If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   Former starship captain narrates junk science movie bankrolled by notorious anti-semite. WTF IS THIS SH*T?   (rawstory.com) divider line 335
    More: Stupid, Star Trek, Earth, Kate Mulgrew, Lawrence Krauss, Michio Kaku, captain, promotions  
•       •       •

21999 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Apr 2014 at 6:16 PM (29 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



335 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-08 12:19:59 AM  

ciberido: Everyone knows that the Earth was spat out of a giant 3D printer, anyway.


You were spat out of a 3D printer.  You called her mom.
 
2014-04-08 12:22:36 AM  
oi59.tinypic.com
 
2014-04-08 12:24:18 AM  

Gecko Gingrich: A platter, oriented on a parallel plane to that of the moon, would also cast a circular shadow on the moon.


That works if the moon is overhead during the lunar eclipse.  But we also cast a circular shadow on the moon if the moon is way over near the east or west horizon during the eclipse.
 
2014-04-08 12:27:27 AM  
"I SAID... What do Jews need with a starship?"

www.blastr.com
 
2014-04-08 12:33:39 AM  
There is no center to the universe because there is no outer boundry to the universe.  The Earth orbits the Sun, the Sun orbits the Galactic Core, and our Milky Way is dancing with the other galaxies through the void.

/Came for Remo Williams reference
//Leaving satisfied
 
2014-04-08 12:54:43 AM  
Now will you believe it is not about sexism when I say Janeway was the worst Star Trek captain?
 
2014-04-08 01:02:19 AM  

fusillade762: All I heard her say is "Everything we know about the universe is wrong". Considering about half the talking heads there are talking about dark matter and NOT geocentrism I think it's possible she wasn't aware of the nature of what she signed up for. I certainly think Michio Kaku can't be happy with having his position misrepresented.

Maybe they all thought it was a parody move? Or maybe it IS a parody movie?


Girl has to make papers, you know OITNB don't pay shiat.
 
2014-04-08 01:05:04 AM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Geo-centrists might actually be dumber than Creationists.

At least with creationism, it's all about interpreting (well ignoring actually) evidence of the past.

To see that the the planets orbit about the Sun, all you have to do is go outside and farking LOOK!


Yeah, it's not that simple.
 
2014-04-08 01:13:27 AM  
Oh god damn, and NOW, FINALLY, I'm vindicated for my hate of ST:V.

WIN!
 
2014-04-08 01:37:18 AM  

Superjew: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Astorix: Her dog whine voice is the main reason I refused to watch Voyager.

Agreed. And it isn't like she's a good actor with a grating voice. She's terrible. It is incredible that anyone ever gave her a role in anything.

We could have had Susan Gibney.  She was on the short list until Mulgrew up and Melisandre'd her way into the captain's chair.  :(

[img2.wikia.nocookie.net image 744x744]



Could've had Genevieve Bujold. The scene I've seen was a complete disaster, but if she had put any effort into it she could have made a much stronger Janeway.
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-04-08 02:15:03 AM  
Morgan Freeman must be livid.
 
2014-04-08 02:36:23 AM  
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-04-08 04:08:44 AM  

foxy_canuck: ciberido: foxy_canuck: fusillade762: All I heard her say is "Everything we know about the universe is wrong". Considering about half the talking heads there are talking about dark matter and NOT geocentrism I think it's possible she wasn't aware of the nature of what she signed up for. I certainly think Michio Kaku can't be happy with having his position misrepresented.

Maybe they all thought it was a parody move? Or maybe it IS a parody movie?

Or quite likely the scientists suffered the same fate as David Albert in What the Bleep do we Know?  Interview is selectively edited and a scientist who thinks they are doing a documentary ends up as a figure endorsing pseudoscientific bunk.

Without seeing the film, I can sort of see where they appear to be going.  Not geocentrism in the classical sense, but rather our solar system is in the middle.  To a lay person, there is a good chunk of cosmological evidence that could be interpreted that way.  The consistent red-shift of almost everything, the fact that any direction you look is basically towards the big bang... stuff like that.  It's hard for someone who's not a high level expert who can understand at least some of the math to really get that stuff.

Is it really that hard to get the basic concept?  We're not in the center of the universe in roughly the same way we're not on the center of the world.  The world is actually (the surface of) a big round ball, so every point in the world has equal claim to being the "center" of a round surface that is finite but unbounded.  The universe works the same way  --- every point in it has equal claim to be being at the "center" of a surface that is likewise finite but unbounded, like the skin of an orange.

