Life in the Universe: By Intelligent Design or by Accident

Life in the Universe:  

By Intelligent Design or by Accident

lim ju boo

Student in Astronomy

University of Oxford

An Astrobiology Forum Discussion

(An extract from numerous academic forum discussions during the course in astronomy) 

I think how life came into existence on Earth or elsewhere in other extra solar planets is very difficult issue for us to comprehend, let alone definitely answer.

We don’t even have a proper definition of life, let alone know what it is or describe it except to define it as something “that reproduces, feeds, respond to stimuli..etc.”

But these are characteristics of life and not life itself

Neither is that presence of life molecules like amino- acids that Miller and Urey created in their experiment, living. We can even do better than what Miller and Urey did by just buying a piece of beef from the grocery shop. But a piece of beef, fish, chicken, mutton sold in the market are not living despite having all the chemical composition that are characteristic of life 

Mystery of Life:

That piece of beef or any other food has all the life-ingredients inside – amino-acids, sugars, biological fluids, vitamins, electrolytes and even the original DNA and nucleic acids all intact. But that piece of beef, chicken, fish...etc. are all dead. They have no life in them.  So where did the life once-upon-a-time in them disappeared?

That “spark of life” whatever it is to define life, has been separated from the chemicals, and chemistry of life as we know it. So there is something very mysterious and unknown residing inside those chemicals of life until it got separated from their physical foot-prints (of life), namely the amino acids, DNA, sugars, electrolytes, biological fluids…etc.

Even the panspermia theory described in Unit 8.4 of this astronomy course that proposes bodies such as comets transporting lifeforms such as bacteria and viruses complete with their DNA taking their hazardous and lengthy journey  through space to seed Earth with life still does not explain how and where life originated.

Neither can we say with certainty life originated on Earth itself from the hydrothermal vent deep in the volcanically active ocean floors where the tectonic plates are. Our question is, how did these life forms appears, or where did it originate?

What causes life-less chemical molecules to suddenly become alive and so became so intelligent as to be able assemble the appropriate molecules and themselves into a brain, arms with fingers so that they can hold objects, eyes and ears to see and hear for their survival, and organs, and systems etc., so that they can function anatomically and physiologically as a living organism?  What or what forces in them made them to be so intelligent? Isn't there an Intelligent Designer and a Programmer behind life

existence?

Our Problem As Scientists:

I think the problem with Science is we try to ignore the presence of a spiritual Creator who pumped the forces of life into these lifeless molecules.

In Genesis of the Bible for instance it clearly says that the LORD God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul (Genesis 2:7).

The dust from which man was created represents the life molecules, but it has no life in it, until God breathed into his nostrils to give it life. As scientists ourselves we cannot ignore this. At the same time, we cannot measure life forces, or whatever it is that gives life?

This is understandable, since Science is a systematic study of matter and energy where scientists can see, observe, detect or measure and infer their existence. Anything outside these entities and parameters is outside or beyond Science.

Big Bang vs. Creation 

My question is, why do scientists insist in ignoring the existence of a Spiritual Being as a Creator of all things including the Big Bang? There is nothing wrong with this theory if scientists wish to believe in this account  since it is up to them to go into the details how the Universe was born through His works, since the Bible is not a science book. The Bible is a book on salvation which is far more important to our souls than material knowledge how God created the heavens and the earth through a Big Bang 

There is no rhyme or reason why God need to explain in scientific details to us insignificant mortals especially to the ancient civilizations who have no technical knowledge in science  how He created the  Universe or the heavens, or how He created life on Earth or elsewhere. Does He need to?

He just gave them to us just as a parent provides food to their children without the need for them to explain to their children how food originated, processed, handled and stored or was made before giving it to their children. Does the parents need to?

God created everything for us to use without needing to explain the intricacy how He created or made them. On what compulsion must God? The Bible was written so that we can understand and follow Christ for our eternal life after death. It is  not a science book. to explain about Big Bang or the Big Crunch when the heavens shall be destroyed with fervent heat  as given in 2 Peter 3:10.  

There is absolutely no rhyme, reason or any need for Him to do this as much as a manufacturer of this smart phone I am now using to type this discussion to explain to me the complexities of microchip technology how he manufactured this phone of mine so that I can use it to type and explain.

We are just end-users of smart phones without needing to know the complex technology how smart phones are  design and manufactured – do we? We just buy it, and use it without asking questions.

So is for the creation of the universe or life on Earth or elsewhere in heavens. But if we wish to go into the scientific details on Creation to glorify God and his horrendous work of art we may do so even though our knowledge and understanding are limited

We need not discredit an Intelligent Designer who is far, far above us 


Our Thinking Brain: 


It is up to us to use our thinking brains He bestowed upon us to think how awfully and fearsome His work are. There is no reason why we cannot use this  gift of Science and a brain He gave us to rationalize, to think and to analyze logically so that we can use them to honour and glorify Him.  

Hence, it is up to the astronomers, cosmologists, and  astophysicists to work out the details how God created the heavens,  including using His horrendous power and might to tear apart matter, space and time from a single point into a Big Bang to give rise to  the births of the heavens (galaxies, stars, dust clouds, life and all)


His Eternal Existence:


We must be clear that God is a Spirit and He is eternal. He already existed  even before the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago, and His existence is OUTSIDE the dimension of this singularity where matter, space, time and energy are cramped into one single point,  and it was from outside this singularity where He tears apart all matter, space and time to give them all a beginning

He clearly stated that "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end" (Revelation 22:13), the first and the last, meaning He already existed even BEFORE the Big Bang, and He will still be there when "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).


Doesn't that clearly explain to us  past, present and into the future, His presence existed even before the Big Bang, and it was through this Mighty Explosion  He created,  the heavens and Earth came in existence,  and all materials things that are tangible in the universe came into existence. 

Didn't the psalmist long, long ago tells us “the heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork” (Psalm 19 King James Version)

But it is up to us to work out the details how God engineered His creation since the Bible is not a science book. It is a book on salvation which is by far more crucial and important to Him and to us


He has indeed made us so intelligent to think over His handy work so that we can use it to glorify Him.

Life from The Soil:

I have no doubt we are made from star dusts as Scientific America claims

(Ref: https://www.scientificamerica https://www.space.com/35276-humans-made-of-stardust-galaxy-life-elements.html n.com/article/all-sand-on-earth-could-be-made-of-star-stuff/)

And a New Study proves it (Ref: https://www.space.com/35276-humans-made-of-stardust-galaxy-life-elements.html).

