Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies Space Science

Scientists/Actress Say They Were 'Tricked' Into Geocentric Universe Movie 642

Posted by samzenpus
from the I-never-heard-of-such-a-thing-and-even-if-I-did-I-don't-remember-when dept.
EwanPalmer (2536690) writes "Three scientists and Star Trek actress Kate Mulgrew say they were duped into appearing in a controversial documentary which claims the Earth is the center of the Universe. The Principle, a film which describes itself as 'destined to become one of the most controversial films of our time', argues the long-debunked theory of geocentrism – where the earth is the center of the Universe and the Sun resolves around it – is true and Nasa has tried to cover it up. The film features the narration of actress Mulgrew, who played the part of captain Kathryn Janeway in Star Trek Voyager, as well as three prominent scientists."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Scientists/Actress Say They Were 'Tricked' Into Geocentric Universe Movie

Comments Filter:
  • by antifoidulus (807088) on Wednesday April 09, 2014 @11:43PM (#46711081) Homepage Journal
    Supposedly a large # of the actors in the film Innocence of Muslims [wikipedia.org] were duped into appearing in the film and had their lines (sloppily) edited after the fact to be about Mohammed instead of generic desert villain.
    • by rahvin112 (446269) on Thursday April 10, 2014 @12:02AM (#46711133)

      One of those actresses recently won a lawsuit against the director for doing so. These people have a legitimate claim IMO that the deception damages their career and should require remuneration along with bans on distribution of the fraudulently produced picture. I wonder if this same situation doesn't apply to this ridiculous movie.

      • by Firethorn (177587) on Thursday April 10, 2014 @12:18AM (#46711201) Homepage Journal

        I know that if I was the lawyer for Mulgrew I'd be pointing out the same thing. Star Trek might not be 'good science', but it's at least progressive in it's views(on science). Actors in it are expected to know at least a little.

        • by mwvdlee (775178) on Thursday April 10, 2014 @03:43AM (#46711905) Homepage

          Whether or not ST had "good science" or what their moral, ethical or scientific views were is completely irrelevant.
          Even whether the actors in it cared or even agreed with those views is irrelevant if the actor knowingly agreed to do the job anyway.

          The producers deliberately lied to the actor.

          The point is that the actor was scammed into appearing in a movie they would not have done had the producers been honest about their intentions.

        • by Bogtha (906264) on Thursday April 10, 2014 @04:09AM (#46711973)

          I wouldn't really take that exact approach as she's probably not going to be acting in any more Trek. I'd point out that she earns X amount of money by going to fan conventions, that she anticipates being able to do this for Y number of years into the future, and those fans are the type that would be extremely alienated by the perception that she's so scientifically illiterate, so she stands to lose X*Y amount of money. I daresay there's enough backlash in Trek forums to be able to prove this already.

    • by Z00L00K (682162)

      generic desert villain.

      Muad'dib [youtube.com]?

      As for the subject - where is the center on the surface of a sphere? If you look far enough along the surface of a sphere you will see your own butt.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 10, 2014 @12:39AM (#46711293)

      Also, Ben Stein's pile of crap Expelled. The scientists interviewed (including Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers) were outright lied to about the nature of the film, then had their interviews deceptively cut and edited. It's in the nature of religious apologists to lie.

      • by erikkemperman (252014) on Thursday April 10, 2014 @02:32AM (#46711643)

        And in the wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org] on this abomination, it says that in addition to Mulgrew it also features Michio Kaku and Lawrence Krauss. Lawyer feeding time, indeed. By the way, it would appear that the guy excreting this crap is not only a complete nitwit on astrophysics, but has equally outdated notions about Jews and the Holocaust. Nasty piece of work, it seems.

        • by Amtrak (2430376)

          Yeah the guy who backed those films is a nut job. I read a few of his "papers" from his website [galileowaswrong.com] and he is totally off the wall. He was using Jews as an excuse for NASA covering up the "truth".

