Sunday, December 29, 2019

The Mystery of The Star in the East


The Mystery of The Star of Bethlehem


The story of nativity, the birth Jesus birth in the manger is found only in Luke (Luke 1:26–27), while the Star in the East was recorded is only recorded in the Gospel of Mathew. Nowhere else except Luke and Mathew recorded the account of nativity.

  
The date December 25 arbitrarily given for the date of Jesus birth was chosen by the early Christians merely to compete with the Mithraist fiesta on that day to take advantage of the general joyousness at the time of the winter solstice.


Both Mathew and Luke place the birth of Jesus during the time of Herod, and that the monarch died in 4 BC.


The story of nativity related in the Gospel according to Mathew caused me to be very curious exactly what was that bright “star” the wise men (magi / astrologers) actually saw. The book of Matthew is only place this mysterious star was described.


Theories of Astronomers: 


For many decades many theories have been forwarded by astronomers to solve the appearance of the Star of Bethlehem over Judea.


 Astronomers have even used powerful computers to calculate back the dates of its appearance.
Most of the theories believed by astronomers are based on apparent planetary alignment of bright planets such as a triple conjunction of Venus, Jupiter and Mars.


In astronomy a conjunction occurs when any two or more astronomical objects such as planets, stars or any heavenly bodies appear to come close together in the sky, as seen from Earth. They are apparently optically-fused together as seen from line-of-sight.


Sometimes bright stars like Rigel in Orion may have conjunctions with bright planets like Venus and Jupiter as part of multiple conjunctions. We shall go into that later.


This has been theories that the Star of Bethlehem was actually the conjunction of various planets making them look unusually bright.  They even gave various dates of around the 3 B.C. to 4 B.C. when King Herod was around when triple conjunctions occurred.


Astronomers were able to demonstrate triple or multiple conjunctions by calculating backwards into time when Jesus was born, and even using planetariums projectors to play back the ancient skies of Babylonia when the "Star of Bethlehem" was seen by the magi described in the Gospel of Mathew.


Both Mathew and Luke place the birth of Jesus during the time of Herod, and history recorded the monarch died in 4 BC.


So It would seem then Jesus could not have been born later than 4 BC and so could not have been less than two years old.


The Star of Jesus:


Did the Star of Jesus depicted by the Star of Bethlehem  already been foretold even in the beginning in Genesis? 


Let's have a look at this verse.


Judah is a lion's whelp: from the prey, my son, thou art gone up: he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up? The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be (Genesis 49: 9-10).


In astrology the wise men probably knew well  about the constellations of the Zodiac, one of which lies a Lion (Leo).


It would be easy for the astrologers to believe that Leo represents Judah and the House of David since David were descended from Judah, and Jesus was associated with both. My point in argument is, was the bright star Regulus or Rigel already signify the coming of Jesus who is going to symbolize the king (Regulus) even in the beginning (Genesis).

Since "a lawgiver from between his (lion) feet, until Shiloh come" in the constellation Leo has a brightest star called Regulus which is the Latin for "little king".  This seems to refer to Jesus as a very bright star. Not just that alone. He was sandwiched by two brightest planets which to my thinking represents His Father and the Holy Spirit (Trinity).


It so happens in 3 BC and in 2 BC there was a double conjunction between two brightest planets - Venus and Jupiter in the constellation Leo with Regulus sandwiched between with a separation of just 3 degrees on either side from Regulus. 

Furthermore it was seen in the eastern horizon over Judea.

How does that sound? More than impressive I think as a single light seen by the wise men in the East. Could that be the date Jesus was born as already foretold in Genesis 49: 9-10?

But both these two astronomical events took place in summer, far from the winter of 25 December.

However, according to Sinnott, there were no fewer than two hundred astronomical events when two brightest planets grouped together between 12 BC and AD 7, and during the same period there were twenty occasions when more than two planets came together,


If Sinnott was right, I don’t think the wise men would be deceived by such "usual events" because this  would average out with one bright planetary conjunction once a month according to Sinnott, and quoted by Isaac Assimov in his article "The Star in the East"


Then again two brightest planets Venus and Jupiter apparently (optically) came close together in the predawn skies over Judea on August 12, 3 BC, and they were separated by only twelve minutes of an arc which is only two-fifth the diameter of the Moon.


