The Principle--most controveral movie of science of this century?

[SilverToGold]

The answer comes from The Great Controversy pages 676 - 678:

"There, immortal minds will contemplate with never-failing delight the wonders of creative power, the mysteries of redeeming love. There will be no cruel, deceiving foe to tempt to forgetfulness of God. Every faculty will be developed, every capacity increased. The acquirement of knowledge will not weary the mind or exhaust the energies. There the grandest enterprises may be carried forward, the loftiest aspirations reached, the highest ambitions realized; and still there will arise new heights to surmount, new wonders to admire, new truths to comprehend, fresh objects to call forth the powers of mind and soul and body.

All the treasures of the universe will be open to the study of God's redeemed. Unfettered by mortality, they wing their tireless flight to worlds afar, - worlds that thrilled with sorrow at the spectacle of human woe, and rang with songs of gladness at the tidings of a ransomed soul. With unutterable delight the children of earth enter into the joy and the wisdom of unfallen beings. They share the treasures of knowledge and understanding gained through ages upon ages in contemplation of God's handiwork. With undimmed vision they gaze upon the glory of creation, - suns and stars and systems, all in their appointed order circling the throne of Deity. Upon all things, from the least to the greatest, the Creator's name is written, and in all are the riches of His power displayed. "

The Universe centers upon God's throne. At this time, the throne of God is in the open space of Orion. So all creation circles the Orion nebula at the moment.

When God makes the world new, His throne will be upon earth and at that time, all creation will circle around earth but that time obviously is not now.

BTW, no where in the Bible does it say that the earth is the center of the universe. This is false Catholic dogma.

[Bob Smith]

It seems like no one wants to discuss the scientific principles Sungenis outlines in his interviews and book. The movie trailer is pretty useless in this regard, but his interviews and presentations do cite scientific works.
Bob

[SilverToGold]

Hi Andrew,

Always enjoy your posts. This view your friend shared is totally from the thinking of man. It's basically moral relativity. And I place the word moral there because morals are at the center of all thinking and "logic" (or how it's applied).

This view of moral relativity is at the center of all human theory because we don't know the truth and are really unable to comprehend it fully by ourselves because we are blinded by our moral/immoral desires.

There is immorality because truth really does exist outside of anyone's opinion of it. And truth never changes. This is something most people in society rail against - absolute unchangeable truth. Because truth demands change and people don't want to change. They want to continue to satisfy their fleshly desires without limits.

Anyways, to cut it short. In so called science of today and contemporary thinking, perspectives are always changing because we can only know so much in our short lives.

Jesus came and made the bold claim to be the Truth. He is also the Word. And His word is in the Bible. And amazingly, contrary to other ideologies of human origins.... the Bible and the truths within it never change or need revision (though our understanding of them do!). The same is with nature (the other "book" that God has written for us), it never changes but only our understanding of it does.

That's how you can tell the truth from anything less, the truth never changes. So any method of thinking that says one thing today and another the next is false. And how often have we had to do this ourselves in our thinking?

The only way to link up totally with truth is to link up with Jesus 100%.

John 14:6 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life"

Absolute truth does exist but few want it.

Not necessarily wrong. you could take almost any rotational system and apply your "grounding" or central point of rotation to any place of your choice.

I had an interesting conversation once with a gentleman who was very much the real John Nash from "A Beautiful Mind". He was at one point a social engineer for lack of a better term. He proceeded to describe one of his viewpoints in terms that I would most likely absorb. (Hilariously incredibly awesome.......). He put his work in terms of analogue electrical as that is what I was familiar with.

