Building Speaker Boxes: MDF vs. Particle Board

This subject may not interest many people, but when it comes to using MDF or Particle Board, it is definitely not limited to building speaker boxes. In fact, many folks use these types of wood for other things, including shelving structures, furniture, under-flooring material, and so on. However, this post is about the differences between these types of building material and whether or not one is more suited for speaker boxes than the other.

First of all, MDF stands for medium-density fiberboard. Particle board (also spelled particleboard or chipboard) is a lower density wood. Actually, both MDF and particle board are not true forms of solid wood, as they are engineered woods. For example, particle board is composed of wood chips, sawdust and random shavings that are glued together. This cohesion is not known for its durability or reliability, but it still functions as wood nonetheless. MDF goes through a similar process, but instead of all those random scraps being used in the composition, it consists of just the wood fibers, instead.

MDF is heavier and more sturdy than particle board. It doesn't warp and bend as easily when weight is applied to it. Although neither of these engineered woods need to get wet, MDF can tolerate dampness much better than particle board. In less words, do not get particle board wet! MDF has a smooth texture and is an excellent surface to paint. A lot of people that use the less-attractive particle board for speaker boxes, often want to staple carpet over it, to cover up the ugliness; ha! I must say, though, that has never been a problem for me. When I'm building speaker boxes, I'm more concerned about the bass and/or the performance of my subwoofers as opposed to the cosmetic effects my box may or may not provide.

Now, when it comes to using screws, particle board is generally an easier material to work with. Unless you get too close to the edges, it normally adapts to screws quite nicely. Some people complain about having to drill a pilot hole prior to screwing into MDF because it's more solid, and it is also known to split. I've never had too much trouble with this, but I suppose it depends on what you are building.

The cost of both MDF and particle board is fairly cheap when compared to real solid woods, but MDF is still a bit pricier when compared to the dirt-cheap particle board. When it comes to the subwoofer performance and bass response, some car audio enthusiasts will claim that MDF is the best but takes longer to break in. In case you don't know what I'm talking about, many of us "subwoofer gurus" claim that there is a break-in period in which the bass hits harder from a box that has been used for an extended period of time. I'm guilty of this belief, as well, as I really think that the bass thunders from a well-used box more than it does a new one with the same proportions and air space, as long as there are not any air leaks, of course.

Where I live, they sell MDF and Particle Board in 4ft. by 8ft. slabs. The MDF is 3/4ths of an inch thick, while the particle board is 5/8ths of an inch thick. Even though I have just described MDF as being superior to particle board, I must say, for speaker boxes, I see no reason to favor it over particle board. The reason for my conclusion is that you are not going to be getting it wet, you are not going to be using it for a shelf or to hold weight, and the added thickness of MDF doesn't mean very much when concerning a sealed box for your speakers. In a thumbnail, it is not worth the extra expenses nor is it worth lugging around the extra weight of the wood. The only exception I see, is if you have several 15-inch subwoofers with a high-powered amp, as then you may definitely need MDF! Now, for building shelves and furniture, I'd vote for MDF all the way, if I had to pick between these two forms of engineered woods.

Related Post: https://random-twaddle.blogspot.com/2022/01/use-isobaric-subwoofer-configuration-to.html

Image Credit: Bing Image Search using the 'free to use & share' function.

---End of Post "Building Speaker Boxes: MDF vs. Particle Board"

Remote Viewing with your Subconscious Mind

The primary concepts behind Remote Viewing (RV) are very similar to ESP (extra-sensory perception) since it involves "sensing with your mind," and it somewhat relates to psychic phenomena, in a different sort of way. Using your subconscious mind, it would be like imagining certain visuals while seeing and hearing the effects of a person or an event that is thousands of miles away and hundreds or even thousands of years in the past, for example. Remote viewing could be used for a lot of beneficial things, all while using the power of your subconscious mind. Can you imagine being able to mentally influence people, including yourself, for the better?

Is remote viewing even real? Well, some people will swear to it that RV definitely exists. I have heard a bit about some ludicrous claims from this practice, though, and have even read old post titles about Tibetan Monks using Remote Viewing to predict the end of the world in 2012; ha-ha! I think at the time I forgot to put my tin-foil hat on, so maybe that is why I didn't click on those titles.

When you think about it, almost any imbecilic being that is wanting to escape reality or perhaps high on drugs (or whatever) can delve deep into some psychotic realm of a feign reality and start chanting stuff like "Yama, Yama, Yama, Yama, Yaaaaaama," like they did in the van scene from that ancient comedy movie called "Police Academy 4 - Citizens on Patrol," and claim to be in touch with a heightened reality of actuality via the duality of oneness... Ha-ha! I think that even on that movie they called it voodoo stuff. Either way, I'm just trying to add some humor to this post...

But to add a bit more seriousness into the mix, here is a quote from Wikipedia: "Remote viewing was popularized in the 1990s following the declassification of documents related to the Stargate Project, a $20 million research program sponsored by the US government starting from 1975 in order to try to determine any potential military application of psychic phenomena." To read more about that, go here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing
Well, they terminated the project in 1995 after they said it failed to provide any useful information. Dang, it took them 20 years to figure that out? Wow! It must be real, then...

There is no doubt that the powers of the mind are amazing and we can sense and feel things outside of what the scientific realm can prove. Now, will I buy an instructional DVD set that sells how-to advice for Remote Viewing? Uh, no... I'll just take my clairvoyant self back to my spaceship and keep my supernatural powers to myself; ha!

Update (1-4-2025): As the years passed, I ended up buying a couple books related to this subject. One was called "Limitless Mind - A guide to remote viewing and transformation of consciousness," by Russell Targ. The other book is called "Remote Viewing - The complete user's manual for coordinate remote viewing," by David Morehouse, PhD. At the time of this update, I've almost finished reading Limitless Mind, but I'm yet to start on the other book albeit I plan on doing so, eventually.

The book written by Russell Targ is under 200 pages and briefly covers a variety of subjects involving consciousness, ESP, psychic abilities, intuitive medical diagnosis, distant healing, precognition, the phenomenon of nonlocality, timeless existence, remote viewing, etc. However, if you're seeking a "how-to" kind of book for RV, then you will be greatly disappointed. I already knew that before buying it, which is why I purchased the other book (by David Morehouse) at the same time, for a more serious study later on. I must say, though, Limitless Mind is still worth a read for the ones curious about RV and other related subjects although, I must say, I was already very familiar with a lot of the other non-RV content within that book but it's great for a refresher, nonetheless. 

As for anything that I've read from the book Limitless Mind that was interesting to learn when concerning the title of this blog post "Remote Viewing with your Subconscious Mind," was the stuff that sort of blocks it. First and foremost, the main antagonist of remote viewing is what is referred to as "mental noise" or, also known as, "analytical overlay" and/or "conditioned existence." These mental noises that can hinder your remote viewing success consists of mental analysis, memory, guessing, and imagination. Dang! This may be hard for me if I ever try RV because memory and imagination along with being overly analytical are some of my strong suits; ha! Anyway, you supposed to try and get into a state of "naked awareness." Oh, boy... This sounds more like I need to study meditation before I even try to begin that project! Out of everything else, I guess some of the more interesting stuff that doesn't relate to RV in that book was the experiments involving precognition, pre-stimulus responses from the study participants, etc. 

