Sunday, February 22, 2015

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 more pricey 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:

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) is 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.

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:
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!

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

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 mathemagics, 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 a quantum mechanic often is, feel free to laugh. LOL!

---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, 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:

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

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 its base, 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 has been many attempts at preservation, though, as the weather has took a toll on this mound over the years, with slumping in certain areas, being one of the biggest problems. 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!

Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons. Source =

---End of Post "The Monks Mound"

Tuesday, February 17, 2015

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, let's talk about potential rises in atmospheric CO2 and 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. But don't say we are destroying all of our oxygen by cutting down a bunch of trees. *sigh*

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

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

Ocean Tides & Tidal Forces

How many of y'all 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!

Image Credit - It is not under copyright protection, as stated here:

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

Monday, February 16, 2015

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:

If you'd rather read about the military history of France, go here:

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; ha!

Stendhal Syndrome is a psychosomatic illness that often happens when certain weird people get exposed to large quantities of beautiful art 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.

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 suppose 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 conspiracy!

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!




Image Credit: My own photo of a crazy-looking tree.

---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. 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!

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?

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:

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!

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

---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: ...That Wikipedia link represents what I like to call the "superfluity of verbiage," and it's a complete mess when concerning Gaia concepts. Well, I think I'll just go back to calling it Mother Nature. Ha-ha!

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?

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 =

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

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 =

---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"

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

Monday, February 9, 2015

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:

There's some crazy-looking images on that page, so you might not want to view 'em 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

Sunday, February 8, 2015

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.

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:

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. 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 ( ), 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. 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.

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:

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. 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, y'all 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 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.

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 InterWeb 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. Boogy-boogy! 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:

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"

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 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, 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!

Photo Credit:

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

Saturday, February 7, 2015

Will we eventually create high-speed Antimatter Spaceships?

This is such a cool subject to ponder, but if you know anything much about Star Trek, you will know that antimatter was crucial to the functioning of their starship/spaceship. Yeah, they used it to power their warp drive! Now, I doubt if we'll be going that fast using our primitive version of antimatter technology or else we might explode during the process - literally. LOL!

The basic concepts behind antimatter is that every particle has a corresponding antiparticle, which has the same mass but opposite electric charge, along with the contrasting values from its other quantum properties, etc. When a particle and its corresponding antiparticle meet, they are destroyed in a burst of energy. This is often called "pair annihilation."

There are lots of risks involved when trying to contain 'antimatter' if stored in bulk. If you make a few screw-ups during the process, then you may as well crash into a giant flaming star or at least stick your head inside of a microwave for an hour; ha! We can effectively store positrons (positive electrons) and antiprotons, for example, and there is some use for antimatter in the medical field, as well. However, the question is more about if mankind can ultimately create high-speed antimatter spaceships without the help of extraterrestrials? Personally, I think most of the cool aliens use some type of crystal technology and zero point energy devices to power their crafts and flying saucers, but that is another subject entirely.

If you'd like to read a couple related articles about this subject, I found some decent resources online:

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

---End of Post "Will we eventually create high-speed Antimatter Spaceships?"

Planets with Two Stars

I hope that most of us are aware of how beautiful the sunsets here on Earth truly are, but can you imagine what a sunset would be like with two stars/suns? Many people have wondered about this over the last several years. You know, like if “binary” stars could support planets. The common query was: "Could planets like the Tatooine from Star Wars really exist?"

Well, I remember reading about this a couple years ago when they first found such a system out in the cosmos (Kepler-16b). I went back today (for a web search, not into the Universe) and seen that their count for planets with two stars has reached 7, so far, but that number could quickly rise. It just goes to show, once again, that our imagination is often way ahead of what we can currently call reality. Many of y'all may have visualized such things long ago, but until a couple years ago, the humanoids on this planet didn't know if it was possible or not.

We are well aware of planets having multiple moons, of course, but that doesn't seem as bizarre as looking up into the sky and seeing two suns, now does it? The primary chatter you usually hear about this topic today, is from the conspiracy nuts that are always claiming to see Planet X/Nibiru sitting beside our sun in the sky while using photographic filters and whatnot, but that is another subject entirely.