But the dusts itself has no life in them. I strongly believe a life force has to be pumped into them for the life molecules to become alive, becomes so intelligent, and able to propagate, feed and multiple to give Earth a wide variety of biodiversity through subsequent Natural Selection as proposed by Charles Darwin in his Origin of Species

This is understandable, since Science is a systematic study of matter and energy where scientists can see, observe, detect or measure and infer their existence. Anything outside these entities and parameters is outside the scope and beyond Science.

I summarize my understanding there is nothing wrong with the theory of Big Bang vs. Creation. To me, as I can see it, Science, Life, and Creation blend harmoniously. There is no contradiction at least to me.

It only tells us “the heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork” (Psalm 19 King James Version)

I have no doubt we are made from star dusts as Scientific America claims (Ref: https://www.scientificamerica https://www.space.com/35276-humans-made-of-stardust-galaxy-life-elements.html n.com/article/all-sand-on-earth-could-be-made-of-star-stuff/)

And  a New Study showed the same (Ref: https://www.space.com/35276-humans-made-of-stardust-galaxy-life-elements.html).

But the dusts itself has no life in them. I strongly believe a life force has to be pumped into them for the life molecules to become alive, becomes intelligent, and able to propagate, feed and multiple to give Earth a wide variety of biodiversity through subsequent Natural Selection as proposed by Charles Darwin in his Origin of the Species

This is understandable, since Science is a systematic study of matter and energy where scientists can see, observe, detect or measure and infer their existence. Anything outside these entities and parameters is outside or beyond Science.

I am only expressing the freedom of my thoughts. Other scientists may not agree with me as they may only insist on evidence-based Science. That’s their own freedom of thinking and freedom of speech I respect their views and thinking.

I have my own.

Read also

 “The Mystery of Life”:

https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/search?q=mystery+of+life

Jesus First Miracle:

https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/search?q=jesus+first+miracle

Yellow balls Found in the Milky Way

WHAT ARE YELLOW BALLS FOUND IN THE MILKY WAY WAY GALAXY



This article is dedicated to Professor Dr Andrew Charles Gomez, a Consultant Otolaryngology          Surgeon from John Hopkins Hospital for his encouragement urging me to complete the last lap of this course in astronomy


by:


lim ju boo BSc  PG Dip Nutri MSc (Food QC) MD  PhD (Med) FRSPH  FRSM

C.Ed Cert Evol.  (June, 2019)  University of Cambridge


C.Ed Cert Astronomy (December, 2019)  University of Oxford

C Ed Cert Forensic Science in Toxicology University of Cambridge


(This paper was written as one of the two  assignments required by the University of Oxford in astronomy which the author has successfully submitted for assessment  on 24 Nov 2019


Introduction:


Yellowballs are a group of approximately 900 compact, infrared sources identified in the Milky Way Galaxy, and were named by volunteers participating in the Milky Way Project (MWP), a citizen science project that uses GLIMPSE/MIPSGAL images from Spitzer to explore these objects


GLIMPSE (Galactic Legacy Infrared Midplane Extraordinaire) is a survey of the inner Milky Way Galaxy and MIPSGAL is a 278 degree Galactic plane survey conducted through the Multiband Infrared Photometer for Spitzer (MIPS) instrument on the Spitzer Space Telescope.


The GLIMPSE/MIPSGAL images are infrared portrait of dust and stars radiating in the inner Milky Way. More than 800,000 frames from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope were stitched together to create the full image, capturing more than 50 percent of our entire galaxy (1)


These images shows areas where stars and yellowballs are formed


In a paper by C. R. Kerton, G. Wolf-Chase, K. Arvidsson, C. J. Lintott, R. J. Simpson et al (2) they showed through a combination of catalogue that cross matched  with  infrared color analysis  that yellow balls are a mix of compact star-forming regions, including ultra-compact and compact H II regions, as well as analogous regions for less massive B-type stars.


H II region is a region of interstellar atomic hydrogen that is ionized.


The resulting MWP yellowball catalogue provided a useful complement to the Red MSX Source (RMS) survey as discussed in C. R. Kerton, et al paper.


In their paper, they highlighted regions of massive star formation, but the selection of objects was purely on the basis of their infrared features, and color in Spitzer images that identifies footprints  of compact star-forming regions shared across a broad range of luminosities, by inference, and by masses.


The authors discussed the origin of their striking mid-infrared appearance, and proposed that future studies of the yellow ball sample will increase our understanding of how massive and intermediate-mass star-forming regions transition occurs from compact to more extended bubble-like structures.


The Milky Way Project (MWP) is one of a collection of highly prolific online citizen science enterprises in the Zooniverse, developed and maintained by the Citizen Science with the partnership of Lintott et al. 2008 (3),  Smith et al. 2011 (4); Fortson et al. 2012. (5)



Spitzer Space Telescope:



The first implementation of the MWP utilized Spitzer GLIMPSE/MIPSGAL images by Benjamin et al. 2003 (6); Mizuno et al. 2008 (7);  Churchwell et al. 2009 (8); Carey et al. 2009 (9) was to study star formation over a third of the Galactic plane through  the categorization of infrared “bubbles”, which are typical of H II regions and their allied photo dissociation regions (PDRs).



Hydrogen Regions:


The PDRs are conspicuous in the  Infrared Array Camera (IRAC) 8 µm band, which traces emission from polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), while MIPS images of bubble interiors often show 24 µm radiation, which is likely linked with thermal emission from dust grains within H II regions, such as shown by Watson et al. 2009 (10).


The main task of citizen science volunteers is to use an ellipse-drawing tool to mark the sizes, orientations, ellipticities, and thicknesses of H II region/PDR features. The first data expanded the previous bubble catalogs of Churchwell et al. (11, 12) by nearly an order of a magnitude (Simpson et al. 2012 (13).


Additionally, the MWP citizen science classifications have been used as training sets for learning procedure as suggested by Beaumont et al. 2014 (14).


Demonstrating the serendipitous nature of citizen science efforts, volunteers went beyond their assigned role  and started tagging and discussing, using the MWP ‘Talk’ interface, compact yellow objects (“yellowballs”) in the GLIMPSE/MIPSGAL images soon  after the MWP was opened to the public.


Colour Images:


Colour and compact appearance in the GLIMPSE/MIPSGAL images were  used to depict wavelengths of emissions such as blue for 4.5 µm green for 8 µm and  red to indicate 24 µm and other representative colour scheme.


All in, a total of 928 yellowballs were identified by MWP participants. Most yellow balls appear in three types of environments, namely as isolated objects in filamentary infrared dark clouds (RDCs), along with bright 24 µm point sources that are typically associated with embedded massive proto-stars  (Rathborne et al. 2010 (15); Battersby et al. 2014 (15) which are  clustered at the intersection of bipolar bubbles that have been related with outflows from massive proto-cluster.