Planetary Conjunctions in The Reign of King Herod:  


 King Herod Magnus was born in July 3 BC, and died March or April, 4 BC in Jericho, Judaea. So the dates seemed very close to the birth of Christ during the reign of his reign.


Hence many astronomers would hypothesize that was about the time Jesus was born?
Another even more  "bright star" event occurred after sunset on June 17, 2 BC when Venus and Jupiter came even closer together, separated by only three minutes of an arc which is just 10 % of a full Moon.


At that angle of separation they would just appear as one very bright point of light. That was even more impressive to the magi I suppose? Maybe not as they were wise men as the Bible describes them.


Seen from Babylonia, both planets would rise from the East with their closest approach around 10 PM Babylonian time as they sank over the western horizon towards the direction of Judea and Bethlehem. Could that be the Star the wise men saw in the east?


Could that be the Star from the East they followed? My analysis and feeling is probably not, and I shall explain this.


In those days, over the plains of Judea, transportation was exceedingly slow by foot, camels or by ass. If the magi had seen the Star in the East and followed it across the vast desert regions of Judea towards the town of Bethlehem their journey could have taken days, if not weeks or months.

The rising and setting of all stars, planets, and even the Sun and Moon are not going follow, let alone wait for any person. 


Velocity of Earth's Rotation:


The Earth's speed of rotation is once every 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.09053 seconds, called the sidereal period, over a circumference of 40,075 kilometers which is a speed of 460 meters per second over the equator.


This would be far too fast for the wise men to catch up on foot or on camels.


Of course the motions of the heavenly bodies, planets, Sun, Moon and the stars could rise again the next night in the East and sets again in the West about 12 hours later for them to follow every night.
But unfortunately this wasn't the case. My point of argument is quite different from other astronomers believe if only they read the verse below carefully once again.


It clearly states "the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was" (Matthew 2:9).


It looks like this particular star was quite different from all other stars, planets and other heavenly bodies that rise and set each day like tides that waits  for no one.


But this strange star clearly waited for them in front and leading them all the way and suddenly stopped where Jesus was and then disappeared without setting after they have arrived in Bethlehem?  


Of course if we walk or even speed in a jet plane towards a star in front, it will it will apparently be always ahead of us. But over a just a few hours it will sink towards the west, or it came from the east, it will soon be ahead of us, and overtake us and sets in the west. But this star did not behave that way.


Heavenly Bodies Waits for None: 



In fact it is extremely unusual since no heavenly body behave this way. It must be something else hovering just ahead in the Babylonian skies for many days or weeks. It did not rise or set so that  the wise men can continue to follow. It was finitely NOT any ordinary star or some bright planets in triple or multiple conjunctions.


It is also unclear exactly how long it took for the magi arrived after Jesus was born. Traditionally they were seen to arrive at most a few days after the birth of Jesus as the Gospel of Luke spoke about Jesus leaving for Jerusalem by the time he was forty days old from whence he went to Nazareth.


This left a fairly brief window of time for the magi to visit him in Jerusalem, especially considering they needed time to travel from the east via Jerusalem.


How Old was Jesus then?


In this verse Matthew refers to Jesus as a child rather than an infant, perhaps indicating that he was older. Today most scholars feel that Matthew probably meant that Jesus was several months old at the time the magi visited (4).


The timing of the arrival of the wise men was very crucial in determining the exact time of birth of Jesus. Even Herod inquired the exact time the wise men saw the star.


In short, all the theories put forwards by well-meaning and learned astronomers linking conjunctions of bright planets around the 3 BC and, 4 BC when King Herod was reigning do not support my own  current revised thinking.


At least this was their theories which influenced me too for many years.  But not now, this Christmas today (25 December, 2109)  when I think differently.


My Disagreement: 


I have to disagree with what astronomers have hypothesized for ages.


Let me once again emphasize the verse using my own independent analysis by carefully studying the biblical verses below:


"Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him (Matthew 2:1-2).


“Then Herod, when he had secretly called the wise men, determined from them what time the star appeared. And he sent them to Bethlehem and said.  


Go and search carefully for the young Child, and when you have found Him, bring back word to me, that I may come and worship Him also. When they heard the king, they departed; and behold, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was (Matthew 2:7-11).


In verse 7 it says, Then Herod had a secret meeting with the wise men and learned from them the exact time they first saw the star.


Studying carefully those verses, those wise men were astrologers who knew the stars and their positions well (the Bible did NOT say “3” wise men. It merely stated “wise me” without the word “three” there). 


