FOUND: Interstellar Pre-Biotic, Pre-RNA Molecular Clouds Residing Throughout the Milky Way

FOUND: An Interstellar Pre-Biotic, Pre-RNA Molecular

Cloud Residing Throughout the Milky Way

by R.E. Slater

July 15, 2022

 

[ARTICLE EXCERPTS]

The heart of the Milky Way is apparently a hotspot for molecules that combine to form RNA...

A new survey of the thick, molecular clouds that shroud the galactic center has revealed the presence of a wide range of nitriles – organic molecules that are often toxic in isolation, but also constitute the building blocks of molecules essential for life...

The increase in prebiotic molecules (molecules involved in the emergence of life) identified in the galactic center, particularly those associated with RNA, has implications for our understanding of how life emerges in the Universe – and how it did so here on Earth...

"Here we show that the chemistry that takes place in the interstellar medium is able to efficiently form multiple nitriles, which are key molecular precursors of the 'RNA World' scenario," explained astrobiologist Víctor Rivilla of the Spanish National Research Council and the National Institute of Aerospace Technology in Spain....

I wrote an article less than a year ago about the about all the things in common which humanity shares with the Earth. It came about because I was listening to the traditional interpretation of biblical anthropology I had grown up with as to how mankind is uniquely unique to all of creation. Which, in one sense it is. And yet, in another sense it isn't. From a praying mantis' view of itself it can claim the same thing about its uniqueness which man cannot, but the poor thing can't write and so cannot place an addendum into the Genesis record of being made in God's image (sad face :/).

Typically then this very common viewpoint claims man is the epicenter of God's creativity so much so that we were given dominion over all of it and is backed up by the Genesis statement in 1:26-28.

As things go, it strokes the egos of Christians and separates us from the mindsets of the Native American Indians and Asian Buddhist communities (among others) which see mankind as part of the warp-and-woof of creation. That is, as part of the essential foundation of creation not as its center point or even the full meaning of creation.

Rather, mankind is a product of its environment... which from an evolutionary point of view is absolutely true. Man is no more, nor no less, from the Earth's resident potentialities. That is, man is pretty much the same as everything else. We come from the Earth and will return to the Earth.

And lest we forget, all creation is filled with God’s Imago Dei, not just man. This would be one of Process Theology’s fundamental cornerstones. It’s why process theology may be described as a process relational theology.

It emphasizes man’s relationship with all of creation even as creation is in relationship to itself, evolving, communicating, networking, “speaking” its language of relationality, of community, of affectation good and bad of panexperientialism, panrelationalism, and panpsychism. This is but one of the aspects of process theology (and philosophy) which marks it as uniquely different from the yesteryear world of mechanism, individualism, substance thinking, and so on.

Genesis 3:19 ESV

By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

Ecclesiastes 3:20 ESV

All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 ESV

And the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

1 Samuel 31:12 ESV

All the valiant men arose and went all night and took the body of Saul and the bodies of his sons from the wall of Beth-shan, and they came to Jabesh and burned them there.

John 3:16 ESV

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Hebrews 8:7 ESV

For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.

Acts 1:3 ESV

He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.

Joshua 7:25 ESV

And Joshua said, “Why did you bring trouble on us? The Lord brings trouble on you today.” And all Israel stoned him with stones. They burned them with fire and stoned them with stones.

Ezekiel 18:1-32 ESV

The word of the Lord came to me: “What do you mean by repeating this proverb concerning the land of Israel, ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge’? As I live, declares the Lord God, this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel. Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die. “If a man is righteous and does what is just and right...

Final thought, and the reason this post was created…

I find the discovery of interstellar molecular clouds astounding! To find pre-biotic, pre-RNA molecular clouds lying everywhere throughout the Milky Way goes beyond the imagination in explaining the origins of life. Though why we hadn’t imagined the universe’s RNA potentiality until now is truly a paradox. Especially as it’s clues lied everywhere around us – in plants, animals, bugs, the worlds of the small, and within our own bodily composition. But it took astrochemists to discover this wonderment beyond the mere Earth-centric evolutionists in all of us. Amazing!

Thus and thus, if there is no organic mix than there is no life. We claim to be born of star dust but it that molecular mixture cannot produce pre-RNA than these are but idle, poetic statements.

But if such initial conditions are present in our galactic universe than we should expect RNA-based organic lifeforms everywhere throughout the Milky Way's galactic regions. Consequently, these prebiotic organic molecular compounds seeded earth for life.

Which is another way of saying that when studying earth we are studying our galactic origins and may expect to find RNA based lifeforms throughout the galaxy of the Milky Way... If not beyond our galaxy and throughout the universe itself… assuming such preorganic molecular clouds are not unique to the Milky Way alone, but were a distribution of life from the Big Bang's very beginning – it’s chaotic birth of life into life.

