Green Smoothie Basics

At one time, I called these fantastic creations Shamrock shakes. Then I discovered that McDonalds cornered the internet with that name and quickly dropped the term. I make Green Smoothies Las Vegas style. Can’t find the YouTube video of the woman making what she called a Las Vegas style smoothie, but until I can come up with another name, that’s what I’ll call them.

Smoothies with style

If you search around the internet, you’ll find tones of articles (and video clips) showing people making green smoothies. Do you have the time? I did. And now I’ve got the confidence to just whip one up.

The basic ingredients consist of:

  • Liquid
  • Greens
  • Fruit

And, of course, a high powered blender. I found the money for a Vita-mix 5200 and I’ve got to say I’ve been satisfied with my purchase so far. One of these days’ I expect the Raw Vegan Source will update their webpage with the latest and greatest.

In any case, if you just throw together these three main ingredients, you might not get something that really makes you want to drink it. Thus, let’s look at each category.

The Liquid

Lots of people simply add water. Not me. The liquid that you put in as the base is the predominant flavor. I almost always use some type of juice. One of my favorites is Apple Blackberry. Unfortunately, I’ve now run out of frozen blackberries so this will not be an option until August rolls around again. Another favorite is Orange Pineapple Banana. I love the creaminess of this combination. Come summertime, my absolute favorite is Honey Dew Melon juice!

On days when the raw versions of these juices elude me, I turn to frozen coconut milk (drained from fresh Thai Coconuts that I save in ice cube trays) or the Whole Foods pasteurized equivalent with the vanilla flavoring. Or, if I’ve made some Almond Milk, that works great!

Even though I’ve found my favorites, don’t be afraid to come up with a base that you really love. Some people add teas, I haven’t tried that yet. Others just stick with water, yet I find that a little plane.

Jazz up your smoothie by adding a liquid base of some sort. Experiment and you’ll find combinations that work great with the different greens that you’re consuming.

The Greens

Now what about those greens? When you first start thinking about green smoothies, the number of greens that come to mind are fairly limited. Yet, as time goes on, you’ll figure out what’s the cheapest and what has the biggest nutritional bang-for-the-buck.

Baby spinach really does foot the bill. I buy it a couple pounds at a time, but don’t buy more than a few days worth of greens. You always want to consumer the cleanest freshest greens. If the leaves are turning (rotten tips) you’ve got to ask yourself if you’re feeling lucky! Those might be fine if you’re going to steam them for 10 minutes, but raw… no thank you.  In any case, I use about ½ lb spinach in each smoothie. Spinach is pretty watery and it blends up smooth.

Parsley is another one of my favorites. It has a bit stronger flavor, but it blends up nice. When it comes to blending this up, I use the stocks and all. Most of the time, I’ll blend up one bunch into a smoothie. If the store is skimping, I’ll sometimes add one and one half. With this one, I’m always on the lookout for bunches that are clean. Parsley tends to hold dirt so it requires a little more time to give it a good shaking under water. If you do this in a bowl, you’ll get to witness the dirt that sinks to the bottom of the bowl that didn’t sink to the bottom of your green smoothie.

There are lots of different lettuces. I look for the ones on sale and the ones with the darkest green pigment. We’ve all heard that it takes more energy to digest lettuce than what it gives off, yet the chlorophyll is what you’re after here. (Of course there is fiber and some minerals, but the other greens have so much more.) In each green smoothie, I’ll use an entire head. Brake off the leaves, give them a rise and blend away. The flavor is a little bitter, but that can be masked by a good combination of fruit.

Kale’s like smoothie dynamite! The heavy structure of the leaf and its dark pigments make for a nutritionally packed dynamo. The problem is that when it blends up, it doesn’t shred like spinach, or parsley, so you’ve got to run it a bit longer. Also, taste it all by itself. It’s pretty bitter. Whenever I use really dark greens I offset the bitterness with lemon. A couple tablespoons (juice of a small lemon) will make a Kale smoothie palatable. In some cases, downright enjoyable.