They would already know when various stars and planets would appear and how long they would be seen in their respective positions. They were NOT ordinary people. They were magi, and astrologers. The Bible describes them as wise men, meaning people with knowledge and wisdom.


They would already know when various planets would slowly drift into one spot (conjunction) as a “bright star” 


Since Sinnott himself wrote in Sky and Telescope there were many, many bright planetary conjunctions at that time, do we think these wise men are fools to be deceived? Definitely not in my thinking.


But that night when Jesus was born, they saw something different. They saw some very unusual light in the sky. They were not idiots to see something different.


So what was that, and why was it very unusual in the sky over Judea?

In verse 7, it says Herod inquired from them what was time (”exact time”) they saw the star. Why exact time?


If it was a triple conjunction as modern astronomers believe, they would already be there over many days before they slowly come together.


It appears to me the unusual star appeared suddenly and precisely at an exact time which Herod wanted to know.


Unusual Astronomical Event:


This kind of phenomenon happening at a precise spot (in the East) and at an exact time is not what we know in astronomy. Almost all astronomical events are predictable long before they happen.


This gives me the impression it was neither any kind of sudden planetary alignment, neither a comet, nor even a supernova at that time.


There was also no record of any supernova during the time of King Herod. Even if there was, we would be able to see its nebulous remnants even today as in Crab Nebula.   So it must be something else.


Then in Mathew 2:9 it says:


“When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was”. It is very clear at least to me the star suddenly appeared again after King Herod consulted the wise men.


How can such an astronomical event be possible - a star appearing, disappeared, and appearing again?


Not that I know in my training in astronomy. which I have just passed before this Christmas. 


Neither do I know of any star or planet where it went before men, and suddenly stopped where a child was born? 


This is completely absurd to me. Neither stars nor planets, even though planets were once called “wandering stars” go before humans, and allow them to follow them, and then suddenly stop at one specific spot where a child (Jesus) was born.


This is completely bizarre to me. This occurrence can only be possible outside our understanding in astronomy.


An Unknown Object:


It has be completely something else, a divine occurrence or a miracle. This is the ONLY possibility
Furthermore, if it was a triple conjunction as most astronomers think, how could they remain apparently in one spot like a bright star for so long? Their constant motions around the Sun would have separated them within days.


I believe the magi must have followed the “star” for many, many days or weeks on foot or by camel over the plains of Judea towards Bethlehem were Jesus was.


Over those long periods of travel by foot or by camels, any double or triple conjunction of bright planets like Venus, Mars and Jupiter would have long separated by the time they arrive in Bethlehem.
 
Their separation would have been confused them as to which “star” to follow then.  But they did not. They kept following only that “star”


Furthermore, no planet as wandering stars would stay in one spot where any child was born. It has to be something else we do not know.


UFO? 


Some non-astronomers claimed it was a UFO, others claimed it was a space ship that brought Jesus to Earth?  This is non-science that we know.

As far as I am concerned, I do not know what it was except ONE thing which was very clear to me.
“the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was” (Matthew 2:9).


The Endurance of The Star:


That single verse tells me how patient that star was if as it was a signal or a message from God about the arrival of His only begotten Son on Planet Earth.


What strikes me most about this star was, it  so very, very patient as  to move very, very slowly to allow those wise men to keep pace with it while they traveled  on the ground by foot or by camels.


Not just that alone.  It says, it went ahead of them… to lead them slowly and patiently. This is truly the hallmark of God who is forever so patient with us all to give us time to think over His presence by leading us ahead so very  slowly, very gently, so brightly and forever so patiently with our slow thinking and belief.  Yet we don’t even realize His enduring patience with us.


Furthermore, if it was some kind of UFO or space (claimed by non - scientists) that came from another world to Earth, then such a space ship could easily cut across dimensions, time and space at the speed of light.


In such a horrendous speed,  it would have left those wise men travelling over the desert at snail speed. It would not have that patience to be with them at camel speed. But it didn’t.


It patiently led them probably over days, weeks or months with its bright light hovering in the sky… It went before them very, very slowly till they came to the spot where Jesus was humbly born in a manger,then it disappeared. Amazing! It is simply too amazing even to the most brilliant astronomical minds to understand.


That is how I feel, probably written with God-guildance which is quite the opposite of what other astronomers and scientists have hypothesized so far.


