If you haven't seen it, you've likely heard the noise. The Principle is easily one of the most polarizing documentaries of the last decade. It isn't just a movie about space; it’s a film that managed to make world-renowned physicists like Lawrence Krauss and Michio Kaku publicly furious.
Space is big. Really big. But this film suggests something that makes most modern scientists deeply uncomfortable: what if we are actually at the center of it all?
That's a heavy lift. Honestly, the Copernican Principle—the idea that Earth isn't special and we occupy a mundane, random corner of the universe—is the bedrock of modern cosmology. When director Katheryne Kourtney Thomas and writer/producer Robert Sungenis released The Principle in 2014, they weren't just making a movie. They were poking a beehive with a very short stick.
The Axis of Evil and the Copernican Crisis
The heart of the film revolves around something called the "Axis of Evil." No, it’s not a political alliance. It's a term used to describe a specific anomaly in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation.
When the Planck satellite and the WMAP mission mapped the "afterglow" of the Big Bang, they found something weird. The temperature fluctuations in the radiation weren't totally random. They seemed to align with the plane of the solar system—our solar system.
It’s a "wait, what?" moment.
Scientists like Max Tegmark have discussed this, and the film leans hard into it. If the entire universe is aligned with our little neighborhood, it suggests we aren't just a cosmic accident. The Principle uses this data to argue for a Geocentric model, or at least a "Geocentered" universe. This is where things get messy. Most of the experts interviewed in the film, including George F.R. Ellis and Julian Barbour, were horrified when they saw the final cut. They claimed their quotes were edited to support a Geocentric view they don't actually hold.
Why the Scientific Community Reacted So Violently
Lawrence Krauss didn't just disagree; he wrote a scathing piece for Slate telling people to ignore the film entirely. He claimed he was "tricked" into participating.
✨ Don't miss: Cuba Gooding Jr OJ: Why the Performance Everyone Hated Was Actually Genius
You've gotta wonder how that happens.
In documentary filmmaking, "context" is everything. Sungenis, who has written extensively on Geocentrism, clearly had a specific narrative goal. The scientists thought they were talking about general cosmology and the interesting quirks of the CMB. Instead, they found themselves as the supporting cast for a theory that hasn't been mainstream since the 17th century.
But here is the thing: the data they discuss is real. The anomalies in the CMB are documented in peer-reviewed papers. The debate isn't about whether the "Axis of Evil" exists; it's about what it means. Mainstream science views it as a statistical fluke or a local foreground effect. The Principle views it as a smoking gun for a designer or a central Earth.
Geocentrism in the 21st Century?
It sounds crazy. We all learned in third grade that Earth goes around the Sun. Galileo, Copernicus, the whole bit.
Yet, the film spends a lot of time on the Michelson-Morley experiment and the Sagnac effect. These are technical, dense topics. Basically, Michelson-Morley tried to detect the Earth's motion through "aether" and failed to find the expected shift. Science moved on to Einstein’s Relativity to explain this away, suggesting there is no "preferred frame" of reference.
If there is no preferred frame, then saying "the Sun goes around the Earth" is mathematically just as valid as "the Earth goes around the Sun." It just depends on where you plant your feet.
The film pushes this logic to its absolute limit. It argues that if the math works both ways, why are we so certain we’re moving? It’s a philosophical question wrapped in a lab coat.
🔗 Read more: Greatest Rock and Roll Singers of All Time: Why the Legends Still Own the Mic
Narrated by Kate Mulgrew
One of the strangest twists was the narration. Kate Mulgrew—Captain Janeway from Star Trek—provided the voiceover. When the controversy erupted, she took to Facebook to distance herself, stating she was a voice-for-hire and did not subscribe to Geocentrism.
It was a PR disaster.
But it also made the film a cult phenomenon. People who never cared about physics were suddenly googling "Copernican Principle" and "CMB anomalies." Even if you think the Geocentric conclusion is total nonsense, the movie succeeds in making you realize how much of our "knowledge" is based on models we take on faith.
What Most People Get Wrong About the Film
Most critics dismissed it as "Flat Earth" propaganda. It’s not.
The Principle actually rejects the Flat Earth theory. It argues for a spherical Earth at the center of a massive, rotating universe. It’s "Classical Geocentrism."
Another misconception is that it’s a purely religious film. While Sungenis has clear religious motivations, the movie tries (and sometimes struggles) to stay in the realm of physics. It wants to be taken seriously by academics, even as those academics are running for the exits.
The production value is surprisingly high. The CGI used to illustrate the CMB and the scale of the universe is better than most History Channel specials. This "shiny" veneer is part of why it felt so dangerous to the scientific establishment. It didn't look like a conspiracy video made in a basement; it looked like a BBC documentary.
💡 You might also like: Ted Nugent State of Shock: Why This 1979 Album Divides Fans Today
The Legacy of the Controversy
So, what happened?
The film didn't change the world. NASA didn't hold a press conference admitting they were wrong about the solar system. But it did highlight a growing rift between "official" science and a public that is increasingly skeptical of consensus.
The "Axis of Evil" is still being studied. Recent data from the Dark Energy Survey and further analysis of the Planck data continue to show these alignments. Some physicists suggest we might live in a "closed" universe or a "birefringent" one. The mystery hasn't gone away; it’s just gotten more complicated.
The Principle remains a fascinating case study in how media can frame scientific data. It’s a reminder that "the facts" are often just the starting point. The story we tell with those facts is where the real battle happens.
How to Evaluate Documentary Claims
If you're going to watch The Principle, or any controversial science documentary, you need a filter. Don't just take the narration at face value.
- Check the "Unedited" Stance: Look up the interviewed experts' personal websites or papers. See what they’ve written about the topic outside of the movie.
- Differentiate Data from Interpretation: The CMB alignment is a data point. Geocentrism is an interpretation. These are not the same thing.
- Look for Peer Review: When the film mentions a study, find it on Google Scholar. See if the study’s authors reached the same conclusion as the filmmaker.
- Understand the Philosophy: Recognize that the Copernican Principle is an assumption, not a proven fact. It’s a very good assumption that makes the math easier, but it’s still a starting point for modern physics.
The best way to engage with this film is as a prompt for deeper research. Don't let the "Captain Janeway" narration do the thinking for you. Dig into the Planck satellite results yourself. Read about the "Fine-Tuning" problem in cosmology. Whether you end up believing Earth is special or just a speck of dust, you'll at least understand the scales of the debate.
The next time you look at the stars, you might not see a random void. You might see a giant, unanswered question.