Again, with kale, I use a whole bunch, or, if it’s in season and the bunches are really big, I’ll use about  2/3’s a bunch. They grind up to next to nothing, so why not add in a full meal?

Other leaves that I really like a beet greens. I look forward to picking a handful of leaves out of the garden in the morning when they are in season. Nothing’s better than picking and drinking greens in the same hour. Beet greens are pretty mild, especially if you get the young ones. They’ll also a the color red to your mix sometimes turning the concoction brown. But hey, if it tastes good, you’re body will ‘eat it up.’

Carrot tops, well there is something that I haven’t been able to really come to grips with. They are on the super nutritious side of things, but until I find a way to offset the bitters, they will remain bunny food.

Herbs can also be used, but I find that the one that stands out the best is mint. What a great addition to a smoothie!  Come springtime with the mint is ten inches high I’ll pinch the tops of a half dozen stocks and add those in. Wow. Fresh mint, I highly recommend giving that a try.

On the flip side of adding herbs is that they are usually very potent. A little goes a long way. Most herbs are savory and stand out great with cooked meals. Yet, when added to a green smoothie they tend to drastically change the flavor so as to through things out of balance. I haven’t perfected the art of adding things like basil or thyme or oregano, but hope to find some helpful information one of these days.

The most important thing to remember about greens is that you’ve got to rotate your greens.  All plants produce natural toxins that they use to defend themselves from predators. You’re body can take a lot, but it most likely expels the toxins slower then consuming the food. Thus, don’t eat spinach every day! Rather, buy what’s on sale and eat it for a few days and then switch to another green. Pick out a number of greens that you rotate through. Be sensitive to the seasons in which the plants get harvested and try to consumer what’s naturally growing in your region at any given time.

The fruit

This is where the flavor really comes from. This is what makes the body crave smoothies rather than be repulsed by them. All smoothies should taste good!  If it doesn’t, make it differently. Add more fruit or add stronger fruit.

The number one fruit that makes it into every smoothie that I make is Dates. I buy them by the two pound container at Costco and add about 1 date per two cups of final product. These things are packed with great natural sugars that are great a countering the bitterness of greens. Some people don’t like their smoothies so sweet, but, my motto is, if your body doesn’t love it, it’s not going to drink it. And at the same time, I’m always looking to increase the amount of calories I consume, so Dates fit the bill.

Bananas are one of the key staples. When you add a banana to a smoothie, it’s going to give it a creaminess that most other fruits will not. Yet, make sure that you’re adding ripe bananas. Green ones just don’t perform the same. As a side note, if you buy too many bananas you can always freeze them in Ziploc baggies. Frozen bananas also work great!

All other fruit selections should be seasonal. It’s really hard to miss not know when different fruit is coming on in your area. Cherries, peaches, apricots, plums, apples, melons, or whatever; buy what’s ripe and enjoy it until it’s gone. Get what feels best to you and don’t be afraid to mix things up.

During the winter time, I’ve found that I love adding frozen fruit. When the fruit is in peak season, usually during the summer, I’ll buy boxes of peaches, apricots and cherries and freeze them on quart size baggies. Adding in the frozen fruit adds a chill to the smoothie that means you can run the blender longer without over heating the mixture. This leads to a smoother fluffier texture for the drink.


Now the question is, how much do you add?

I start every smoothie with the liquid base. I’ll add about a cup. Maybe a little more depending on how hungry I am. I usually add a bit of water so that the blender reads a cup and a half of liquid.

Next, I rinse off the greens. When I stuff them into the blender, it usually fills it to the top. I then add a couple Dates and grind it up. But only enough to break the leaves into bits. At this point I can gauge the volume of the mixture.  It might be two and a half or three cups.