He told me (paraphrased):

"Most people think of their world, and viewpoint on it, as static. But this cannot be the case, because as we learn, our viewpoint changes, our grounding changes. Therefore there is no static state of truth. Truth is an illusion in a very real sense. There can be congruent viewpoints and we may call this truth because they agree with each other, but this in and of itself may be subject to a shifting "ground". I explain this to you in terms of ground because there is a tension. I am trying to get you to understand what I know with respect to what you know, points A and B. The variance between is what you may call a tension or voltage. I can however (and so can you) change your my point or your point at any given time changing the potential between. There is no static point that we revolve around it is chosen. There may be a mass or accumulated point of view that we take as the status quot, but this too changes as we as a whole change and so is never absolute. I am very good at what I do because I can change my ground at will. I can "argue" or better yet believe what I choose. This makes me an outlier, and a dangerous person to those who believe in a singular point of rotation or grounding. I can justify evil. But evil is a concept which is validated only by where points A and B lie with respect to the fulcrum or social grounding at a certain point in time. This is how manipulation or propaganda, or communication on EVERY LEVEL works. I have shared with you a basic tenant of perception. But this too cannot be considered correct, because I could also convince you of the opposite if I should so choose. I chose to show you this side because it is not one that is commonly held, and so it stretches your perception a bit further than before."


Good fun.


Andrew Manrique

[ewizard]

Get a life! This site has members from all over the world and SOME languages use double not as a general rule. Get a life! The universe does not revolve around GB or USA.

Oh ... I've got a life but this movie is done in English and that was an English speaking person saying that. So your statement is irrelevant. And the movie is not about the universe revolving around GB or US but around the Earth. It's all hogwash and I only pointed out that it is not even professionally done hogwash

[wayne.ct]

Relativity

The preferred language in this forum is English but only some of the participants can speak and write standard English. I choose to take a tolerant stance and I understand that some people would like to participate in spite of their lack of English fluency. Another group which may or may not intersect with the first group would like to enjoy an exclusive society where everyone not in their group is marginalized and excluded being morons or idiots, whatever your preferred epithet may be. Just imagine what the world might be like if everyone had the same mental abilities. Hopefully they would all be like YOU, since your abilities are exceptional. Yet, if all were like you, would the world be a better place? Certainly, to use the word better implies some sort of relativism. Would you call it moral relativism? Perhaps the word ethical is a better word to use? Ground this, relative to that, however it is expressed someone always is better or thinks they are better than you or me or the average or the median. Most science is plagued by inconsistencies and contradictions. Yet, the many insist that science is truth and religion is false. The majority, perhaps, insist the opposite is true. Those willing to see both sides and remain neutral seem to be a distinct minority. The saying bears repeating: A man convinced against his will continues in his original opinion still.

[ethan]

What does geocentric earth and religion have in common?
Its a man made egotistical god complex fabrication.

We are born without knowing who we are, where we came from, or where we are going.
We are scared of the unknown. That is why we created religion.
Religion is a human fabrication to comfort us as we travel into a state of existence that we have NO knowledge of. (the afterlife, death)

Instead of accepting the fact that we have NO idea what will happen to us, we have created pleasant fictional religions to keep our fears at bay.

Personally, I think life is eternal, the human soul is a part of the singularity.
The reason I believe that...it makes me feel good as I go to sleep at night.

PS:
The earth is not flat. There are millions of earths in the universe.

[Bob Smith]

Okay, okay
Let's just leave the question of religion out of the discussion. What's being discussed is the scientific merits of the argument presented by Robert Sungenis in his presentations about a geocentric universe. Forget about the useless trailer. I posted some links to his interviews. He's got some pretty compelling scientific info there.
Please leave questions of religion elsewhere.
Bob

[indio007]

I listened to an interview with him. He is wrong about certain things particularly the Michealson/Morly experiment. A null result was never measured. A very low result was measured i.e. below theory.

He mischaracterizes several experiments and theories. WMAP , Planck , and COBE he simply doesn't know WTF he's talking about.

He needs to stop getting his information from press clippings.