These are often perpendicular to filamentary IRDCs; and in bubble hierarchies, frequently along the rims of large bubbles, numerous of which have been connected with known H II regions.


The researchers then used the spatial distribution of yellowballs and cross-matched them with existing


MWP images viewed by volunteers: 


The catalogues of star-formation tracers, and mid- and far-infrared photometry mentioned in C. R. Kerton at al paper showed  that the yellowballs identified in the MWP are a collection of objects tracing a compact, dense phase of massive (O- and B-type) star formation. They mentioned this included a mix of compact and ultra-compact H II regions as well as analogous regions for less massive B stars.


They then examined the origin of the striking mid-infrared appearance of yellowballs and discussed  how they fitted into our current picture of massive star formation.


They then discussed their findings on the association of Yellowballs with Red MSX Sources, the method (photometry) used in the survey, the findings and results in sections


Briefly, what they then showed was the distribution of yellowballs in star forming regions by giving  their  Galactic longitude and latitude along with the distribution of MWP bubbles, and young Red MSX Source (RMS) objects, which have been presented as tracers of Galactic star formation activity (Kendrew et al. 2012 (17); Simpson et al. 2012 (18); Lumsden et al. 2013 (19); Urquhart et al. 2014 (20).


The authors C. R. Kerton and his collaborators then constructed a histogram by dividing the entire range of values into a series of interval and then counted out how many values fall into each interval.
They took the largest bin values and apply offsets so that comparison could be made


Discovery:


What they found was  the yellowball distributions have many similarities with the  Milky Way Project whereby the bubbles  and  radio millimeter submillimeter wavelength (RMS)  object distributions have mean  distribution in Galactic latitude that is slightly below the Galactic mid-plane


In other words, the Galactic longitude and latitude distribution of yellowballs supports the RMS findings in that sources where yellowballs are found is associated with where Galactic star formation is found.


They also looked at the association of Yellowballs with Dense Clumps/Cores
What they did was to use the Virtual Astronomical Observatory (VAO) application topcat (Taylor 2005 (21) to cross-match the list of yellowball positions with the ATLASGAL catalog of compact 870 µm sources


What they found was  that 245 (49%) of the 502 yellow balls were found within the  Bolocam Galactic Plane Survey (BGPS) which is a 1.1mm continuum survey of 170 square degrees of the galactic plane visible from the northern hemisphere.


The   APEX Telescope Large Area Survey of the Galaxy (ATLASGAL) survey encompasses the entire MWP region, and, using the same match distance, the researchers found 524 (56%) of the 928 yellowballs matched with an ATLASGAL compact source. They then listed their comparison in a BGPS and ATLASGAL catalog for identification



They concluded that any contamination from random associations was minimal, and the proximity of yellowballs to regions of dense molecular gas is again consistent with what  would be expected for a population of objects associated with star formation activity.


 They also looked at the association of Yellow balls with H II Regions by performing  a similar analysis to cross-match the yellowball positions with the  Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE)  catalog (Anderson et al. 2014 (22).



They found that 599 (65%) yellowballs have matches with the ATLASGAL, BGPS, WISE-H II region, and RMS catalogs, indicates that the majority of these objects are unambiguously associated with dense molecular clumps and other signposts of star formation.


No yellow balls were associated with any of the evolved star categories in the RMS


Results and Discussion: 


In their discussion the authors concluded that the distinct mid-infrared appearance of the yellowballs in the GLIMPSE/MIPSGAL images used in the MWP is not chiefly due to the rough equivalence of the 8 µm and 24 µm fluxes as mentioned in Section 3 of their paper as this was anticipated for all H II regions, but came about because the emission is spatially coincident. This spatial chance they feel is expected in the early stages of the evolution of H II regions/PDRs.



Simulations predict that large PDRs will form around any initial dust-filled ionized region, and that the maximum size of the PDR, and the time at which the maximum size is obtained, are both relatively insensitive to stellar luminosity (Roger & Dewdney 1992 (23).


They also felt that as the ionized region evolves it is expected to catch-up to the photo-dissociation front resulting in a thin, shocked H I region/PDR surrounding the H II region.


Much of the dust will then be removed from the central portion of the H II region via the action of radiation pressure and stellar winds (Draine 2011 (24), and PAHs will be destroyed within the ionized gas (Giard et al. 1994 (25).


This leads to a clear spatial separation between the F8 emitting region (PAH-rich, PDR) shown as green in the MWP images, and the F24 emitting region (depleted interior hot dust, perhaps resupplied by the erosion of denser clumps in the region (Everett & Churchwell 2010 (26) shown as red in the MWP images in their conclusion.


See my other article on the number of stars in the Universe vs. the amount of sands on Earth here:

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

References:


1. http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/images/3341-ssc2008-11a2-GLIMPSE-MIPSGAL-Milky-Way-

2.  C. R. Kerton, G. Wolf-Chase, K. Arvidsson, C. J. Lintott, R. J. Simpson. The Milky Way Project: What are Yellowballs? arXiv.org > astro-ph > arXiv:1502.01388v1

3. Lintott, C. J., Schawinski, K., Slosar, A., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 389, 1179

4. Smith, A. M., Lynn, S., Sullivan, M., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 1309

5. Fortson, L., Masters, K., Nichol, R., et al. 2012, in Advances in Machine Learning and Data Mining
for Astronomy, ed. M. J. Way, J. D. Scargle, K. M. Ali, & A. N. Srivastava (CRC Press,
Taylor Francis Group) 213

6. Benjamin, R. A., Churchwell, E., Babler, B. L., et al. 2003, PASP, 115, 953

7. Mizuno, D. R., Carey, S. J., Noriega-Crespo, A., et al. 2008, PASP, 120, 1028

8. Churchwell, E., Babler, B. L., Meade, M. R., et al. 2009, PASP, 121, 213

9. Carey, S. J., Noriega-Crespo, A., Mizuno, D. R., et al. 2009, PASP, 121, 76

10. Watson, C., Corn, T., Churchwell, E. B., et al. 2009, ApJ, 694, 546

11. Churchwell, E., Povich, M. S., Allen, D., et al. 2006, ApJ, 649, 759

12. Churchwell, E., Watson, D. F., Povich, M. S., et al. 2007, ApJ, 670, 428

13. Simpson, R. J., Povich, M. S., Kendrew, S., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 2442

14. Beaumont, C. N., Goodman, A. A., Kendrew, S., Williams, J. P., & Simpson, R. 2014, ApJS, 214, 3

15. Rathborne, J. M., Jackson, J. M., Chambers, E. T., et al. 2010, ApJ, 715, 310

16. Battersby, C., Ginsburg, A., Bally, J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 787, 113

17. Kendrew, S., Simpson, R., Bressert, E., et al. 2012, ApJ, 755, 71

18. Simpson, R. J., Povich, M. S., Kendrew, S., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 2442

19. Lumsden, S. L., Hoare, M. G., Urquhart, J. S., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208 11

20. Urquhart, J. S., Figura, C. C., Moore, T. J. T., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 1791

21. Taylor, M. B. 2005, in ASP Conf. Ser. 347, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV, ed. P. Shopbell, M. Britton, Csen& R. Ebert (San Francisco, CA: ASP) 29