Now, I add fruit up to the volume that I’m looking for. That’s usually 4-5 cups. This might mean a couple bananas, or couple apples or a third of a bag of frozen apricots or… whatever. It’s just that I want to get up to the correct volume. For me, because I make green smoothies my breakfast, I’m looking for about a quart.


Topping can change everything. Things that I like to add include cacao powder, vanilla powder, probiotics, green powders, protein powders or other dried fruit powders. There are hundreds of different items that you could add that will give a subtle change to the drink and add to it’s nutritional value.

The only caution that I would make is that you don’t want to mix in things that are really hard to digest with your green smoothie. Fruit and greens digest fast, proteins take a bit longer.

So when it comes to making your green smoothie, go with the flow and make it enjoyable. The better it tastes, the more you’ll consume. The more you consume, the better you’ll feel.

If you find something that you really enjoy, let me know. I’m always looking to give something new a try.

And don’t forget to search the web for other recipes. I would start with Victoria Boutenko’s site. She’s the mother of these magical creations. Buy her book (Green for Life) and learn more!

The breath of life (or energy)

In yoga, instructors are always talking about breathing; one of my instructors goes so far as to say “it’s not yoga if you’re not breathing”. I’d say you’re dead if you’re not breathing – but that’s a debate for another day.

Meditation is generally focused around breathing too. If your mind wonders, just focus on your breath. Some yoga instructors consider the art of yoga a moving meditation.

I figured I’d look a little deeper into this breathing thing and see if there might be some connections that would lead us to some real sources of energy.

I’m starting too really like the Wikipedia. Since yoga refers to it as Prana, let’s see what a well respected definition says:

In Vedantic philosophy, prana is the notion of a vital, life-sustaining force of living beings and vital energy, comparable to the Chinese notion of Qi. Prana is a central concept in Ayurveda and Yoga where it is believed to flow through a network of fine subtle channels called nadis. Its most subtle material form is the breath, but is also to be found in blood, and its most concentrated form is semen in men and vaginal fluid in women.[1] The Pranamaya-kosha is one of the five Koshas or “sheaths” of the Atman.

Prana was first expounded in the Upanishads, where it is part of the worldly, physical realm, sustaining the body and the mother of thought and thus also of the mind. Prana suffuses all living forms but is not itself the Atman or individual soul. In the Ayurveda, the Sun and sunshine are held to be a source of Prana.

What could be more vague than “… a vital, life-sustaining force…”? This seems a little more tangible; “Its most subtle material form is the breath, …”

I’ve always associated breath and Prana as one in the same thing. Well, ok, not quite. I figured that the air’s about 20 percent oxygen, and because the body needs oxygen to metabolize sugar, the ‘energy’ that we receive is simply oxygen. So to me, when someone’s said “breathe in prana” I’ve always translated that statement into “breathe in oxygen”.

But I’m not sure about that direct mapping any longer.

In the definition of Prana above, they mention Qi. Here is what Wikipedia says about Qi.

In traditional Chinese culture, qi (…) is an active principle forming part of any living thing.

It is frequently translated as “energy flow,” and is often compared to Western notions of energeia or élan vital (vitalism) as well as the yogic notion of prana. The literal translation is “air,” “breath,” or “gas” (compare the original meaning of Latin spiritus “breathing”; or the Common Greek πνεῦμα, meaning “air,” “breath,” or “spirit”; and the Sanskrit term prana, “breath”).

On the surface, Prana and Qi appear to be circular in definition. Reading into the definition a bit, we find that it is referred to as “the life-process or “flow” of energy that sustains living beings…”

Could there be more to this then just feeding the body oxygen to … energize it?

Water molecules acting as little megnets in their liquid state

Let’s take a closer look at the water molecule. The Wikipedia describes it as:

Water is the chemical substance with chemical formula H2O: one molecule of water has two hydrogen atoms covalently bonded to a single oxygen atom.

And, when you follow the link to the covalent bonding we find:

A covalent bond is a form of chemical bonding that is characterized by the sharing of pairs of electrons between atoms, and other covalent bonds. In short, the attraction-to-repulsion stability that forms between atoms when they share electrons is known as covalent bonding.