R.E. Slater

July 16, 2022

Related References

Star Light, Star Bright - a poem by R.E. Slater

What Does It Mean to be Human? - Pachyderms, Podcasts & Process

Index - Process Sciences: Biology, Physics, Computing

Despite the generally hostile nature of the environments involved, chemistry does occur in space. Molecules are seen in environments that span a wide range of physical and chemical conditions and that clearly were created by a multitude of chemical processes, many of which differ substantially from those associated with traditional equilibrium chemistry.

The wide range of environmental conditions and processes involved with chemistry in space yields complex populations of materials, and because the elements H, C, O, and N are among the most abundant in the universe, many of these are organic in nature, including some of direct astrobiological interest.

Much of this chemistry occurs in “dense” interstellar clouds and protostellar disks surrounding forming stars because these environments have higher relative densities and more benign radiation fields than in stellar ejectae or the diffuse interstellar medium. Because these are the environments in which new planetary systems form, some of the chemical species made in these environments are expected to be delivered to the surfaces of planets where they can potentially play key roles in the origin of life.

Because these chemical processes are universal and should occur in these environments wherever they are found, this implies that some of the starting materials for life are likely to be widely distributed throughout the universe.

* * * * * * *

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article Front. Astron. Space Sci., 08 July 2022

Sec.Astrochemistry

https://doi.org/10.3389/fspas.2022.876870

This article is part of the Research Topic RNA World Hypothesis and the Origin of Life: Astrochemistry Perspective

View all 13 Articles - RNA World Hypothesis and the Origin of Life: Astrochemistry Perspective

Molecular Precursors of the RNA-World in Space: New Nitriles in the G+0.693−0.027 Molecular Cloud

The galactic center, imaged in infared. (NASA/JPL-Caltech/S. Stolovy, Spitzer Science Center/Caltech)

Loads of Precursors For RNA Have Been

Detected in The Center of Our Galaxy

article link

by Michelle Starr

July 8, 2022

The heart of the Milky Way is apparently a hotspot for molecules that combine to form RNA.

A new survey of the thick, molecular clouds that shroud the galactic center has revealed the presence of a wide range of nitriles – organic molecules that are often toxic in isolation, but also constitute the building blocks of molecules essential for life.

The increase in prebiotic molecules (molecules involved in the emergence of life) identified in the galactic center, particularly those associated with RNA, has implications for our understanding of how life emerges in the Universe – and how it did so here on Earth.

"Here we show that the chemistry that takes place in the interstellar medium is able to efficiently form multiple nitriles, which are key molecular precursors of the 'RNA World' scenario," explained astrobiologist Víctor Rivilla of the Spanish National Research Council and the National Institute of Aerospace Technology in Spain.

Precisely how life emerged on Earth is a mystery whose bottom scientists are extremely keen to reach. That information will yield important clues to discovering exoplanets likely to harbor living organisms.

One version is that RNA emerged first from the metaphorical ooze, self-replicating and diversifying all on its own; this is what's called the RNA World Hypothesis.

We're not likely to ever get direct evidence from Earth, but we can put together more and more clues to figure out how plausible and likely this scenario is. One of the questions raised by this hypothesis is about the source of RNA prebiotic molecules such as nitriles. Were they here on Earth from the start, or could they have been carried in from space on meteorites and asteroids?

We know the inner Solar System, including Earth, was subject to a period of intense asteroid bombardment very early in its history. We've also found prebiotic molecules on meteors, comets, and asteroids hanging around the Solar System today. And where do meteors, comets and asteroids get them [as they fly through the galaxy]?

Well, probably the clouds they were born in: cold molecular clouds that give birth to stars. Once a star finishes forming from a section of cloud, the cloud leftovers go on to form everything else in a planetary system – planets, comets, asteroids, dwarf planets, and whatever else might be lurking about.

The Solar System's birth cloud is long gone, but the center of the galaxy is thick with molecular clouds. It's called the Central Molecular Zone, and scientists have found a bunch of prebiotic molecules hanging around there.

One particular cloud, named G+0.693-0.027, is especially interesting. There's no evidence of star formation there yet, but scientists believe that a star or stars will form there in the future.

"The chemical content of G+0.693-0.027 is similar to those of other star-forming regions in our galaxy, and also to that of Solar System objects like comets," Rivilla said.

"This means that its study can give us important insights about the chemical ingredients that were available in the nebula that give rise to our planetary system."

The researchers used two telescopes to study the spectrum of light coming from the cloud. When certain elements or molecules absorb and re-emit light, this can be seen on the spectrum as a darker or lighter line. Interpreting these absorption and emission lines can be tricky, but it can also be used to identify which molecules are present: each one has its own spectral signature.

By carefully studying and analyzing emission features from G+0.693-0.027, Rivilla and his colleagues identified a range of nitriles, including cyanic acid, cyanoallene, propargyl cyanide, and cyanopropyne. They also made tentative detections of cyanoformaldehyde, and glycolonitrile.