22. Anderson, L. D., Bania, T. M., Balser, D. S., et al. 2014, ApJS, 212, 1

23. Roger, R. S. & Dewdney, P. E. 1992, ApJ, 385, 536

24. Draine, B. T. 2011, ApJ, 732, 100

25. Giard, M., Bernard, J. P., Lacombe, F., Normand, P., & Rouan, D. 1994, A&A, 291, 239

26. Everett, J. E. & Churchwell, E. 2010, ApJ, 713, 592

The Stars of Heavens vs. Sands on Earth

By:

lim ju boo

C Ed Cert Evolution (June, 2019)

University of Cambridge

C Ed Cert Astronomy (December, 2019)

University of Oxford

How much sand is there on Earth compared to stars in heavens?

This is an eternally perplexing and very difficult question confronting astronomers, scientists, and theologians

This is challenging to this writer who nevertheless shall attempt to answer with God's guidance 

God Revelation to Abraham:

When the angel of the Lord called upon Abraham, he said:

“That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies” (Genesis 22:17)

Now let’s figure out how amazingly accurate and true was that verse  written in the Bible thousands of years ago

In order to verify the truth of this verse, let's check it out much sand are there in the seashores compared to the myriads of stars in heaven

According to several rough estimates there are about 7.5 x 10^18 grains of sand, or seven quintillion, five hundred quadrillion grain in all the beaches and deserts in the world (1)

.

Others put the estimate as 5.6x10^21 grain (2).

Sand, Sand, Sand Everywhere:

However most of the estimates are confined to sands found on seashores and deserts

This writer feels there are actually far more sands on Earth than on seashores  and deserts They are spread out over the surface of Earth not just on beaches and in the deserts.

They are also found on ocean floors and sea beds, in open fields and rivers and in forests...etc.

Let us be very generous about these figures because we are going to match as many of them as possible against the numbers of stars in heavens.

Suppose we assume the layer of sand from all the beaches, sea and ocean beds, to all the deserts on Earth, down to the plains from the mountains, to the agricultural lands and wastelands,  to the roadsides and beyond to wherever sands are found, no matter how little, but collectively over huge area everywhere, including deep in the soil mixed with mud and clay, and just by the road side or outside the driveway outside every house...etc., etc., were to be spread out evenly over the surface of Earth to a very generous layer between 0.5 – 0.8 metres in depth, then the volume of the sand-covered layer will be the volume of Earth minus the volume of Earth below the sandy layers where the rock-beds are.

Layers Over Earth:

These layers probably contain much more sands collectively, and in various sizes over a much larger surface area and volume than all the sands on all the beaches and deserts.

Let us assume we spread out all the sands to cover the Earth's surface area including the ocean and sea beds and over the mountains and plains up to between  a layer between 0.5 m - 0.8 m deep and determine  their volume and numbers.

Let's do our own calculations instead using first principles to revise all other previous calculations done by others.

In order to do that, we need to know the radius of Earth.

The radius of Earth varies between 6,378 km (6,378,000 metres) at the equator to 6,357 km (6,357,000 metres) at a pole. This means its average radius is 6,367,500 km.

However, when only one radius is acceptable, the preferred value according to the International Astronomical Union (IAU), is the equatorial radius defined as 6,378,000 metres  (3).

Let’s take that accepted officially-recognized value for the radius of Earth

Let us now assume  we spread all the sand covering the Earth's surface area including the ocean and sea beds and over the mountains and plain over the surface of Earth up to a thickness  between 0.5 m - 0.8 m deep. 

The Surface Area (A) of Earth 

This is given by:

A = 4πr^2, where r is the equatorial radius of Earth at  6,378,000 metres 

= 5.112 x 10^14 sq. m

Volume of Earth:

Let us now consider the volume of Earth and the volume of sand over the surface of Earth.

The volume (V1) of the Earth defined by this radius would be V1 = 4/3 πr^3 = 1.086781293 x 10^21 cubic metres.

The radius of Earth defined by the layer below sand 0.5 m thick on the surface would be:

 6377999.5 metres.

Its volume (V2) would be 4/3 π x 6377999.5^3 =

1.086781037 x 10^21 cubic metres.

Volume of Sand: 

Hence volume of sand around the Earth 0.5 m deep = Volume of Earth (V1) - Volume of Earth to rock bed (V2) = 2.56 x 10 ^14 cubic metres.

Volume of Earth less 0.8 m =

1.086780884 x 10^21 cubic metre

Hence volume of sand around the Earth 0.8 m deep = Volume of Earth (V1) - Volume of Earth to rock bed (V3) = 4.09 x 10 ^14 cubic metres

Sizes of Sand:

The sizes of sand varies greatly from place to place, from coarse to very fine grains. However, if we take tens of hundreds of random samplings from different locations and depths and average their size to represent a statistical population of sands around the world, this may work out to be about 0.00947mm3 (9.47^-12 cubic metre).

Hence the quantity of sand 0.5 m deep = 2.56 x 10 ^14 cubic metres / 9.47^-12 cubic metre = 2.7 x 10^25 grains  (27 followed by 24 zeros) or 27 quadrillion (UK) or 27 septillion (US)

For 0.8 m deep, the amount of sand = 4.09 x 10 ^14 cubic metres / 9.47^-12 cubic metre = 4.3 x 10^25 grains (43 followed by 24 zeros) or 43 quadrillion (UK) or 43 septillion (US)

Number of Stars in Heavens (Universe):

Now let us look at the stars. When God brought Abraham outside his tent and said, “Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them” (Genesis 15:5).

 I believe Abraham was only to count a maximum of between 5,000 - 5,500 stars in the very dark, clear and light pollution-free nights over the wilderness and wide expense over  the deserts even thousands of years ago  since the faintest naked-eye stars visible on the darkest night have an apparent magnitudes of about + 6.5. which is the limit of human visual acuity without the aid of a telescope or a pair of binoculars

Never would Abraham have thought the number of stars in heaven were far, far, far more than he could have counted or believed, let alone number of sands on a seashore

Let’s have a look what modern astronomers with their tens of hundreds of powerful land-based and space telescopes have revealed 

For instance,  in our own Milky Way Galaxy itself there were an estimated of between 100 - 400 billion stars (4), (5) and more than 100 billion planets (6), (7). One billion is 10^9

There are at least 2 trillion (2 x 10^12) galaxies in the observable universe (8), (9).