As for the big book (nearly 400 pages) written by David Morehouse that I haven't read yet, I can only assume (from glancing through the book at the various subjects) it's the real deal. From the back of the book, it says that David Morehouse, PhD, is a former Army Special Forces Major who was trained in Remote Viewing in a secret CIA program called Project Star Gate (which was already mentioned previously in this blog post). It also says, at the time of that publication, that David had taught over 23,000 students around the world in his RV workshops. Well, if I ever decide to tackle that particular book, it looks like I will be busy for a bit. You know, I just realized that this update was bigger than the original post. Oh, well; it needed more content anyway. ---End of Update

Image Credit: It is in the Public Domain because its copyright has expired.

---End of Post "Remote Viewing with your Subconscious Mind"

Imaginary Numbers in Quantum Mechanics

Well, this should be a relatively short post. I hope this doesn't bring a throng of weirdos into the comment field that wants to argue about how 2 + 2 is not 4; ha-ha! 

Anyway, the typical numbers that are commonplace and used within the more mundane version of life, is often called "real numbers." You know, stuff like adding, subtracting, dividing, fractions, positive and even negative numbers. Imaginary numbers, on the other hand, still play an important role in math-magics, oops, I mean mathematics; ha! For example, imaginary numbers have the strange property of involving the square root of a negative number. A square of a positive number is a positive number, and the square of a negative number is also a positive number.

However, math-magics also take into account, numbers that when multiplied by itself still gives a negative number. This is definitely imaginary albeit it still obeys a consistent set of rules. Now, if you take a pair of numbers with one being "real" and the other being "imaginary," you then get what they call "complex numbers." Ha-ha! The reason for the unpredictability in quantum mechanics is from taking the square of a wave function (which is like the complex numbers), as you will get a positive numerical value that is real, although you will lose part of the info contained within the complex number, which is called "the phase."

If any of this made sense to you, please exit this screen now because you've landed on the wrong page. If you are as confused as quantum mechanics often are, feel free to laugh. LOL!

Image Credit: Huh? It simply must be imaginary. What image? What numbers? You are going to speak with your mechanic and quantify my quantum what? Ha!

---End of Post "Imaginary Numbers in Quantum Mechanics"

Semi-related Post: "Singularity vs. Quantum Foam"

NDEs are a Quantum Process from the 5th Dimension?

NDEs are one of the few popular subjects that I have never studied before - nor followed or delved into - because I thought it was all an integral part of what we often call a universe or a cosmos. Near-death-experiences (NDEs) and the stories that spawn from such so-called events, are one of those things that could easily be the substrate for all types of lunacies in the profitable media of today's world, all the way down to intense quantum studies and spiritual awakenings.

Many people today still only believe in a 3D (3-dimensional) reality, but once you install the fact that nothing can exist without time, most folks are fairly comfortable with a 4D existence. Of course, I don't subscribe to a unified theory that claims to have 11 or 12 or 25 dimensions (or however many they have now) that were dreamed up on a mathematical paper of some sort with imaginary numbers and math-magics (like I spoke about in the post "Theoretical Physics gets too much credit...") but I have always imagined a 5th dimension, which is one for universal consciousness. In fact, I couldn't "imagine" without it!

They can spare me the theories of proto-consciousness that stems from the REM sleep that even occurs before birth, as it's really like going back over the alphabet again and/or re-taking Kindergarten class. Quantum Mechanics is often labelled as a religion by the classical physics fanatics, and deservingly so. They try to piece together the fabric of our existence in such a holy way, that not believing in a divine source would almost seem contradictory to that particular science itself.

However, we all have physical proof of the 3 dimensions, such as up, down, back and forth, and side-to-side (height, length, width), and we know that time is required for our existence, but the consciousness can never be proven to have a physical area/space that it truly exists in, other than saying "hey, it's in your head, dear zombie." LOL! But seriously, you can't see time as you can a 3D object, yet it exists in what we will call a 4th dimension. Consciousness can reach far and wide, can exist inside and out, and has a home, too, which is what I like to refer to as the 5th dimension. Yes, the mind is like a universe in itself.

So even without all the chatter about NDEs, dark energy, dark matter, quantum foam, souls, out-of-body experiences, lucid dreaming, REM sleep, spirituality, consciousness, or any of that jazz, I'm totally fine with this 5th dimension as I couldn't imagine existence without it. The moral of the story is: Living in 3D looks cool on TV while viewing from a 4D reality, but whether you like it or not, we are all consumed by a 5D actuality that is all about the experience. Like divine tentacles feeling its way through the unknown or viewing the world inside-out or perpetual data packets getting sent to a unified quantum computer in a cosmic fashion, the cosmos is one strange place; cheers! Ha-ha!

Semi-related Post: https://random-twaddle.blogspot.com/2022/02/4th-5th-dimensions-time-travel-parallel.html 

Image Credit: It is in the Public Domain and is not under copyright protection.

---End of Post "NDEs are a Quantum Process from the 5th Dimension?"

The Monks Mound

This short little blog post will be about the Monks Mound, which is the largest mound at Cahokia (in southern Illinois between East St. Louis and Collinsville), is over 100 feet high and is about 955 feet long and 775 feet wide. Wow! At the base of this pile of earth, the Monks Mound is about the same size as the Great Pyramid of Giza. It is the largest earthwork at the Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site. One of the cool things about this mound, is the way it was formed. Unlike a lot of structures that require stone, this one was built by basket-transported clay and soil. It has been estimated that it took about 15 million baskets of earth to make the Monks Mound. Dang, talk about manual labor!

There have been many attempts at preservation, though, as the weather has taken a toll on this mound over the years, with slumping in certain areas, being one of the biggest problems. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia (with minor edits) that briefly talks about this: "The repairs of the 1980s and 1990s were only partly successful. In 2004 and 2005 more serious slumping episodes occurred. These occurrences showed that by adding new dirt to repair the major slump on the east side had been a mistake. After thinking it over, experts decided to try a new tactic. In 2007, backhoes were used to dig out the entire mass of earth from this slump and another at the northwest corner, to a level beyond the internal slippage zone."

Going by the image I provided above, it still seems like it's in decent shape to me. I mean, it's a gigantic mound of dirt. Why does it have to remain in absolute pristine condition? Anyway, I thought that this was pretty neat, and decided to share these tidbits with the community today. Oh, it looks like it would be good exercise, too, if you were to walk or run up and down the access ramp. Yeah, sort of like what Rocky would do... Ha-ha!

Semi-related Post: Are the Badlands really Bad?

Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons. Source = en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monks_Mound

---End of Post "The Monks Mound"

We get most of our Oxygen from the Ocean (Marine Plants)

This is a quick & simple post about a fact that, apparently, a lot of people don't realize. A couple days ago I made a comment on a person's post that was talking about leaves and trees and how we are killing off our oxygen supply. When I mentioned that we get most of our oxygen from the ocean, (but fear not because man is also busy destroying that, as well) a few people seemed shocked and didn't realize this relatively simple factoid.

Most estimates range between 70 to 80% of our oxygen comes from marine plants and whatnot. I have heard claims of up to 85% (maybe they added the freshwater plants, too?), but let's not get carried away. The point is, the majority of our oxygen comes from oceanic means. People would be surprised how much basic algae and phytoplankton produces, to say the least.