Previous observations of G+0.693-0.027 revealed the presence of cyanoformaldehyde, and glycolonitrile. This suggests that nitriles are among the most abundant chemical families in the Milky Way, and that the most basic building blocks for RNA can be found in the clouds that give birth to stars and planets.

But there is – of course, as there always is – more work to be done.

"We have detected so far several simple precursors of ribonucleotides, the building blocks of RNA," explained astrobiologist Izaskun Jiménez-Serra, also of the Spanish National Research Council and the National Institute of Aerospace Technology.

"But there are still key missing molecules that are hard to detect. For example, we know that the origin of life on Earth probably also required other molecules such as lipids, responsible for the formation of the first cells. Therefore we should also focus on understanding how lipids could be formed from simpler precursors available in the interstellar medium."

The research has been published in Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences.

* * * * * * *

What Is Astrochemistry?

https://owlcation.com/stem/What-Is-Astrochemistry

by 

LEONARD KELLEY,

MAY 6, 2022

Leonard Kelley holds a bachelor's in physics with a minor in mathematics. He loves the academic world and strives to constantly explore it.

It’s What’s on the Inside…of a Galaxy

As it turns out, stars make very little of the mass of a galaxy, which end up being mainly unbonded gas and dust in a baryonic sense, for the rest is the mysterious dark matter. Stars that are born do interact with these regions in different ways, mainly depending on the size of the star and the density of material around it. But in general, the bigger the star then the more radiation it outputs into space. Ultraviolet  [radiation] is amongst the largest energy output photons that big stars release, and are absorbed by the gas surrounding it (Shields 9-10).

This causes electrons to be released and so it has become ionized. We call these regions H II, namely for the double spectral lines of hydrogen that are characteristic of them. Because of the ionizing effect, other wavelengths are released in the visible, radio, and IR along with the UV from the stars themselves and so we can also call these objects emission nebula (Ibid).

By looking at the spectral lines of these H II regions we can gather information on the temperature of the region as well as the density of each element that is present. We are interested in seeing the chemical evolution of the Universe, and these regions can assist with that. It all goes back to when the Universe was 1 minute old. At that time, only loose protons, neutrons, and electrons were flying about and no atoms were possible. But a few minutes later, the Universe cooled to the point where nuclei could be formed, specifically lots of deuterium and helium (10).

Ironically, a few more minutes later the Universe was too cool to create anymore nuclei and so synthesis stopped at a roughly 100 hydrogen to 7 helium ratio. Most of this original helium still exists in the Universe to this day with hydrogen being the preferred starting route for star formation and the vast distances between space objects preserving many elements (Ibid).

The Orion Nebula, a fous H II region. | Sciences in the Mural of Life

Flash forward a few 100 million years after the Big Bang and we get some of the first galaxies cropping up. Under the appropriate density and gravimetric conditions, some of the gas inside the galaxies collapsed and you have stars forming. These are the sites of heavy element formation, and for most stars the end of the line is iron. It simply takes too much energy to fuse beyond that and so eventually a star can no longer support itself against gravity and a supernova occurs. These events can create even heavier elements than iron and release them to the Universe. Now, our gaseous regions have tons of contaminants that can become incorporated into new stars forming (15).

In fact, each new batch of stars should become dirtier and dirtier. But not all stars end in a supernova. In fact, smaller ones have a long lifespan and so we can use the small stars much like insects trapped in amber, preserving some clues as to the timeframe (and chemistry) of its host galaxy. We have a “partial recycling program” here, where some stars trap material and others create new ones. This means heavier elements should be on the rise and smaller ones on the decrease. This is known as the simple model of elemental history for galaxies (Ibid).

Using the simple model, we can get a feel for the age of a galaxy. If you have older stars with less heavy elements then the host galaxy is young while if many newer stars have many heavy elements in them that implies an older galaxy (basically, it’s all about the timeframe needed to produce the amount of heavy elements seen in the most recent generation of stars). Using spectroscopy, we can gather data about the chemical elements in the stars themselves (15-6).

Now, let’s go back to that helium from the formation of the Universe. We care so much about the helium because certain models call for certain amounts of the material to be present. Therefore, if we can get a feel for the amount that is out there we can eliminate some models of universal growth. This is where irregular galaxies come in handy. Because of their lumpiness and high-gas concentration, not as many stars have formed there. These galaxies could be time capsules for how much stars make helium in the universe and so we can remove that amount from what is present and estimate the original values (16).

The Space Between Us and Them

Unlike the relatively dense conditions of a galaxy, the average density of the interstellar space (or the spans between stars) is about 1-2 atoms per cubic centimeter. On Earth, the best vacuum achievable is 1 million times denser than that, so it may seem space is pretty empty. But, if you rather all that nearly emptiness together and it’s not so insignificant anymore. And some places are denser than other, creating beautiful clouds of debris that are dispersed throughout space. If such a cloud of material happens to be around a star, it’s very easy to spot as radiation impacts it, generating many H II or ionized regions (Marschall 9-10).