Sure, it's on a higher dimension than the few we intuitively experience, and the math is tricky, but the basic concept is quite elementary.

And that's before you even get to the "it's like we're on a balloon that is getting blown up so every point seems to be receding from ...


Fair enough.
 
2014-04-08 07:56:11 AM  
No time cube? Disapointed.

Till You KNOW 4 Simultaneous Days
Rotate In Same 24 Hours Of Earth
You Don't Deserve To Live On Earth
 
2014-04-08 07:58:32 AM  
CTRL-F "barycenter "

good. at least someone knows real stuff.
 
2014-04-08 08:20:46 AM  
Junk science?  How about NOT science.

Not surprised this is the only work Kate Mulgrew could get.  Star Trek Voyager sucked, the only good thing in that series was Jeri Ryan.


img.fark.net
 
2014-04-08 08:38:26 AM  

Jorn the Younger: There is no center to the universe because there is no outer boundry to the universe.  The Earth orbits the Sun, the Sun orbits the Galactic Core, and our Milky Way is dancing with the other galaxies through the void.

/Came for Remo Williams reference
//Leaving satisfied


THIS just in !!!!!!

When you are standing (or sitting for that matter) on a ROTATING object, the world APPEARS to revolve around you. It's called an optical illusion and it is created by combining your singular perspective with the rotation.
 
2014-04-08 08:39:38 AM  

Strik3r: Jorn the Younger: There is no center to the universe because there is no outer boundry to the universe.  The Earth orbits the Sun, the Sun orbits the Galactic Core, and our Milky Way is dancing with the other galaxies through the void.

/Came for Remo Williams reference
//Leaving satisfied

THIS just in !!!!!!

When you are standing (or sitting for that matter) on a ROTATING object, the world eveything not on the rotating object APPEARS to revolve around you. It's called an optical illusion and it is created by combining your singular perspective with the rotation.


FTFM
 
2014-04-08 09:07:57 AM  

DjangoStonereaver: She's got to be just picking up a cheque.


I am surprised that someone did not say that before you.  Folks, she is an actress.  Someone has her say things in front of a camera and/or microphone and pays her.   That is her occupation.
 
2014-04-08 09:14:09 AM  

SnakeLee: "About one in four believe in geocentrism, which places the Earth at the center of the universe and the sun, planets, and stars revolving around it."

WTF??


It was not a great poll maybe one third didn't understand the question and and others just don't do well on tests.
 
2014-04-08 09:22:47 AM  

FlashHarry: optikeye: I thought it was well known she's a very conservative in her beliefs.

conservative is one thing. batshiat crazy is another.


wich is somewhat strange bedfellows since she is married to a small scale (think county level) Democrat Politician.
 
2014-04-08 12:59:22 PM  

Gecko Gingrich: Felgraf: "Wait, we cast a circular shadow on the moon, when the sun is behind us.

A platter, oriented on a parallel plane to that of the moon, would also cast a circular shadow on the moon.


Yes, but the moon and the sun aren't always on the same plane.
 
2014-04-08 02:43:32 PM  

fusillade762: I certainly think Michio Kaku can't be happy with having his position misrepresented.


In Phil Plait's article, he quotes Lawrence Krauss as saying that he didn't do anything for this movie, but they used out-of-context quotes. Perhaps Kaku was used the same way.

Not a huge fan of Kaku, who seems to enjoy feeding quantum nonsense to the woo-woo crowd. But I can't see him saying anything positive about Geocentrism in context.
 
2014-04-08 02:56:20 PM  

tennyson: In Phil Plait's article, he quotes Lawrence Krauss as saying that he didn't do anything for this movie, but they used out-of-context quotes. Perhaps Kaku was used the same way.


Not the first movie in which physicists would be enraged over being quoted out of context...

/and I agree, Kaku is like a milder Deepak Chopra
 
2014-04-08 03:26:45 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron: PunGent: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: Geocentrism is still a thing people believe? That's off the potato scale level derp.

On the plus side, it made sextants work...

No, really.

If geocentrism made sextants work, navigators could have used the planets as references. The reason they used stars is because stars are so distant that the difference between the two models (parallax error) is too small to make a difference.


Eh, stars aside, my understanding of the sextant is that it's based on the idea that the sun goes around the earth, ie, its apparent motion.

No biggie.
 
2014-04-08 04:01:56 PM  
common sense is an oxymoron:

If geocentrism made sextants work, navigators could have used the planets as references. The reason they used stars is because stars are so distant that the difference between the two models (parallax error) is too small to make a difference.