So, when we are talking about deforestation, when can also talk about the potential rises in atmospheric CO2 albeit those Global Warming debates can get a bit fussy; ha! But seriously, when it comes to deforestation, the first two things that come to my mind are the habitats for life that are destroyed during the process along with potential cures for diseases that could be found in the rainforest, for example. I mention the rainforest because it is massive, teeming with life, and is well known to suffer from ongoing deforestation. But whatever you want to deservingly complain about, don't say we are destroying all of our oxygen by cutting down a bunch of trees. *sigh*

To break away from the ocean and marine plants thing, here is an excerpt from Wikipedia about the discovery of this element: "Oxygen was isolated by Michael Sendivogius before 1604, but it is commonly believed that the element was discovered independently by Carl Wilhelm Scheele, in Uppsala, in 1773 or earlier, and Joseph Priestley in Wiltshire, in 1774. Priority is often given for Priestley because his work was published first. Priestley, however, called oxygen "dephlogisticated air," and did not recognize it as a chemical element. The name oxygen was coined in 1777 by Antoine Lavoisier, who first recognized oxygen as a chemical element and correctly characterized the role it plays in combustion." I must ask, what in the hell is dephlogisticated air? I think he thought it was the part that didn't burn or did burn? I don't know, it sounds more like a scientific term for chronic bloating if ya ask me; ha-ha!

Well, that's all I'm typing about this Kindergarten subject for today; cheers!

Image Credit: It is found in the Public Domain and is not under copyright.

---End of Post "We get most of our Oxygen from the Ocean (Marine Plants)"

Ocean Tides & Tidal Forces

How many of you thought the ocean tides were due to a group of giant whales passing gas? Ha-ha! Okay, just kidding... As many of you probably know, ocean tides are formed by tidal forces. Yeah, more of that gravity stuff working its magic. This is where the Moon plays a vital role.

On the side of the Earth closest to the Moon, the lunar gravity is stronger than at the Earth's center, so it pulls the oceans toward the Moon stronger than it pulls the solid earth, as this causes the oceans to stretch out a bit. On the opposite side of this planet, the lunar gravity is weaker than at the Earth's center, and the effects cause the oceans to stretch out a bit, except this time it would be away from the Moon. Also, due to the Moon's gravitational pull, the left side of this planet would also have a slight rightward factor and the right side would have a slight leftward element, and these components would squeeze the oceans inward. So, when you combine the effects and patterns of oceanic stretch & squeeze to this lovely blue planet, you end up with low tides and high tides every day, as we spin around like a bunch of crazed lunatics and feral humanoids. LOL!

I realize this post was really short and to the point, but I'm assuming that most people who are reading about this already have at least some knowledge about cosmic alignments, gravitational pull, how mass affects gravity, and so on. Oh, who am I kidding? I was just being succinct, terse, and concise; ha! 

Image Credit - It is not under copyright protection, as stated here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Standing_wave.gif

---End of Post "Ocean Tides & Tidal Forces"

Longest Military Conflict in History: The Hundred Years' War

I'm not really a big history buff or anything, although I do like ancient history fairly well, but I was recently reading about a series of ongoing conflicts from the years 1337 to 1453 that is called "The Hundred Years' War." It was between France and England (each of their allies were also included). When categorized by historians as being one long continuous war, it makes The Hundreds' Year War the longest military conflict in history. Personally, I like to look at the entire existence of humans as one long war, but that's another subject entirely; ha!

Anyway, at the time, France was the most powerful nation in Europe and there shouldn't have been much of a match/contest, but the English actually surprised them with some new war tactics and weapons during this long course of battle. The 100+ year war seen a good bit of military evolution, to say the least, as not only did the militaristic tactics evolve, the weapons, army types, and even the concept of war itself changed during the process. A good example of such, is that before this war ever started, the heavy cavalry was considered the most powerful unit. Well, thanks to the longbow, this belief quickly diminished. Yeah, the longbow has a decent range and packs a lot of impact. It is actually one of the few weapons I don't have any experience with, but we make more advanced bows nowadays, so it is neither here nor there, as I'm rambling now... Later on, they had an even better advancement take place during this war, when the firearms entered the scene. Pow-pow!

Extremely long wars like The Hundred Years' War is bound to teach a lot of lessons. You know both sides of this war were drained in the resource department! I hope the new name they created for each nation at the end of all of this was worth all the effort along with the numerous casualties that were involved.

Side Note: When it comes to war history and/or what was the longest military battle of all time, there is some debate. Some folks may say the Arauco War was the longest, but it depends on how you credit the moments of peace in between the conflicts, I suppose. Most people still credit The Hundred Years' War as the longest, though.

If you'd like to read more about this glorious battle, Wikipedia has an elaborate page that covers this subject quite nicely, here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years%27_War

If you'd rather read about the military history of France, go here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_France

Image Credit: It is in the public domain because its copyright has expired.

---End of Post "Longest Military Conflict in History: The Hundred Years' War"

Weird Mental Problems

No, not me! LOL! But seriously, I just did a web search using the terms "weird mental problems" and found a whole host of kooky disorders and eccentric syndromes. Yeah, many of them I have never heard of before and some of them were quite disturbing, to say the least. Instead of listing all of the ones I recently read about, I'll provide a few examples below, then drop down some resource links for you to browse, in case you're interested in this wacky subject...

Stendhal Syndrome is a psychosomatic illness that often happens when certain weird people get exposed to large quantities of beautiful artwork within a short time frame. The symptoms can often include dizziness, rapid heartbeat, confusion and even hallucinations. Wow! Stay away from those art galleries!

Diogenes Syndrome mainly affects older people and it's a behavioral disorder that includes extreme self-neglect, reclusive ways, and compulsive hoarding - animals included - going by what I've read. I probably shouldn't have listed this for an example, since it seems somewhat common when compared to other weird mental problems.

Cotard’s Syndrome makes a sufferer believe that he or she is rotting, dead, no longer here in the real world or that their organs are no longer receiving blood flow. Some of these freaks may also have a false belief of immortality. What? Do they think they are a vampire? Go get some blood; ha!

Synesthesia is a neurologically based phenomenon that I've read about a few days ago, actually. It is where one sense gets confused with another, like they can see sounds and taste shapes, smell philosophy, etc. Hey, maybe that is what they mean when they say your religion stinks; ha!

Capgras Delusion is supposed to be fairly common in patients who suffer from the not-so-common Schizophrenia. It is a rare disorder in which a person becomes determined that a family member, for example, has been replaced by an identical looking impostor. Dang, talk about a family tree conspiracy, ongoing NDEs or toggling between a parallel universe!

Those were just a few samples, as there are many, many more... Below, I'll provide some links to further your reading, that is, if you are really that bored. LOL!

* www.blogissues.com/2007/12/04/26-strange-unbelievably-bizarre-and-weird-mental-disorders/ [link is no longer active]

* www.buzzle.com/articles/strange-mental-disorders.html [link is no longer active]

* listverse.com/2007/10/13/top-10-bizarre-mental-disorders/

Image Credit: My own photo of a crazy-looking tree. If you'd like to use this photo online for whatever reason, please link back to this blog for credit; thanks!

---End of Post "Weird Mental Problems"

First Human Burials for Spiritual or Secular reasons?

