrism does not make sense.
What I had in mind is not quite what RB is saying.
In a geocentric universe, we have all sorts of coincidences going on. Things which see account for simply by assuming a simple motion of the Earth demand that there be ad hoc explanations. Including predictions of the coordinated relative motions in the heavens. (When we get better technology for measuring “seeming parallaxes”, they continue to be according to the assumption of motion of the Earth.) How does one make sense of Mars, the Moon, a comet being similar to the Earth and yet the Earth is unique in being fixed in space?
Yes, one can assume one force that accounts for this, and another for which accounts for that, but at some point a reasonable person has to cry that that is too much. It is not any one point, it is a weight of combined things.
I’m saying that one can’t make any sense of today’s astronomy if the Earth is unique in being fixed in space.
TomS explains—
Exactly. If one looks at how heliocentrism came to be accepted so readily among astronomers of old, it wasn’t because it had compelling evidence on its side. It was because it hugely simplified astronomical calculation by doing away with Hipparchian/Ptolemaic epicycles, deferents and equants.
Cast in modern terms, heliocentrism triumphed owing to its parsimony. Occam’s Razor had trimmed off all the fat.
@Con-Tester
ISTM that the victory over geocentrism was due to a few things.
1. There were the Prutenic Tables, based on Copernicus’s model, which were thought to be the best astronomical tables around.
2. The physical basis for Ptolemey’s model, the physical spheres, were long seen to be untenable, but nobody had an alternative.
3. Mercury and Venus were long suspected of orbiting the Sun. Once Venus showed phases, Venus was a goner, and Mercury was not far behind.
4. Galileo’s observations showed that the heavens were likely made of the same stuff as sub-lunar world. The whole infrastructure for geocentrism was pointless.
The fact that Tycho Brahe was compelled to come up with his model shows that the game was up by that point. But it didn’t address what was changing people’s minds about geocentrism. (It strikes be as being the geocentrists’ “baramins”.) Newton didn’t have to consider geocentrism when he was writing just 50 years after Galileo.
It was, ISTM, just that heliocentrism made more sense of things. Not any “direct repeatable observations” of the Earth moving or the Sun not moving around the Earth.
One of the best ways to illustrate the importance of dynamics – and not just kinematics – in deciding on what is moving relative to what is to climb onto a playground merry-go-round and have some friends get it going at a relatively good speed.
As you work your way from the rim of the merry-go-round to the center, you feel a strong Coriolis force trying to tip you over to either your left or right, depending on the direction of rotation of the merry-go-round. It is also very hard to pull yourself toward the center because of the centrifugal force pulling you toward the rim of the merry-go-round.
Kids love this little demonstration. It illustrates that “pseudo-forces” that result from the accelerations of mass trump kinematics in determining which systems are moving.
On a rotating Earth, Coriolis forces and centrifugal force are very evident and easily measured.
On the other hand, if one is in gravitational free fall – whether falling in the gravitational field near a planet or whether an entire solar system is in free fall in an orbit around a galaxy – one is in a local Lorentzian frame of reference. Such a frame is equivalent to an inertial reference frame; and in such a frame, one has the sensation of being at rest.
The only evidence one is falling in such a field would be the presence of tidal forces since no gravitational field is perfectly uniform. But if those tidal forces are below the threshold of measurement, you would conclude you are in an inertial reference frame.
@Mike Ezlinga
Do you agree with what Sean Carroll had to say in what mnbo posted above? I do not pretend to understand advanced physics, so I must rely on what experts tell me, insofar as what they say is convincing to me.
@ TomS
I am not sure exactly what you are asking, but if a reference frame is sufficiently Lorentzian (i.e., relatively free of inertial forces, or of inertial and tidal forces that are not balanced by other forces), one can use just about any such frame as a local reference. We do it all the time, whether it be the coordinates relative to a ship or train or car, or the coordinates of longitude and latitude on the Earth, or the celestial coordinates we use to mark the locations of objects in the heavens.
It makes little sense to mark the coordinates of objects in a car traveling on the Earth using a coordinate system centered at, say, the Sun or Jupiter.
However, when we look outside our frame and see other objects moving about other objects – e.g., moons about other planets or stars in a galaxy – it is quite evident that geocentricism is not true. The Earth is not the center of the universe. There are other centers of motion out there also.
@Mike Elzinga
I agree that “it makes little sense” to choose the “wrong” coordinate system. And the modern geocentrists, who adhere to Tycho’s model, agree that there are other centers of motion.
My question is whether my understanding is that there is not compulsion from the laws of dynamics not to treat Earth as a center of motion of the Sun. Without appealing to what makes sense. Whether one can write out the equations, and the actual motions are solutions to the equation, whether or not one can discover that they are solutions.
TomS says:
Sometimes it’s practical to do so. I mentioned before that for sending rockets to the Moon, NASA ignores the Sun and the rest of the solar system — or so I’ve been reliably told. It’s sufficient for that limited purpose to consider only the Earth-Moon system.
@TomS
No, there is no compulsion to reject any system as a reference frame. You can even choose a merry-go-round as your system because you can reference the placement of other things on the merry-go-round relative to either yourself or to some grid painted on the merry-go-round.
The existence of inertial forces or tidal forces within a reference frame merely tells you that you that you are in non-uniform motion or that you are in a gravitational field. You can be on a ship in a typhoon and still refer to port, starboard, fore, and aft. One can, and often does, give bearings of other vessels in degrees relative to your own vessel, with zero degrees being at the bow, 90 degrees toward the starboard, 180 degrees straight aft, and 270 degrees toward port; and that doesn’t make any difference even if one is being storm-tossed by rough seas. Relative bearings are useful in many situations – for example, a non-changing relative bearing and a decreasing range indicates vessels are on a collision course. You don’t need to know anything else about any other “absolute” reference frame.
It is smart to pick a reference system that makes it easy to make measurements and communicate information about where things are and will likely be in the future. You can do that by making use of both the kinematics and the dynamics if you need to; whatever is simplest and easiest to use.
Another example of the use of “inertial” forces to make predictions is the trajectory of a cannon ball. If one is in the free-falling frame of the cannon ball after it leaves the barrel of the cannon, the trajectory is a straight line, uniform velocity (neglecting air resistance). But if one is on the surface of the Earth, one includes the acceleration due to gravity to make predictions about the trajectory – a parabola in a sufficiently restricted volume of space at the Earth’s surface – and where the cannon ball will land.
Over larger distances, the Coriolis force, air resistance, and the curvature of the Earth’s surface must be included in the calculations.
Isn’t it queer that the intellectual skeptics have this compulsive need to incessantly pat themselves on the back for their ineffable superiority. That’s usually the tack one takes when he’s run out of arguments. Yes, it was fun throwing eggs at the performer – as a kid, at least.