The Principle Attacked by Dan Olson, Alberta, Canada

That Time Geocentrists Tricked A Bunch of Physicists
Folding Ideas, 20 Nov. 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icwDF8wRgF4

3:00 I search Calamus International University after looking up Robert Sungenis.

Now, Calamus International University is listed on uk-universities.net which would be odd if it were a fake university.

tried to add:

Dealing with 17:51

Defunct is possible.

Unaccredited - well, so is University College London.

Distance learning and registered in Vanuatu - so what?

3:27 "we have in fact demonstrated that the earth orbits the sun"

How?

facundo torres

Go back to school

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@facundo torres If you can't answer the per se rhetorical question, you are the one who needs to.

facundo torres

@Hans-Georg Lundahl if you're so dumb as to need to ask the questions in YouTube instead of googling or picking up a book then it's apparent that you need the information fed to you by someone who has done the research, so school it's the safest option so your mushy brain may absorb the information

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@facundo torres I was not asking for information in general, I know several lines of reasoning that pretend to lead to earth orbitting the sun, Frédéric Chaberlot of Switzerland gave six of them, and I refuted them.

I was asking how the youtuber, Dan Olson, was presuming he could prove it.

When he answered some seconds later than 3:27, I made another comment to refute that line of "demonstration for heliocentrism" - why aren't you commenting on my comment at 3:30, for instance, or the one at 3:39, where Narokkurai pretended "gravity is all that can work on astronomical scale" by a principled denial of Theistic metaphysics?

3:30 "stellar parallax"

The one measured in 1830's is diversified. This means:

• either the stars are unequally distant from us
• or the phenomenon called in the 1830's "parallax" is something else than parallax.

You see, the name parallax doesn't refer to the phenomenon as a phenomenon, it refers to the explanation of the phenomenon as the parallactic optic illusion (same one that makes the road look like it's running past you if you sit in a running car), and the phenomenon as proof, with this type of optic illusion explaining it, of movement on our part.

3:39 gravity can be as fully real as to explain Lagrange points without being as fully the sole main factor (with inertia) affecting placing and movements of objects in space.

If I drop a pen and catch it mid air with the other hand, the actual trajectory of the pen is not just affacted by the gravity, but by my hand when catching it (and, if you think of it, by my other hand dropping it). That other factor in no way, shape or form means that gravity doesn't exist or doesn't affect the pen.

Lagrange points don't deny God keeping earth in the centre, Lagrange points don't deny angelic movers of the bodies that move, because neither God nor angelic movers deny the gravity that the Lagrange points are involved in.

Narokkurai

In order for the hand to catch the pen, it must exert force on it. It is not an entropy-neutral action. The laws of gravity continue to function, but it does require physical, measurable force to keep the pen fixed in place. If what you're saying is true, and gravity functions exactly the way we think it does, but some divine force is moving the planets in a geocentric orbit anyways, then this force should be possible to observe and measure. It would take a LOT of energy to hold the Earth in place and move the Sun around it, and we should be able to measure that energy as excess heat or radiation. And if you want to argue that we can't observe such energy because gods and angels are immaterial, then you're basically admitting that your model only works if magic is real.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Narokkurai "In order for the hand to catch the pen, it must exert force on it"

In order for the hand to catch the pen, the will must exercise its domination over the matter in the hand.

And God and angels act over all respectively any given material object, a bit like the human mind over the own body.

"The laws of gravity continue to function,"

Yes, and this without denying a result other than they would predict being ultimately exercise by will.

"but some divine force is moving the planets in a geocentric orbit anyways, then this force should be possible to observe and measure."

I think I mentioned mind over matter.

"It would take a LOT of energy to hold the Earth in place and move the Sun around it"

Perhaps if the Sun were on that speed moving through the fabric of space rather than with it.

And with it full circle every 24 hours (meaning a few minutes lag behind the overall circular movement).

