Kate Mulgrew Speaks Out Against Geocentrism Film

A new movie trailer for The Principle, an upcoming documentary film focusing on geocentrism -- the cosmological philosophy which places Earth at the center of the known universe -- will feature Star Trek: Voyager actress Kate Mulgrew as narrator.

"Everything we think we know about our universe is wrong!", proclaims Mulgrew in the opening moments of the trailer, a statement which sparked a number of heated discussions among fans surprised to see the Trek veteran taking part in a feature promoting such a highly controversial topic.


 
The film's official site's description describes "astonishing new discoveries of Earth-oriented alignments" which are to be featured in the movie:

“The Principle”, destined to become one of the most controversial films of our time, brings before the public eye astonishing results from recent large-scale surveys of our universe: surveys which disclose unexpected evidence of a preferred direction in the cosmos, aligned with our supposedly insignificant Earth.

Mulgrew spoke out today about her involvement in the film, calling herself a "misinformed" participant cast simply as a "voice for hire."

mulgrew"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."

Bottom line: nobody panic. Captain Janeway doesn't really believe that modern science is all wrong... she just booked the wrong gig. While her overall role in the film is yet to be determined, remember that when it comes to voiceover work, participants can often have no idea of the overall tone or purpose of a production outside of their own area of participation.

div_spacer

We know that the debate regarding religion and science can be a contentious one, so please remember to be respectful of other posters in the comments below.

Sources: Kate Mulgrew Official Facebook Page; SlateThe Principle

  • hypnotoad72

    Wow. Intentional deception for the sake of profit is the ugliest, most hurtful thing one could do to another.

  • MJ

    Sheesh, some of these actors are just so dumb and dense sometimes. I would almost hope she is lying, as that way she wouldn’t come across like a typical uneducated Hollywood actor-moron.

    • bbock

      To be fair, the ONLY thing we know she said was that sentence. And given our knowledge of the universe today compared to 400 years ago, who is to say 400 years from now we won’t look at what we knew in 2014 and wonder why we were so ignorant. It’s not unreasonable to say that what we think we know is wrong. It is after all, just our CURRENT understanding. I’m not defending this asinine documentary or anything about it. I’m just saying that blaming an actress for ONE ambiguous sentence isn’t right. We’ll know more when someone watches it and tells us what the rest of her script said. They also made Kaku and Krauss look like they were onboard. Krauss has been emphatic that he is not. Kaku hasn’t said yet, but if you listen to what he said in the trailer, it doesn’t seem connected tot he thesis. So they maybe boosting the creationists point of view with that of credible scientists and with the reputation for an affinity to science that most Star Trek actors are assumed to have. It’s quite possible they were all used at no fault of their own.

      • MJ

        OK, I do agree that I was a bit fast on judgement here. But let’s see what else she says when more of this is released, OK? Then we can make a full assessment.

  • MJ

    “remember that when it comes to voiceover work, participants can often have no idea of the overall tone or purpose of a production outside of their own area of participation.”

    Yea, but when you say stuff like, “everything we think we know about our universe is wrong,” some light bulb should go off in a normally educated person’s brain that perhaps you want to check into this voice over gig just a bit more???

    • whbinder

      On general hyperbole? Not really. Advertising is all about vague super statements like that. “This weeks’ episode of Parks and Rec will change everything, forever!”

      If instead. the script said “Everything you know about the idea that Earth orbits the sun is wrong. And in fact The Earth is the center of the Universe.” well, then… sure I’d have pause.

      • MJ

        We’ll see when we get more info. I’m betting on dumb actor turns a blind eye and cashes check and then makes excuses when controversy comes up.

  • scarecroe

    So glad to hear this was a misunderstanding.

  • http://www.scream-movie.net/ Charles Petrosky

    Because Star Trek Voyager was known for it’s highly accurate portrayal of science?

    • SpaceCadet

      Hahaha! I love it!

    • Chris915

      In fact, Neil deGrasse Tyson applauds them for at least attempting to portray real physics… and he went on to categorize Star Wars as fantasy, lol.

      I’d point to the video, but it must’ve gotten taken down, it was a Voyager bonus feature.