H I regions, also known as reflection nebula, “are composed predominately of electrically neutral hydrogen atoms and molecules,” tend to be dark as well as cold and not very luminous. This makes spotting them challenging but not impossible. If you look at a patch of stars and notice an unusually empty space, its likely one of these H I regions blocking out the stars behind it. The dust in these clouds would be needed in great quantities to absorb the solar rays and also to preserve the fragile molecules contained in them (Ibid).

Interestingly, about 7% of interstellar clouds are H I regions and another 7% are H II regions, making the rest invisible to us…usually. It depends on what part of the spectrum you are looking at, and visible light isn’t the only piece of data we have. We can look at IR, UV, radio, gamma, and so on for further clues. The big key here is to look for absorption spectrums, a result of col gas being hit by hot rays and absorbing some of their spectrum. But the immediate conditions around a star can also absorb photons, so how can we tell what’s absorbing what? What’s local interference from the star and what’s the interstellar medium’s clouds? (10).

Well, overall the absorption lines from interstellar material “are generally weaker, narrower, and sharper” than those from stellar lines. Also, temperatures around a star are anywhere from 2,500 K to 30,000 K while the interstellar medium cloud averages about 100 K, so different portions of the spectrum will be impacted (Ibid).

IRAS 05437+2502, a little known reflection nebula. | Pinterest

These spectral clues were how scientists spotted some surprising molecules in space. In April 2019, Rolf Gusten (Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy in Germany) and team used data from the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy to spot helium hydride, one of the first molecules created in the universe, in NGC 7027. The telescope that collected the data flew above the water vapor in our atmosphere, allowing infrared clues to be collected, specifically at the wavelength of 149 micrometers. This helium hydride wasn’t created from the early universe but when a red giant star cast off its outer layers, resulting in high energy UV rays stripping helium of an electron and making it conducive to bonding with neutral hydrogen (Croswell).

Another molecular find was argonium, or an argon and hydrogen. Peter Schilke (University of Cologne in Germany) and David Neufeld (John Hopkins University) used data from the Herschell Space Observatory, which uses liquid helium to cool the craft and thus make extreme infrared readings possible, to spot the molecule at a wavelength of about 240 microns. It was created in the remains of the Crab Nebula when a cosmic ray removes an electron from argon which then can take a hydrogen from its natural H2 form due to the greater charge disparity. As it turns out, argonium can have its hydrogen ripped if enough H2 is present, so it’s a delicate balancing act and can in fact inform scientists as to what regions are more likely to spot potential new star factories, since hydrogen is the easiest material to fuse (Ibid).

But interestingly another clue to help us understand space material can tip us to what is what: Doppler shifts. If the thing that is absorbing photons is moving towards us, the spectrum becomes blue-shifted, but if it is moving away then it is red-shifted. In fact, Doppler shifts can reveal if many clouds are between us and a host star. And of course, spectrums can reveal chemical compositions, so knowing what is commonly in stars can help us determine cloud material. Hydrogen, helium carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen are frequently found in stars. This then reveals that clouds contain lots of calcium, sodium, potassium, and titanium (Marshall 10, 15).

Once you average out all the data we can collect on interstellar clouds, you find that they typically are 25 light years in size, have an average density of 1 to 10 atoms per cubic centimeter, and have an average mass of 100 Suns. But…averaging out the cloud properties is like trying to average out the properties of the planets. Commonalities exist, but much more specialized things do, too. Interstellar clouds can be as small as a few solar systems but can be as large as 100s of light years. Smaller clouds may be missed by stars and elude detection while large clouds can widely variable in their distribution and so be mistaken for several, smaller objects (15, 18).

Conflicting Data

With all of this in mind, astronomers can get a feel for Universal makeup and therefore behavior at different times of its life. Some data points to the simple model of elemental history for galaxies into question. One such issue with the simple model is known as the G-dwarf problem (of which our Sun happens to be a member of). These stars seems to have a lover heavy element count than the simple model predicts they should. It could be that gas from outside the galaxy falls into it, causing the ratios to be thrown off as more untainted material is present (Shields 16).

But an even bigger problem is the star production rate seen in the early Universe. All around us we see galactic clusters with elliptical galaxies, which are dead or dying in the stellar sense. In fact, these are what is left of the largest galaxies from the early Universe. If you look at their content and play things in reverse, then it points to clusters being firmly established in the Universe about half its current age ago (Long 28).

The progenitors of these clusters, aptly named protoclusters, have been spotted within the first 3 billion years of the Universe’s existence, and so have required recent developments in telescope technology to be able to resolve them, and we now think they grew quicker than our models allow for (Ibid).