"And if you want to argue that we can't observe such energy because gods and angels are immaterial,"

I'm arguing that as with the hand under the will, it's on another level than the influence of a material body over a material body.

"then you're basically admitting that your model only works if magic is real."

Depending on what you mean by that - yes, that is my world view. Where does yours it "isn't real" come from?

Narokkurai

@Hans-Georg Lundahl If you're arguing that magic is real then there's no conversation to be had. You can invent any justification you need when materiality itself is thrown out. The validity of science comes from its ability to make testable predictions grounded in material observations. Even highly abstract and mathematical concepts, like the wave function of particles, are supported by material observations. And if something can't be materially observed, then it will simply remain in abstract, as a hypothesis waiting to be proven or disproven.

I don't think religion and science need to interfere with one another. Science asks how the world works, religion asks why the world exists. If a god does exist, then the laws of physics are simply the tools they used to create it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Narokkurai "If you're arguing that magic is real then there's no conversation to be had."

Up to you.

"You can invent any justification you need when materiality itself is thrown out."

Materiality and materialism are not the same. Are you saying when you understand sth, when you speak, when you move your hand, not only is what comes out of your body visibly to others material, but it is purely caused by matter? That's not "materiality" but materialism. And it is totally counterintuitive and unevidenced.

"The validity of science comes from its ability to make testable predictions grounded in material observations."

Those believing angelic movers and Tychonian orbits are likely to make exactly the same predictions in astronomy as you.

"Even highly abstract and mathematical concepts, like the wave function of particles, are supported by material observations."

But you being an observer isn't.

"And if something can't be materially observed, then it will simply remain in abstract, as a hypothesis waiting to be proven or disproven."

Or proven or disproven by its consequences on the observable material plane.

"I don't think religion and science need to interfere with one another."

Then why do you?

"Science asks how the world works, religion asks why the world exists."

Relegating religion to that very clearly is interfering with religion, at least with Biblical Christianity.

"If a god does exist, then the laws of physics are simply the tools they used to create it."

Physical factors are among the tools. And the "laws" are how these factors behave on their own.

Meaning, the laws as such are abstractions, not actual causalities or agencies.

Narokkurai

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Science and religion only conflict along the narrow range of religious interpretations which insist on a literalist reading of their holy texts. In the demon-haunted world of mass superstition before the scientific method became widespread, literalism made sense as a sort of psychological balm against the chafing uncertainty of the world, but now that we know better, it doesn't have a practical purpose. A biblical interpretation of physics makes about as much sense as a shamanistic totem to ward off disease. Like, believe in whatever makes you feel comfortable with the world, but boil your water before you drink it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Narokkurai "Science and religion only conflict along the narrow range of religious interpretations which insist on a literalist reading of their holy texts."

In other words - the range which involves actual Catholic Christianity.

"In the demon-haunted world of mass superstition"

What comic book did you take that from? Rahan?

"before the scientific method became widespread,"

And afterwards. By the way, there is no such thing as THE scientific method.

"literalism made sense as a sort of psychological balm against the chafing uncertainty of the world,"

You are part of a mass superstition of your own : psychology.

"but now that we know better, it doesn't have a practical purpose."

We absolutely do NOT know better.

"A biblical interpretation of physics makes about as much sense as a shamanistic totem to ward off disease. Like, believe in whatever makes you feel comfortable with the world, but boil your water before you drink it."

I live in Paris, both bottled water and tap water are clean here.

In other words, to you there are not scienceS, independently of worldview, there is one worldview called SCIENCE and you bow down to its oracles, and detest the rest. Oh, except for compromisers who equally bow down to its oracles.

There is more than one thing I answered you, which you never replied to yourself. Is it because you have no answers yourself, you want to attack mine with question after question, and profit from me replying, but you never bother to reply yourself?

Or is it because you are trying to sway me with impressive speeches? Even at 13 years of my age, your eloquence would have felt stuffed and meaningless, hiding your ignorance of some real debate issues, so what do you hope to achieve when I'm 54?

