Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

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

samzenpus posted about 5 months ago | from the I-never-heard-of-such-a-thing-and-even-if-I-did-I-don't-remember-when dept.

Movies 642

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."

cancel ×

642 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Ready the Lawyers (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46711069)

Time for them to feed

Re:Ready the Lawyers (5, Funny)

jimmydevice (699057) | about 5 months ago | (#46711347)

Oops, Wrong article. You were looking for :
The Amoeba That Eats Human Intestines, Cell By Cell
Or, Maybe Not.

Re:Ready the Lawyers (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | about 5 months ago | (#46711367)

Lawyers would never take it cell by cell. They want the large judgement and payday.

Re:Ready the Lawyers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46711433)

If they couldn't establish a class action case they might.

Not the first time this has happened (4, Interesting)

antifoidulus (807088) | about 5 months ago | (#46711081)

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.

Re:Not the first time this has happened (5, Interesting)

rahvin112 (446269) | about 5 months ago | (#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.

Re:Not the first time this has happened (4, Insightful)

Firethorn (177587) | about 5 months ago | (#46711201)

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.

Re:Not the first time this has happened (2)

Z00L00K (682162) | about 5 months ago | (#46711199)

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.

Re:Not the first time this has happened (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46711241)

Yeah, thank Allah (praise be upon him) that their fellow believers could at least take some small solace in brutally killing a US diplomat & company, oh and it was 9/11 too - yea! Two blows against the great Satan with one ambush. Ahhh... another day, another spontaneous demonstration with well placed mortar positions around an embassy - it's so hard being innocent these days, I tell you.

Um, pardon me - did I interrupted your work on a cartoon about... come again? Something about a profit? SILENCE! I need to hear no more... good work. Expose those dirty infidel capitalists for the scum they are - carry on good sir.

Re:Not the first time this has happened (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#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.

both are wrong (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46711085)

the truth of the matter is: muhammed is the one who travels around the sun, not the earth.

look, if they are going to make movies and con the actors into appearing in them, at least do some cross-pollination for comic effect!

Re:both are wrong (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46711443)

Watch out space virgins! Mohammed is coming to molest you!

where is the controversy? (0)

rst123 (2440064) | about 5 months ago | (#46711089)

Where is the controversy? If someone says the earth is the center of the universe, either they are dumb, or very conceited and really mean they are the center of the universe, but don't want to offend the rest of us. Oh wait, I get it now...

Re:where is the controversy? (1, Troll)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 5 months ago | (#46711091)

Where is the controversy?

The controversy is that the Bible disagrees with reality.
So it's not really a controversy except to Biblical literalists.

Re:where is the controversy? (1, Insightful)

Sun (104778) | about 5 months ago | (#46711113)

The bible does not disagree with reality. Certain religious interpretation of religious concepts disagree with reality. It has been over two decades since the Vatican officially apologized for that particular incident, without the Pope renouncing God or the bible.

Rather than claim there is a fundemental conflict between religion and science, it would be more correct to say that there are some assholes who find modern times too confusing to keep up, and thus try to bring everyone back.

At least, that's the case for creationism. In this particular case, it might just be attention whoring.

Shachar

Re:where is the controversy? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46711139)

wow only 2 decades, and you sound proud of it

Re:where is the controversy? (2, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 5 months ago | (#46711167)

fuck, man! the bible disagrees WITH ITSELF. have you not read it? google 'bible errancy' and you'll find more inconsistencies than you'll ever want to see.

really a piece of shit for writing and 'ethics'. do this and you should be stoned to death. do that and you should be killed. god gets pissed off at his own creations and decided to go all murderous on them, then decided to forgive them for following his wishes!

such bullshit.

no thinking person can read that and keep a straight face.

no thinking person would even try to compare this book of fiction with scientific concepts.

Re:where is the controversy? (2)

Johann Lau (1040920) | about 5 months ago | (#46711185)

That's great, but where does it say this planet is the center of the universe?

Re:where is the controversy? (4, Informative)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 5 months ago | (#46711255)

"He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." - Psalm 104:5

"The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises." - Ecclesiastes 1:5

Re:where is the controversy? (1)

Johann Lau (1040920) | about 5 months ago | (#46711325)

I don't see how those are claiming earth is the center of the universe, "just" that it can't be moved, and that the sun moves around it.