What a protocluster may have looked like. | AAS Nova

Normally, an average galaxy with a lifespan of roughly 10 billion years makes 1-10 sun-like stars per year, depending on the interstellar medium and current age of the galaxy. A starburst galaxy is much busier, making 100s to 1000s of sun-like stars a year. Because of elemental resources, they usually hit their peak at 300 million years old, and eventually depleted material until becoming the elliptical of today (29-31).

But finding them in protoclusters was hard because of their high red star content and much hot interstellar gas blocking out light. You would have better luck spotting them in their starburst phase, but dust becomes an issue ironically from the high production of stars releasing heavy elements to their surroundings. Also, protoclusters were much more spread out than the clusters of today (for they were on their way to becoming the close companions they are now) (Ibid).

With the rise of new telescopes like ALMA, the Submillimeter Common User Bolometer Array, the Hershel Space Observatory, the South Pole Telescope, and the Spitzer Space Telescope, the required resolution was finally achievable. In 2018, ALMA looked at two different protoclusters: SPT12349-56 (14 galaxies) and the Distant Red Core (DRC) (10 galaxies), from different places in the Universe when it was 1.3 to 1.4 billion years old. These clusters showed tons of stars forming, at almost 10,000 times the rate of our galaxy! If this rate was sustained, then those early galaxies would have run out of fuel in only a few 100 million years and become elliptical - but way before they should have (31-2).

Science is all about adjusting the theories it produces, and galactic behavior will be no different. So stay tuned, for I am sure this field is only going to heat up….

Works Cited

Croswell, Ken. “Space is the Place for impossible molecules.” Astronomy.com. Kalmbach Publishing Co., 31 Mar. 2021. Web. 22 Jun. 2021.

Lng, Arianna S. “Too Big For The Universe.” Scientific American. Jan. 2021. Print. 28-33.

Marschall, Lawrence. “Secrets of Interstellar Clouds.” Astronomy Mar. 1982. Print. 9-10, 15, 18.

Shields, Gregory. “The Chemistry of Galaxies.” Astronomy June 1981. Print. 9-10, 16-7.

This content is accurate and true to the best of the author’s knowledge and is not meant to substitute for formal and individualized advice from a qualified professional.

@ 2022 Leonard Kelley

Jesus, Quantum Cosmology, the Church, and a few Verses

I'm doing a quick series on standard quantum cosmology as science understands it today. Though to the novice reader these series of articles may seem complicated, to the trained undergraduate in quantum physics they are all quite simple and simply stated.

In order for me to discuss a process-based metaphysical cosmology related to open and relational process theology, including process philosophy itself (ala Alfred North Whitehead and John Cobb), the physics of astronomy and cosmology must be considered (along with evolution or, what I like to call "quantum evolution," which I spoke to in the early years of this website through hundreds of articles but not recently except in general descriptive terms of processual (quantum) evolution, psychology, sociology, and ecology.)

The next two cosmology areas to be covered before I return to examining process theology via John Cobb's encapsulation of process philosophy and theology will be articles related to quantum gravity, our holographic universe and what process relational philosophy means for cosmic time and consciousness. More simply, without a relational creation (sic, universe), time and consciousness are not present; but with it, they are present as secondary affects/effects, more generally described in perhaps cosmic holographic terms rather than as psycho-illusionary terms by psychology, neurology, etc.

Lastly, by the additiin of these more recent article series I'd like to also update Relevancy22's exploration of space and time by covering local- and mega-clustering quantum cosmic bubbles (as different from, but likely, in working conjunction with, dark matter and dark energy). In this way, as readers and contemporary thinkers, we can better approach the subject areas of the bible, God, and generally, theology, with a more nuanced view than typically found in the traditional work-a-day pseudoscience view of the church.

Moreover, there is no reason to jettison one's faith unless one's faith has been built upon sand, and not rock. I find Greek Platonism and Aristotelianism quite unhelpful in grasping the earlier Hebraic faith grounded more in relationality, narrative, and organic thinking than in the ethreal metaphysical "substance" of organic things; or as expressed in "mind v matter, reductionary, mechanical thinking" of the Greeks up to today's modernistic thinking.

In comparison, process philosophy takes the past 2000 years (or more actually 4000 years in my mind) and moves the Semitic outlook forwards into today's contemporary organic worlds of processual societal structures, fluid quantum thinking, and the tech-cyberworlds to come.

Thus and thus, I write of a new kind of Christianity embracing a "post-evangelical, socially progressive, and non-literal bible." One which keeps to the ancient categories of literary nuances and genres, their cultural world views and ancient histories, etc... but not the wooden kind of thinking present in today's classically interpretive  evangelicalism when reading a bible skewed towards inorganic Hellenistic thought and enlightenment+modernistic modelism).