Covalency is greatest between atoms of similar electronegativities.

And that last link (electronegativities) shows us:

Electronegativity, symbol χ (the Greek letter chi), is a chemical property that describes the ability of an atom (or, more rarely, a functional group) to attract electrons (or electron density) towards itself.[1] An atom’s electronegativity is affected by both its atomic weight and the distance that its valence electrons reside from the charged nucleus.

This to me is the most interesting part “…the distance that its valence electrons reside from the charged nucleus”. We’ve seen that before.

Let’s look back at water one more time. Yet this time, let’s look at its bonding:

Each hydrogen nucleus is bound to the central oxygen atom by a pair of electrons that are shared between them; chemists call this shared electron pair a covalent chemical bond. In H2O, only two of the six outer-shell electrons of oxygen are used for this purpose, leaving four electrons which are organized into two non-bonding pairs. The four electron pairs surrounding the oxygen tend to arrange themselves as far from each other as possible in order to minimize repulsions between these clouds of negative charge. This would ordinarily result in a tetrahedral geometry in which the angle between electron pairs (and therefore the H-O-H bond angle) is 109.5°. However, because the two non-bonding pairs remain closer to the oxygen atom, these exert a stronger repulsion against the two covalent bonding pairs, effectively pushing the two hydrogen atoms closer together. The result is a distorted tetrahedral arrangement in which the H-O-H angle is 104.5°.

So now, after looking at all of this, the standard water molecule looks to take a particular form were the hydrogen attach at the most probable angle of 105 degrees. But what if the location of the electrons were to change out of their standard ‘water’ configuration? What if the electrons were to get elevated to higher orbits in the atom? Might that change the properties of water? Might that change how the hydrogen atoms arrange themselves particularly if the repulsions were different because the electrons orbit the atoms differently?

Let’s reflect back upon information that we discovered in a previous article (Is food another form of light?).

So, in the process of Cellular respiration, it looks like energy is released that has been stored by the electrons that have been in higher molecular orbits. If reverse logic holds, the atoms that were combined during the photosynthesis must have been atoms with electrons in lower molecular orbits and when light is introduced, the electrons are moved to higher molecular orbits that allow for different atomic arrangements – sugar.

Notice that the basic idea here is that light is introduced and the atoms that make up Carbon Dioxide and Water get their electrons elevated so that they want to bond, thus producing sugar.

What if this same principle holds with Water? What if sun light were to interact with water changing its makeup just enough for it to behave differently?

Let’s consider evaporation. Using the same trusty dictionary we find:

Evaporation is a type of phase transition; it is the process by which molecules in a liquid state (e.g. water) spontaneously become gaseous (e.g. water vapor). Generally, evaporation can be seen by the gradual disappearance of a liquid from a substance when exposed to a significant volume of gas. Vaporization and evaporation however, are not entirely the same processes.

And if we follow the link to Water Vapor we read:

Whenever a water molecule leaves a surface, it is said to have evaporated. Each individual water molecule which transitions between a more associated (liquid) and a less associated (vapour/gas) state does so through the absorption or release of kinetic energy.

And the vaporization link reads:

Evaporation is a phase transition from the liquid phase to gas phase that occurs at temperatures below the boiling temperature at a given pressure. Note: evaporation usually occurs on the surface.

Even though it’s labeled kinetic energy above, we have to wonder about plain old sun light energy. Could the addition of sun light elevate the electrons in a water molecule so that we get the same affect?

One of the common properties of water is, that because the hydrogen line up off center, the molecule gets a positive charge on one side and a negative charge on the other. Like a small magnet. As shown in the above diagram, this magnetic property helps to hold water together.

What if the addition of sun light were to elevate the electrons in the water molecule so that the molecule were to become neutral with regards to its charge? One might think that the molecules at the surface might no longer be as ‘sticky’ and be more likely to leave the collection – evaporate.