This is somewhat of an odd query. I've never really gave it much thought before, but it is interesting to ponder. I wonder if the first human burials were for spiritual reasons or if the act itself was totally for secular (non-sacred) reasons? While digging back for some factoids, I see that a good bit of evidence suggests that the Neanderthals were the first human species to practice the art of burials. However, some people think that intentional burials started even before the Neanderthals, back when the Homo Heidelbergensis existed. Many of those very same people, that date this process further back, also speculate that these humanoid creatures simply buried their dead for secular reasons - like to keep additional wildlife from wandering into their area/camp.

For contrast, the image I used for this post is demonstrating a "sky burial." Yeah, I thought it would be a good idea to show another type of burial ceremony that doesn't involve digging any holes in the ground. In fact, before I changed my mind, I was originally going to do an entire post about these lovely "sky burials" but decided I'd rather have a shorter question-type post that asked about whether the origins of human burials were simply for spiritual manifestations or if they were not ecclesiastical at all and/or not sacred or secular in any way.

...But going back to sky burials, here is an excerpt from Wikipedia about such things: "For Tibetan Buddhists, sky burials and cremation are templates of instructional teaching on the impermanence of life. A sky burial is considered an act of generosity on the part of the deceased, since the deceased and their surviving relatives are providing food to sustain living beings. Such generosity and compassion for all beings are important virtues in Buddhism. Although some observers have suggested that sky burials are also meant to unite the deceased person with the sky or sacred realm, this does not seem consistent with most of the knowledgeable commentary and eyewitness reports, which indicate that Tibetans believe that at this point life has completely left the body and the body contains nothing more than simple flesh."

Personally, I don't give this stuff much weight. Whether you are shredded into space manure and ejected out of a spaceship while in deep space or you are cremated or buried deep underground in a gold casket, it won't affect what may or may not await thee. LOL! Plus, life recycles all around us; even the endless cycles of the universe demonstrate such things, so any type of belief that involves reincarnation doesn't ponder over such silly things like this. The End...

Image Credit: Bing Image Search using the 'free to use & share' function.

---End of Post "First Human Burials for Spiritual or Secular reasons?"

Anthropic Principle or a mere Tautology?

This will now be a 2-part post, since I recently deleted an old website of mine and have decided to start combining articles that are related with each other, along with adding the rest of the content amid multiple blogs, etc. Without any more excuses, let's get back to the topic at hand, here...

Part 1: Anthropic Principle or a mere Tautology?

A couple years ago, I began to hear more and more references toward this redundant concept many folks call the "Anthropic Principle." Don't get me wrong, it is a cool subject to ponder and study when you first hear about it, but then it becomes abundantly clear that it is more or less "stating the obvious" and would be considered a tautology by many, I'm sure. If for some reason you don't know the basic definition for a tautology, it is a needless repetition of an idea, statement or word.

The Anthropic Principle is chiefly divided into two concepts: 1) The Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP). 2) The Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP). Without going into detail about each one (I'll provide a couple resource links in a moment), the primary premise behind these principles is that the Universe must be fine-tuned for the observer for it to exist and/or that the age of the Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it. They try to answer questions that many scientists and physicists can't answer, by simply blaming everything on this tautology. Seriously, if there wasn't conscious/intelligent life to question the very Universe they live in, nothing would exist as far as we know, so what is actually the point of the Anthropic Principle?

Before I go any further, if you need a couple resources for this subject, go here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
perpendicularity.org/blog/2012/01/02/anthropic-principle/ [Link is no longer active since I deleted that website, but I included that article below this one.]

Anyway, quotes like these, is what helps fuel the Anthropic Principle: "As we look out into the Universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it almost seems as if the Universe must in some sense have known that we were coming." -F. Dyson

I must say, not all scientists and physicists, for example, are very pleased with this particular argument that is often used to "answer" questions with these principles that are simply stating the obvious. Although the Anthropic Principle does not say that the Universe was created to benefit mankind and/or the observers (they say that, so they won't take any additional ridicule, in my opinion), it does give us, the observers, a special role in the Cosmos. To many people, that is just a bunch of subjective hogwash. To me, I like the idea that the Universe is a divine platform for all conscious life, but to constantly smack a label on it and keep calling it the "Anthropic Principle," is an utter tautology in my book; cheers!

For a more interesting subject, visit: Will we eventually create high-speed Antimatter Spaceships?

Image Credit: It is in the Public Domain because it was solely created by NASA.

Semi-related Post: The Gaia Principle

---End of Part 1: "Anthropic Principle or a mere Tautology?"

Part 2: "Anthropic Principle - Books & Resources"

I recently ran across a silly forum online that was discussing the subject: “If you subtract mankind from the universe, what is left?”

Yeah, a simple answer to that question would be, “less morons and pollution.”  But seriously, that whole debate reminded me of a similar subject, the Anthropic Principle, that I stumbled upon last year.

…Since I’m not very educated on this particular subject, I’ll just create a reference post instead.  Typically, I like to keep my blog posts all original and basically use freestyle writing, but from time to time, I find it necessary to create link pages with excerpts – in the event that the subject matter is worthy and/or interesting enough, even though I don’t have much to say about it, personally.  I think the last time I’ve had to do this on here, was way back when I did the blog post entitled, “Quantum Mechanics & Chaos.”

Anyway, back to the Anthropic Principle subject:

Okay, I’ll provide a brief excerpt from each resource in addition to an active link, below:

1) “Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP): the observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable, but they take on the values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so.  Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP): the Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history.”  Read more, here:  http://www.physics.sfsu.edu/~lwilliam/sota/anth/anthropic_principle_index.html

2) “Anthropic Bias, a book that since its first publication in 2002 has achieved the status of a classic, explores how to reason when you suspect that your evidence is biased by “observation selection effects”— that is, evidence that has been filtered by the precondition that there be some suitably positioned observer to “have” the evidence. This conundrum - sometimes alluded to as “the anthropic principle,” “self-locating belief,” or “indexical information” - turns out to be a surprisingly perplexing and intellectually stimulating challenge, one abounding with important implications for many areas in science and philosophy.” Read more about this interesting book, here: http://www.anthropic-principle.com/

3) “The ultimate question here is whether there is or was some special intention or plan for the appearance of humans in the universe, and, if so, was there or is there some intending entity or intelligence or being or “creator” existing “behind” or “over” the universe and the particular qualities that occur within it.  If the universe or cosmos is purely mechanistic, consisting only of matter and physical entities (forces, energy, fields, etc.), then it seems that the answer to that question of an intending entity or intelligence or creator would be “no.” But then what is the source of those closely balanced features that are observed in the existing cosmos—are they just happenstance or fortuitous coincidences? Can coincidence or lucky happenstance be a sufficient answer to this problem?”  Read more about this thought-provoking subject, here:  http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Anthropic_principle

After reading some of these excerpts, it reminded me of a couple semi-related posts I did last year, with the title: “Ultimate Queries – Creation Theories” and “4th & 5th Dimensions, Time Travel & Parallel Universes.” 

 Hmm, I'm starting to think all of this is becoming a mere tautology. But anyway, back to the resources…

4) “In astrophysics and cosmology, the anthropic principle is the philosophical argument that observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it. Some proponents of the argument reason that it explains why the Universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life. As a result, they believe that the fact is unremarkable that the universe’s fundamental constants happen to fall within the narrow range thought to allow life.” Read more from Wikipedia, here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Okay, I just provided 4 excellent resources that covers the Anthropic Principle.  If you’re more interested in taking your studies a little further and would like to possibly purchase some books about this subject, I’ll provide a shopping (affiliate) link below, to help hastened your search:

"Click Here for a Fine Selection of Books related to the Anthropic Principle"

—End of Part 2: "Anthropic Principle - Books & Resources"

Since Part 2 was originally on another website of mine, I thought I'd go ahead and include the humorous comment field for that post, as well:

Comment#1:

Peter Kinnon says:

January 2, 2012 at 2:27 pm

There is really no need for the anthropic principle to raise eyebrows. At least inasmuch as it draws attention to the apparent fine tuning of our universe, or at least a portion thereof.