Isn’t that patience shown by that strange star was true, isn’t that message so beautiful?  Doesn’t that speak to us about patience and humility shown by God?  Isn’t that  the hallmark seal of an Eternal God?


The mystery of the Star of Bethlehem teaches me a lot. I have learnt tremendously by pondering over those verses and the event that happened over 2,000 years ago.


My thinking now is so unlike astronomers who insisted it was just a triple conjunction of bright planets which I fiercely object.


I have my own training and thoughts in astronomy which He has pre-planned this for me which I have not known.   

I did not know this earlier when I constantly prayed to Him for years for wisdom and knowledge to understand  on His wondrous works of art and engineering in the design of heavens and the beginning of the spark of life here on Earth.


My constant prayers over the years of nearly 40 to be given that knowledge of His Intelligent Design, then finally led me to His Promised Land of Learning at Cambridge early this year where  learn the Origin and Evolution of Life, and later this year till near Christmas at Oxford that taught me about the creation of the Universe.


His Promised Land:


It was at both places to the Promised Land He led me wandering for so long in childhood ignorance to understand His marvelous Intelligent Design and His message to all mankind.


The Star of Bethlehem is a divine revelation to me. It showed me how God led those magi with wisdom and knowledge to Jesus. I too want to be like them to be led by Him.

The account of nativity associated with a guiding star light above over the plains of Judea is truly so beautiful a story and an enlightenment for me - a Christmas gift for me when I penned this on Christmas Day even though Jesus came to this Earth sometime in July over 2,000 years ago.

May all my gentle readers be blessed!



References


1. Isaac Asimov. Star in the East. 1976. The Planet That Wasn't. All Sphere Book.

2. No record of any supernova   - Arthur C. Clark. The Star. November 1955. Infinity Science Fiction.

3. Roger W. Sinnott Sky and Telescope. Secember 1968.

4. Brown, Raymond E. The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke. London: G. Chapman, 1977.


Tuesday, December 10, 2019

Astronomy Academic Student Forum Discussions by lim ju boo University of Oxford


There are 19 forum discussions below out of a total of 180 presented on astronomy by the author


The abbreviation of the subject under discussion is at the end of each website.

For example the first one given as "sand" at the end of the site compares the number of grains of sand on Earth with the number of stars in heavens (universe) as given in the Bible. It was written to glorify God for every grain of truth given in the Bible

The second site below gives the word "yellow" This means what are these mysterious yellow balls which has been discovered in the Milky Way Galaxy.

The third one below describes the possibility of life in the Universe, and how the heavens came into existence. It also looks at the possibility that the birth of heavens and life in the Universe came into existence through an Intelligent Designer (God) rather than by accident or by chance

The lists go on for different topic of interest for discussion 

 

1.   https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/search?q=sand

 

2.   https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/2019/12/yellow-balls-found-in-milky-way.html

 

 

3.   https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/2019/12/life-in-universe-by-intelligent-design.html

 

4.   https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/2019/12/in-search-of-extra-terrestrial.html

 

5.   https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/2019/12/the-collapse-of-stars.html

 

6.   https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/2019/12/can-universe-be-reborn-from-super.html

 

7.   https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/2019/12/cosmic-scenario-before-and-soon-after.html

 

8.   https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/2019/12/stellar-formation.html

 

9.   https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/2019/12/solar-system-forum-planets-sub-planets.html

 

10.                https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/2019/12/combined-methods-to-confirm-presence-of.html

 

11.                https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/2019/12/merging-galactic-spirals-becomes-red.html

 

12.                https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/2019/12/microlensing-of-light-curves-of-distant.html

 

13.                https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/2019/12/the-concept-of-habitable-zone-on.html

 

14.                https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/2019/12/fate-of-universe.html

 

15.                https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/2019/12/were-there-previous-heavens-and-future.html

 

16.                https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/2019/12/cosmic-microwave-ejections-and-health.html

 

17.                https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/2019/12/why-antarctica-to-study-cosmic.html

 

18.                https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/2019/12/evidences-of-birth-of-universe.html

 

19.                https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/2019/12/evidences-of-birth-of-universe.html

 

 

Evidences of Birth of Universe

lim ju boo

Student in Astronomy


What evidence is there for the Big Bang?

In cosmology there are two schools of thoughts on the origin of the Universe.