 Assuming the universe is isotropic, the distance to the edge of the observable universe is roughly the same in every direction. That is, the observable universe has a spherical volume (a ball) centered on the observer (10).

These galaxies are numbered in many galaxies being grouped together into clusters, mega-clusters and super clusters. Their numbers are almost uncountable.

There may be much, much more since we can only observe up to radius of 13.7 billion light years up to the limit of an Observable Universe defined by the Hubble Radius.

There may be much, much more beyond this observable radius where light from galaxies beyond has not sufficient time to reach us

Let us safely assume there may be as much as 3 trillion (3 x 10^12) galaxies all in, each harboring no less than 100 billion (10^11) other planets.

Let’s leave all the extra-solar and stellar planets out, and assume we have at least 3 trillion (3 x 10^12) galaxies within an Observable Universe, each galaxy consisting of a minimum of 400 billion (4 x 10^13 stars) which is 1.2 X 10^24 stars

There are many more larger and super galaxies than our own Milky Way Galaxy, and many of them may be 10 times larger as clusters with at least 40,000 billion stars each, the exact numbers we are unsure.

But let us be conservative to the limits of our telescopes up to the edge of the Universe

This means there may be as many as 1.2 x 10^26 stars within the Observable Radius of 13.7 billion light years of this Universe.

Some older estimates put the numbers as 10^21, but we think there are far more than that  when we have better and better and more powerful  space-orbiting telescopes in place constantly surveying the heavens 

How that work out when we have quadrillions and septillions of  grains of sand on Earth to challenge? How does that match, Earth against Heavens? 

We have calculated that  if the Earth's surface is covered with 0.5 m of sand evenly all over, then there are  2.7 x 10^25 grains

This works out that heaven (Universe) has 4.4 times more stars than there are sands on Earth covering the entire surface of Earth 0.5 m thick.

If we add more sands at 4.3 x 10^25 grains to cover up Earth up to 0.8 m,  this works out to be 1.2 X 10^26 / 4.3 x 10^25 = 2.8 times more stars in heaven than in all the sands on the seashores and deserts and elsewhere covering up Earth till 0.8 metres deep.

Lowering Down the Estimates:

Even if we accept a lower value of 2 trillion (2 x 10^12) galaxies in the observable universe (8), (9), and if we assume each would contain an average of 250 billion stars, this would work out as 5 x 10^23 stars in heaven.

We now confine to the number of grains of sand only to the seashores of the world estimated at 7.5 x 10^18 (seven quintillion, five hundred quadrillion)  (1), this will mean the number of stars out number all the sands in all the seashores of the world by 66,666 times which is an awful lot

Hence whichever way we look at it,  the total amount of stars within the Observable Universe will still greatly overwhelm all the  sands found in this the world.

The Revelation of the God of Moses and Abraham:

When God told Abraham to look up at the sky, it was  about the number of stars in heaven first,  before comparing them with the sands of the seashores as second, as given in the later part of the verse (Genesis 22:17)

This is such an amazing revelation both to Abraham who never knew anything about this thousands of years ago, and even to us as scientists and astronomers in this modern era.

Truly, truly this is awesomely amazing even to me.

God's Scientific Truth is truly amazing!

Glory to God to the Highest to the Ends of His Awesome Creation

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.

There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.

Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,

Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.

His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof. (Psalm 19 :1 - 6)

In Gratitude to God to the Highest: 

I pen this article in gratitude to God who has finally led me to the Promised Land of Learning after 40 years wandering in bewilderment and ignorance in Creation. I give my immense tribute to Him as our Creator, in Christ Jesus 


I also thank the Lord for guiding me through this challenging  course in Exploring The Universe till smooth completion without whose steering hands I would not have understood His awe-stunning creation of heaven and earth whose handiwork is far beyond the best human mind to comprehend .


Without His unfailing guiding hands I would never be able to understand

Glory to Him to the highest

(Read my other article on the discovery of yellow balls in the Milky Way Galaxy here):

https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/search?q=yellow

Thank you 

References:

1. https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2012/09/17/161096233/which-is-greater-the-number-of-sand-grains-on-earth-or-stars-in-the-sky

2.  https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/math/how-many-grains-of-sand-are-on-earth-s-beaches?page=all

3. Mamajek, E. E; Prsa, A; Torres, G; et al. (2015). "IAU 2015 Resolution B3 on Recommended Nominal Conversion Constants for Selected Solar and Planetary Properties". arXiv:1510.07674 [astro-ph.SR].

4 "Milky Way". BBC. Archived from the original on March 2, 2012.

5  "How Many Stars in the Milky Way?". NASA Blueshift. Archived from the original on January 25, 2016.

6. Cassan, A.; et al. (January 11, 2012). "One or more bound planets per Milky Way star from microlensing observations". Nature. 481 (7380): 167–169. arXiv:1202.0903. Bibcode:2012Natur.481..167C. doi:10.1038/nature10684. PMID 22237108.

7.  Staff (January 2, 2013). "100 Billion Alien Planets Fill Our Milky Way Galaxy: Study". Space.com. Archived from the original on January 3, 2013. Retrieved January 3, 2013.

8. Conselice, Christopher J.; et al. (2016). "The Evolution of Galaxy Number Density at z < 8 and Its Implications". The Astrophysical Journal. 830 (2): 83. arXiv:1607.03909v2. 

Bibcode:2016ApJ...830...83C. doi:10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/83.

9. Fountain, Henry (17 October 2016). "Two Trillion Galaxies, at the Very Least". New York Times. Retrieved 17 October 2016.

10.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

The Goldilocks Zone of Habitable Planets

TITLE OF FORUM DISCUSSION: THE CIRCUM-STELLAR HABITABLE ZONE:

by

lim ju boo

Student in Astronomy

University of Oxford


CEd Cert (Evolution / Mystery of  Life) May, 2019
University of Cambridge 

The Goldilocks Zone is a zone from a star where water could exist on the surface of an Earth-like planet outside our Solar System, and where the existence of life maybe possible?

Calculations on the Goldilocks Zone:

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

R _i = √ (L _star / 1.1)

R ₀ = √ (L _star / 0.53)

R _i = the inner boundary of the habitable zone in astronomical units (AU)

R _o = the outer boundary of the habitable zone in astronomical units (AU)

L star is the absolute luminosity of the star

1.1 is a constant value representing stellar flux at the inner radius (Kasting et al., 1993), (Whitmire et al., 1996)

0.53 is a constant value representing stellar flux at the outer radius (Kasting et al., 1993), (Whitmire et al., 1996)


Examples of 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 formulas given by researchers and 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 such as the presence of water if it is not too near or too far away from a parent star, but does not mean there are life there on these extra-solar planets

I hope I will not be penalized as a student for my independent thinking

Thank you.