Re:where is the controversy? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46711425)

And don't forget that the Earth has foundations! Where are these foundations? Surely somebody out in space orbiting the Earth has seen them, no?

dom

Re:where is the controversy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46711449)

There was a serious lack of xbox and porn in those days - nothing else to do but smite people.

or covet one's neighbour's ass.

Re:where is the controversy? (1, Flamebait)

SigmundFloyd (994648) | about 5 months ago | (#46711193)

The bible does not disagree with reality.

Yes, it does. Only an idiot wouldn't realize that.

Re:where is the controversy? (2, Funny)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 5 months ago | (#46711203)

you mean you DON'T believe in talking snakes and the fact that eve was made out of adam's rib; hence, she was made from 'cheap cuts of meat' ?

what's not to believe about that? sounds pretty legit to me.

(rolls eyes)

Re:where is the controversy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46711359)

you mean you DON'T believe in talking snakes and the fact that eve was made out of adam's rib; hence, she was made from 'cheap cuts of meat' ?

what's not to believe about that? sounds pretty legit to me.

(rolls eyes)

Putting on my evil mad scientist hat, one possible science based explanation for the Adam's rib story is that Eve could have been made out of Adam's DNA. We know that bone marrow contains DNA, though there wouldn't be much in a rib. But, it might be enough to build a clone, add in enough changes and presto, you have a woman. We are close to having this technology today. Then comes the hard part where you have to explain this to a society that hadn't invented the zipper yet... thus, the rib story.

I, personally, don't put much stock in the bible. It doesn't take much effort to understand that it's all allegorical.

Re:where is the controversy? (5, Funny)

Maritz (1829006) | about 5 months ago | (#46711283)

I believe at one point god makes a circle with a diameter of 10 and a circumference of 30, which is a hell of a trick even for YHWH.

Re:where is the controversy? (4, Insightful)

TimboJones (192691) | about 5 months ago | (#46711375)

Draw it on a globe.

Re:where is the controversy? (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | about 5 months ago | (#46711419)

The part you're searching for is "I Kings 7:23-26". I'd quote it, but it will vary by the version of the bible the particular reader prefers.

Re:where is the controversy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46711435)

I believe you believe incorrectly. At one point some bronze worker makes a "sea" (e.g. tub/pool/bath) that flared out at the open end (IIRC it's compared to a lily blossom) and when you measured the diameter of the flair you got 10 cubits, and when you measured the circumference of the body you got 30 cubits. Now since the flair is wider then the body, you wouldn't expect the ratio of the two measurements to be pi.

Re:where is the controversy? (2, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 5 months ago | (#46711223)

without the Pope renouncing God or the bible

nuns could run bald through Vatican halls, pregnant, pleading Immaculate Conception; and they'd still not renounce god or the bible.

never let them see you sweat. even if they don't believe their own BS, they won't ever admit it. bad for 'business'.

Re:where is the controversy? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46711307)

I can just see that press conference now.

Pope declares: "Turns out this 'god' thing was a load of crap. Sorry everyone. You can all go home and get real jobs now."

Re:where is the controversy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46711465)

and... "We've decided to return all the gold and un-kill everyone killed in the name of our religion and all those children will be un-molested"

and the memory of the popemobile will be wiped from the collective consciousness, lest a car designer be subtly influenced in the future.

Re:where is the controversy? (1)

khallow (566160) | about 5 months ago | (#46711273)

Here's a list of inconsistencies [evilbible.com] in the Bible backing the claim that it disagrees with itself. Now, to be honest, I have a low standard for religious works like the Bible or Das Kapital. But for these works to be applicable to the morals and ethics of the modern world, you have to filter them heavily. At some point, that becomes more work than it's worth.

Re:where is the controversy? (3, Insightful)

Skynyrd (25155) | about 5 months ago | (#46711319)

The bible does not disagree with reality.

Let's start with talking snakes.
An apple filled with knowledge.
Everybody is related to Adam and Eve, and completely inbred.
Two of every animal fit into a single boat, and none of them ate each other.
All the animals are inbred, back to the ark.

The bible does not disagree with reality.

Really?

Re:where is the controversy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46711409)

The bible does not disagree with reality. Certain religious interpretation of religious concepts disagree with reality. It has been over two decades since the Vatican officially apologized for that particular incident, without the Pope renouncing God or the bible.

Shachar

How has this been modded up? Have you ever read Genesis? Exodus? How anyone with modern scientific understanding could say those concepts don't disagree with reality is beyond me.

The Vatican finally offers an empty apology after years of terrorisng scientists and only when it's relevance has faded and you think that's okay? I don't want anything to do with your brand of religion.