[TheoriaApophasis]

The A #1 PURE BS / CRAP / TRASH NON-EXPERIMENT was the Michealson/Morly experiment.


it was NOT a real test, NOT a real experiment


not one *#$&#(@ bit. People need to forget that even existed, it didnt prove a SINGLE #((@()@ THING

[Bob Smith]

Thanks TA and indio. That's all I really was interested in finding out. The MM experiment seems to be a major hinge in his whole argument for geocentrism. He also accepts Einstein's GR theory, but not SR theory. Kind of strange in light of discussions that have arisen in light of what you've presented Ken, and what EPD has been talking about.
I guess there's one thing the helios and geos can agree on:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yop6...etailpage#t=44
Heh heh.
Have a good day.
Bob

[indio007]

I agree with TheoriaApophasis MM experiment is trash. There are too many things wrong with to list. Even if taken at face value, the result is misrepresented.

[wayne.ct]

Where is your evidence?

This thread has pretty much gone from bad to worse but I would like to see or read something that resembles evidence. What I have read here so far is nonsense. The last three posts have trashed the Michelson-Morley experiment so I refreshed my knowledge of the topic on Wikipedia. (I did take a lot of Physics in my undergrad years.)

Michelson-Morley experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The latest rounds of experiments (noted there) were done in the last 12 years or so. (2003-2009) And you need to understand what they show. They put an upper limit on the speed (or velocity) of the aether relative to the speed of light. The speed of earth at opposite points in earth's orbit around the sun amount to a relative difference of 30 km/second and you can read the other numbers on that page. The MM-inspired experiments put an upper limit on the relative speed of earth through the aether of 1.5 to 20 km/second.

You can redefine aether and make it mean something Tesla would not recognize or give some other explanation of what you are trying to say, but I don't think there is much here to go on. Basically I am calling BS.

See if you can do a better job of explaining the science behind your claims. The thread started out commenting on a movie trailer. Apparently the movie claims the earth is not only "special" but the "center" of the universe by one or more measures. The world has this picture of reality based on "ALF and ET". Alf and ET are fictional characters! There is very little proof that ET is actually ET. (Yet you are ready to trash God and all sorts of "religion") UFOs are built and piloted by USN or some other 3-letter agency.

What you or I "believe" should have less bearing on the discussion that facts and evidence, if this is a science discussion. So, where is the evidence?

So, it seems this thread is mostly useless and ready for the dustbin. I only bring this up because I am hoping to learn something. So, give me what you have.

[TheoriaApophasis]

(Yet you are ready to trash God and all sorts of "religion")

Abso-bloody-lutely YES.



Not really however, just kidding.......... but............

I only bring this up because I am hoping to learn something

Then you should learn, since MOST EVERYONE doesnt know this, that there is something 180 degrees from BOTH religion AND nihilistic nihil-ex-nihilo moronic Atheism.


You should know that genuine atheism (the REAL SCUMBAG variety) is NOT merely a denial of god, but of metaphysical and ontological subjects (the soul, the Ether, the substrate to phenomena)....

Technically its called "metaphysical atheism"


The first mention of Atheism, is by the Greeks in the term ATHEOS, which is in reference to Greek Platonism as refers to the Nous (will/mind/citta/spirit/soul) as found in passage: (Phil 26e-30d) and not to a supernatural persona, i.e. God. The immanent-only materialistic pantheism of metaphysical Atheism is an aphilosophical position holding that everything which exists is no more extensive than its physical compounded materiality; that is, that there are no kinds of things other than physical things. This anti-divinity of Atheism is the true and shadow-worshiping profanity that is the hallmark of Atheism, not its correct position that, as Plato and the Neoplatonists argued for as well, that there was no Supreme-Being as creator of the cosmos.

The profane and pathetic nature of Atheism does not stem from its denial of a Creationist God, but as the Greek term itself defines same, atheos (anti-divinity) is a materialistic denial of all things metaphysical. This demonic Physicalism, or Atheism, derives its status amongst most as merely a vehement denial of God, however the case is that an Atheist is in true, a metaphysical Atheist who denies any immaterial and uncompounded Subjective principles as prior to, underneath or autonomous to matter (hyle).