          Another one of his "articles" was arguing that the Catholic church is in league with the Atheist's and Jews because they came out at said that there is no conflict between the Catholic faith and evolution. He just seems fixated on one issue. I stopped reading once I had a clear picture that the guy was crazy and more

      • Thanks for informing me of this. I used to enjoy his Ben Stein's Money show on occasion some years back, but I have now lost all respect for the man whatsoever.

        • by nitehawk214 (222219) on Thursday April 10, 2014 @08:44AM (#46713373)

          Thanks for informing me of this. I used to enjoy his Ben Stein's Money show on occasion some years back, but I have now lost all respect for the man whatsoever.

          Oh it goes much deeper. People tended to forget that before his acting career Stein was a speech writer for Nixon and is as right wing religious and political fundamentalist as they come. He has "moderated" atheist/religious debates that clearly showed his bias as he tries to rig the debates.

  • by MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) on Wednesday April 09, 2014 @11:49PM (#46711095)

    in the Laimtre universe, the earth is as much the center of the unierse as any other point is.

    • by Lendrick (314723)

      True, but it's not the center of the solar system or the galaxy.

      • But how do you define the center of the solar system or of the galaxy?

        • by Maritz (1829006)

          I don't know how it's done formally, but it seems the only reasonable way for the solar system is to define it as the sun, or the centre of the sun. Seeing as it's the SOLar system ;)

          For the galaxy it's probably better to define it as a region. Sagittarius A is the supermassive black hole at the centre of the galaxy with a few million solar masses. Good a place as any to stick the 'centre' pin I reckon.

          It's amazing that stuff like this and flat earth beliefs are still out there. These nutters are immune to

  • by globaljustin (574257) <justinglobal.gmail@com> on Wednesday April 09, 2014 @11:58PM (#46711115) Homepage Journal

    It doesn't really affect the "Best Star Trek Captain" discussions (I always answer with the *vision* the creators had for the character not how it was acted)...but Kate Mulgrew is kind of a ditz

    In interviews (like in The Captains film: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... [wikipedia.org] ) she was clearly just doing Trek purely as a 'gig' for a paycheck...she had no personal connection to science or space whatsoever and did not see her role as a way to educate herself or broaden her horizons to improve her acting

    to her it was all just "technobabble" which angers me to no end as a person who advocates for women in science...but it's her life and career so I'm not judging her choices necessarily...i just think it's unprofessional and lazy...her performance in Orange is the New Black is equally as bad, IMHO...very perfunctory

    Mulgrew read the ***narration*** of the whole film...how could she do that and not know the film as about the earth being the *actual* center of the universe?

    answer is in the subject line

    • by Johann Lau (1040920) on Thursday April 10, 2014 @12:12AM (#46711171) Homepage Journal

      To be fair though, it IS usually technobabble, of the worst kind, too. Not that I think duping people is cool, but pretending that *any* Star Trek actors have some kind of authority to convey when it comes to science just cracks me up.

      • by globaljustin (574257) <justinglobal.gmail@com> on Thursday April 10, 2014 @12:22AM (#46711217) Homepage Journal

        yeah I know what you mean...but we're techies so our definition of "technobabble" is more narrow than a non-tech, even one with a good education.

        to Mulgrew, anything "science-y" was "technobabble"

        this is the problem, Star Trek had mixed results with scientific accuracy...in that sense it is "technobabble" because it is fictional science in a future setting they are using...however, depending on which series at which time, the quality of the science dialogue was educational

        I **liked** the fictional future science of the later series...it wasn't completely believable, but they definitely had a science advisor and you could see the consistency

        It was educational...in the sense that it exposed me to new ideas & motivated me to ***actually look up the real science***

        one thing Trekkies overlook is that today its mostly **teens** who watch Trek...average, everyday teenagers...I know this from my teaching experience, I'd have cheerleader type chicks mention Trek in papers

      • by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Thursday April 10, 2014 @12:35AM (#46711271)

        People have an inherent bias to trust successful people. Celebrities are the ultimate successful people. For a good example, see how many people trusted Jenny McCarthy when she started her campaign saying vaccines cause autism. She's a model, actress and television host with no medical or scientific education or qualifications at all - but she is also rich and famous, so a lot of people believed her.