Anyway, if you'd like to read a recent article about this subject, go here:

Image Credit: Google Image search using the free to share and use function. Source =

---End of Post "Planets with Two Stars"

Wednesday, February 4, 2015

Oceans, Seas, Gulfs and Bays

This is such a fun topic, yet many people don't think about the word play involved between these bodies of water. Why is it, people are often "lost at sea," but you never hear "lost at ocean"? Do you eat ocean food or seafood? Ha! How about song lyrics like "sea to shining sea" or "traveled the world and the 7 seas"? Is there something wrong with our ocean? Oops, I said 'ocean' when there is suppose to be 4 of them. Technically, the planet has one giant ocean, but we have divided them into the Pacific, Atlantic, Indian, and the Arctic Ocean. The Earth is composed of about 72% water and roughly 99% of that is saltwater.

When it comes to the seas, we have 7 major seas, but obviously there are more than that. A Bay is simply a large indentation into the land formed by the sea. If that sounds confusing enough, gulfs are even bigger than bays, as they are large inlets of the ocean (or sea; whatever!) surrounded by land or gulfs could also be an inlet that deeply penetrates any land mass. Ain't this cool? Well, I'm parking this post in the gulf and putting this topic at bay because I'm lost at sea while looking for the best ocean. LOL!

Image Credit: This work has been released into the public domain by its owner and copyright holder.

---End of Post "Oceans, Seas, Gulfs and Bays"

How did Christopher Columbus discover America?

Maybe it's a mix between silly semantics and certain historians that don't agree, but I've never understood how Christopher Columbus received the title for discovering America. For one, the place was already inhabited and had loads and loads of tribal folks and Native American Indians running around. Obviously, they discovered it way before his ass! Ha-ha! I mean seriously, it is like walking into a lively party (really late) that is already popping and jamming to music, then yelling out in front of the crowd upon your entry: "I've discovered this party!" LOL!

Other than that obvious flaw in semantics and actuality of the diction at hand, why do certain historians disagree? There are many books written about this. For example, one title of a book is called "They Came Before Columbus." Even the Vikings touched base in or around Newfoundland during the year 1000 A.D or thereabouts. I have read before that many humanoids reached the continent of America way before Columbus albeit things were not always documented very well, during those times. It has also been said that people from Asia reached America thousands of years before Columbus and in the book mentioned above, the guy claims that an African discovery of America happened before Christopher Columbus.

I really don't know who discovered America first, but since there were already people dwelling at the place who were partying like a rock star (while wearing paint and feathers), I can honestly say that Christopher Columbus was not the first. Ha!

Additional Reading:

Image Credit: This work is in the public domain in the United States, and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years or less.

---End of Post "How did Christopher Columbus discover America?"

Are the Badlands really Bad?

Actually, I started to write a little post entitled "How the Badlands got their name," but after performing a quick search online, I realized that this was a fairly saturated subject. However, most people just say that the Sioux called them "mako sica," which literally means 'bad land' albeit that doesn't really explain a whole lot, so forget the Internet for now, as a short history lesson is about to begin.

Many folks leave out the fact that the Native Americans often found "good use" out of the Badlands. First of all, if you don't know, the Badlands are a type of dry, treacherous, rough terrain where some of the rocks and clay-rich soils have been extensively eroded by water and wind. It is one hell of a landscape, to say the very least! Anyway, the Native Americans would often use a different method to kill bison, for example, instead of always relying on their primitive weaponry. They would stampede these wild animals over the sharp drops of the Badlands, at times, to kill the bison, etc. Is that freakin' efficient or what?

French fur traders of the time also agreed with the Sioux and called the region "mauvaises terres a traverser" (I hope that is spelled right) which means "bad lands to travel across." Of course, we are talking about specific areas, back then. There are now many places labelled as badlands, as any terrain that fits this description, gets the name. If you'd like more information about the various locations, go here:

Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons; source is already provided in the link above.

---End of Post "Are the Badlands really Bad?"

Sunday, February 1, 2015

Debt Settlement Programs thrive off of your financial irresponsibility...