Re:where is the controversy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46711117)

Curious, where does it say the earth is the center of the universe in the Bible?

Re:where is the controversy? (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 5 months ago | (#46711197)

The Genesis cosmography is a rip off of the Sumero-akkadian cosmography, which was most definitely geocentric. Why do you think by the Hellenic age even the Jews had stopped interpreting Genesis literally?

Re:where is the controversy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46711227)

That's the best you've got?
"A looks like B, and B is C, so A is C"...never mind that it's quite possible to have similarities without sharing every detail, or even a central aspect.

Re:where is the controversy? (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 5 months ago | (#46711251)

It isn't a matter of what it looks like, it rips off the entire crystal dome notion. I don't know why that would bother you an more than the fact Hebrew is a Canaanite dialect written in a script that originates in Egyptian and Sumerian sources.

Re:where is the controversy? (1)

Dog-Cow (21281) | about 5 months ago | (#46711309)

Hebrew is an Akkadian dialect, and comes from further east than the Canaanites. And modern Hebrew script is Assyrian in origin. I don't know about the original script, though.

Re:where is the controversy? (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 5 months ago | (#46711391)

and that story was translated from a yet unwritten story, that was found embedded on an uncooked russian sock.

Re:where is the controversy? (1, Insightful)

gargleblast (683147) | about 5 months ago | (#46711259)

Curious, where does it say the earth is the center of the universe in the Bible?

Oh, probably around Genesis 1:1.

Actually, the whole chapter. It says much about the creation of the earth, and very little about the creation of any other celestial object. In other words, Genesis Chapter 1 is geocentric.

Re:where is the controversy? (0)

Dog-Cow (21281) | about 5 months ago | (#46711483)

That's one of the most retarded statements I've seen on /. in a while. And this is /., so that's saying an awful lot!

Why would Genesis mention any celestial objects other than those visible and understandable to the original recipients of the Bible? Talking about the creation of the planet we live on is a perfectly acceptable thing to do when space flight of any kind would not occur for another 3-4000 years.

It always the Bible, isn't it? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46711137)

"The Bible" says nothing concerning Earth status as center of the Universe, one way or the other.
The idea was popularized with the "Christian" tag in the dark ages, but long before that, it was a Greek thing.

Re:where is the controversy? (1)

idunham (2852899) | about 5 months ago | (#46711265)

May I suggest that you try asking some, or at least enquire where your source is?

Because I happen to have had BJUP science textbooks in school, and I read Ken Ham as well as Gould, and the claim that literalists are geocentrists doesn't sound at all like any of the books I've read.
On the other hand, that claim does sound like a claim I've heard before, which is discussed in a paper by Lindgren (2014) [ssrn.com] .

Actually... (2)

MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) | about 5 months ago | (#46711095)

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

Re:Actually... (1)

buswolley (591500) | about 5 months ago | (#46711105)

I doubt there is substantive evidence that we are the center of our Universe. However, is there any evidence that we are not at the center of the universe? How would one falsify the hypothesis? Also, I was under the impression that the Universe appears the same in all directions we look from earth...

Re:Actually... (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 5 months ago | (#46711213)

You could start with the CMBR.

Re:Actually... (2)

teslar (706653) | about 5 months ago | (#46711361)

It's an ill-posed question since to say that something is at the center of everything requires some sort of absolute position system (a la Aristotle), which is a meaningless concept (an insight that goes at least as far back as Galileo).

Re:Actually... (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | about 5 months ago | (#46711479)

Pretty much. We can see the same distance in any direction. There are long detailed explanations on how the universe appears to be expanding from any given point at any time. I won't even attempt to explain it, as there are plenty of people way more qualified than I am, who can say it better.

Re:Actually... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46711107)

Does it claim the sun revolves around the Earth?

Re:Actually... (1)

Lendrick (314723) | about 5 months ago | (#46711151)

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

Re:Actually... (1)

MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) | about 5 months ago | (#46711173)

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

Re:Actually... (1)

naff89 (716141) | about 5 months ago | (#46711247)

Same way you define the center of anything: the thing around which other things rotate.

Occam's Razor rules out the sheer complexity of any model showing our solar system orbiting any body other than the Sun.

Re:Actually... (2)

Maritz (1829006) | about 5 months ago | (#46711317)

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 evidence.

Re:Actually... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46711365)

Stargate, you need, what was it, 6 points and an origin to open it?