My sextant works just fine with planets.  It just takes a bit more data.  I give you the Nautical Almanac:

upload.wikimedia.org

So, yeah... the stars are simpler.  The spherical math required to reduce the sights does assume heliocentrism, so...

PunGent:
Eh, stars aside, my understanding of the sextant is that it's based on the idea that the sun goes around the earth, ie, its apparent motion.

No
 
2014-04-08 04:05:28 PM  
sinanju:  So, yeah... the stars are simpler.  The spherical math required to reduce the sights does assume heliocentrism, so...

PunGent:
Eh, stars aside, my understanding of the sextant is that it's based on the idea that the sun goes around the earth, ie, its apparent motion.

No


I should be more complete.  Those tables are calculated for an observer standing somewhere on earth.  However, It assumes a heliocentric model.
 
2014-04-08 05:02:03 PM  
"I understand there has been some controversy about my participation in a documentary called THE PRINCIPLE. Let me assure everyone that I completely agree with the eminent physicist Lawrence Krauss, who was himself misrepresented in the film, and who has written a succinct rebuttal in SLATE. I am not a geocentrist, nor am I in any way a proponent of geocentrism. More importantly, I do not subscribe to anything Robert Sungenis has written regarding science and history and, had I known of his involvement, would most certainly have avoided this documentary. I was a voice for hire, and a misinformed one, at that. I apologize for any confusion that my voice on this trailer may have caused. Kate Mulgrew" Link
 
2014-04-08 05:12:55 PM  

Felgraf: Yes, but the moon and the sun aren't always on the same plane.


Sure, we know that *now*. I was simply countering the, "Well duh! Of course the Earth is round! I mean just look at the shadow on the Moon!"
 
2014-04-08 05:19:04 PM  

Mad_Radhu: We proved this shiat wrong hundreds of years ago. There is no point in arguing about it anymore.

[31.media.tumblr.com image 500x206]


Flat earthers were proved wrong by math 1000s of years ago (by simple geometry) and they still persist.

As I see it the Hierarchy of stupid is this:

          GW Denier
         Anti-vax
      YE Creationists
    Geocenterists
FLAT EARTHERS
 
2014-04-08 06:00:59 PM  

onzmadi: Mad_Radhu: We proved this shiat wrong hundreds of years ago. There is no point in arguing about it anymore.

[31.media.tumblr.com image 500x206]

Flat earthers were proved wrong by math 1000s of years ago (by simple geometry) and they still persist.


Yeah.  The astrolabe dates back to 150 BC and immediately runs into the problem of a spherical earth.  It's solved with the ability to swap tympans for different latitudes.  Aristotle acknowledged a spherical earth a couple hundred years before that.
 
2014-04-08 08:46:17 PM  
LemSkroob:

Its very easy to disprove. you dont even need actual "proof" (as in direct evidence or real data)

All that shiat that we put into space has to be programmed. The programming is done by scientists and engineers. Scientists and engineers believe the sun is at the center and the earth rotates around it. That programming is based on equations that assume that belief.

Therefore, if the stuff in the sky actually works (like, your DirectTV package that you watch the 700 club on), then the earth must revolve around the sun.


Good deductive reasoning.  Nice.
 
2014-04-08 09:19:52 PM  

falkone32: No, they're correct. The word you were expecting is "rotate".  The Earth "revolves" around the Sun while it "rotates" around its own axis. Hypercorrection strikes again..


More like, Fox Noise hyperpoliticalcorrectness strickes again.
 
2014-04-08 09:37:36 PM  
LOL, people still arguing there is no difference between "rovolve," "rotate" and "orbit." This is why morons on comment boards still insist that "should of," "would of," and "could of" is acceptable while simultaneously getting butt hurt at immigrants for not speaking The Queens English.

You're farking mental illness revolves around an inordinate sense of ego fueled by a rotating news cycle of Fox Noise echo chamber bullshiat orbiting a gaseous blob of methane.

Happy now?
 
2014-04-08 10:40:53 PM  

Degenz: LOL, people still arguing there is no difference between "rovolve," "rotate" and "orbit." This is why morons on comment boards still insist that "should of," "would of," and "could of" is acceptable while simultaneously getting butt hurt at immigrants for not speaking The Queens English.

You're farking mental illness revolves around an inordinate sense of ego fueled by a rotating news cycle of Fox Noise echo chamber bullshiat orbiting a gaseous blob of methane.

Happy now?


I can't let this be the last post.

"REvolve"
"ARE acceptable" (X, Y, and Z ARE, not IS)
"YOUR"
 
Displayed 35 of 335 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report