  • Jonathan

    hmm I didn’t know about this documentary but I did hear someone talking about some science saying that the earth is in the center of the universe, like if you took out dark matter. Obviously, the earth rotates around the sun. As for what is at the center of the universe, who the heck knows?

    • bbock

      Well, we can’t really SEE the entirety of the universe from our vantage point. But we do know that we are not the center of our solar system or of our galaxy. And how likely is it that we are the only life in the universe? It just stretches believability that our planet would be the only one in the universe capable of supporting life. Assuming one takes a Biblical stand point on this, then why would God create the rest of the universe? What would be the point of that if we are the pinnacle of His creation. Even in their realm it makes no sense.

      • whbinder

        Treading “very” carefully hear as we’re dipping into religion.

        There are some contention points between actual Biblical things and science. but there are far far far more things that a small percentage of religious people get upset about that they just sort of added later on. A lot of things that people claim “The Bible” says, it really doesn’t.

        It’s like being upset that something is anti-Star Wars because it contradicts something mentioned in a fanzine somewhere.

        I try to be respectful of all beliefs, even people who make up their own personalized versions of Christianity, but I am able to distinguish those folks from the rest of that group.

        IDIC

        • Chris915

          I only respect beliefs that merit respect.

          As Seth Andrews said, “Your belief doesn’t deserve respect just because you hold it.”

          To me, there are too many logical and factual contradictions, etc. in most religions, especially those involving a deity.

          • James

            Star Trek has always been anti-religion and pro-science. Roddenberry held deep seated humanist views and certainly had no respect for religious belief.

            “I condemn the effort to take away the power of rational decision, to drain people of their free will — and a hell of a lot of money in the bargain. Religions vary in their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all. For most people, religion is nothing more than a substitute for a malfunctioning brain.” (Gene Roddenberry)

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RviMdf7gng4

          • Chris915

            I know, I’ve read many quotes by him and seen him speak in the Roddenberry Tribute on the S5 blu-ray, I think that’s the one with the tribute on it.

            The title of the video seems kind of sensationalized… since his unsettling feeling could be applied to religion in general.

          • MJ

            Then how do you explain Kirk saying in one of TOS episodes, regarding God:

            “We find the one sufficient!”

            Based on this, it sounds like a lot of people in the Federation believe in one unifying God/creator.

            And whenever we hear contradictions like this in later Trek series to TOS Trek series, TOS Trek is always the gold standard which rules, not the lesser, but well meaning, follow-up series in the 80′s an 90′s.

            And Rodenberry was talking about organized religion, not a personal belief by an individual in God.

          • James

            I think you refer to a quote from ‘Who Mourns For Adonais’.

            “mankind has no need for Gods. We find the one quite adequate.”

            This implies that monotheist views are common in the Federation and so I would agree with your post. In general, religion, superstition and mystical thinking are not part of the future imagined by Roddenberry. I actually quite like the ending of Star Trek V even though its a bit cheesy.

            McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?

            Kirk: Maybe he’s not out there, Bones. Maybe he’s right here.

            [points to his heart]

            Kirk: Human heart.

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

    • Jerry Ross

      Every place in the universe is the center of the universe from its perspective. This is because space itself is expanding in all directions simultaneously, so from any point everything else appears to be expanding out from that point. Also everything we can see is limited by the speed of light, which is uniform, so every planet’s observable universe spreads out 46 billion light years equally in every direction with them in the exact center. So yes, in a way we are at the center of the universe, but then again absolutely everything else is too. Bottom line, our concepts of “center” don’t really apply to the universe as a whole, which doesn’t have any fixed point of reference as space itself is endlessly expanding. But in every case where we are using larger structure of which we are a part of to give us some point of reference (the solar system, the milky way galaxy, the local group, and the virgo supercluster) we are most defiantly not at the center of that reference point.

      On the other hand, Teach the Controversy!

      image credit: http://controversy.wearscience.com

      • Chris915

        Erm… no.

        Geocentrism posits that everything revolves around the Earth, including our Sun, which we can demonstrably show to be false…

        The universe does not orbit our planet nor does our Sun…

        I say the center of the universe is wherever the big bang occurred… since everything expands out from that point, that’s the center of the universe.