The first one has only a minority of support is based on a steady state model in that, the Universe is always there, and the same whereby the density of matter in an expanding universe remains unchanged due to the continuous creation of matter.


However we now have more empirical evidences in favour of the Big Bang theory. Three major evidences are:


 Red-shifts Spectra:


Edward Hubble in 1927 was able to determine the distances of Cepheid variables by observing their luminosities varying with their periodicities; the more luminous the Cepheid, the slower the variations, and by using the fact that the intensity of light varies inversely as the square of its distance, he was able to establish their distances


Later he was able to demonstrate even further the distances to the galaxies by observing their spectra.  He showed the galaxies were actually receding from each other with no central point in the inflation. He observed their spectra were all red-shifted with increasing velocities with increasing distances.


This was the first clue that the Universe is actually expanding away towards a finite edge (Observable Universe) - the further away the galaxies, the faster the velocity of recession.


The rate of expansion was determined at a rate of about 21.5 km/s, small though, but over time of 13.7 billion years as the age of the Universe this is significant in terms of the distance it has expanded. This expansion can only be the result of a Big Bang.


 Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB):


Perhaps the best evidence that the Universe started off with a Big Bang from a super-dense singularity is the presence of an almost uniformly distributed CMB with regions of small variations here and there in the temperature spectrum.


The CMB is manifested as an afterglow which is the heat remnant of a Big Bang.  The CMB afterglow is just 2.7 Kelvin above absolute zero, and seems brightest at wavelength around 2 mm
The CMB radiation discovered in 1964 provided the crucial evidence of a Big Bang model. The universe in the mini seconds after the Big Bang was hot, dense, and opaque plasma


Georges Lemaitre first noted in 1927 that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to have originated from a single point on which scientists have built a cosmic expansion based on his idea.


Nucleosynthesis of Elements:


The Sun and stars convert the most abundant element in the Universe - hydrogen, into helium through fusion energy. As energy is released, the higher ratio of hydrogen to helium is being shifted towards helium. 


In main sequence stars other elements heavier than iron are also being form through stellar nucleosynthesis by neutron capture.


The abundance of other elements other than hydrogen and helium seem to suggest the cooling effect after a Big Bang when  particles like protons, neutrons and electrons can come together to form elements


Looking Back into Time:


In fact if we look further away towards the edge of an Observable Universe defined by the Hubble Radius the further back we look into time
This means we can see different types of galaxies in their early stages during   the birth of the universe



Why Antarctica to study Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB)?


Why Antarctica to study Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB)?


by Ju Boo Lim - Monday, 18 November 2019, 7:30 PM
Number of replies: 1


Q. Cosmologists have often studied the CMB with balloon-borne experiments, typically launched from Antarctica. What do you think the advantages of such an approach are? Share your ideas in this forum


A. I really do not know Dr. Grant Miller. My only wild guess is, if it had been in other highly populated areas on earth, especially in industrialized areas with high electronic and electrical technologies, the radiations and radio transmissions emitted in these places may interfere with the very feeble CMB.


The CMB is just 3 Kelvin above absolute zero, so it may also not be suitable to try to detect such low temperature in hot places like in cities and the deserts


Obviously the Antarctica, besides the Arctic being the coldest place on Earth would be the most suitable place to detect or study CMB.


 Even at sea level in the Antarctica may not be enough. Perhaps it is even colder at higher altitudes by using balloons


Maybe also at the poles charged particles from the Sun (solar winds) are deflected by the magnetosphere giving the region an almost a radiation-sterile environment


I do not know these or other reasons for sure.


What I am expressing here is just my personal thoughts and guesses

If I am wrong please correct me. This is one of the reasons I take up this course to learn new and interesting facts

Sorry for my ignorance on what is going on in the Antarctica.

In reply to Ju Boo Lim

Re: Why Antarctica to study CMB?

by Dr. Grant Miller - Tuesday, 19 November 2019, 2:14 PM


Hey Lim,

This is a brilliant question, and amazingly the paper on the BOOMERanG experiment doesn't even present their reasoning for choosing Antarctica! - https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0201137 (poor paper writing)


I think you may be absolutely right about them trying to limit other sources of radio frequency interference (RFI). It may also be down to the atmosphere over Antarctica. It is especially dry (fewer water molecules to absorb EM radiation), this is why it is used for a lot of Astronomy experiments (also because it points towards the galactic centre, but that's not important for CMB observations).

