Category Archives: Just for Fun

The unexplained, interesting Apps, aliens and more

Name Nonsense – Just for fun

Name Nonsense – Just for fun

Names are interesting. Given names and surnames are often interchangeable. Mr. James could very well be Mr. James James. To cite a few examples of common given names that are also common surnames: Arnold, Alfred, Clark, Edward(s), David, Thomas, Robert(s), John(s), Alan, Elliot(t), Frank(s), George, Gary, Hank(s), Harold, Kelly, Mark(s), Joseph, Paul, Donald, Raymond, Russell, Michael(s), Michelle, Mitchel, Steven(s), Vance, Wayne, Wallace, William(s) and the list goes on.

I often recall the character from the classic cult novel Catch 22. When the son of the Major family was born they thought it clever to provide the given name Major. When Major Major joined the military he eventually attained the rank of Major thus becoming Major Major Major.

Names that are also colors are also interesting. Red is a common first name and then there is the legendary Erik the Red. Mr. White could easily be a man of color and Mr. Black could be white. Mr. Brown could have any color skin tone. Mr. Green is probably not green. Given names can also be colorful: Scarlet, Ruby, Hazel to name a few.

Women can also be named for months, but typically only three: April, May or June. March can be a surname and a few men have been “given” the name of August.

 

A replacement for #3 in my top 5 unexplained

A replacement for #3 in my top 5 unexplained

In a prior posting I reviewed my all tome top five unexplained only to learn new information on my all time #3. After reviewing the new info I posted a retraction on that item. Since that time, I have given several items serious consideration as a replacement. Initially, my pick was the ruins at Puma Puku, Bolivia. When I googled the site, I found that “debunking” sites outnumbered actual details by at least 3 to 1. My initial reaction was to look for another candidate for a replacement. However, I decided to read through the debunking sites. I found most of the information repetitive and less than convincing. The alternative methods discussed were not backed on anything other than speculation, nothing definitive. The age of the ruins is debated with the conventional view being approx. 2,000 years ago. A minority opinion argues for a much earlier date, possible as much as 15,000 BC. I doubt we will ever sort out the age with current aging technology and I have no reason to speculate.

There are two site features which I find of particular interest: 1. The distance from the expected quarry sites and 2. The amazing accuracy of the workmanship as especially evident on the “H” blocks. There are several dozen of these remaining at the site and they are identical in every dimension and detail!

The stone materials used in construction are primarily from two sources: 1. Red Sandstone and 2. Andesite. The larger items are primarily constructed from the Red Sandstone. The alleged quarry for this material appears to have been only 10 km away from the site. The weight of the largest artifact is estimated at 140 tons. While the weight and distance traveled does not compare the achievements at Sacsayhuaman the achievement is still impressive (There is a stone item at Sacsayhuaman estimated at 300 tons and the nearest quarry is 20 km distant. In addition, the mountainous terrain in the Cusco area would pose a much more difficult transportation challenge).

The more impressive unexplained feature is the workmanship on many of the items. The claim that they were concrete using pouring forms is ludicrous. Not only is the material not concrete, there is no evidence that concrete was ever in use in the region prior to modern times. It is not clear to me if the H blocks were constructed from red sandstone or andesite? I can’t confirm the actual weight of the H blocks, but based on their dimensions I would estimate them at between 10 and 20 tons. If constructed from the andesite quarry 90 km distant that would qualify for an unexplained feat. The precise detail on these blocks cannot be reproduced today using even modern hand tools. The preciseness is difficult to achieve even using laser technology. Even diamond saws cannot achieve the same result.

The Big Bang & common sense

The Big Bang & common sense
I have always had my concerns about the concept of the Big Bang. I have not been able to wrap my head around the idea that all the matter in the universe originated from a single point smaller than an atom. That degree of density is mind blowing. Somehow the matter in this point exploded (banged) 13.8 Billion years ago. The matter (regular, dark, and other?) starts expanding at some point. Not only is it expanding, but it is expanding at an accelerating rate. There is actually evidence that the rate of universe expansion could be exceeding the speed of light on the outer edges. While we believe that exceeding the speed of light is not possible for a body traveling within space it is apparently for space itself to expand at a rate that exceeds it!?
I there was a single point (singularity) where was it? Prior to the “bang” there was apparently no such thing as “space” and “time”. These two concepts seem to be enveloped within the expanding universe. What caused the singularity to “bang”. What lies outside the boundaries of our universal bubble? Are we only one universe among a multiverse? If so, what lies between the universes if space is only contained within a universe? Our brightest minds postulate answers to all of these questions but, at best, they appear only be S.W.A.G.s to me.
What is the shape of our universe? Common sense would say that it must resemble a sphere. When it “banged” you would think that the expansion would be simultaneous in all directions. But no. The best competing theories are: 1. That the universe is relatively flat or 2. It is relatively flat, but curved. If it is relatively flat then how thick is the “flatness”? What is the shape of the “flat” boundaries? I have seen illustrations that seem to indicate the boundaries might resemble a rectangle, but how would that be possible?
Did the singularity occur in the center of what we now observe as the universe or at one end? On illustration that I viewed indicated that the expansion only occurred in one direction (if “direction” is even the appropriate term?).
Recent indications are that the diameter of the observable universe is 91 billion light years. If this is true and the universe is relatively flat then what meant by “the diameter”? Does that imply that the shape of the universe is actually a relatively flat circle how do they determine the actual relative location of our galaxy within the universe? Are we near the center or close to one edge? Super minds estimate the Milky Way to be 13.8 billion years old which should put closer to the edge, but that is common sense and the “facts” appear to be uncommon! How did the universe obtain a diameter of 91 billion light years in less than 14 billion years?