Narokkurai

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I'm not responding to them because there's simply nothing worth responding to. Any discussion of immaterial things is a waste of time. I don't care what proof you think you have of "angels" or "souls", unless it's based in material observation and scientific experimentation, it's not proof to me. Unless you can pluck a feather off an angel and put it under a microscope, there's simply no possibility you could ever change my mind.

And I don't care how old you are either. That just means you've been wrong for a long time. You've hitched your wagon to literalism so tightly that at this point I don't think you can even be properly called a Christian. You are a failed Christian. You took a book full of metaphor and philosophical instruction and mistook it for a textbook. The reason you can have clean drinking water at all is because people largely rejected your interpretation of Christianity, and recognized the practical superiority of science over superstition.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Narokkurai "Any discussion of immaterial things is a waste of time."

How does matter discuss?

"unless it's based in material observation"

We have material observation of presumably minds discussing - by manipulating matter in their bodies.

We also have material observation of matter being incapable of understanding and therefore of discussion.

"You've hitched your wagon to literalism so tightly that at this point I don't think you can even be properly called a Christian. You are a failed Christian."

Oh, you are calling traditional Christianity heresy? Or is "being a Christian" just a question of membership in a group to you?

"The reason you can have clean drinking water at all is because people largely rejected your interpretation of Christianity,"

No. The reason there is good drinking water here is, this is a place with good ground water. It was exploited in wells in the Middle Ages when what you call "superstition" was "rampant."

"and recognized the practical superiority of science over superstition."

Name ten very useful things, not nailing it down to just very latest model of it, and at least 8 or 9 of them will have come from before the Classic Antiquity or from the Middle Ages - either of which is before your "Science" which is not when sciences actually start, nor did you correctly speak of the impulse leading to them.

Narokkurai

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Yes, I think that if you believe in a god which has granted you rationality and curiosity, it is heretical to cling to a literal interpretation of a holy book when reason and curiosity have shown such an interpretation to be wrong. There is no part of Jesus' teachings that is necessarily dependent on the Sun revolving around the Earth. You're only clinging to it out of stubbornness and, apparently, a bitter resentment of modernity. You have more in common with an Islamic extremist than any decent Christian, as you are both heretics for your obsession with literalism and fundamentalism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Narokkurai You have strayed away from what science you claim to believe in to the pseudo-position of inquisitor ...

"Yes, I think that if you believe in a god which has granted you rationality and curiosity,"

Indeed.

"it is heretical to cling to a literal interpretation of a holy book"

Even if it is rational?

"when reason and curiosity have shown such an interpretation to be wrong."

Even when they haven't?

"There is no part of Jesus' teachings that is necessarily dependent on the Sun revolving around the Earth."

Here are two connected aspects:
1) Joshua knew what he was telling to stop in chapter 10 of his book, and Jesus knew whom he was adressing when expelling demons from men;
2) with Geocentrism, the universe is not infinite, and the Heaven He spoke of is above the fix stars.

"You're only clinging to it out of stubbornness and, apparently, a bitter resentment of modernity."

I've had to do with people of your attitude enough to have reasons to resent modernity.

Unlike reason, and unlike the Bible, I cannot give modernity as such a truth value. On some items, the modern will know truth better than people of the past, on some others, often more important, worse.

"You have more in common with an Islamic extremist than any decent Christian, as you are both heretics for your obsession with literalism and fundamentalism."

You omit to define what "heresy" is ...

And you have just expelled most of Christianity over the centuries from your "any decent Christian" category ...

@Narokkurai You have also failed to back up how useful inventions depend on modernity.

Name ten very useful things, not nailing it down to just very latest model of it, and at least 8 or 9 of them will have come from before the Classic Antiquity or from the Middle Ages - either of which is before your "Science" which is not when sciences actually start, nor did you correctly speak of the impulse leading to them.