Cheers,

Grant


In reply to Dr. Grant Miller

Re: Why Antarctica to study CMB?

by Ju Boo Lim - Wednesday, 20 November 2019, 5:16 PM


Thank you Dr. Grant for your answer. I was only trying my level best to reason out the answer as you know I am not an astronomer, and hence I have never read any account on why they use the Antarctica for studying CMB


In fact I never even know they use the Antarctica for this purpose till your question came

Thanks for your enlightenment

lim jb

Cosmic Microwave Ejections and Health


Thank you for the question.


First of all I am unable to see any "the plot above shows that timing was everything. The risks were unknown at the time"  as stated in the text given.


Where is the plot? What plot? I could not find any graph, data or any info which was mentioned in the text.  I suppose the plot was about the intensity of coronal mass ejections (CMEs)?


Anyway in its absence, I just give my personal opinion on this issue about the effects of CME on the Apollo astronauts if they "narrowly avoided serious health problems and even death due to exposure to radiation from the Sun"

First of all I do not think there has been any study on the effects of CME on human health if humans including astronauts were sent outside the Earth's atmosphere or its magnetosphere to be exposed to CME for long periods of time. 


The CME has been there for billions of years even before any human or life appeared on Earth. Yet none of the life form existing for millions of years on Earth has shown any ill effects.
Even after all life forms including humans appeared, they were already protected (if not directly exposed by solar winds and charged particles from the Sun) especially during the 12 year solar activity cycle when CME are more likely.


Yet during these 12 years periodic solar flares cycles when  CME are more likely, all life forms are protected by the Earth's magnetic fields and the atmosphere that deflect these charged particles from CME.


But I think CME and intense solar flares affect radio communications and electronic equipment and cause the appearances of Aurora Australis in the south and the Aurora Borealis in the north, up in the higher altitudes of atmosphere far more seriously than their effects on the human body at ground or sea levels. 


However, we have very little idea what happen if astronauts were to be exposed unprotected for a considerable period of time, say for a few months to charged particles from CME?


In any case the Apollo astronauts Armstrong and Aldrin took 3 days to reach the Moon, and spent only about 21 hours on the Moon. But they seemed unharmed even though they were outside the Earth’s protective atmosphere as well as outside the Earth’s magnetic field which would have protected them even though it may be during the quiescent period between the 12 year cycle of solar activities


Then let us also consider those astronauts who stay up for months in the International Space Station (ISS) in low Earth orbit. Did they suffer from the ill effects of CME?
I am unsure, but I do not think so. If they did, this would have been reported, and we would probably have read about it.


As to the question if there was a known risk, would they have gone on that moon mission? This is very difficult question to answer. It all depends on the individual whether or not they want to take a known risk for the sake of Science. Some would, others may be hesitant.


Maybe, both Armstrong and Aldrin were already informed about this, and their decision was an informed choice. I do not know. But my feeling is, it is highly unethical to forcefully send someone to the Moon without discussing the pros and cons of an unknown risk with him or her. It has to be an informed choice. We are putting a human at risk otherwise.


Whether or not space exploration is worth the risk can be hotly debated. I cannot give an answer for sure. We would need a lengthy forum on this question
Thank you once again for this forum question


jb lim

Student

University of Oxford

Were there Previous Heavens and Future Heavens Yet to Come?



Were there previous universes and future ones yet to come?


A Poser by Ju Boo Lim 

Student in Astronomy 

University of Oxford 


- Wednesday, 20 November 2019, 6:53 AM


Earlier in this forum, I posted my view that this Universe may repeat its life cycle in a Big Crunch after the initial Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago. I gave reasons for my thought


Others school of thoughts proposed an alternative theory that the current expansion may go on forever because the mass may be below its critical density for gravity to slow down the inertia of its expansion


But suppose the theory that the Universe will come to an end one day in the distant future, and returned to the stage before it was born by the Big Bang, and collapse again somewhat like a pulsating heart  which  is more probable as I too think, then another question I would like to pose is, if this is pulsating rebirth is true, then there is no reason for us not to believe that before this Universe of our came into existence,  there was already another previous universe, and ours  is just one of the many cycles of a continuous rebirth.


Could this theory I propose here a possibility? Of course I am only thinking, and there is no way we can ever know. We are not even certain the fate of our present Universe, let alone know anything about past or future universes being born, die and reborn.