        Everything fits into 2 categories, that which is evidently true and that which is evidently not true… and that which is evidently not true, does not yet merit serious consideration and Geocentrism falls into the evidently not true category.

        • Jerry Ross

          Sooooo you didn’t get that last part was sarcastic I take it.

          Also, this “I say the center of the universe is wherever the big bang occurred…
          since everything expands out from that point, that’s the center of the
          universe.” simply doesn’t make sense in terms of a 3 dimensionally expanding spacetime, as it assumes a fixed reference point that doesn’t exist. Every point in the universe was that center point at one time, and every point in the universe has expanded out from that center point exactly as much as every other, and from that point’s perspective everything expanded out from itself, which is true from every single point’s perspective.

          Imagine two ants walking on the surface perfectly spherical balloon as it is being blown up, with the whole of 4D spacetime being represented by the expanding surface of that balloon. Where could those ants stand that would be the “center” of the surface of the balloon? It’s not possible, every point on the balloon is equal and expanding. So no matter when ant A is standing and ant B is standing they both appear to be in the center from their perspective, and they are both moving away from each other.

          The only possible way to imagine something resembling a center in that situation is if the ant could transcend the limits of its balloon universe slip under the surface and exist in some other reference point using additional dimensions not normally available to it (so it might be possible for us to perceive a “center” if we have more than 3 spacial dimensions we can somehow exist in, and we manage to enter some crazy 5D space or something). But in that case even if you were at the exact center of that balloon it doesn’t change the fact that none of the points on the surface (representing our 3D spacial universe) corresponds to this hypothetical center point inside the balloon.

          • Chris915

            What I mean by center is where everything originated… it may not be exactly symmetrical now… but since the universe expanded from the big bang… that’s where I’d consider the center of the universe to likely be, more or less.

            Yes, but also taking into account the air inside the balloon, whether the ants could get to it or not, that’s the center of the balloon… for example, I’ll use the Earth itself… the center of the Earth is the core… I’m not at the center of the Earth, I’m on the surface, that doesn’t mean I’m at the center…

            In relation to the solar center, we’re talking about an actual center by which things orbit… therefor the sun is the center of our solar system.

            Our galaxy has a center, that’s why it’s referred to as the center of the galaxy… when they talk about there being a super-massive black hole at the center of our galaxy.

          • Jerry Ross

            “What I mean by center is where everything originated”

            But there was no “where” before the big bang, your position assumes a reference point in space, that simply doesn’t exist. The big bang didn’t happen in a place, there was no space to exist in before the big bang, it wasn’t like: “Here’s a bunch of empty space, and at this particular spot in empty space the big bang happened and everything expanded out in empty space from there” Spacetime itself was made by the big bang, and space itself is what is expanding.

            In the balloon example I stated “the whole of 4D spacetime being represented by the expanding surface of that balloon” the key word here being “surface”. In this example everything that exists in our entire universe is on the surface of that balloon, the air in the balloon simply isn’t a part of our 4D universe (and unless we can prove the existence of higher order spacial dimensions, don’t necessarily exist at all). Obviously in our world trying to come up with an analogy people can understand means playing by the rules of our world, but you need to understand the analogy in the context of the premise.

            With the solar system or the galaxy we can say these objects have a particular location in space relative to other objects, but with the universe there is no outside space to exist in, so these kind of relative measurements don’t apply. I think you are just having difficulty wrapping your head around the idea of space itself being a product of the big bang, and not a place where the big bang happened. I’m not sure I have the time, energy, or skill as a teacher to try and make it clearer to you, so I’ll just leave these links here and hope these other folks can help explain it to you:

            http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1UC6HpxY28
            http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/bigbang.html
            http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/podcasts/transcripts/070523_universe.html
            http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Centre_of_the_universe
            http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/91162/is-there-a-center-of-the-universe-if-the-universe-is-finite

          • Chris915

            We can observe the universe expanded outward from a central location… of course, it depends on what you think was here before the big bang or nothing at all… there are several hypotheses… such as a singularity type thing… I saw a show one that went through several different hypotheses for the origin of the universe, sans religious creation myths.

            I know, the big bang was the expansion of space and time itself… but the fact is, AFTER that event, there was now a center to which everything expanded out from… as everything expanded out from that point…

            While I’m big into astronomy, etc. I’m not that interested in cosmology.