4:51 In Sungenis, the Earth is or was some decade ago, caught in a kind of gyroscope effect within the rotating cosmos.

One can equally appropriately consider the Earth as remaining unmoved by direct act of God.

Either way, you have a factor overriding the relative gravitational pulls of Earth and Sun.

4:59 absurd speeds

Posit that the fix stars are, as Galileo and St. Robert were discussing when discussing parallax as yet not observed, the inner side of a spheric surface. Not the volume of a space, but the shell around a space.

Posit this sphere of fix stars is one light day up.

This posits the speed of them as 6.28 times (or two pi) the speed of light.

Absurd? Yes, if you posit that this is through the fabric of space. Since that imposes speed of light as the limit.

But if instead you posit that the fabric of space is moved each day by God around Earth, down to the surface of earth, and up to the level of the fix stars, and the fix stars only move with it, this is no longer the case. Therefore, no "absurd speed" argument holds either.

14:02 Let me observe, no Kate Mulgrew, no Lawrence Krauss, and no film team or movie theatres are involving in Galileo Was Wrong, The Church Was Right.

So, no, they don't get to complain about that one being clearly "one-sidedly" Geocentric (but dealing with and refuting in its way arguments against absolute Geocentrism).

Neither do you.

Perhaps there was a tinge of hypocrisy about the film The Principle. But without it - could Robert Sungenis have shown the world that he was in fact not sitting in a closet shut off in isolation from the people considered "great minds" of our time, he has on the contrary spent lots of time interacting with them and their arguments.

So have I, in my way, on the blog "Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere" which is part debate, part my answers on quora questions, part my comments on videos, including those of views against mine, like yours here.

I didn't ask permission, usually, to get co-debaters onto the blog, but none has sued me so far - and I wouldn't counsel them to do so. If they complained of my making them look bad after I allowed them usually all the time they wanted, and censored nothing but here and there an F-word from the less well educated ones, that would mean their own arguments make them look bad. They usually have handles, so I'm not exposing their privacy either. And I am not monetising the blog, so I am not cheating them for money either. I'm simply making sure their arguments are available side by side with mine. In order of debate, or cut up in substrings, each presented in order of debate.

In either medium, film by Rick DeLano (RIP) or blog by myself, the intended takeaway would seem to be served by a more neutral input - which initial neutrality is provided by the Christian side, like in Oxford The Socratic Club (c/o CSL).

20:05 None of Sungenis' credentials involve past life regressions.

If you are not ashamed of getting your credentials (supposing you have some) from a university run by atheists and compliant semi-Christians, why should Sungenis be ashamed of getting credentials from a university involving a past life therapist in the board?

20:46 oooooooops ... you just discredited yourself with your chronology of V-II!

Ending in 1965 is correct, but it opened in 1962.

21:07 "it was, in short, an attempt at modernising the Church"

Yes, that is pretty much what we object to.

Whatever else you got wrong, you got that 20/20.

22:00 Speaking of that one, can Shoah be charged against, I will not say the people who today identify as National Socialist, but the subgroup of them who consider Jews deserved it?

Because, in that case, it can be charged against such Jews who still sympathise with executing Jesus that they incur a complicity with those Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead.

As for those who didn't back then, some very directly became part of the first Christians and ancestors of Christian Palestinians - and some more neutral eventually had to chose sides. "Jews" referring retrospectively (as early as when Gospel of St. John was written) to those who took a distance from Christians and from Jesus, therefore solidarity with the executioners.

If it's obvious that many Jews today would hesitate to curse Jesus - like Pinchas Lapide - it is also obvious, they are not representative of what Talmudic Judaism or Rabbinic Judaism if you prefer has historically been most of this time. Also, not just a question of Modernists, as some might perhaps consider Lapide, but some of the most traditional Jews are actually by now anti-Talmudic, meaning for instance Lubavitchers.