The fine tuning, by the way, is certainly not limited to the physical constants. Indeed, the most abundant and convincing evidence for it lies much further “downstream”, particularly within the domain of chemistry.

Pervasive and persistent examples of prevailing conditions being “just right” are found throughout our observations of the natural world.

“Just right”, that is, for the evolution of biology and technology, rather than specifically for our species

By avoiding the quite natural anthropocentric biases which are a legacy of our genetic and cultural histories we can build a broad evolutionary model (which extends well beyond biology) for which multiverse is not a prerequisite and certainly no “creator” or “designer” needs to be invoked.

This broad evolutionary model is outlined (very informally) in “The Goldilocks Effect: What Has Serendipity Ever Done For Us?” It can be freely download in e-book formats from the “Unusual Perspectives” website (www.unusual-perspectives.net).

Comment#2:

Administrator says:

January 2, 2012 at 2:54 pm

I realize this is spam, and that you are promoting your e-book of otherworldly, all-knowing swill and utter slop, but I left your comment for a reason. Since things are “just right,” as you say, I was able to spot a lot of keywords in this post that might help bring me better search results, so, many thanks for that! Ha-ha! Laughing my ass off, with all of these wannabe gurus of universal awareness, deciding to show up and bless us all with the knowledge that can unravel the properties of eternity. Actually, if ya listened to yourself, at least semi-closely, you will realize that YOU DEPEND on the Anthropic Principle, amen… LOL! Cheers! Thanks for the archaic babble and whatnot… Oh, and good luck selling your products online! Oh, by the way, it looks like serendipity has brought you here, so nice try, ya desperate chap... Thanks for stopping by and commenting, seriously…

Comment#3:

What a strange chap.

And, what precisely my poor deluded friend, am I selling?

Have a happy day in your fantasy land.

Pete

Comment#4:

Administrator says:

January 3, 2012 at 2:59 pm

Who are you kidding?

If I was deluded, I’d fall for inane blokes like ya self.

Since you asked, I shall copy & paste the following, which you plainly have on your website, after one has to follow endless links to get to this magical book of yours, that proves that you are selling something:

“YOU CAN PURCHASE THE PRINT EDITION OF “UNUSUAL PERSPECTIVES” ON-LINE USING YOUR CREDIT CARD OR A PAYPAL ACCOUNT

SIMPLY SELECT THE BUTTON BELOW THAT MATCHES YOUR POSTAL AREA – SHIPPING PRICE IS INCLUDED

NEW ZEALAND – 22.5 NZD

UK & EUROPE – 14.5 EUROS

USA & CANADA – 19.5 USD

AUSTRALIA – 24 AUD

PURCHASE OPTIONS FOR AFRICA, ASIA & OTHER LOCATIONS […]

Need I say more? Praise be the Anthropic Principle! Ha-ha!

---End of previous comment field (Thank God! Ha!)

---End of Post "Anthropic Principle or a mere Tautology?"

The Gaia Principle

The concepts of Gaia are actually fairly old. Okay, some of them are ancient. However, for the last several years, I just assumed the Gaia Principle was part of the New Age Movement (from the mid-1900s) that fuses spirituality and metaphysical properties with psychology, but after checking on it tonight, it seems that some guy named James Lovelock (a British scientist) was the one that officially smacked this label on planet Earth. Well, it was actually named after the Greek Goddess of Earth.

Anyway, the Gaia Principle (also called the Gaia Hypothesis or Gaia Theory) is the notion that the Earth is a living entity, instead of just some place where life magically spawns from. Some people go as far as saying that Earth is a sentient being with divine consciousness. I think it is a cool concept, but that is not what the Gaia Principle turned out to be after the scientific community got their mitts on it. I've read bits and pieces of Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis, and I can honestly say that I don't know what in the hell it is trying to say. Just when it starts to sound a tiny bit spiritual and metaphysical, it quickly switches to evolution, Darwin, and how Earth has no purpose, aim or goal. Yeah, that really makes a lot of sense if you are saying that this planet is a living entity... LOL!

Personally, I like the mythological version and the New Age beliefs concerning this planet and/or Gaia, and not Wikipedia's demented page that is found here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis 

That Wikipedia link represents what I like to call the "superfluity of verbiage," and it's a complete mess when concerning Gaia concepts. They did have a section on there that involved criticism of this particular principle. A quick excerpt of that is as follows: "The Gaia hypothesis continues to be skeptically received by the scientific community. Arguments both for and against it were laid out in the journal Climatic Change in 2002 & 2003. A significant argument raised against it are the many examples where life has had a detrimental or destabilizing effect on the environment rather than acting to regulate it. Several recent books have criticized the Gaia Principle, expressing views ranging from "Suspended uncomfortably between tainted metaphor, fact, and false science" to "the Gaia hypothesis lacks unambiguous observational support and has significant theoretical difficulties" to "The Gaia hypothesis is supported neither by evolutionary theory nor by the empirical evidence of the geological record" and so on.

Well, after reading a bunch of that crap, I think I'll just go back to calling it Mother Nature (or Mother Earth) like I always have... Ha-ha!

Semi-related Post: Anthropic Principle or a mere Tautology?

Image Credit: Is in the Public Domain because it was solely created by NASA.

---End of Post "The Gaia Principle"

Why a Book of Maps is called an Atlas

On this post, I'm going to briefly explain to you why a book of maps is now called an atlas. I meant to stay away from mythology, but alas, here it is again. Ha-ha! Anyway, Atlas (per the ancient Myths & Legends) ruled a large island kingdom called Atlantis. To make a short story even shorter, the guy was punished by the Gods and the city was destroyed by a great flood and it ultimately sank beneath the sea. Atlas then led the Titans into the great Cosmic War. When he was defeated by the Gods, they punished Atlas by making him hold the sky on his shoulder forever.

Now, as depicted above, you can see how the celestial globe he was holding, could have easily been misinterpreted as the Earth. Well, from there, comes 2 major flaws in the interpretation. First of all, many people still make the mistake and say "Atlas holds the world on his shoulders." Secondly, when enough people misconstrue this notion, they end up naming the book of maps for planet Earth after Atlas, since they thought of him as holding up the planet. You see how that happened now?

As a side note, I doubt there are many people growing up in today's world that even know what in the hell an atlas is. I mean, how quaint would it be for somebody living in the digital era to pull out a large book of maps when they can simply get on their cell phone or home computer and use the google maps and/or google satellite function to see whatever aspect of land or water they desire. Either way, it was supposed to be just a fun, short post about ancient tidbits anyway; cheers!

Image Credit: It is in the Public Domain and is not under copyright protection.