References: 

1. Kasting, James; Whitmire, Daniel; and Reynolds, Ray (1993). Habitable zones around main sequence stars. Icarus 101: 108 - 128

2. Kasting, James F. (1996). Habitable zones around stars: An update. In: Doyle, Laurence (ed.). Circumstellar Habitable Zones, 117 - 142. Travis House Publications, Menio Park

Density of The Milky Way Galaxy

by 

lim ju boo



Student in Astronomy
University of Oxford




(This is a short forum discussions written regularly among dozens during the duration of the course in astronomy) 




The Milky Way is a barred spiral galaxy with a diameter between 150,000 and 200,000 light-years across (1), (2) (3) (4).



It is estimated to contain 100–400 billion stars (5), (6) and more than 100 billion planets (7), (8).


Its thickness on the average is approximately 1,000 light year (ly) or 0.3 kpc thick.



The galactic center is an intense radio source known as Sagittarius A, assumed to be a supermassive black hole of 4.100 (± 0.034) million solar masses.



About 90 percent of the stars in the universe, including the sun, are main sequence stars. These stars can range from about a tenth of the mass of the sun to up to 200 times as massive. Stars start their lives as clouds of dust and gas.



With so much variations, plus masses of gas clouds, dust, dark matter, baryonic and non-baryonic matter, black holes and super massive black holes, all not included, it is very hard to estimate the exact mass or even its exact size.



Nevertheless, let's make some approximation



Let us take its diameter as 150,000 ly across or a radius of 75,000 ly

Let us assume it is a disk 1,000 ly thick

Volume of the Milky Way (MY) disk = pi x r^(2) x thickness = pi x 75,0002 X 1,000

= 1.767 x 10^13 cubic light years (ly) 

Since 1 light year = 9.461 x 10^12 km = 9.461 x 10^15 metres

1 cubic light year = cube of 9.461 x 10^15 metres = 8.469 x 10^47    cubic metres

Hence the volume of the MY Galaxy = (1.767 x 10^13) cubic ly x (8.469 x 10^47) cubic metres

= 1.496 x 10^61 cubic metres …..(a)



Similarly, if it is 200,000 ly across, its volume will be 3.142 x 10^13 cubic ly



Hence, its estimated volume is between 1.767 x 10 ^13 to 3.142 x 10 ^13 cubic light years.



However the centre of the MY Galaxy where most of the stars are, may have a little elliptical bulge? If it is so, without knowing the semi-axis major and the semi-axis minor of the ellipse, and the thickness of the bulge, it is almost impossible to integrate its volume. But we shall assume it is somewhat a spiral circular disk.


Most of the stars lie in the compact centre of the MY, and becomes less dense towards the spiral periphery. But let us assume they are all uniformly spread out over the spiral disk for ease of calculations. 



Let us now calculate its mass.


It is estimated to contain 100–400 billion stars (5), (6) and more than 100 billion planets (7), (8).

(1 billion = one thousand million, or 10^9)



Since 90 % of the stars are main sequence stars like our Sun each with a solar mass of 2 x 10^30 kg we may roughly assume the total mass of all the 100 - 400 billion stars in the MY Galaxy would be:

2 x 10^41 kg – 8 x 10^41 kg

[Mass of the Sun = 1.989 × 10^33 g (approx. 2×10^30 kg)].

But the MY is estimated also to contain 100 billion planets (assuming they are all like those in our Solar System).

What I have done is to take the total mass of all the 9 planets in our Solar System plus our own moon (9) but leave out all the other moons and all the thousands of asteroids, and collectively I found them   to have a mass 2.67 x 10^27 kg. or a weighted average of 2.67 x 10^26 kg each



Hence the total mass of the 100 billion planets would be: 2.67 x 10^26 x kg x 10^11 = 2.67 x 10^37 kg.



Add this to the total mass of the stars = (2 x 10^41 kg to 8 x 10^41 kg) + 2.67 x 10^37 kg

= 2 x 10^41 kg – 8 x 10^41 kg ….(b)

Hence the density of the MY Galaxy = mass / volume = b/a = 2 x 10^41 kg / 1.496 x 10^61 cubic metres

= 1.34 x 10 ^ -20 kg per cubic metre (if it contains 100 billion stars across 150,000 ly in diameter)



Or If it contains 400 billion stars + 100 billion planets across 150,000 light years, then its density would be:

8 x 10^41 kg  / 1.497 x 10^61 cubic metres = 5.34 x 10 ^-20 kg /cubic metre

(Density of hydrogen = 0.0899 kg /cubic metre. The critical density for the Universe is approximately 10^-26 kg/m3), or 10 hydrogen atoms per cubic metre



The critical density for the Universe is approximately 10^-26 kg/m3 (or 10 hydrogen atoms per cubic metre)


Conclusion:


Hence we can see that the density of the Milky Way Galaxy is far below the critical density for the universe. . Suppose all the galaxies in the Universe has a density similar to our MY Galaxy, then we can expect the Universe will continue to expand forever


The 100 billion exoplanets in other stellar systems of the Milky Way with an estimated combined mass of 2.67 x 10^37 kg does not make any difference compared to the masses of 100 - 400 billion stars with an estimated combined mass of 2 x 10^41 kg to 8 x 10^41 kg


Hence, whether or not we add all the masses of 100 billion exoplanets to those found in the stars, the total density of the Milky Way Galaxy is still the same, and is still far too low than the critical density needed for Universe to slow down its expansion if we assume the Milky Way Galaxy represents the countless myriads of galaxies, clusters of galaxies and mega-clusters of galaxies that stretch out to 13.7 billion light years in radius (Hubble's Radius) of an Observable Universe




If all the matter, including baryonic and non- baryonic matter, gas
clouds, dusts, black holes, and unknown matter,  most of them not accounted for in the calculation were to be added, the density of the Milky Way probably will be at least 10 times higher than estimated here

Even then it is still far below the critical density estimated for the entire Universe 


References:

1.      M. López-Corredoira, C. Allende Prieto, F. Garzón, H. Wang, C. Liu and L. Deng (2018). "Disk stars in the Milky Way detected beyond 25 kpc from its center". Astronomy & Astrophysics. 612: L8. arXiv:1804.03064. Bibcode:2018A&A...612L...8L. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201832880.