    • by blind monkey 3 (773904) on Thursday April 10, 2014 @12:14AM (#46711181)
      Kate was a very ineffectual captain. The whole Voyager series was hit and miss save for two redeeming features - seven of nine and and seven of nines' mammalian protuberances.
      • by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Thursday April 10, 2014 @12:36AM (#46711275)

        She spent the entire series in a skin-tight suit. She was added to be the object of fans lust, the writers didn't even try to pretend otherwise.

      • by nobuddy (952985) on Thursday April 10, 2014 @12:41AM (#46711303) Homepage Journal

        That is technically three things.

      • The whole Voyager series was hit and miss save for two redeeming features - seven of nine and and seven of nines' mammalian protuberances.

        I know I'm going to be in the minority here, but I have to say that Seven of Nine and the Doctor were the best features of Voyager -- not because of appearance, because they actually had some sort of character development and growth over the course of the series.

        Everyone gets hung up on Jeri Ryan's outfit, just like I've heard people complain in recent years about Troi's outfits on TNG. Were they necessary? Of course not. Would the series be better if they dressed these characters like professionals an

    • by rusty0101 (565565)

      Technobabble and Star Trek seem to go together quite well. I wouldn't criticize her for that.

      As to her reading the narration of this whole film, and not knowing the film was earth centrist, a lot of that has to do with how the material was presented to her. Just because the final result that you get to see has a specific view, doesn't mean that what the people doing the voice over, or providing content were presented with that view. As a brief example, content that clearly indicates an earth centrist perspe

  • I believe Kate (Score:5, Interesting)

    by frovingslosh (582462) on Thursday April 10, 2014 @12:08AM (#46711161)
    I believe her. I fell that Kate is totally capable of being tricked into making a movie with such claims. I'm not sure that she has much of an argument though. She was paid to do something really really stupid and she did something really really stupid, and likely something that she even believed at the time until someone else explained it to her. By her argument she seems to be claiming that she shouldn't be permitted to make any films (which I completely support). If she finds out that there really isn't any "Starfleet" will she go after the Trek franchise too?
    • by gnoshi (314933)

      If you sequence the material correctly, and add in filler that you are willing to cut, you can get people to say all kinds of crazy stuff in voiceover recording.
      If you can get someone to say "If someone were to say 'No-one has ever proven than 6 million jews were killed in the holocaust' you would have doubts about their other works. No-one has ever proven than 6 million jews were killed in the holocaust. I mean, who says that?" and coach them a little, you can probably use it for a convincing voiceover of

      • by rahvin112 (446269)

        You don't even need full sentences like your example. Properly recorded you can cut half sentences together and fully change their meaning to something which was never ever read or said in the original script.

        As was already pointed out this is pretty much what happened in Innocence of Muslims. The director shot the film with the script mostly in place as he intended. He then had the actors come back in and say words and partial phrases that without context was meaningless to the actors then dubbed the audio

  • by Anonymous Coward

    the long-debunked idea of the Earth being the centre of the Solar System.

    "...the long-debunked theory of geocentrism – where the Earth is the centre of the Universe and the Sun resolves around it..."

    The linked clip never makes this claim.

    This documentary appears to be about the modern theory of geocentrism, the idea among some creationist circles that the Solar System is somewhere near the centre of the universe - at these scales, of course, the Earth's movement around the Sun is negligible so the ter

  • Well it's really all relative isn't it? I mean, defining the center some other arbitrary place probably makes the math simpler but really all the bits are robiting each other and choosing any one as a set reference is just arbitrary, right?
    • Moreover, physics is built on this very principle - gauge symmetry requires that any system of units and measurement should experience a gauge forces which would smooth it out to be equivalent to any other system of units and measurement.