But what the usual typical RC statement refers to are people like the young Kahane in One Day the Rabbi Bought a Cross - or like the Countermissionaries, like Tovia Singer today.

22:12 People like Tovia Singer (or the fictitious young Kahane) would be so far rejected by God.

Those who aren't, do not form one people - they are struggling out of the historic Antichristianity that once formed that people.

22:42 It is clearly a bad thing that Vatican II is even perceived as reverting the judgement that Protestantism (in the versions spoken of by Trent which doesn't at least as much cover Asuza Street) is heresy.

It's a heresy having led to Heliocentric and Darwinian remakes of Exegesis, and to Malthusian and Galtonian remakes of morality, and now more to LGTBQ accepting remakes of morality.

24:47 Thomas Hobbes was very much not a Liberal. He very much was a Totalitarian.

Not very far from Kant's idea that, in order to prevent chaos, one needs absolute and unconditional acceptance of state directives.

24:50 "He's saying democracy will never work"

Not what he said. Democracy not working on Locke's premises is one thing, but some Swiss Cantons and at least one more Irish president than Eamonn DéValera have shown a talent for democratic constitution with Catholic actual policies.

25:45 Chalcedon Foundation sounds pretty attrative to me as you describe it.

26:04 I am noting you are showing a very repugnant hatred of homeschooling.

26:13 Permissive homeschooling standards very clearly means there is no centralised curriculum. Mr. Selbrede is very clearly for Geocentrics getting to homeschool, he has said nothing about Atheists or Evolution believers not getting to homeschool, as far as you present it.

26:21 Acting out transsexualism is hardly a human right.

27:06 I think homosexual acts objectively deserve the death penalty - and that it is a matter of opportunity if it can ever be applied again, I would be hesitant about right now.

Prison sentences for them have also been accepted by Christian countries.

"En el imperio español la pena de muerte se sustituiría por penas de prisión y galeras a partir de la segunda mitad del siglo xvii, hasta que dejó de ser delito en 1822 en España. Las antiguas colonias españolas tras su independencia tardaron algo más en despenalizarla, las primeras fueron: México (1871), Guatemala (1871) y Argentina (1886). En la mayoría de los demás países la condena iría derogándose a lo largo del siglo xx."

Looking up Cronología de la despenalización de la homosexualidad por país

I see that sodomy was a legal offense in Austria, Costa Rica and Finland up to 1971. In Spain up to 1979. Scotland and Colombia up to 1981. Ireland up to 1993 - we are not dealing with death penalty, normally, but with prison sentences.

28:06 Death penalty is not murder. Sodomy is not homosexuality any more than prison sentence for stealing would target everyone with cleptomania. I mean, if I were a cleptomaniac, I'd try to get my fix by acting as hired pick-pocket, then giving back wallets, to people trying to get savvy about how to avoid getting pockets picked.

So, not only is "murder" incorrect, but "of homosexuals" is so too.

28:89 I have no idea why enforcing Biblical law and keeping the underclass suppressed would go together. A minority is not necessarily underclass, and if it is mostly in some area due to recent immigration, it's not underclass due to suppression.

29:14 First, the persons as a whole and all and everything they stand for are not the philosophical core.

What they have to say on cosmology is.

Second, no, it's not a question of making the others look like a secret wholesale agreement with them, but of showing forth the actual partial agreements, on issues like epistemology. Or this or that observation.

Third, perhaps some of them would like to prefer hiding (explaining their reaction after the fact) that much of what Sungenis or Selbrede argue from is material they share with them - they might prefer to resort to the usual strawmen. And you might prefer it, which, considering your distaste for the Chalcedon foundation is even fairly likely.

31:18 No, he has created the appearance that they have such partial agreements with a certain idea as they actually have.

Allowing Sungenis (whose validity of doctorate is not the issue, I'm not disputing it by the way) to get a bit further than all, including normally educated audience would know that Krauss and the other guys from the astro world would go.