As far as I am concerned, there is this possibility of recycling.


Now back to some thoughts on Creation and religious systems of beliefs


For thousands of years certain oriental cultures like those of the Chinese, Hindus, Buddhism, and Taoism, believe in the recycle of births and death of a human life. They call it reincarnation


If this is true for a physical and spiritual life, the same scenario may also be possible for a physical universe? Why not? This is just my personal thought


Recycling of Universe, Birth and Death


Hence if we argue that a spiritual being or soul is the breath of God that is eternal and live forever, and can only be recycled from body to the next body when a body dies, then if there was, or were already many, many previous universes, then is there a possibility we already have our many existences  in the many other previous universes


I know some will say mine is ridiculous theory.  This is just an offshoot or a byproduct of thinking arising on the fate of our universe from this course.  But that should not suppress or inhibit me from expressing my own independent ideas.


Please do not ridicule or penalize me because of this “weird” question. I just suddenly think of this after reading the chapter on the fate of the universe. I don’t think we will ever know.

I am not saying I am right. I am only asking myself a question. I just like to share my thoughts with you


Thank you for listening, agreeing or dis-agreeing it does not matter.

Lim ju boo

Malaysia

Fate of the Universe


This is the last of dozens of other academic discussions this writer submitted for a course on Astronomy: Exploring the University at the University of Oxford 


Fate of the Universe forum

by lim ju boo 


My Personal View on Fate of The Universe


As promised last night in our regular forum discussion, I like to pose a question and discuss a very important issue on how the Universe will end


Much has been written on the fate of the Universe whether its expansion will go on forever bearing in mind the Hubble “constant” on the rate of expansion, currently 70 km/s that can be revised


However, the constant gravitational pull of all the galaxies in the Universe is universal. It can act as a brake on the inertia of expansion. This of course astronomers would argue depends on the critical mass and density of materials available


But if you were to ask my opinion even though mine may be amateurish, I would think how much mass would not matter in the final day of the Universe, because to my understanding,  gravity is persistent and will always be there as long there are still matter in the Universe even if all the galaxies have burnt their fuel away and turned into an aggregation of degenerate dwarf and neutron stars, or bloated up into giant red stars.  


But I believe  all may eventually clumped together into super huge and super massive black holes like soapy foams aggregating together and collapsing into bigger bubbles on a wet soapy floor 


To my thinking  the total mass in the final days of the Universe maybe less than during the first few moments of the Big Bang because the hydrogen is converted into fusion energy and  helium and other elements. This mass into energy conversion will cause the stars and galaxies to lose mass


Even if all the fuel runs out in this energy conversion, the remnants of mass will still be there where gravity can still act, be they dwarf, red giants, neutrons stars or black holes.


To the best of my understanding in Newtonian physics, as long as there is matter, gravity will be present, and where there is gravity there will always be an attractant force to bring everything together,  albeit gravitational force is the weakest compared with nuclear and electromagnetic forces.


Gravitational forces are eternally present and persistent as long as there are matter and mass in the Universe. How can matter or energy be destroyed except through conversion from one to the other. The net is always the same.


This unyielding force will continue to slow down the inertia of the galactic expansion, and finally drag all the dead galaxies, dark matter, whatever, and all their collective masses or densities together with a force acting inversely as the square of their distances no matter how far they are apart, and finally bring them together as they were before the Big Bang 


Hence, I don’t think density and amount of matter has any say when the eternal force of gravity acts


This is just how I reason it logically, but cosmologists may have their more advanced views to disagree 


Thus the present cooler Universe at just 3 Kelvin between the void and emptiness of intergalactic spaces may begin to warm up hotter and hotter at the last moments  of life of the Universe till the Big Crunch or Big Collapse when it shall be destroyed with fervent heat.


 But this scenario may be repeated again with another Big Bang, a Big Crunch… etc. We will now have a Pulsating Universe like a beating heart with a new heaven and a new earth with each pulse


This is from the scientific point of view if I can reason this scenario reasonably.


Now let me reveal what is written in the Bible.


“But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up” (2 Peter 3:10)


Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea (Revelation 21)


My apologies for bringing religion and a Creator in this scientific discussion


Note it says “the elements shall melt with fervent heat’. Earlier at the beginning of this course we learn about heat from hydrogen into helium fusion and nucleosynthesis of the elements soon after the Big Bang.