I don't know how many of you are aware of this, but debt settlement programs have been thriving off of other peoples' financial irresponsibility for quite some time now. This has been really big the last 5 years or so, but I'm not sure of the exact date when they first entered the monetary scene like a pack of wild scavengers. The primary concept is simple: If you owe lots of money to credit card companies and you feel that you shouldn't have to pay back the amount you owe, call them! Yes folks, get in contact with a debt settlement program and they will teach you how to be even more irresponsible. This is just what we need right now, more Americans getting in debt, not living within their means, wanting the world now before earning anything, and expecting to get out of debt without even paying the principle balance.

Sort of like our national debt, as this country often sounds like a maxed out credit card not even able to pay the interest on what they owe. LOL! Anyway, lets say you owe $15,000 to Discover Card, for example. Well, they would set you a target settlement at, say, 8 or 9 thousand dollars. Now, the first thing you do, is quit paying on your credit card if you haven't already. Once the credit card company starts getting pissed, redirect all your calls from them to the debt settlement people. Well, their plan is to stall and wait until you get behind on your payments for a couple years or even 3. During this time, you start transferring funds into your settlement account while waiting for your credit card company to finally give in and settle with these people. Instead of $15,000 dollars, lets say that they finally agreed to $7,500. Okay, so after 6 months to 3 years, if you already accumulated the funds, the debt settlement people will charge you about 9,000 dollars and keep $1,500 dollars of that for their selves and give the remaining 7,500 dollars to the credit card company. Sounds like a good business, eh? You saved $6,000 right off the top, but really way more than that, if you figure in the interest for those 2 or 3 years that you quit paying them.

Is it just me, or does this activity promote financial irresponsibility? Sure, those wicked banks are relentless on their interest charges, but nobody made you borrow all that money in the first place. Who is really to blame here?

---End of Post "Debt Settlement Programs thrive off of your financial irresponsibility..."

Can you buy Sinkhole Insurance?

I heard the other day that if you own a home and it falls into a sinkhole, that they will not cover it even if you have house insurance. WTF? Can you buy sinkhole insurance? LOL! Actually, you can...

In a way, it sounds sort of silly. I mean, you'd think House Insurance would cover everything. The last place I lived, the home owners were required to purchase flood insurance in addition to their regular house insurance if they were still paying on the loan for their home. With that being said, some areas have other additional plans for stuff like hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. However, I've never really thought about sinkhole insurance before. These things can happen anywhere, apparently. I wonder if this applies to car insurance as well? No, surely not... I say that because I've also heard of cars getting trapped inside sinkholes while driving down the road. Anyway...

I was reading about this topic last night and there seems to be a lot of information on the Internet about this subject. I even seen a couple silly how-to "articles" out there about this type of insurance. I mean, who needs to read a how-to page about getting sinkhole insurance? They both had 3 steps listed, followed with some superfluous, vacuous details. It was like: 1) Contact the insurance agent 2) Identify the coverage terms and conditions 3) Pay the premium. Ha-ha! Really? Thanks for that useless how-to advice!

A couple related articles on the Web to further your reading:

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

---End of Post "Can you buy Sinkhole Insurance?"

Semi-related Post:

Whole Chickens are the Best?

After reading a couple articles online that related to chicken, it reminded me of something I was told several years ago. First of all, I don't know if this is true, but it sounds very plausible for today's food market, but don't take me up on it. I'm only repeating what I was told.

Anyway, the guy said that he used to know a food safety inspector personally, and that she once gave him an insider tip. She said if you want to purchase disease-free chickens, it is best to only buy whole chickens. She said that a lot of food companies take the diseased chickens and cut off the diseased areas and use 'em for parts. Basically, when you buy a package of chicken wings, legs, thighs, etc., many of those most likely came from diseased chickens. The whole chickens have to be perfect or else they couldn't sell them whole.

You know, that makes sense. However, since I like drumsticks and hot wings so much, I'm yet to start following this advice. I must say, though, some of the best tasting chickens I have ever had, were whole chickens. The things that make you go "hmmm..."

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

---End of Post "Whole Chickens are the Best?"