Metaphysical Atheism is Atheism, in true and in whole. That some who deem themselves Atheists also admit to, as they would say ‘something’ is certainly not in question, however these people are not in fact Atheists but lazy Agnostics and in most cases crypto-materialists; calling themselves atheists in but they merely deny God, is only a measure of their ignorance in of which they do not know the full scope of the very term Atheism. The Greeks in coining the term as progenitor for Atheism had meant, as Plato, Socrates, and Pythagoras before both, the denial of spiritual and immaterial divinity a-theos, or anti-divinitism.

Plotinus, the founder of Neoplatonism (only an extension and condensing of Platonism itself), wrote extensively on the denial of the Absolute as not Being, but an active insentient dynamis, an unmediated divinity of which composite Being could not be said thereof; such that Being by definition must partake of more than an uncompounded simplex principle (such as nous). The goal of Vedanta, Advaita, Buddhism (all of which encompass Upanishadic Monism) have Brahman as the endgoal, of which this Absolute is most certainly denied as Being (i.e. God). Atheism in true is none other than materialism, the praise of the existential persona headed for the grave-pit, it cant be shown anything else but contempt for denial of any and all which is outside the scope of the narrow and fallible spectrum of the petty human senses. Gotama Buddha derided Ishvara (God) both in principle and those who aligned themselves in practice with same.

A voracious supporter of Atheism (not a mere God-denying agnostic as in the previous example) will in all instances adamantly deny the metaphysical, the divinity of which atheos, or Atheism is meant in its definition. A true agnostic (merely as meant agnosis, or ignorance! Or, deeming oneself as ignorant) is but an unlearned and unexplored supporter of metaphysics even if only indirectly; that some agnostics would foremostly deny God, does not make them an Atheist. That these ‘unknowers’ (agnostics) would firstly deem themselves as Atheists is but a further expression of their ignorance of the meaning of Atheism and not just of metaphysics.

Atheism is currently not a (sic) philosophical position that God is not, but that theology (again, the study of divinity, which Creationism is only a part thereof) is something to be despised and spit upon. To convince oneself of the insanity of Atheists, they need only watch a debate between Atheists and Creationists; one might gather that such rabid profanity-laced tirades could only be found amongst those made-become Atheists who had been raped over twenty years by Catholic priests. It is highly humorous that Atheists fight and spit so voraciously at the mention of a God whom they deny exists. In true definition further in modern connotation and example, Atheism is little more than anti-religiosity (theo-logy), and not simply the logical denial of God.

Religion is merely the profane secular side of metaphysics; is but popularized metaphysics; as such it is true that religion is as was said “the opiate of the masses”. A modern Atheist is one who hisses like a snake at the sight of religious and or theological institutions of noetic, spiritual examination. He is, as Atheist, far more than one who denies the Creationists God(s); but were Atheism merely this alone, I and many others Platonists, Vedantists, would gladly proclaim themselves as Atheists! In connotation and definition both however to call oneself an Atheist is no different than gleefully calling oneself a demon materialist.

What the Atheists fail to realize is of the two ignorant positions as explanation for the extreme complexity in nature between the model of the Creationists, and that of the Atheists, the positions of the Atheists is far more so the implausible one. The extreme complexity in nature from macro to micro is not in question by even the lowliest of fools, however the Atheistic position that this complexity stems from time and random atomic convergence is highly ignoble and unintelligent. One might equally insanely postulate, from the same position of the Atheists, that random atoms, given a few billion years, will eventually coalesce to the point of creating Shakespearean literature.

However Atheism in its extreme insanity is working on creating its own Gods, thru perfection of cryogenics and DNA manipulation wherein someday, they erroneously hope, will culminate in bodily immortality. Or even more insanely, as some demonic Atheists have postulated, that empirical consciousness is no more than complex and copyable network which could be transferred as software into a robot at the death of the body, thereby granting immortality in the form of a robot which could be repaired indefinitely. In the ranks of perversity, even Satanism hails as higher than Atheism, in that of its core Satanism admits to a full acknowledgement of immaterial and metaphysical subjectivity, or the divine, even if in praise of the dark side of divinity. Insanity takes countless forms, Atheism is but one highly miserable variety thereof.