---End of Post "Why a Book of Maps is called an Atlas"

Why the Tower of Pisa is Leaning

Of course, the Tower of Pisa was meant to be upright, straight up and down, vertical or however you want to say it. Yet, the dang thing is leaning and is an eyesore for many. However, some people think it's cool or whatever, but either way, this lean has made the tower famous nonetheless. Every time I see this tower, I think of the Superman movie I seen as a kid, where the guy was painting a picture of this tower on a canvas, and about the time he would nearly be done, Superman would move it from crooked to straight, then back to crooked after he started painting it as a straight tower. Ha!

Anyway, one may ask: Why is it leaning? By what I've read in the past, soon after its construction it started leaning to the southeast, due to inadequate foundations and loose subsoil. There was a big delay in the construction from this point, and during this time everything settled and the foundation became less precarious and somewhat stable. When the construction finally resumed, they tried to fix the tilt by building the floors taller on one side. Well, the tower then started to lean the other direction. LOL! The leaning started to increase during the '60s, and after some architectural enhancements and the use of counterweights, they finally declared that the Tower of Pisa stopped moving in 2008. Hey, don't sneeze around it; ha!

Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons. Source = en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaning_Tower_of_Pisa

---End of Post "Why the Tower of Pisa is Leaning"

Drifting away from Earth... How did the Moon form?

This is a short, two-part post about our beloved Moon.  First of all, how did it form?

Nobody really knows for sure, but it is a fun question! Is it really made of cheese? Did the Moon arrive via Divine Consciousness? Is our Moon really an ancient spaceship? Ha! The leading and trending theories say NO. I suppose the collision theory is the current leader, but opinions vary. They think that while the proto-Earth was churning with the rest of our Solar System, that a large, Mars-like object slammed into Earth. From there, the debris, due to gravity, came together to form the proto-Moon. Then, the aliens built a spaceship on the far-side of this celestial body. LOL! Okay, I just made that last part up.

Other theories involve "the sister theory" and "the fission theory" and "the capture theory." I guess I could go about explaining those, but why bother? Well, in a thumbnail, the capture theory is just basically saying that the Moon formed elsewhere and was later trapped and/or captured by Earth's gravitational pull. The fission theory is trying to imply that the proto-earth fragmented and split apart during formation. The sister theory is that the Moon and the Earth formed separately but within the same time and place.

As you can see, we really have no idea. Well, I'm pretty sure it isn't made of cheese! Ha! Then again, some people on LSD may say that a massive galactic spaceship drug the Moon to us by a long cosmic chain. LOL! Does anybody else have any theories out there?

Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons. Source = en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon

---End of Post "How did the Moon form?"

Part 2: "The Moon is slowly drifting away from Earth"

Ahh, this is such a mysterious celestial object... Is the Moon receding from Earth? Yeah, it is slowly drifting away, but it is nothing for us to fear. The last estimation I have heard, was roughly 1.5 inches per year. I've heard of a distance slightly less and slightly more, but either way it is a minuscule amount of space. I'm sure many of you were aware of this factoid, but I just threw that out there just in case. A few years ago it was like common trivia: "Hey, did you know the moon is drifting away from Earth?" Ha-ha! Like this is something we should celebrate and rejoice.

If you buy into the collision theory, the Moon used to be a lot closer to us and has been receding from Earth, for many years. What I find the most interesting by far, is that we live in the perfect time at the perfect distance to where we can have solar and lunar eclipses. Is that neat or what? Several thousands and thousands of years ago, this most likely would have not been possible. I better stop there or else I'll start sounding like a flaming proponent for the Anthropic Principle. LOL!


---End of Post "The Moon is slowly drifting away from Earth"

Update: Now they say the Moon is hiding enough oxygen for billions of people to breathe for 100,000 years. Wow! That is a big claim. They say the only problem is how to get it out. The concise premise of this is basically extracting oxygen from moon rocks. The Moon's surface regolith contains magnesium oxides, iron, aluminum, and silica. All of these minerals contain oxygen in solid form, at least in part (the claim is currently 45% for the moon rocks). They say extracting the oxygen would be the same process in which we make aluminum, which could also be used for building material on the Moon. However, getting an industrial-sized electrolysis machine from Earth to the Moon might be a bit of a challenge. Well, I just thought I'd add these extra tidbits to this post. It started with the question "how did it form," then it was drifting away from Earth, now we are talking about extracting oxygen from the rocks. What's next? Speaking of that, this last update reminds me of another post I did on this blog, here: Mining Asteroids for Resources: Minerals & Water

---End of Update

Update #2 (2-13-2022): I recently stumbled upon a video post online that was trying to add a bit of doom & gloom into the lunar mix. The post was titled "Why the Moon Could Cause the End of the World By 2030." As you can imagine, it had already received loads of comments. I would link to that post, but it is on msn.com at the moment and they are known to delete posts later on as they become aged. I'd rather not come back to this part of the post a few years later with the usual "link is no longer active" crap, so let's move forward. If you're interested in this subject, I'm sure you can find it online via a video search. Anyway, they were saying how the Moon goes through a "wobble effect" every 18 years, with the last one happening during the famous year of 2012. This supposedly affects the oceanic tides in a more intense fashion. With the next Moon wobble events scheduled for 2030, they were saying it could be a lot more catastrophic than the other lunar events from years past due to global warming, melting glaciers, and rising oceans. Is it possible? Sure, it is, but I doubt that the Planet's inhabitants will be wiped out due to anything to do with the Moon. I mean, climate change, for whatever reason, is really showing itself over the last several years, so any other cosmic event that creates additional chaos could obviously factor in. Is this last update worthy of the "doom & gloom" status? I doubt it. I just hope the entire world hasn't gone completely bonkers by then or that we haven't started a nuclear war and/or World War 3 by then. There are much more pressing issues on the planet right now, but just thought I'd add these tidbits to this post since it is slowly drifting into a lunar gossip column. Ha!

Semi-related Post: "The Lunar Effect - Full Moon Madness"

---End of Post "Drifting away from Earth... How did the Moon form?"

Human Frog Baby & Other Genetic Defects

I was reading through a bunch of comments on some guy's article that was having some silly religious debate, and one of the guys on that page was talking about people with any type of beliefs that involve a higher power, must have mental defects. I thought "defects," this guy evidently doesn't know what defects are. So, I dropped down and shared a link with him that pointed to the human frog baby, to give him a better idea of how things can be a little worse than their futile religious debates. Anyway, the human frog baby didn't live very long, as it died about 30 minutes after its birth. A quoted comment on the page I'm about to link to, said "the baby has a condition called anencephaly, a neural tube defect, with no proper brain formation. That's why women are advised to take folate in early pregnancy."

Well, you can read more about these bizarre genetic defects, some more freaky than others, here: www.oddee.com/item_92015.aspx [link is no longer active since they no longer have active images on that page]

There are some crazy-looking images (well, there was) on that page, so you might not want to view them if it's close to meal time, just saying. Besides the human frog baby, they showed a guy with a long tail, a Cyclops baby (one eye on its forehead), a person with a monstrous hand, some lady that was born with backwards feet, a baby with 3 arms, and some person that had a nipple at the bottom of their foot. Yeah, saying the images looked rather odd, is an understatement, let me tell ya!

Image Credit: Link is already provided above.

---End of Post "Human Frog Baby & Other Genetic Defects

Hominid Brain Sizes

This is just a fun little post about the estimates of hominid brain sizes. Although we typically don't act like it, today's humans have a very large brain for their body size. Many people disagree with how the Homo sapiens of today gained such a large brain, but we'll get to that in a minute. Below, I'm going to list a few examples of hominids vs. their brain size, which all of them are extinct except for us, of course (uh, I guess.).