2.      David Freeman (May 25, 2018). "The Milky Way galaxy may be much bigger than we thought" (Press release). CNBC.

3.      Mary L. Martialay (March 11, 2015). "The Corrugated Galaxy—Milky Way May Be Much Larger Than Previously Estimated" (Press release). Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Archived from the original on March 13, 2015.

4.      Hall, Shannon (May 4, 2015). "Size of the Milky Way Upgraded, Solving Galaxy Puzzle". Space.com. Archived from the original on June 7, 2015. Retrieved June 9, 2015.

5.      Milky Way". BBC. Archived from the original on March 2, 2012.

6.      "How Many Stars in the Milky Way?". NASA Blueshift. Archived from the original on January 25, 2016.

7.      Cassan, A.; et al. (January 11, 2012). "One or more bound planets per Milky Way star from microlensing observations". Nature. 481 (7380): 167–169. arXiv:1202.0903. Bibcode:2012Natur.481..167C. doi:10.1038/nature10684. PMID 22237108.

8.      Staff (January 2, 2013). "100 Billion Alien Planets Fill Our Milky Way Galaxy: Study". Space.com. Archived from the original on January 3, 2013. Retrieved January 3,

9.      https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/

Is the Appendix a Vestigial Organ?

This is an abridged write-up on the role of the appendix written in part to answer Professor Dr. Andrew Charles Gomez, a very well-known ENT surgeon, whose question to me was, whether I agree with him that the appendix serves as a store house for beneficial bacteria, and has a role in nutrition.

I was asked for my opinion.

I fully concur with what Prof Gomez commented to questions asked in a round of mail exchanges circulated among friends, scientific and medical colleagues in a Whatsapp group.

EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY:

Here is my opinion  as an extension on evolutionary biology I recently studied, in that the appendix has evolved as part of a useful component of the gastrointestinal gut shown in several mammalian lineages, including probably in some of the earliest humanoids, the Neanderthals some 150 – 200 thousand years ago, and in the early homo sapiens according to anthropological and fossil records.

According to some more recent studies, this evolutionary linkage has persisted for thousands of years and has never disappears entirely. This suggests that the appendix may have served an adaptive purpose in gut physiology in all these mammalian species, including for modern humans for a very long evolutionary period in time.

Some previous studies on embryonic development, and into intrauterine life till about 1 -2 years post neonatal life in humans, as well as in many mammals, the appendix is statically-significantly larger by about 35 – 43 % than in adults.

EARLY INFANT NUTRITION:

This suggests that the appendix may play a very important role the early stages of early life support as part of the immunological defenses, as well as its role in paediatric nutrition when beneficial gut microbiota (gut bacteria) and pathogenic bacteria begin to establish themselves, often in competition with each other for their colonic habitat.

One purpose I hypothesize is that, in infant nutrition for the new born, milk sugar (lactose) in milk requires an enzyme (lactase) to breakdown for it to be bio-available to babies.

In adult humans who stop drinking milk post-weaning period, this enzyme may cease to produce, in that there would be no more epigenetic influence of the lactose in milk on specific genes that express the lactase needed to digest the milk sugars.

 As a clinical sequel in adult humans, especially among the Chinese and non-milk drinking Asians, they develop milk intolerance due to lactase deficiency as one of the reasons. There are also other genetic factors being considered.

 This role of lactase is then taken over by the gut bacteria such as lactobacilli to break down the milk sugar to make it available to infants (humans as well as babies of mammals).

Notwithstanding, milk intolerance in adults may be offset by the consumption of yogurt, fermented products and lactobacilli and the use of probiotics immediately following an ingestion of large quantity of cow’s milk for those who are lactose intolerant.

     

In infantile life, useful gut flora is supplied by the increased appendix size to total colon surface area ratio. There it serves as larger pouch and reservoir to shelter a larger populations of microbiota more effectively than what the rest of the colon’s ability.

It is the constant abrasive actions of the peristaltic contractions and motility of the intestines on colonic residues that constantly remove large population of gut flora, compared to the safe harbor of an inactive “vestigial” appendix.  

It has been my personal opinion on evolutionary biology, that it has been designed this way for the purpose of digestion of milk and the bio-availability other highly complex sugars and starches that would not have been possible in a highly motile colon.

GUT MICROBIOLOGY:

However, as the mammalian species (includes humans) grow, the microbiota too multiple proportionally, and they migrate towards the much larger surface area of the colon outside the appendix where space is not confined in a pouch, and where nutrients are limited. There outside the appendix the colonies of bacteria thrive best.

As a sequel, the appendix by natural design, atrophies into a vestigial part of the colon, serving as if it has no more physiological function.

As the milk-breaking as well as the complex starch breaking bacteria population shrinks and migrate from the now smaller appendix compared to the larger surface area of the large intestines, pathogenic bacteria gets into the appendix, and  occupy the vacant space where there is now lesser bacterial competition.

This is where and when opportunistic infections get hold, and where lymphoid tissue and antibodies are in decline, causing the notorious and common appendicitis.

It is unfortunate that bacteria multiply and spread into the much larger areas of the colon where food is aplenty and vacating an enclosed isolated appendix may not be the best evolutionary option for the individual.

One of the reasons for the migration is that, immune bodies in higher amounts are found in the appendix, but in lesser amounts in the lymphoid tissues of the colon and in the cecum.

Higher challenge by lymphoid tissues may not be adaptive for the beneficial gut flora. It is part of an adaptive response when environment becomes hostile.

This suggests that, that part of the vestigial colon has actually an immunological function since high concentration of lymphoid tissues is also found especially in the early stage of infantile development.

We know that the presence of lymphatic tissues and antibodies in the colon, cecum and appendix may promote the growth of beneficial microbiota and probiotic, such as Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium which is extremely useful for colon health as well as in the synthesis of certain vitamins like folic acids.

In my opinion, combining what we already know in advances in gastrointestinal physiology, infant nutrition, gut microbiology, immunology and in evolutionary biology, I think the appendix has a well-deserved place in the biological evolution for  the well-being of colonic health, and thus cannot be labeled as a vestigial part of the colon as most scientists and medical experts think.

After all we have our own independent thinking, and we need to gather information from other areas of biomedical sciences as well and not just seen in one small corner of specialized medical or scientific discipline to resolve this age-old theory that the appendix is a vestigial organ with no physiological role. We need to think out of the box, and not be intellectually stagnant  

The only problem is when it gets infected by impacted food lodged there. That is when the classical appendicitis is presented, and needs to be surgically addressed.

But then we will also lose part of our developmental immunological system in that part of the anatomy which may initiate the risk of colorectal cancer? This is another area of interest 

I hope I have been of some help to your questions Prof Dr. Gomez.  But I do concur with your suggestion that the appendix has a role in gut nutrition.

Congratulations to you for your similar  thinking! 