Atheists are more miserable and profane than even a blood-drinking Satanist. How so? Even the Satanist concedes to the metaphysical world, to the ontological soul. That atheists deny the Creationist’s Supreme-Creator, God, is not the measure of their ignorance, but that Atheism denies a substrate which underlies mere phenomena and the flux of materiality.

Creationists believe the complexity and beauty of the cosmos is the result of the will of a sentient being, supreme and before which nothing is,…this position is wrong. Worse still on a level immeasurable, is the position of the Atheist who thinks the complexity and entirety of the universe is the happenstance of cosmic flatulence, akin to apes on typewriters, given enough time, eventually producing Shakespearean plays.

[Ernst]

The topic that is covered in this movie is far more interesting than this high school drop-out (referring to the interview linked to in sykavy's 2nd post) is making it.
All "evidence" that he presents is based on misinterpretation of facts resulting from misunderstanding high school physics. One thing is true, though; there is no scientific evidence or experiment that will determine the centre of the universe. Any point can be taken as centre and all known laws of physics will apply. It really does not make any difference. You could put the Moon in the centre of the universe, the Sun, the Earth, Pluto, Orion, it makes absolutely no difference.
So, a discussion based on scientific facts makes no sense whatsoever.
Such discussion can only be based on:
- religious believes (most common)
- logic deduction (least common)
- stupidity (as in the interview and probably also in the movie)

Let's have a short glance at the second option.
We can see billions of stars and we know these are like our Sun, so they may have planets. Having billions of solar systems, chances are better than average that there are other planets on which life has evolved. This observation implies that the Earth is nothing special in the universe and there for it is a bit odd to make it the centre of the universe.
This is a logical sound line of reasoning, but it is superficial.
First of all we have to define "life", there may be conscious structures out there that do not even remotely resemble any life form that we are familiar with. For example, the electrical processes taking place on the solar surface are far more complicated than those that take place in our brain. So who is to say that the Sun is not a conscious being?
Second when we observe a universe, there is not just a universe. We have to define who or what is observing, and what exactly does it mean "to observe".
If we dig into this a bit deeper, which I am not going to do now, we can prove that a consciousness NEEDS to create a universe. This proof is logically sound proof; there is no way that anyone can shoot a hole in it. Now, knowing (or assuming, in fact) that my consciousness is not the only consciousness; there are others that appear very conscious, this can only imply that we share the same consciousness. We are all fingers of the same hand, as it were.
This concept matches very closely with Hermetic teachings, the teachings of the Jewish QBL, the Abhidharma ("inner" Buddhist teachings), Christian believes etc.
It all fits.
So, if our consciousness created this universe that we need to create and observe in order to have a consciousness at all, then it makes sense to put the Earth in the centre...
Yet, the same logical line of reasoning dictates that in this stage of our development we will not find ANY scientific proof that the Earth is special in any way.
Also, it dictates that there are no extra terrestrial life forms, unless they serve some purpose to us. In other words, if we NEED ET's our consciousness will create them, if not it won't.



Ernst.

[TheoriaApophasis]

So, a discussion based on scientific facts makes no sense whatsoever.
Such discussion can only be based on:
- religious believes (most common)
- logic deduction (least common)
- stupidity (as in the interview and probably also in the movie)


Ernst.

Most "science" is no better than insane religious absurdity.



Quantum BS and Relativity brain fahrt of Einstein is based on things never observed.


Qauntum BS like virtual photons

gluons
muons
electrons


its an absurdity with no basis in reality.


Quantum BS contains more mystical nonsense than a fairy tale full of unicorns and pixie dust.