The only case where "earth is the center [of what]" is when you are talking about an origin to a destination, not as a "the universe revolves around the earth" nonsensical crap.

Just like when you operate your GPS, you are the center of the GPS map, the world is not moving around you, you are moving around it.

Mermaids are real! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46711111)

I was on vacation last year and saw a TV documentary about Mermaids were real was on , It was silly but really never let on that it was obviously fiction, a person that was with me was saying how they thought maybe it was real and they had found mermaids were real and we all came from mermaids, so a quick google check confirmed it was a BS TV documentary. What bothered me most was that it never let on it was BS, so I could imagine some people believed this stuff, I guess it was a gag or joke, but I just do not see why they put this stuff on TV to fool people that think it must be real.
http://www.southernfriedscience.com/?p=14946

Re:Mermaids are real! (1)

khallow (566160) | about 5 months ago | (#46711297)

Because good hoaxes are hilarious.

Mulgrew is an airhead (5, Funny)

globaljustin (574257) | about 5 months ago | (#46711115)

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

Re:Mulgrew is an airhead (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46711147)

Trek was, in fact, all about technobabble. The ridiculous lines about trans-reversing the deflector coil and whatnot were often ad-libbed by the crew, who may have been given no more instruction than "technobabble goes here". Had you somehow mistaken Trek for hard science?

Re:Mulgrew is an airhead (1)

Maritz (1829006) | about 5 months ago | (#46711335)

I thought I saw something once that said (TNG at least) actually had techno-babble guys. Like the script writers would stick [technobabble] on the script and some dudes would come along later and get some serious warp-bubble deflector inertial dampening jiggery pokery going on. Might be bullshit though.

Re:Mulgrew is an airhead (4, Informative)

Johann Lau (1040920) | about 5 months ago | (#46711171)

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.

technobabble =! "technobabble" (3, Interesting)

globaljustin (574257) | about 5 months ago | (#46711217)

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

Re:technobabble =! "technobabble" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46711351)

I don't think it was just Mulgrew. The Star Trek Wiki Memory Alpha has many quotes from actors and even the writers not only using the term technobabble, but mocking the filler dialogue. The writers would even just insert Tech have have someone else fill it in later - it wasn't central to the creative process, just an afterthought, no matter how well advised, forced to fit the hole in the dialogue and still consistent with all the made up stuff in Star Trek "science".

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Technobabble

*technobabble* =! technobabble =! "technobabble" (1)

globaljustin (574257) | about 5 months ago | (#46711463)

interesting link...ok...this is going to have to be my last post on "technobabble"...let's untangle this mess

first, is it being used as a pejorative?

that's going to clear up alot of the mess right there...in the context does the speaker mean it as a negative, annoying thing

Mulgrew in her "The Captains" interview was *definitely* using the term as a pejorative...

others, including some from your Memory Alpha link, use it as a general term for any *TV dialogue* that involves scientific or technical language...just a neutral term

2nd, why are they using the term 'technobabble' as pejorative?

here on /. for us techies, we sometimes use 'technobabble' to indicate **obviously fake** technical language that was thrown in as an afterthought to either pander to the audience's need for "authenticity" or to move the plot along...Red Matterfrom JJ Abrams reboot is a good example

To make things confusing, non-techs use the term 'technobabble' as a pejorative regardless of its accuracy or usage in the plot...they do not know the difference at all...they just don't like having to learn strange words or think it's irrelevant to the story or are just kind of dumb and don't get it

my criticism of Mulgrew is that she is the latter...a person who is intellectually incurious & generally ignorant of science who calls any scientific language used in drama "technobabble"

Red Matter link (1)

globaljustin (574257) | about 5 months ago | (#46711467)

sorry messed up the link in my post

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wik... [memory-alpha.org]

if you don't know what it is in reference to Trek count yourself lucky

Re:Mulgrew is an airhead (3, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 5 months ago | (#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.

Re:Mulgrew is an airhead (4, Insightful)

blind monkey 3 (773904) | about 5 months ago | (#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.

Re:Mulgrew is an airhead (3, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 5 months ago | (#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.

Re:Mulgrew is an airhead (4, Insightful)

nobuddy (952985) | about 5 months ago | (#46711303)

That is technically three things.

Re:Mulgrew is an airhead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46711369)

I had no problem with her as the captain. I had a problem with her CHARACTER as the captain; she was a jerk and stubborn. The writing of the show was often not that good. Trek was being stretched too thin and they put out too much of it so even if it was better they'd burn people out on it; which they essentially did. So now we have the retard-boot movies.

