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

[sykavy]

I saw this trailer. I at first thought this nonsense. But I am open to follow the facts where they lead. There is a lot of facts establishment science sweeps under the rug. And now with some new information we are in a confusing place. Is this film taking advantage of this? I don't know. But I want to see it.
"The Principle" Documentary Trailer - YouTube

[sykavy]

The producer has challenged anyone to prove the earth isn't the center of the universe. He will pay money if it can be proved. I thought he was a crackpot but he seems to have studied the subject pretty well and if he is right it could be a mind blower. Here is a lengthy interview of the producer of the film he seems to have written a 3 volume work explaining his position and refuting opposition.
Listen to this interview I thought he made some really fascinating points.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I73hycfdViA

We will see when the movie comes out I think in September. I don't have the time to wade thru his three volumes.

[TheoriaApophasis]

I saw this trailer. I at first thought this nonsense. But I am open to follow the facts where they lead. There is a lot of facts establishment science sweeps under the rug. And now with some new information we are in a confusing place. Is this film taking advantage of this? I don't know. But I want to see it.
"The Principle" Documentary Trailer - YouTube

I know this piece of VILE $#&*#(@ TRASH


Made sure I left a "snappy" comment to that steaming pile of POO



That movie is 10,000% why "science" is so full of mental midget TRASH

[Ufopolitics]

I know this piece of VILE $#&*#(@ TRASH


Made sure I left a "snappy" comment to that steaming pile of POO



That movie is 10,000% why "science" is so full of mental midget TRASH

What happened T.A.?

Did not like the END?...

You have to laugh more...






























Just kidding, agree with you, it is a piece of sh*t


Regards


Ufopolitics

[Bob Smith]

Guys, I'm not sure what to think about the work of Robert Sungenis and his geocentric universe position. I watched a few of his videos and listened to an in-depth interview here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnLYIbpNst4

He's got some simple videos on the right on this page:
http://galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/

He seems to rely on a lot of reliable science, such as the Michaelson-Morely experiments and others. Strangely, he supports Einstein's GR position, but maintains his SR theory has no merit in light of his own research.

Whether his position pans out or not won't make much difference for my life, but I'd love to see some constructive criticism of his position that can refute or uphold his position, based on solid scientific principles.

Bob

[ldrancer]

i cant even understand some peoples positions here. the movie tried to make it like it was like the bs propoganda in it was attackign the actual movie but then the movie was the opposite of that.
then there all the time showing that chinese guy who dont know nothing

[ewizard]

Quote from one of the people in the trailer: " We don't know nothing" LOL a double negative from what is supposed to be an intelligent person or scientist? Not impressed. Yeah Earth is special because it is fairly rare in a number game for a planet to have all the right things in place to support life but apparently they aren't aware of the 58 other alien life forms our governments know about. And then there was the government witness in Steven Greer's video the Disclosure Project who said he was involved in getting aliens from crashed UFO's. He stated there were 57 known alien races. He called it Heinz 57 IIRC so 58 more or less

Here: http://www.markfoster.net/struc/the_...races_book.pdf

[ewizard]

i cant even understand some peoples positions here. the movie tried to make it like it was like the bs propoganda in it was attackign the actual movie but then the movie was the opposite of that.
then there all the time showing that chinese guy who dont know nothing

BTW I just noticed you used a double negative too and that's not a problem and no insult intended in my above post as I expect loose English and slang on forums. I write very loosely myself despite having a good mastery of the language but no need to be all proper and stuffy in forums IMO. But I don't expect to hear that in a movie trailer that seems to be a scientific sort of documentary.

[wayne.ct]

Double Not

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.

[Bob Smith]

I don't get much out of the trailer, and it sure doesn't do anything for Sungenis' case for geocentricity. But I've listened to a number of his interviews, and think they're worth checking out. If anyone can comment on these, I think it would give more credibility to a case either way.
Bob on Earth

[Armagdn03]

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

[Dingus]

I wish you religious people would stop with this geocentrism/flat earth nonsense already, you're lowering the intellectual standard for the entire site.

[Bob Smith]

I wish you religious people would stop with this geocentrism/flat earth nonsense already, you're lowering the intellectual standard for the entire site.

Dingus
I guess that's a problem with this argument in the sense that religion is drawn into it. However, it appears to me that there is enough information outside the realm of any religious claims to make a case that can (and should) stand on its own merits. I'm hoping someone will look past all the religious stuff and simply comment on the scientific evidence Sungenis is offering. In my mind, it's really not necessary information for a purely scientific argument.
Bob

[TheoriaApophasis]

I wish you religious people would stop with this geocentrism/flat earth nonsense already, you're lowering the intellectual standard for the entire site.

religion is one thing, metaphysics (I DO NOT MEAN New Ager CRAP) is another thing.


Newtons books measured BY THE POUND, make newton 5% a scientist and 95% a metaphysician.



All logic, all reason, all induction, deduction, and IMPORTANTLY retroduction came down from the Pythagoreans, Platonists, Neoplatonists etc.

i.e. metaphysics.



Religions are just secularized metaphysics for the people.


The "peoples" , by the way is also a term of PROFANITY (as meant stupidity) in MOST ancient languages.


ancient Prakrit term for the PEOPLE, or puthujjana also meant the common boob, moron, dolt, dufus, idiot, moron, etc etc .

[ldrancer]

i'll let scientific method prove what.

still i dont get the whole movie. like theyre trying to portray a really .. very stupid stance. and you heard they they dont know. nothing. so thats the movies stance we dont know nothing what a piece of crap. but it makes me wonder what the heck is this crap?