Now the reverse event may come to pass when the elements already there shall come together and  melt with fervent heat when the Universe collapses into a single point in time, space and matter. What about that? This sounds very uncanny to me.  Does that verse ring a bell to Science?


Then further down in the last chapter in Revelation of the Bible it clearly says a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was NO LONGER ANY SEA (Revelation 21). Does that also ring another bell? 


In the Unit 8 on Astrobiology two weeks ago, we discussed the importance of water and life, and if we were to look for life in a habitable planet within the circum-stellar Goldilocks Zone, the presence of water is utmost important, that is life as we know it.


But we have no proper definition of what life is as yet. We have no clue if life in the form as we know it, or in other forms unknown to Science, probably spiritual form also exist in other worlds exist despite Frank Drake’s equation.


But this verse clearly says a new earth will have no sea (water). What about this? This is very errie and supernatural (for me at least).


Think this over. Sorry for bringing in religion or spiritual things into science in this discussion. Kindly do not ridicule or penalize me for the freedom of my own thinking or belief 


I can’t help it as they are just my personal thought just to share. You are free to disagree


Thank you peers and course mates in this course for reading. 


Thank you to Dr. Grant Miller too for teaching us 


Jb lim

Malaysia



The Concept of a Habitable Zone on Exoplanets


The Concept of a Habitable Zone on Exoplanets Q & A

by Ju Boo Lim - Friday, 25 October 2019, 9:37 AM

Number of replies: 15


Calculations on the Goldilocks Zone where Earth-like environment around a star may be possible:


Given the relative sizes of the Habitable Zones around stars which are relatively 0.25, 0.5, 5 and 10 times the luminosity of the Sun


Applying the equations for the given luminosity of the Sun

The Habitable Radius around a star:

0.25 x the luminosity of the Sun, it would 0.47 AU (inner radius), and 0.68 AU (outer radius)

0.5 x the luminosity of the Sun, it would 0.67 AU (inner radius), and 0.97 AU (outer radius)

5.0 x the luminosity of the Sun, it would be 2.13 AU (inner radius) and 0.3.0 AU (outer radius)

10 x the luminosity of the Sun, it would be 3.0 AU (inner radius) and 4.34 AU (outer radius)

AU = Astronomical Unit is Earth-Sun distance

 = 1.495 978 707×1011 metres, or about 150 million kilometres (93 million miles).

However in my personal thinking this may just be a theoretical mathematical-physical  concept, because for life to be possible in another planet it is not just the physical Earth-like environment like heat, light and water that are just right, but I think we also need to consider the presence of complex organic compounds in their correct constituents and configurations to start jump life.


Not just the presence of carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen to form amino-acids and other organic compounds as in Miller and Harold Urey experiment, but much more complex than that, which is the ability for organic molecules to form DNA which is still not life, but merely the chemical foot-prints of life.


What I strongly believe than just the synthesis of nucleic acids and DNA, is the presence of “the spark of life” (whatever that is residing inside a living body) to “ignite” these chemical substances into life itself in order for any exoplanet or even planets in our own Solar System (other than our own Earth) to give rise to life itself, and continue to support it as on Earth.


Although I don’t mean to show disrespect to these mathematical formulae given by astronomers, I am only expressing the freedom of my own (scientific) thinking that the Goldilocks Zone is only a zone that may mimic Earth-like physical environments on an (exo)planet  if it is not too near or too far away from a parent star.


I hope I will not be penalized for my independent thinking

Thank you.

Lim ju boo



In reply to Ju Boo Lim

Re: The Concept of a Habitable Zone on Exoplanets Q & A
From Dr. Grant Miller University of Oxford  - Friday, 25 October 2019, 6:36 PM

Hi Lim,

Good post! You raise some important points. Of course just finding a planet in the "habitable zone" does not mean it will actually be inhabited. This depends on many other factors, but it's a good first step on the search. The one thing that underpins all life on Earth is the need for liquid water, so first we look for places where liquid water can exist, and everything else comes after that.

Now you may say that there's a possibility that life exists in some other way in the Universe without the presence of liquid water, but that is such a big unknown that it makes a lot more sense to start the search with what we do know and expand from there.

I hope that makes sense!

Cheers,

Grant

You Are Welcome Ir. CK Cheong

 Dear Ir. CK Cheong, Thank you for your kind words and encouraging comments in the comment column under:  "A Poser: Can Excessive Intak...