Seven of nine was too annoying to get so much attention; plus it showed what they thought of the audience by over using her. I was upset with the Native American crap. At least classic trek didn't make Sulu an inscrutable ninja just because he was Asian, or push Russian or Scottish stuff (drunks?) -- hell, they didn't even fake Scottish properly - because that stuff doesn't matter for the whole purpose of doing it in the 1st place. Religion was avoided as if it didn't exist (and it probably didn't but they were unable to push that one without tons of trouble, even today) the place for it was Aliens... like most issues, the aliens served to illustrate aspects of human flaws or issues; with the evolved humans maturely rising above it by the end of the episode.

Re:Mulgrew is an airhead (1)

blind monkey 3 (773904) | about 5 months ago | (#46711477)

Leaving the jocularity aside, the story lines were mediocre at best and seven of nine (imo) was a tacit acknowledgement of the shortcomings hence resorting to the sex sells angle. Stunning lady. A body well suited for the task.

Re:Mulgrew is an airhead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46711461)

Janeway and Seven of Nine were the worst part of the show.

p.s. Seven had a nice rack, but Kes was by far the most attractive female on the show.

Re:Mulgrew is an airhead (2)

rusty0101 (565565) | about 5 months ago | (#46711183)

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 perspective, may very well have been presented as "we know that scientist before Galileo held this view of the cosmos, present the content as if the show were being staged at that time." Then simply edit it to make it appear that the narration presents the material as a current perspective rather than a historical perspective.

From this, the Ben Stine movie on creation science, and other shows discussed earlier, and I suspect for years into the future, it's obvious to me that the people behind these programs may wish to present themselves as solid fundamental Christians who are simply presenting their perspective of the universe to the world, but either they, or people working on their behalf have no problem misrepresenting that content to people they are trying to get to provide evidence in support of their views. Being critical of the people providing voice-over narration, or content that misrepresents their own views, is at least as short sighted.

Re:Mulgrew is an airhead (3, Insightful)

Johann Lau (1040920) | about 5 months ago | (#46711277)

Script: "People used to believe that Earth is at the center of the universe. According to them, god made it so."

Final Cut: "Earth is at the center of the universe. God made it so."

Seems very easy, especially if you get to write the script from which they read.

Re:Mulgrew is an airhead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46711269)

to her it was all just "technobabble" which angers me

Because you thought it was real science?

Re:Mulgrew is an airhead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46711327)

she was clearly just doing Trek purely as a 'gig' for a paycheck...

They kind of all were, especially in the beginning. Patrick Stewart didn't even expect the thing to take off at all. If you're concerned with the attitudes of the actors in the interviews after it all... god, you're naive.

Re:Mulgrew is an airhead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46711349)

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

Are you sure she narrated the whole film? I heard Mulgrew only narrated the trailer, and it was edited to be more misleading than it read. Personally I've had my quotes twisted by reputable local (Toronto) new radio outlets, I can only imagine what a deluded geo-centrist would do.

I tend to agree with the rest of your post though.

Re:Mulgrew is an airhead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46711401)

Voyager IS mostly techno-babble though.

Re:Mulgrew is an airhead (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 5 months ago | (#46711489)

i just think it's unprofessional and lazy...her performance in Orange is the New Black is equally as bad, IMHO...very perfunctory

If you hated her in Star Trek and Orange is the New Black, you'll love her in NTSF:SD:SUV
It's a show designed to make bad, unprofessional, and lazy acting really shine

Give it a try. If you find yourself unsatisfied... well, that may have been the point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbCWYm7B_B4&t=7s [youtube.com]

I Thought I Was The Center (1)

zenlessyank (748553) | about 5 months ago | (#46711129)

Of The Universe. Guess I will be getting sued also.

Dear Dice.... (0, Offtopic)

eWarz (610883) | about 5 months ago | (#46711143)

As somebody who initially HATED your beta and your purchase of Slashdot (wasn't kidding about my comments disappearing early on. You guys should PROBABLY look into that one) I'll say that the beta has come a long way, and I like it. I've been trolling slashdot far longer than my uid claims ( i was googling google and impressing the girls since the 90s son!...before which, the true geeks knew that altavista and hotbot were the hot mess :P) and i'm genuinely impresssed by the beta. Keep up the good work.

I believe Kate (4, Interesting)

frovingslosh (582462) | about 5 months ago | (#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?