      Seems plausible you could construct a very very obtuse system which would assume the Earth is a stationary point.

      Of course it would also work for any other planet.

  • But it is! (Score:5, Funny)

    by AndyCanfield (700565) <andycanfieldNO@SPAMyandex.com> on Thursday April 10, 2014 @12:54AM (#46711343) Homepage

    But the Earth is the center of the universe! Look at your general theory of relativity! Any object can be consider the unmoving center of a frame of reference. Earth is at (0,0,0) and not rotating. Of course this implies large gravitional fields to keep the sun and the planets and the stars rotating around the Earth every 24 hours, and complex stuff like that. But that just makes the math more complicated. It is still a valid frame of reference.

    But hey, why stop there? *** I *** am the center of the universe! All you people rotate around me! No need to bow down...

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by tragedy (27079)

      It may be a valid frame of reference. But we'll have to throw out relativity just to get the nearest star orbiting the earth. Also, when I say "nearest star", I do mean the Sun. We would be talking about something like .04C. Enough to observe relatavistic effects that just aren't there. Proxima Centauri would be going at something close to 10,000C. The sun would need to have 1.5 * 10^33 Newtons of outward force counteracted to stay in orbit. You're not joking about "Large gravitional fields". It would take

      • by amaurea (2900163)

        No, grandparent is right. The huge masses you describe are only needed if you assume that the background metric of the universe is unchanged. But if you are in a reference frame co-rotating with the world, then in that frame the whole universe is rotating at extreme speeds. This produces an extreme frame-dragging effect [wikipedia.org] which makes it impossible not to rotate at or nearly at the same velocity as the other objects at that distance - no huge masses needed. This is an example of the more general Mach's princip [wikipedia.org]

  • by flyingfsck (986395) on Thursday April 10, 2014 @01:35AM (#46711471)
    The earth is the centre of the visible universe and thanks to Einstein's relativity, everything moves around us. So there is absolutely nothing wrong with the geocentrist idea, it just complicates the orbital mechanics equations when you want to fly a space ship to Mars somewhat, that's all.
  • by stenvar (2789879) on Thursday April 10, 2014 @02:42AM (#46711687)

    Following confusion as to why Mulgrew, a life-long Democrat,

    Yeah, because we all know that by choosing a party affiliation, you suddenly become scientifically literate!

  • But I Am! (Score:5, Funny)

    by AndyCanfield (700565) <andycanfieldNO@SPAMyandex.com> on Thursday April 10, 2014 @03:07AM (#46711775) Homepage

    Congratulations! Please obey all traffic laws and posted signs, and enjoy your new GPS navigation system.

    I live in Thailand; I can't even READ the posted signs. But smile and wave to the police and there is no problem. I don't have a Global Positioning System, I only have a MPS (Me Positioning System). Works fine, but it makes me cross-eyed.

  • by jones_supa (887896) on Thursday April 10, 2014 @04:35AM (#46712045)
    Cosmologists say that when we look in the sky and all the stars and planets, we can see them escaping us. This explains that the universe is expanding. But if we can observe the same thing from every side of Earth, wouldn't it mean that we are in the center?
    • by pr0t0 (216378) on Thursday April 10, 2014 @07:34AM (#46712699)

      Simple experiment: Blow up a balloon half way but do not tie it off, just pinch the end. This represents the universe. Now take a marker and put dots all over the surface of the balloon. These represent stars, planets, everything. Now start blowing into the balloon again to simulate the universe's continued expansion. You'll notice that all the dots are moving away from each other on all sides. No dot is getting closer to any other dot. This would also be true if you could somehow place dots inside the space of the balloon; and while it would remain true for a dot in the very center of the balloon, it also remains true for every other dot.

      So seeing everything moving away from us does not require us to be at the center. We're just another dot...a pale blue one.

Line Printer paper is strongest at the perforations.

Working...