Australopithecines = 28 cubic inches of brain
Homo habilis = 40 cubic inches of brain
Homo erectus = 59 cubic inches of brain
Homo heidelbergensis = 73 cubic inches of brain
Neanderthals = 87 cubic inches of brain
Homo sapiens (some of us; ha!) = 90 cubic inches of brain

Don't ask me how they determined the brain size from the ancient fossils, as I'm assuming they made their conjectures by way of examining their craniums. Anyway, some folks say that the hominids rapidly started increasing their brain size when they switched over to a meat/high fat diet. Some think that the humanoids slowly got smarter and equipped with bigger brains as their social skills developed over time. The ancient alien theorists often claim that aliens from another world simply altered our DNA and sped up the process. The first two mundane reasons sound logical to me, but, well, the otherworldly reason also sounds logical. Hell, maybe it was all three; ha!

At any cognitive rate, no matter what the reasons for the increased brain size were, we still have loads of people walking around with crazy amounts of empty space in their heads. LOL!

Semi-related Post: http://www.perpendicularity.org/death-of-neanderthals.html [Link is no longer active]

Image Credit: This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government.

---End of Post "Hominid Brain Sizes"

First Forms of Writing

Most people today type and write like it is going out of style, while rarely thinking about the first forms of writing. Okay, now that I think about it, we live in a digital world nowadays so the new generation is all about texting while using abbreviations, acronyms, etc. The old-fashioned forms of writing of the past would be extremely quaint for a lot of kids coming up today. Either way, I've always hated the expression "cavemen can't write."

Anyway, in my opinion, those cave people started humanoid literature by using pictograms/pictographs. It is basically like "picture words," if you will. There were pictures painted on the walls of caves 25,000+ years ago or thereabouts. Many folks consider this to be the precursor to writing. It is still a form of communication and it does try to convey a message one way or another, so I deem it as the first. Simple hand gestures, moans, grunts and basic sign language probably fell within the same time period. In fact, I still rely on primitive communications to this day, at times; ha!

Then along came Cuneiform, which is considered by many to be the first written script and it was developed by the Sumerians of Mesopotamia. Actually, it started as pictographs but over time the characters became smaller and less were required. Cuneiform ended up being a bunch of wedge-shaped impressions on clay tablets, which only sounds slightly more sophisticated than the cave paintings, but it was an advancement nonetheless.

Next in line was the Egyptian hieroglyphics. This stuff is totally cool and it's a form of picture writing that includes signs for words, sounds, and so on. Even some of my extraterrestrial homeboys use this on their flying saucers, so it is not as elementary as one may think. In fact, I have an Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic alphabet decoder in my room, somewhere.

Well, I just realized that if I were to cover the entire history of writing, that this post would become enormous - and we don't want that, now do we? LOL! At any caveman rate, I'll stop here.

Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons - This image is in the public domain because its copyright has expired.

---End of Post "First Forms of Writing"

Early Medical Advances

This is a continuation from a previous post, Neolithic Trepanation ( http://random-twaddle.blogspot.com/2015/02/neolithic-trepanation.html ), as that was the earliest, most ancient medical practice that we are currently aware of.

Starting somewhere around 1500 to 700 B.C., the ancient Egyptians were known to have several advances during that time frame, due to all of those events concerning mummification. I suppose that would help familiarize some of the people with human anatomy, now that I think about it.

Anyway, around 420 B.C. diagnostics came into the picture, thanks to a guy named Hippocrates. Some folks call him "the father of modern medicine" because he tried to take most of the boogy-boogy out of the health field and started introducing that weird stuff we refer to as science; ha-ha!

After the year 1000, the Arab world had some advances, as well, and started working more in the field of herbal cures and/or remedies from plants, etc. I suppose you could say that it was the beginning of pharmacists?

I'll skip through a few years and head right into the first known vaccination. In 1796, a British scientist developed a vaccine for smallpox. Yeah, that was definitely a big deal. His name was Edward Jenner.

After doing a bit of research, I think the first blood transfer between humans was around 1818. Some British obstetrician named James Blundell did this by way of a syringe. Now, for all I know, blood transfusions (and organ transplants) may have occurred way before that, but lets not talk about ancient alien experiments today, okay? LOL!

In 1846, practical anesthesia came into use. Not long after, in 1865, an antiseptic began being used (yeah, one that wasn't whiskey). In 1901, 4 major blood types were identified, which helped make blood transfusions more successful. In 1954, the first successful organ transplant (a kidney) was performed. Of course, the medical advances in the 20th century steadily increased as time went on. Nowadays, the advances are amazing and we even have robotic surgery advancements, etc.

Well, these were just a few interesting tidbits that I thought I'd share with the community today; cheers!

Image Credit: It is in the Public Domain and is not under copyright protection.

---End of Post "Early Medical Advances"

Neolithic Trepanation

I was just doing a bit of research earlier, as I was curious about some of the first medical practices known to man. I was going to write a more elaborate post about the history of medicine and when certain major advances occurred along our timeline, but decided to do a quick post about this, instead. Trepanation, which involves drilling holes in the skull (yikes!), was used a very long time ago. Yeah, way back during the Neolithic period, if that tells ya anything.  Some people also call this medical procedure Trepanning, trephining, trephination or, as I read on another website, "making a burr hole." Can you imagine hearing that back then? Just try to visualize some ancient experimental doctor with the intelligence of a chimpanzee that looks over to his patient and says, "well, it looks like we are going to be making a burr hole today." Ha-ha! 

At any failed medical rate, Neolithic Trepanation was extremely primitive, to say the least. I've read before that it was going on at least as far back as 5000 B.C., but I seen today where they now say it has been dated all the way back to 6500 B.C. Yeah, that should definitely be considered an outdated & obsolete practice, for sure!

This was possibly the oldest surgical procedure to have ever existed, but we can only guess by way of archaeological evidence. Ancient cave paintings have also illustrated this particular medical practice, and it is believed that they performed these procedures for the humanoids that had mental problems, migraines, and other brain-related problems or whatever. Good grief, can you imagine somebody that is about 3 hairs away from being a monkey, jabbing holes into your head while telling you that you're going to be okay??? Wow! Anyway, I thought I'd share these tidbits with the community today; cheers!

If for some reason you are interested in reading more about this crazy subject, go here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trepanation

Image Credit: It is in the Public Domain because its copyright has expired.

---End of Post "Neolithic Trepanation"

Why would anybody climb an active volcano?

This is the very question I searched for after reading two recent stories about people getting killed around active volcanoes. The first one involved just one person and I'm not sure if that particular volcano was active or not, but the guy died by simply falling off the damn thing! The 2nd story was more action-packed, as it did involve an active volcano that erupted and began to spew room-sized rocks and debris toward nearly 30 unsuspecting climbers. The mini-blast killed 5 climbers and injured several others. The remaining survivors had to be retrieved with rope and rescue helicopters. What gets me, is that they knew it was active, but just assumed it would be A-OK to climb.

