Was Copernicus Wrong? Is Our Solar System the Center of the Universe?

[numbersix]

This looks like a shill for the "intelligent design" crowd.

Astute observation phil. I did some digging and the documentary is indeed made by a Christian and while he interviews everyone including atheists, he is also giving airtime to Christians.
FWIW, I am not a Christian exactly, but I am okay with his interviewing Christians because an open minded discussion should include all sides, even if I don't agree with all of their conclusions.
Nevertheless, the science is real and has been confirmed by the scientific community. What conclusions can be drawn is up for grabs, but to the more open minded of us, it does hint that there may be more to our existence than was previously believed, especially by the materialist mindset.

 

[brian64]

It seems worthy to question whether reductionist materialism has been a help or hindrance to our scientific imagination. I definitely think it's a hindrance.

+1
@Tom: Good sleuthing. I know nothing about the documentary. It's important not to confuse it with the actual science involved.
One of the greatest misconceptions many people have is that essentially all credible, credentialed, experienced scientists agree on the major tenets of their respective fields. This is simply not true. Many things that are commonly presented to the general public as established scientific facts are in reality just theories that are not fully supported by all of the known facts, and are not agreed upon by all credible scientists...only by those who are pushing the established agenda.

 

[warren]

brian64: Your considered response could be affixed to so many threads. Very well said!

 

[drwatson]

I love when we start using REALLY big words! 8O

 

[puffdoggie]

Every Labrador Retriever is the center of it's own universe. We have two. Seeing universes collide can be quite comical. Refute that. :rofl:

 

[warren]

puffdoggie: I have but one who is now my constant companion. They never grow up and are always good for a laugh. And you are entirely correct: "It's all about the dog!"

 

[yaddy306]

One of the greatest misconceptions many people have is that essentially all credible, credentialed, experienced scientists agree on the major tenets of their respective fields. This is simply not true. Many things that are commonly presented to the general public as established scientific facts are in reality just theories that are not fully supported by all of the known facts, and are not agreed upon by all credible scientists...only by those who are pushing the established agenda.

Brian64, I have quite a few problems with what you posted.
First, you imply that "mainstream" scientists are somehow in cahoots to push some kind of agenda. While there may be some funding mechanisms that encourage certain results, a scientist gets very little reward for confirming the results of other scientists; a well conducted study that explodes a well-accepted view is much more likely to attract fame, further research dollars and a flurry of research by others.
Second, you don't seem to understand what a scientific theory is, based on your phrase "just a theory". Scientific theories are not simply conjecture or wild-ass guesses; they are testable, reliable and well established explanations of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast array of evidence. For example, the atomic theory of matter and germ theory are not just "possible explanations" of nature, they are much much more than that.
Third, scientists are often not the best communicators. Their work is oftentimes highly technical in nature and difficult to understand. Non-specialists gain their knowledge not from the original scientific article, but from a newspaper article, TV news bite, or Internet article. These are all written by members of the Media, which simplifies, condenses, and sensationalizes scientific papers for the purpose of selling magazines, newspapers, etc. So if a medical researcher investigating a cancer drug has some success in mediating a water channel molecule in t-cells, and concludes that more studies need to be done but not to extrapolate from in vitro to in vivo, the newspaper headline will read "Cure For Cancer Found!". Or "Oatbran Lowers Cholesterol!". The media often oversimplifies or exaggerates the study, or twists the scientist's words for their own purposes. Don't blame the scientist: blame the messenger.
I'm not a cosmologist, and am not really interested in it, but my recollection is that in the last 30 years scientists have vacillated from "the universe is static" to "the universe is expanding but slowing down" to "the universe is accelerating in growth". I could be wrong, but I don't think there is an "established agenda" that is being "pushed" by scientists in this field.

 

[warren]

Scientists, and there are many, who subsist on government grants are very much aware of from whom their salaries come, how the equipment is funded, and that those moneys are very dependent on arousing the public so that the politicians will keep the moneys flowing.
This is not an indictment on all or, indeed, any research scientist. It is only pragmatic for people to look after the welfare of themselves and their families. Also, the research is important in and of itself and should have a level of public funding as the public will generally be the beneficiaries of the research.
The media plays a part in the "spins" as do the Universities pushing for increased funding.
This is, as so much in life is, a multifaceted problem and not easy to grasp. There are as many slip-shod scientists as there are slip shod auto mechanics or other incompetents in all levels of society. A theory is based on accepted ideas and facts, not necessarily proved. A theorem, by accepted definition, is a bit closer to fact. But, neither theories or theorems can be said to be absolutes. They are simply possible answers to questions which are usually based accepted data and knowledge. As new facts or data is uncovered theories must evolve. If the new "facts" or "findings" are skewed or altered to support a theory then . . . then, the big problems arise and scientists loose creditability. And the root of such behavior is most usually, not always as sometimes gaining or protecting a reputation is at stake, money.
Or, have my many years made me too cynical.

 

[numbersix]

First, you imply that "mainstream" scientists are somehow in cahoots to push some kind of agenda.

I cannot speak for Brian, but there are scientists who actually make this claim. I will use climate change as an example. Mind you, I believe the climate is changing, I am just not convinced it's due to humans.
My reasons are that the planets in our solar system are undergoing big changes as well. And there are stories like these (below) that make me question the man-made theory:
A BBC report on the sun’s dimming: “Paradoxically, the decline in sunlight may mean that global warming is a far greater threat to society than previously thought.” bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_prog_summary.shtml
“The amount of cosmic rays reaching Earth is largely controlled by the Sun, and many solar scientists believe the star’s indirect influence on Earth’s global climate has been underestimated.” news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2333133.stm
There's plenty of scientists who don't go along with the official story, but some have admitted that if they do not go along, they may lose tenure or funding. This hints at an agenda.
Here's some examples:

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

And then there's this guy:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2630958/I-victimised-challenging-zealots-says-Professor-Poison-plots-battle-neuter-climate-change-critics.html

"He said many scientists with dissenting views were having their research rejected by the editors of scientific journals, and young scientists were censoring their work out of fear for their careers."

 

[brian64]

@ Warren and Tom: +1...well said. IMO, there is no greater example of agenda driven, junk science being peddled by the establishment as settled absolute fact than "anthropogenic global warming".
@Yaddy: Also well said, but we will just have to agree to disagree. I only wish I could believe there is a high level of integrity in "mainstream science". Unfortunately, based on so many things that I have read and heard over the years, I am convinced that much of it is most definitely agenda driven, rising to a very high level of corruption in many cases.

 

[cortezattic]

brian64 +1
@Thomas,

is the earth at the center of the big bang? It seems unlikely.

As I understand it, the "center" of the Big Bang is everywhere.
Thanks, SIX, for an interesting post. It's most interesting that the Planck measurements confirm the WMAP observations.
With no explanation for the dark matter and energy that constitutes ~96% of the observable universe, it doesn't surprise me

that there are serious gaps in our understanding. Our theories about the cosmic microwave background, and how to properly

observe it, obviously need some revision.

 

[sablebrush52]

Fun stuff! Coming from a family of scientists, one of them quite eminent in the field of lunar geology, I grew up around lively discussion and debate around scientific theories, claims, and agendas. The idea that the scientific community is a monolith is bunk, evident by the existence of wide debate. Agendas do exist, whether to score points to receive money for research, or to gain status as an outside contrarian by publicly decrying such practices, or any of a thousand different variations. Having an agenda is not synonymous with evil intent. Everyone has agendas. Skepticism is healthy. But willful rejection of proven data because it doesn't fit one's preconceptions isn't something that I personally find admirable. YMMV