Reading Scripture requires a more organic philosophical foundation embraceing a more processually-rooted relational, and open-ended, contemporary eschatology pregnant with native possibilities and opportunities. A processual theology which can ably drive progressive church ministries, community outreach, and polyplural global missions.

Too, I much prefer to write to non-Christians; to non-dogmatic, open-minded, post-evangelic and progressively-minded Christians; to those seeking truer forms of transformative spirituality; and even agnostics and atheists than I do Bible-belt Christians who live inside of closed fictitious worlds filled with formulistic enlightenment thinking, and defensive dogmatic platforms. These earnest folk have not been given the tools to see God outside the theological boxes of their own construction. If they stumble into here we will welcome them. But my experience has been largely dismissal, silence, and hardened hearts to the biblical truths spoke here in non-traditional ways outside the church's conservative platforms.

I should also mention to those who approach God and faith in their own forms of atheism - as I had in years past when I wrote of these things - that atheism is far harder to prove than theism is to disprove. In fact, it is nearly an impossible task to prove atheism. The articles I've produced in the past have shown this argument in some detail. However, they most likely need updating, so if a reader or two are willing to review those 20 or so articles and add their own thoughts please link me to your text that I might review with you your proofs and qualify your thoughts before posting them here.

Finally, unless uncertainty and doubt are embraced, a growing Christian faith will surely lose its "saltiness" and become tasteless and bland. A strong faith, like science, must always test itself and be willing to be examined if it is to stay realistic and conversant with society. This doesn't dismiss the surety of one's faith laid down upon Jesus, but speaks to interpreting our faith so that the ancient teachings of Scripture are driven by God's love and not by our religious urges to make of God an image in our own likeness.

And unless new "wineskins" are brought forth to put the new wine of the Gospel in (sic, Jesus), the old wineskins will rip and tear apart losing all. This means to me that the faith I was raised in deserves to be kept (but its best parts that is) while the rest must be let go and replaced.

Relevancy22 is not creating a new wheel, it is dispensing with the old wooden wheels for the newer electromagnetic Torus wheels (or whatever). Wheels that will work better with today's 21st Century global religions and societies.

Peace,

R.E. Slater

April 5, 2022

Matt 5.13-20 NASB

13“You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how [d]can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by people.

14“You are the light of the world. A city set on a [e]hill cannot be hidden; 15nor do people light a lamp and put it under a [f]basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. 16Your light must shine before people in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.

17“Do not presume that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. 18For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not [g]the smallest letter or stroke of a letter shall pass from the Law, until all is accomplished! 19Therefore, whoever nullifies one of the least of these commandments, and teaches [h]others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever [i]keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20“For I say to you that unless your righteousness far surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matt 9.17 NASB

14Then the disciples of John *came to Him, asking, “Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples do not fast?”

15And Jesus said to them, “The [j]attendants of the groom cannot mourn as long as the groom is with them, can they? But the days will come when the groom is taken away from them, and then they will fast.

16But no one puts a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; for [k]the patch pulls away from the garment, and a worse tear results.

17Nor do people put new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wineskins burst, and the wine pours out and the wineskins are ruined; but they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved.”

Addendum

I should mention that these old world maxims are given an escalational spin upwards when rereading them not as maxims but in terms of the person of Jesus and what his gospel of atonement and redemption means in relation to the Old Testament system of Law-keeping. Thus, Law v Grace as thematic types interplaying off each other from Genesis through Revelation.

Moreover, the true Abrahamic faith of the Hebrews was always grounded in faith and never law. Jewish Law then can be liken to the church's systems of confessional creeds, dogmas and rites today.

That is, we are fleshly, symbolic beings who will always need ways of encapsulating our faith and beliefs. The trick is to not let the latter usurp the former... for when it does, faith becomes mere religion and institutionalized beliefs cut off from its living, growing, suffering, dying faith to self and worldly needs.

The goal is love in all things.

Not religious rites of asceticism, monasticism, stoicism, hedonism, legalism, etc.

Love goes with what's there and uses selfless sacrificial serving people to be the hands, feet, mouths, and heart of God.

Jesus is God's love.

Jesus is God.

God is love.

Keep it simple.

Jesus was the true salt of God who returned God's lost love back to its covenanted forms found in Abraham. 

Jesus was the cloth patch that pulled away from the religious ritualism of his day which had lost God's love in its works-righteousness schemes and austere religious rites.

Jesus was (and is) the new wine of the gospel spilt in his blood on the cross which binds up the wounds of the harmed and suffering. Who replaces the good wine of mankind with the better wines of God.

Nay, these observations of Jesus were not simply culturally observed maxims. It was Jesus' way of saying, "Look, I'm here, the New Covenant of God walks in the flesh with man this day. 'See Me. Hear Me. Touch Me. I AM the God you seek. REJOICE!'"