          • Jerry Ross

            “but the fact is, AFTER that event, there was now a center to which everything expanded out from”

            No, just no. There isn’t, and that’s what you can’t seem to grasp. You are thinking about things in terms of a fixed space, and not in terms of expanding spacetime. Did you even read the links I posted? They cover this misconception in the video link I posted with the sidewalk example.

          • Chris915

            After researching, I concede the point.

            However, the fact is, Geocentrism is the idea that the Earth is the orbital center of all celestial bodies… that is, everything rotates around us… which is demonstrably false.

            Heliocentrism is correct, which is the astronomical model in which the Earth and planets revolve around a relatively stationary Sun at the center of the Solar System.

  • Matt_Cardiff_UK

    Wow – this shit is deeep!

    I’m not knowledgeable enough to comment on some of the stuff here. But I’ll say this…some of those scientists in the trailer….I’ve seen before in many reputable productions. I don’t for one moment believe that the sun revolves around the Earth, but I’m open minded enough to give the documentary a try. I’ll probably waste a few hours of my life that I’ll never get back…but I’m interested to see how people like Kate Mulgrew were supposedly ‘duped’ into being part of it. Besides – who really cares if she does believe it all or not, or whether she did a commentary or not. She’s probably in need of the cash and thought – ‘easy money’! She’s not a scientist…she’s not a starship captain….she’s an ordinary person trying to get by. We all screw up…don’t we?

    • MJ

      Agreed. What’s the harm in watching it. It can’t be any worse than a global warming documentary by Al Gore or a Sun Classic Pictures Bigfoot documentary.

      • Matt_Cardiff_UK

        Exactly – take everything with a pinch of salt and make your own mind up. ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ did freak me out slightly admittedly…! heh! But then if you all listen to Alex Jones’ Infowars broadcasts, there’s even more conspiracies and bizarre theories to get your teeth into.

  • danielcw

    There was no need for Kate Mulgrew’s reaction.
    It is not like poeple would think she endorses the views presented in that movie

    • http://www.trekcore.com/ TrekCoreStaff

      Actually, Daniel, when the Internet-at-large realized it was Mulgrew in that trailer, her beliefs became subject of intense debate on several sites, including TrekBBS and more mainstream entertainment sites.

      • danielcw

        Am I allowed to be disappointed in those people?
        That should not happen, imho.
        There is a big difference between working on something as an actor, and endorsing what you act.

  • James Phillips
    • Justin Olson

      So the filmmakers claim that Mulgrew and Krauss knew exactly what type of film they were participating in. The problem is, the filmmakers can’t even give a straight answer about their beliefs or what the position of the film is. Angelotti says the film isn’t about geocentrism, but says the Earth doesn’t move. “No one has been able to prove that the Earth is moving.”

      Uhh, how about stellar parallax, genius?

      They claim that Mulgrew, “knew what the film was about. She read the script into a microphone.” But they don’t specifically detail what she was asked to say, so without seeing the script she read, we can’t say whether she would have likely known the true intentions of the filmmakers and purpose of this so-called “documentary.”

      Then there’s this: “Krauss was only given a document to sign that told him he’d be asked about the implications about recent discoveries, not that they had “non-Copernican” outcomes.” Delano, the producer of the film, says that he has Krauss on tape saying something to the effect that we are at the center of the universe. Well, as others here have correctly pointed out, EVERYWHERE IN THE UNIVERSE IS THE CENTER!!! So what he said was almost certainly taken out of context.

      This final bit is the most telling. The filmmakers say they are, “Just asking questions.” That is a well known tactic of cowardly cranks and woo peddlers. There’s a term for it: JAQing off. Far from being a true use of the Socratic method, these dishonest charlatans are exhibiting willful ignorance by hiding behind question marks — as if that covers their true intentions.

  • James

    The tiny group of people that believe in Geocentrist views demonstrate the folly of a literal interpretation of the bible. The backwards views expoused in this ‘documentary’ call attention to forgotten passages in the bible that were used at the trial of Galileo.

    I’m very displeased that Star Trek has been associated with such foolishness.

  • Mickey

    Sad.