It would not just be "exhausting" to litigate, it would actually be impossible, unless you had a very partial court. It would be impossible, because scientist A is saying what he believes, scientist B what he believes, and scientist or otherwise Sungenis is saying how that ties together with what he believes.

No dishonesty involved. No misrepresentation involved.

Saying "Krauss supports geocentrism" would be misrepresenting Krauss. But saying "this argument by Krauss supports geocentrism" cannot be that - because it would mean our arguments are only what we want them to be, logic has no life of its own, we cannot investigate, because we cannot cease to will this or that to be true.

So far, you are succeeding in denying logic, and therefore also science.

31:54 I have by this point already in the thread met one who would be more than ready to actively suppress the information.

He was at least more than happy suppressing the one I was giving insofar as it depends on him.

I told Narokkurai he was wrong to consider all factors have to be material. I'll give you a selection of his reactions to that:

"If you're arguing that magic is real then there's no conversation to be had. ... And if something can't be materially observed, then it will simply remain in abstract, as a hypothesis waiting to be proven or disproven. ... If a god does exist, then the laws of physics are simply the tools they used to create it."

In other words : if I don't agree to keep explanations materialistic (just because the observations necessarily are material), or adapt Christianity to bowing down to that rigmarole, he is more than just fine to marginalise me, as much as he can.

Our thread can be found under my comment starting "3:39 gravity can be as fully real as to explain Lagrange points without being as fully the sole main factor (with inertia) affecting placing and movements of objects in space."

Narokkurai

All factors in science have to be material, because it is the study of the material world. If you want to get abstract for the sake of philosophy or meta-physics, that's fine, but it's just not science. It has no place in a discussion of physics. Take that to the theology or philosophy departments down the hall.

You can be a Christian and still be able to accept the scientific description of the world. There's no inherent contradiction. If a god exists, or if a god does not exist, the universe functions exactly the same. You are hanging onto a single fringe, extremist interpretation of your holy book which is simply no longer valid. You simply must learn to accept the fact that the bible is not a literal description of reality.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Narokkurai "If a god exists, or if a god does not exist, the universe functions exactly the same."

Er, no.

The view of the universe that is supposed to function without God is a false one and doesn't function. It breaks down in explaining human language. It has to resort to Heliocentrism in order to explain day and night and seasons, without any God, without any angels. Not a total breakdown, compared to with language, but at least an unwarranted departure from the material observations.

"All factors in science have to be material, because it is the study of the material world."

Then astronomy as I view it is not entirely "science" but part metaphysics, exactly as Riccioli saw it.

"If you want to get abstract for the sake of philosophy or meta-physics,"

Non-material and abstract are not the same. The concept dog is non-material because it is an abstraction from individual and material dogs, but each dog is still material.

A human soul or an angel is as concrete as an individual dog, but unlike it non-material. For the human soul, not quite the case, since it is giving its form to the living human body, but for a departed soul, it is comparable to angels in the respects I covered.

32:20 It implies these scientists have a gut feeling that certain data, not "the prevailing evidence" but precisely certain data, would go against what they believe.

It also implies they want to shield their belief system from confrontations which could come about from allowing focus on those data.

No, Sungenis and Selbrede would certainly say the men like Krauss find the prevailing evidence in their own favour. The only thing the observation by Selbrede and Sungenis implies is, they are likely to want to cover up certain "anomalous data" or at least implications of them, so as to further what they believe the "prevailing" tendency of the evidence goes to.

Because they are a bit more spoiled than we Christians about getting outside an own echo chamber.

To put it in another perspective - these people certainly honestly believe that discussing Geocentrism is a waste of time.

They are only devious towards of people not quite as likely as themselves not to see that. And obviously no more devious than they think is moral - given how you describe some of them, us, their latitude may obviously increase.

39:29 The penalties for Geocentrism or Creationism have obviously been what you describe for quite a long time.