R.E. Slater

April 5, 2022

Jesus Christ Superstar (1973) - Heaven on their Minds

(Carl Anderson) ENG Sub - A. Lloyd Webber

Dec 29, 2016

"Christ, I know you can't hear me"

Comparison (Jesus Christ Superstar)

posted: Apr 28, 2016

Full Film - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkEqYxe5MW4

Separate Video Clips with better resolution - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHJHf-0hVZA&list=PLKVcpqH4HjM0oatHl4XWYk3k6zBJVjYmk

youtube soundtrack

How Did The Matter In Our Universe Arise From Nothing?

On all scales in the Universe, from our local neighborhood to the interstellar medium to individual... [+] NASA, ESA, AND THE HUBBLE HERITAGE TEAM (STSCI/AURA)

How Did The Matter In Our Universe Arise From Nothing?

article link

by Ethan Siegel, Senior Contributor

January 5, 2018

When you look out at the vastness of the Universe, at the planets, stars, galaxies, and all there is out there, one obvious question screams for an explanation: why is there something instead of nothing? The problem gets even worse when you consider the laws of physics governing our Universe, which appear to be completely symmetric between matter and antimatter. Yet as we look at what's out there, we find that all the stars and galaxies we see are made 100% of matter, with scarcely any antimatter at all. Clearly, we exist, as do the stars and galaxies we see, so something (or process) must have created more matter than antimatter, making the Universe we know possible. But how did it happen? It's one of the Universe's greatest mysteries, but one that we're closer than ever to solving.

The matter and energy content in the Universe at the present time (left) and at earlier times... [+] NASA, MODIFIED BY WIKIMEDIA COMMONS USER 老陳, MODIFIED FURTHER BY E. SIEGEL

Consider these two facts about the Universe, and how contradictory they are:

• Every interaction between particles that we’ve ever observed, at all energies, has never created or destroyed a single particle of matter without also creating or destroying an equal number of antimatter particles.

• When we look out at the Universe, at all the stars, galaxies, gas clouds, clusters, superclusters and largest-scale structures everywhere, everything appears to be made of matter and not antimatter.

It seems like an impossibility. On one hand, there is no known way, given the particles and their interactions in the Universe, to make more matter than antimatter. On the other hand, everything we see is definitely made of matter and not antimatter. Here's how we know.

The production of matter/antimatter pairs (left) from pure energy is a completely reversible... [+] DMITRI POGOSYAN / UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA

Whenever and wherever antimatter and matter meet in the Universe, there’s a fantastic outburst of energy due to particle-antiparticle annihilation. We actually observe this annihilation in some locations, but only around hyper-energetic sources that produce matter and antimatter in equal amounts, like around massive black holes. When the antimatter runs into matter in the Universe, it produces gamma rays of very specific frequencies, which we can then detect. The interstellar and intergalactic medium is full of material, and the complete lack of these gamma rays is a strong signal that there aren't large amounts of antimatter particles flying around anywhere, since that matter/antimatter signature would show up.

Whether in clusters, galaxies, our own stellar neighborhood or our Solar System, we have tremendous... [+] GARY STEIGMAN, 2008, VIA HTTP://ARXIV.ORG/ABS/0808.1122

• In our own galaxy’s interstellar medium, the mean lifetime would be on the order of about 300 years, which is tiny compared to the age of our galaxy! This constraint tells us that, at least within the Milky Way, the amount of antimatter that’s allowed to be mixed in with the matter we observe is at most 1 part in 1,000,000,000,000,000!

• On larger scales — of galaxies and galaxy clusters, for example — the constraints are less stringent but still very strong. With observations spanning from just a few million light-years away to over three billion light-years distant, we’ve observed a dearth of the X-rays and gamma rays we’d expect from matter-antimatter annihilation. What we’ve seen is that even on large, cosmological scales, 99.999%+ of what exists in our Universe is definitely matter (like us) and not antimatter.

This is the reflection nebula IC 2631, as imaged by the MPG/ESO 2.2-m telescope. Whether within our... [+] ESO

So somehow, even though we aren't entirely sure how, [the universe] had to have created more matter than antimatter in it's past. Which is made even more confusing by the fact that the symmetry between matter and antimatter, in terms of particle physics, is even more explicit than you might think. For example:

• every time we create a quark, we also create an antiquark,
• every time a quark is destroyed, an antiquark is also destroyed,
• every time we create-or-destroy a lepton, we also create-or-destroy an antilepton from the same lepton family, and
• every time a quark-or-lepton experiences an interaction, collision or decay, the total net number of quarks and leptons at the end of the reaction (quarks minus antiquarks, leptons minus antileptons) is the same at the end as it was at the beginning.

The only way we’ve ever made more (or less) matter in the Universe has been to also make more (or less) antimatter in an equal amount.