Lim ju boo, Post-doctoral CE Cert. in Evol. Biol. (University of Cambridge)  

Jesus Reversed The Chemistry of Death

Yes, dear Prof Dr N. Sethi.  Thank you for your question.  Here’s my personal thinking:

I did mean it when I said that when Jesus told His mother "My hour has not yet come" (John 2:1-5) at the wedding at Cana where He performed His first miracle by converting barrels of water onto organic- based wine, Jesus meant (without telling us), it was still too early for Him to show He was a divine being who came to Earth in human form to give life.

When I read this verse it has very deep, deep meaning to me. I did not elaborate earlier because I too have to wait till I have a better understanding.

At the moment I am not at home to write on my home PC, and I am using my smart phone to type which is very difficult to write in much more details as I wish.

But very briefly, here’s what I  have earlier explained elsewhere.

Composition of Wine:

Wine is just the chemical product of not just two life giving, but living substances, namely grapes and yeast through fermentation. Wine is NOT alive, but is the biochemical product of these TWO, just like God and Jesus together as ONE  living Being

Wine is produced by one way biochemical reaction via fermentation

This reaction is ONE WAY that CANNOT be reversed to give back the living yeast and the vine that produces the grapes with glucose in them.

It will require an awesome divine power to reverse this chemistry. But Jesus did it, but not immediately. He waited till His time has come probably He waited for that “living energy” to be pumped into His body by His Father (God) in heaven to begin His ministry on Earth.

So Jesus waited till His time comes to reverse this irreversible chemical reaction. That was why Jesus told His mother "My hour has not yet come" Can we now not understand why He said that to His mother?

For this reason at that moment Jesus merely changed water into wine as a precursor of life what He was going to do much later to Lazarus.

It was much later that Jesus showed His true life-giving miracles on Lazarus

Chemical Reaction Reversing from Death to Life:

This time round He reversed  a totally irreversible chemistry of a dead person to the functioning chemistry of a living person (the Chemistry of Life) who was Lazarus as His first living miracles  by raising him from the dead

This time, His time has come by doing the opposite of what He did when He first performed His first miracle by converting water into wine.

To me this is awful, simple awful. It is awesome, simply awesome where even chemistry and the laws of chemistry governing their reactions have to obey Jesus. Even the fixed laws have to obey and give way at the command of Jesus.  

Jesus simply reversed all  the break down chemicals of decomposition that may have already seeped into the soil where Lazarus laid in his tomb.  He caused them to move and gather together in one place once again to be assembled into Lazarus body.

The account on how Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead is given in John 11:38-44.

This to me was simply awesome, just far too mind blogging at least for me to understand.  How did all the chemicals of decomposition come together once again probably already seeped into the soil

Not just that. Jesus reversed their original breakdown chemical reactions and became living biomolecules once again inside Lazarus body.

 It was clearly the case of from the Chemistry of Death into the Chemistry of Life.  Even chemistry and its irreversible laws of chemical reactions have to obey Jesus as He commanded

This is really beyond me.

Not just that alone. He was able to multiple food many, many times over to feed some 5.000 people who followed Him (Matthew 14:13-21).

How did Jesus managed to convert  five loaves of bread and two fish the disciples have into so much food to feed some 5,000 people.

Not just being able to multiple five loaves of bread to feed the multitude of people, but a lot of leftovers too. ”picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over.”

Food was Once Living:

We know that food can only come from a living thing. All food MUST originally be living and have life in them first. That is so sure, until killed and sacrificed as food before the food of life can be passed on to the next living creature in order to give it continuing life. That is more than for sure.

We have to admit that food must first come from a living thing such as fish, and cereal grains such wheat plants to give us bread. Food cannot arise from non-living substances such as sand, cement, concrete, bricks, soil, water and air. We cannot eat bricks and sand to give us life expressed in the chemistry of life. That is for sure!

Those living things must sacrifice their lives first to provide us food such as fish and our daily bread. This is exactly how Jesus has to sacrifice His life in order to give us eternal life.   

 In other words no living things, be he humans or animals can eat non-living things like rock, cement, soil or bricks…etc. It MUST once-upon-a-time have life in them in order for it to pass on this “spark of life” on to the next living creature  like a flame from a lamp passing on its flame to the next unlit lamp. .and on and on until ALL the unlit lamps in a row are ablaze with light, warmth and light…all representing LIFE

But where did this spark of life first came from to ablaze the entire planet with all sorts of life and living things?

There is no other alternative but to give this credit completely and totally to an Intelligent Being who has that Eternal Flame of Life.

This scenario to my thinking is parallel to Charles Darwin Theory of Evolution how the first life on  Planet  Earth  radiated into so many kinds of life forms and into millions of species  on Earth.

In short, life has to be given and passed on from life-to-life. We have no choice trying to think of other alternatives.

I think we have just no choice but to give our COMPLETE and TOTAL Credit to God and to Jesus whom God sent to Earth to show us the truth which we as scientists have been blind to  because to me, we may have profound knowledge in Science but definitely NOT in  wisdom

We can never acquire wisdom by learning in a university, but wisdom unlike knowledge can only be given to us spiritually by seeking   it through daily prayers just like King Solomon asked  in his dream    

Just once again to echo what I said. We  have to admit that food must first come from a living thing such as fish, and cereal grains such wheat plants to give us bread. Food cannot arise from non-living substances such as sand, cement, concrete, bricks, soil, water and air.

Those living things must sacrifice their lives first to provide us food such as fish and our daily bread. This is exactly how Jesus has to sacrifice His life in order to give us eternal life. We cannot deny this, and we have no other ways to explain or to choose.   

Just remember, God is a Spirit. He is not a material Being we are able to see, touch, measure or to investigate.

Science is merely a study of matter and energy, and their properties. Science cannot detect or study something outside our physical dimension.

We belong to the physical world and God is at the other end in a Spiritual World and dimension where  we cannot enter, and neither beings from a spiritual world enter into our physical dimension to tell us their eternal existence, whereas our life-span is just an infinitesimal 120 years at most by way of strength, 70 or 80  (Psalm 90:10)

Our physical body has a living soul which is enshrined as one entity, and when we die a physical death the soul separates from our physical body and enters into the spiritual dimension and remains there throughout all eternity.

The spiritual soul does NOT die. We die because we are mere physical being, and we return to the soil from where we first came.

Adam was made from the soil of the earth, but it was NOT living until God breathed into his nostrils and Adam became the first living soul (dead physical body plus a soul = a living entity)

 “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Genesis 2:7) KJV

I have never heard this preached by anyone in my entire 80 years in life, so I like to share my personal thought with you.

Thank you for reading, more importantly to ponder over this yourself.

Lim Ju Boo