Re:I believe Kate (2)

gnoshi (314933) | about 5 months ago | (#46711237)

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 them saying "No-one has ever proven than 6 million jews were killed in the holocaust".
That's a pretty extreme example, but for something like this it would be relatively easy to make things seem innocuous.

Note: Robert Sungenis [wikipedia.org] , who funded the film, has this view about the holocaust [wikipedia.org] .

Re:I believe Kate (1)

rahvin112 (446269) | about 5 months ago | (#46711381)

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 to completely change the main character.

This could have just as easily happened to Kate where she went in and read several hours of script and then in editing the sentences, their order and possibly even parts of phrases were re-cut into different orders completely changing the meaning. This is very easy to do with modern equipment and with a knowledge of the re-cutting that will take place you can even get the actor's tone, phrasing and structure to match so that's its not apparent that it's been re-cut to the lay listener.

Or Kate could just be an idiot and didn't pay attention to what she was reading. Only Kate and film crew actually know. If she sues we'll probably get to find out.

If you keep claiming there is no Starfleet ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46711363)

If you keep claiming there is no Starfleet ...

better stay out of Buzz Aldrin's way!

Everything is at the center of the universe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46711177)

At one time (i.e. the Big Bang) everything was essentially in the same spot, or "the center of the universe" and expended from there. Since the universe is infinite in size, any perceived change of our position at the center of the universe since then is so tiny that it can be ignored as a rounding error. :p

Re:Everything is at the center of the universe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46711481)

How can the universe possibly be of an infinite size? Wouldn't that imply that there possibly could not have been an initial inflation (Which might sound asinine)? Since this would imply that a steadily growing space is always limited and calculable? But then, aren't there infinities that considerably vary in durations too, mathematically seen and time-wise? Infinite space and time are such a treat. ;} Later

Geocentrism does not necessarily imply (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46711211)

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 term "geocentrism" is reasonable.

I'm basing this partly by the appearance, in the linked clip, multiple times of a creationist (who I've met personally) who I know does not hold to the old "earth is the exact centre" view, but who has written some papers with evidence (red-shift patterns, I think - I'm not a cosmologist myself though) that the Solar System may be *near* the centre of the mass in the universe.

Re:Geocentrism does not necessarily imply (1)

Barsteward (969998) | about 5 months ago | (#46711451)

Sounds like you are a believer....

They fooled Dr. George Ellis?? (1)

torsmo (1301691) | about 5 months ago | (#46711215)

He is among the top scientists in cosmology. That must have taken some doing....or perhaps they were all just plain lied to.

Hmmmm (1)

chuckugly (2030942) | about 5 months ago | (#46711219)

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?

Re:Hmmmm (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46711281)

Nonsense! I'm the center of the [observable] universe. That's not arbitrary at all!

Re:Hmmmm (1)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | about 5 months ago | (#46711339)

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.

Re:Hmmmm (1)

nbritton (823086) | about 5 months ago | (#46711423)

There is no center, it's not like there was a big bang that had a finite starting point that could be located. The universe just instantaneously expanded, somewhat like that of points on a rubber band that gets stretched. It's honestly all relative at this point.

To be fair to the marks... (0)

ReekRend (843787) | about 5 months ago | (#46711329)

...the liberal [comedy] media (talk shows, as well as pure entertainment like Ali G) tricks people into appearing in things all the time, so apparently it's not that hard. I don't personally blame people for being too trusting, it just reflects how honest they are themselves.

But it is! (5, Funny)

AndyCanfield (700565) | about 5 months ago | (#46711343)

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...

Too damned funny (1)

DogSqueeze (3592869) | about 5 months ago | (#46711385)

I really like Kate a lot.. she's an amazing actor but the irony of her being tricked into this role is too much! I can't help but laugh.. if it happened to Patrick Stewart I would feel the same way. But the tone of the comments in this thread is a bit depressing... everybody seems to miss the humor in this horrid travesty :)

The centre of the visible universe (5, Funny)

flyingfsck (986395) | about 5 months ago | (#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.

So the ether theory is back on the table? (1)

tlambert (566799) | about 5 months ago | (#46711485)

So the ether theory is back on the table?

Clearly, if the Earth is in fact the center of the universe, any repeat of the Michelson–Morley experiment would fail to detect a drift through the ether, since the Ether is in the same inertial reference frame as the Earth.

So, it's possible that there's ether, and the assumptions about Earth *not* being the center of the universe are what's responsible for the negative result, we just interpreted it incorrectly.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>