The particles and antiparticles of the Standard Model obey all sorts of conservation laws, but there... [+] E. SIEGEL / BEYOND THE GALAXY

But we know that it must be possible; the only question is how it happened. In the late 1960s, physicist Andrei Sakharov identified three conditions necessary for baryogenesis, or the creation of more baryons (protons and neutrons) than anti-baryons. They are as follows:

• The Universe must be an out-of-equilibrium system.

• It must exhibit C- and CP-violation.

• There must be baryon-number-violating interactions.

The first one is easy, because an expanding, cooling Universe with unstable particles (and/or antiparticles) in it is, by definition, out of equilibrium.

The second one is easy, too, since "C" symmetry (replacing particles with antiparticles) and "CP" symmetry (replacing particles with mirror-reflected antiparticles) are both violated in the weak interactions.

A normal meson spins counterclockwise about its North Pole and then decays with an electron being... [+] E. SIEGEL / BEYOND THE GALAXY

That leaves the question of how to violate baryon number.

In the Standard Model of particle physics, despite the observed conservation of baryon number, there isn't an explicit conservation law for either that or lepton number (where a lepton is a particle like an electron or a neutrino). Instead, it's only the difference between baryons and leptons, B - L, that's conserved. So under the right circumstances, you can not only make extra protons, you can make the electrons you need to go with them.

What those circumstances are is still a mystery, however. In the early stages of the Universe, we fully expect equal amounts of matter and antimatter to exist, with very high speeds and energies.

At the high temperatures achieved in the very young Universe, not only can particles and photons be... [+] BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY

As the Universe expands and cools, unstable particles, once created in great abundance, will decay. If the right conditions are met, they can lead to an excess of matter over antimatter, even where there was none initially. There three leading possibilities for how this excess of matter over antimatter could have emerged:

• New physics at the electroweak scale could greatly enhances the amount of C- and CP-violation in the Universe, leading to an asymmetry between matter and antimatter. Sphaleron interactions, which violate B and L individually (but conserve B - L) can then generate the right amounts of baryons and leptons. This could occur either without supersymmetry or with supersymmetry, depending on the mechanism.

• New neutrino physics at high energies, of which we have a tremendous hint, could create a fundamental lepton asymmetry early on: leptogenesis. The sphalerons, which conserve B - L, would then use that lepton asymmetry to generate a baryon asymmetry.

• Or, GUT-scale baryogenesis, where new physics (and new particles) are found to exist at the grand unification scale, where the electroweak force unifies with the strong force.

These scenarios all have some elements in common, so let's walk through the last one, just as an example, to see what could have happened.

In addition to the other particles in the Universe, if the idea of a Grand Unified Theory applies to... [+] E. SIEGEL / BEYOND THE GALAXY

If grand unification is true, then there ought to be new, super-heavy particles, called X and Y, which have both baryon-like and lepton-like properties. There also ought to be their antimatter counterparts: anti-X and anti-Y, with the opposite B - L numbers and the opposite charges, but the same mass and lifetime. These particle-antiparticle pairs can be created in great abundance at high enough energies, and then will decay at later times.

So your Universe can be filled with them, and then they'll decay. If you have C- and CP-violation, however, then it's possible that there are slight differences between how the particles and antiparticles (X/Y vs. anti-X/anti-Y) decay.

If we allow X and Y particles to decay into the quarks and lepton combinations shown, their... [+] E. SIEGEL / BEYOND THE GALAXY

If your X-particle has two pathways: decaying into two up quarks or an anti-down quark and a positron, then the anti-X has to have two corresponding pathways: two anti-up quarks or a down quark and an electron. Notice that the X has B - L of two-thirds in both cases, while the anti-X has negative two-thirds.

It's similar for the Y/anti-Y particles. But there is one important difference that's allowed with C- and CP-violation: the X could be more likely to decay into two up quarks than the anti-X is to decay into two anti-up quarks, while the anti-X could be more likely to decay into a down quark and an electron than the X is to decay into an anti-down quark and a positron.

If you have enough X/anti-X and Y/anti-Y pairs, and they decay in this allowed fashion, you can easily make an excess of baryons over antibaryons (and leptons over anti-leptons) where there was none previously.

If the particles decayed away according to the mechanism described above, we would be left with an... [+] E. SIEGEL / BEYOND THE GALAXY

In other words, you can start with a completely symmetric Universe, one that obeys all the known laws of physics and that spontaneously creates matter-and-antimatter only in equal-and-opposite pairs, and wind up with an excess of matter over antimatter in the end. We have multiple possible pathways to success, but it's very likely that nature only needed one of them to give us our Universe.

The fact that we exist and are made of matter is indisputable; the question of why our Universe contains something (matter) instead of nothing (from an equal mix of matter and antimatter) is one that must have an answer.

In this century, advances in precision electroweak testing, collider technology, and experiments probing particle physics beyond the Standard Model may reveal exactly how it happened. And when it does, one of the greatest mysteries in all of existence will finally have a solution.