Wednesday, December 3, 2014

A summary of new year's cosmology hypothesis

My previous and future projects on "New Years cosmology hypothesis" have been focused on gathering a great deal of evidence in order to substantiate it's claims.   However this can be an overwhelming read.  Friends, such as Dr. John Gideon Hartnett, critiqued it as being "hodge-podge", that it seemed disconnected and hard to grasp.  This work will be used to explain the hypothesis.  The evidence will be explained in other works.
1. My first point is that matter breaks down and is not self-sufficient.  The atomic structure does not stand on its own and this debunks the materialistic world view.  This leads to the "holographic" universe cosmology which I debunk based on logical philosophical grounds.
2. My second point is that electromagnetic energy explains cosmological phenomena in the universe better than gravity alone.  A key point in this is to reject "dark matter" which leaves 99.99_% of the universe to be plasma.  Which leads to the conclusions of the "electric universe" model.  However, I then debunk the electric universe model in it's contentions of an eternal universe on logical philosophical grounds.
3.  Then I show that the God of the Bible answers the current crises in cosmology.  That God provides the energy which organizes matter. So from here the universe is interpreted from a Theistic view.
4.  I explore natural phenomenon which God has revealed to us.  Specifically in the zodiac constellations and in "Polaris" the north star.  That the signs of the constellations is properly interpreted as a "gospel in the stars"  Two points are drawn from this study.  First, the implied geocentrically.  Second the intergalactic catastrophe in accord with the global flood.
5.  I give evidence from failed experiments to prove heliocentrism, as evidence for a stationary earth.
6.  I deal with the issue of starlight and time on several levels. By debunking "red shift" and challenging the notion of an expanding universe along side the notion of accuracy on a massive scale with the light spectrum.
7. I argue for a rotating universe surrounding the earth.
8. I posit from studies of historical astronomical observations of astrologers that there was a great catastrophe where the modern north star hangs.  The "fall of Lucifer"  which severs the constellation Ursa minor from Draco.  That this explosion would cause a universal tilt.   Another bi-product of the explosion is a gamma ray burster which strike the top of the earth.
9.  The gamma rays would then bury into the earth and ignite subterranean waters.  This would then, follow along with the the flood model of Walt brown. "Hydroplate theory"  As well as the similar  "Hovind theory" model by Kent Hovind.   Especially the subterranean water shooting out 20miles from the earth a canopy of ice covering the earth being devastated.The water and dirt launched in space would be formed into asteroids and comets.

  Now this cosmology has a lot of similarities with geocentric cosmologies and so it would be simply seen as geocentricity.   But there are several important points of distinction as to the fact that these are different ideas.

A.Geo-centrism typically relies on the traditional gravity driven cosmology.  My new years cosmology(NYC) focuses on the power of electromagnetic energy in the universe as primary as espoused in the electric universe.
B.Geo-centrism pictures the aether as all pervading space.  NYC sees the aether as distinct from matter.  as Genesis one makes the initial earth distinct from the initial heaven.
C.Geo-centricity espouses a universal tilt as part of creation.  NYC espouses a universal tilt as the result of an intergalactic catasrophe which will initiate the flood.
D.  Geo centricity establishing it's work on Thomistic philosophy which borrows from Aristotle and ignores the flood.  Although many geocentrists accept the global flood.  There is not much work that I have seen reconciling the cosmological implications of both. NYC is competent to do this.
E. NYC is basically geocentric, while Geocentricity is necessarily geo centric.  It is not necessary in NYC have earth in a perfect center nor that the earth make no movement at any time in the universe.  It is likely the earth was moved during the intergalactic catastrophe.  "the principle" producer Rick Delano informed that I was not a "true" geocentrists.  Though I do hold the basic tenets.

The core distinction with the mainstream of Young Earth Creationists is the desire to be in accord with popular scientific theories that are not in direct conflict YEC via the creation evolution debate.  So in their flood geology you see the adherence to plate tectonic theory.  In cosmology we see the adherence to Einsteins relativity theory.  Also they have rejected the ice canopy theory arguing that we could not have an ice canopy today.  Ignoring the fact that the earth prior to the global flood would be much different and that the model would not be the same as the vapor canopy model.  Also creation scientists have not spent a great deal of time studying the electric universe cosmology due to ideological difference.
       NYC is based upon my  Biblical Historical Science (B.H.S) philosophy.  Though one could accept my philosophy without accepting NYC.  Uniformly accepted historical facts have more authority than scientific conjecture of history.   We observe Science in the present.  We have to be careful about imposing that upon our knowledge of the past.  So you will find that NYC argues to be objective and reasonable to both the minds of the past as well as the minds of the present.
In Christ,


Dimensional Difficulties said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dimensional Difficulties said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Pastor Matt Singleton said...

So I finally got around to looking up that reference. It is a picture of a cracked pot. Impressive mockery! ;)