A man that far up in Academia is unlikely to be afraid of the penalties, he's unlikely to imagine himself in that position. But he has seen other people in that position, and probably contributed more than once to a Christian not getting into their academic circles if "too Fundie" ... those types of penalty foster a kind of enthusiasm for what they are seen as protecting, and Krauss very obviously shares that enthusiasm, and probably did it at the outset of his carreere, decades ago. Before coming up with things like Quantum Vaccum prior to Big Bang.

What we very certainly would more than just suggest is, the scientists are not neutral observers only coming to their conclusions by rationality, they are to some degree products of a certain system. And the lack of other voices within it than theirs is very much a product of it.

33:20 By some nebulous group?

I heard that rhetoric when it came to Rockefeller Foundation financing the research for Kinsey. When a Catholic denouncing Kinsey as a pervert also mentions he is funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, what kind of nebulous group is that?

It's on the wikipedia:

"The Rockefeller Foundation is an American private foundation and philanthropic medical research and arts funding organization based at 420 Fifth Avenue, New York City."

This links to another of them:

"The second-oldest major philanthropic institution in America, after the Carnegie Corporation, the foundation was ranked as the 39th largest U.S. foundation by total giving as of 2015."

So, Carnegie ...

"The Carnegie Corporation of New York is a philanthropic fund established by Andrew Carnegie in 1911 to support education programs across the United States, and later the world."

"On November 18, 2021, the corporation announced that Louise Richardson will become its next and 13th president.[17] She joined the foundation in January 2023 at the end of her seven-year term as head of the University of Oxford."

It doesn't say what rank it has - but I can bet, foundations ranking higher than Rockefeller and the twelve Carnegie presidents prior to Louise Richardson pretty certainly share a certain bias.

"This is a list of wealthiest charitable foundations worldwide. It consists of the 45 largest charitable foundations, private foundations engaged in philanthropy, and other charitable organizations such as charitable trusts that have disclosed their assets. In many countries, asset disclosure is not legally required or made public.

"Only nonprofit foundations are included in this list. Organizations that are part of a larger company are excluded, such as holding companies."

1) Novo Nordisk Foundation
2) Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
3) Wellcome Trust

So, is there a probable common bias? Well, yes. Not all of them are into funding all kinds of research, some are into other things, but the part that does go to research is pretty obviously biassed a certain way.

37:08 "The core of it is framed, not as a question from the film makers, but as an opportunity to responding to sth Krauss said ... see, there is a big big difference between asking someone if earth is the centre of the universe and asking them to reply to a colleague"

1) Rationally speaking - why should it be?
2) If you analyse it, the probable candidates are:
a) systematic ostracism of geocentrism
b) systematic respect for colleagues in the scientific community.
3) Which kind of ties in very much with what I said about the sociology. The training.

"the second is a lot more likely to get a much more diplomatic measured response where they don't openly disagree, but instead suggest ..."

Well, does he suggest it? What I can see, by the way, is, we don't just have Rick stating "Lawrence Krauss argued for us being the centre" - he actually quoted the argument.

Not in Krauss view geo centric, but clearly "solar system-centric" or not very far off according to at least that piece of evidence.

40:01 Your "mainstream Biblical scholars" are, seen from your Alberta, largely Protestant.

Mainstream Protestantism has been supporting Heliocentrism because of Galileo. Not from the Reformation, but from when Milton and early Freemasons added Galileo to a kind of Protestant martyrology (like St. Bartholomew's Day's Massacres, like Protestant Colas defended by Voltaire against having killed his Catholic son).

Mainstream Protestantism as a result is by now largely Modernist. Once upon a time it was just Joshua being wrong about what it was he commanded to stand still, but since then, even in the 19th C. the Apostles have been presented as being wrong when believing demons that Jesus drove out were actual personal beings other than and older than the men, and also already damned before entering them.

[saving myself the last 5 minutes, at least for now]