As my professional (Ha-ha!) illustration shows, climbing an active volcano is not the smartest of ideas. However, for the climbers that are avid thrill-seekers, there are many reasons why they think this is a good idea. After my brief online search, I came across one person that listed 3 reasons for why they think climbing active volcanoes is a good idea. In a thumbnail, she said it was for the intense exercise, the awesome view, and to experience a once-in-a-lifetime achievement. Well, there are many safer ways to get extreme exercise and I'm totally fine with the view I get from photographs of active volcanoes, and there are a lot of "once in a lifetime" experiences you can have, but that doesn't mean they are always a good thing, etc.  I mean, some of these insane stories you hear about makes jumping out of a plane for the fun of it or bungee jumping at the Grand Canyon sound more logical. Would any of y'all do this crazy stuff?

Image Credit: My own shoddy image using the cheap MS Paint program.

---End of Post "Why would anybody climb an active volcano?"

My thoughts about Multivitamins

It seems that the back & forth between so-called "health gurus" about multivitamins will never end. Personally, I find the whole situation to be quite asinine, as there is nothing complicated about it. First of all, the major debates, when concerning this subject, needs to be about the Megavitamins. Taking large doses of synthetic vitamins never sounded like a good idea to me, and the evidence is mounting against megavitamins and it seems that common sense won, yet again.

Anyway, this post is about multivitamins. They are generally fairly balanced and contain a good source of synthetic vitamins, minerals and trace elements. Dang, I remember writing about this subject over 4 years ago on some health & fitness blog, and things haven't changed a bit, since. At any supplemental rate, you should know that getting your nutrients from real food is the best way. By consuming vitamins and minerals in their natural state, you will also get the phytochemicals and antioxidants, etc., that come with a lot of these whole foods like fruits and vegetables, for example.

Now, due to mass production companies and a straining demand for a constant food supply, many of the soils have become somewhat depleted. True, the use of synthetic fertilizers are there to compensate, but we don't want to get too synthetic, now do we? With that being said, certain mineral deficiencies are common in these humanoid creatures, like magnesium, for example. Multivitamins generally have a fair amount of minerals albeit they are nothing to write home about. Well, except for Iron, which is something you don't need in excess since it can cause liver damage and/or heavy metal toxicity.

Plus, when taking multivitamins, your body can only absorb so much at one time, and the end result often ends up being expensive urine. Without going on and on about this, I will say that vitamin and mineral supplements are really good for some people. This is especially true if you have a poor diet, drug & alcohol abuse issues, smoke, or have certain nutrient deficiencies and whatnot. Speaking of that, if you smoke, it might not be a good idea to take supplements with a lot of synthetic beta-carotene (form of Vitamin A) in them, since many studies have shown that it can actually increase your risk of lung cancer in smokers. On the flip side, foods that naturally contain this doesn't seem to pose that same risk. Yeah, one is natural and the other is made in a lab; go figure...

Anyway, I just use multivitamins as a supplement, and a small one at that. I just take half a tablet every couple of days or, if I'm eating good, I don't take any at all. A few multivitamins during the week are not harmful and they can actually help if your diet is lacking, but don't depend on them, as that isn't a healthy way to live either. This is so simple, yet they act like there is some new study out every year that either praises them or brings them down. The multivitamins don't deserve to be praised or insulted, as they are just a freakin' supplement. They are not a MEGA-vitamin with fictitiously bold claims, not a miracle cure, just a multi-vitamin and multi-mineral supplement! Thanks for reading; cheers!

Image Credit: Fair use - Product Image - It can be found on various websites.

---End of Post "My thoughts about Multivitamins"

Urban Myth: Microwaving your Food Kills all the Nutrients

Oh, dear... Just leave it to the Internet to spread more urban myths than ancient folklore! I've been hearing more and more about this lately, but actually this urban myth has been around for quite some time.

Anyway, using your microwave oven as recommended, does not kill or remove any more nutrients than standard stove-top cooking. In fact, boiling your food is the worst when it comes to nutrients leeching out. On the other hand, cooking your food by whatever means, actually increases your nutritional absorption rates for certain foods. Take tomatoes, for example. You absorb a higher rate of lycopene from cooked and processed tomato products than you would if you consumed them raw. Other foods such as mushrooms, carrots, spinach, asparagus, cabbage, broccoli, peppers, and so on, are actually better (for certain nutrients) when cooked because the antioxidants are easier to absorb, for yet another example.

When it comes to vitamins, remember that many of these are water-soluble and if you want to zap-out more water-soluble nutrients, just boil them for a while in water or pickle them in a brine solution. Instead of me rambling about this microwaving subject half the morning, I'll provide a few resource links below, just in case you don't believe me. However, feel free to find some "conspiracy" websites written by high-school drop-outs (or whoever) that may tell you that the microwave is your worst enemy. Boo-boo! Ha-ha!

One more quick tidbit before I supply some resources: Since various types of cooking and microwaving can destroy a percentage of certain nutrients that you may or may not have absorbed anyway, wouldn't a quicker cook in the microwave be better than super-steaming and/or boiling on the stove? Yeah, many folks don't understand the molecular movement involved with a microwave, so I can understand how some of these urban myths got started on the Internet/World Wide Web/the Net/InterWeb. LOL!

If in doubt, read more about the subject:
* www.shape.com/healthy-eating/diet-tips/ask-diet-doctor-does-microwaving-vegetables-really-kill-nutrients
* www.livestrong.com/article/368262-do-microwave-ovens-destroy-food-nutrients/

Image Credit: It is in the Public Domain and is not under copyright protection.

---End of Post "Urban Myth: Microwaving your Food Kills all the Nutrients"

Health & Fitness Blog: http://health-fitness-guru.blogspot.com

Making Jalapeno Poppers without the Breading

Original Post Date: August 29, 2013

 

I usually enjoy almost any type of pepper, whether it is hot, mild or sweet. However, the common cheddar jalapeno poppers don't really float my boat. I mean, they are good in a way, but to me, they usually have too much breading and cheese. In fact, they usually have so much extra crap on them, I can barely taste the jalapeno! Well, today, I went out to the garden and snagged about 8 decent-sized peppers. I felt like doing a little culinary experiment in the kitchen today; you know, a little pre-supper snack; ha!

Anyway, I washed the jalapenos off, cut the tops off, sliced them in a vertical fashion, so now I was left with 16 pepper halves. From there, I bored out the centers, removing the seeds and some of the membranes. Then, I threw them (or placed, depending on your speed) into a pot of boiling water to soften them up. I boiled them for about 5 minutes. I already had the oven pre-heated to 400 degrees. I took my boiled peppers, placed them on a cookie sheet that was lightly oiled, then filled the centers with little bits of American cheese, since I didn't have any cheddar. I sprinkled some black pepper on top of the semi-stuffed peppers, and baked them in the oven for about 7 minutes. I let them cool down for about 2 minutes, and watched them disappear. Oops, I forgot to take a picture of the finished product though, since they were already gone before I thought about posting this; ha! Bottom line: I liked them much better than the standard cheddar jalapeno poppers, as I could actually taste the yummy jalapenos and I didn't have all that grease, breading and excess cheese getting in the way; cheers!

Side Note: Since all the seeds and the membranes were removed, along with boiling the peppers in water first, they were fairly mild as far as heat is concerned. I suppose that if you wanted them to be hotter, you could leave some seeds in there and skip the boiling part. However, that might add to your baking time, which could then burn the cheese.  Well, it is up to you. I must say, though, the original method I used in this post worked really well...

Photo Credit: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jalape%C3%B1o

---End of Post "Making Jalapeno Peppers without the Breading"