I haven’t been able to find anything in my searches that can say anything about the composition of a water molecule while in its vapor form. The only thing is that it took energy for the molecule to get out of its liquid state.

With a different feel, but along the same line of thinking, let’s look at lightning for a minute. Everyone knows that lightning is caused because of an electrical imbalance between one location and another. Here is an article from buzzle that talks about it a bit, but I’m most interested in this:

Electric Charge Formation and Ionization
During thunderstorms, what happens is that strong air currents cause the water particles and ice particles inside the cumulonimbus clouds to collide against each other. Scientists believe that these collisions in the clouds create an electric charge: positive and negative. Further, the positive and negative charges separate from one another, wherein the negative charges moves towards the bottom of the cloud and the positive charges dwell in the upper and middle regions of the cloud. The negative charges cause positive charges to develop in the area surrounding the cloud and on the ground below. The electric charges get stronger and makes the cloud negatively charged and the surface of the Earth positively charged. The electric charge caused between the Earth and the cloud serves as the perfect platform for the occurrence of lightning. [Bold italics mine]

I’m sure the scientists are still studying if this is exactly what occurs. I’m starting to think that there might be a link between sun light, water vapor and lightning.

So, what are my guesses?

What if the interaction of sun light shining on the surface of the earth transforms the water, from its dominate form into a higher energy form where the electrons are in higher orbits.  This water then is not as ‘sticky’ and it becomes water vapor that then travels through the air and gets absorbed by people breathing. Now, like sugar, this water vapor molecule has electrons in higher energy states that allow the body to use this molecule to build other molecules that regular water doesn’t work for or the extra energy can be used by the body by reducing the high energy state water into the standard lower energy state water.  This reaction might be similar to the electromagnetic energy given off when the body breaks down sugars.

If this holds, Prana would be more than just oxygen, but rather the extra energy carried via water vapor that can actually be used by the body.

Well, I might have made some debatable logical inferences above, but when you relate what happens inside a plant when light energy is used, it creates higher energy atoms that have an affinity to combine into the stable sugar molecule that stores the energy for the body. One has to wonder if that same process might happen with other molecules like water.

So breathe deep, there may actually be energy in the molecules that you breathe in.

Wheatgrass, I wondered why I like it so much.

Did a quick Google search on Wheatgrass benefits and found the following:

Turns gray hair to its natural color again …

Sweet! I’m absolutely sure that’s one of the key reasons why I’m attracted to drinking this stuff. The other fifty are creatively outlined in the same short page from the Hippocrates Health Institute. I highly recommend reading that page and forwarding it to a friend.

Even though it looks like the information is the institutes, the information was compiled out of The Wheatgrass Book by Ann Wigmore. I haven’t read it, but it looks like it can be found at Amazon.

The book, by Ann Wigmore, that I do whole heartedly recommend is the one that you should be able to find free on the internet. It’s Why Suffer? How I Overcame Illness and Pain Naturally by Ann Wigmore. I found the book by visiting Jim Carey is pretty aggressive at capturing information about people through his website, but he doesn’t really abuse your email privacy. Even though he tries to get you go buy his stuff, he also gives away healthy tips so it’s not too bad a trade. The really enticing item that he gives away is the book.  Sign up and get your free copy (you can always unsubscribe from his website later).

To set the tone, here are a few of Ann’s words:

It was my grandmother who raised me and taught me the ways of natural healing. With her, there was no hopeless case. She was certain that any ailment could be relieved. Unerringly, she located in the nearby woods, fields, and swamps, the weeds, grasses, and herbs required for her work. Many mornings before daylight, I would journey with her into the fog, and while I could not distinguish in the gloom one plant from another, she would busily gather leaves, buds, grasses, and other plant materials. She was my inspiration and my teacher ever since I could toddle about, collecting the soiled bandages or tying the fragrant herbs into bundles for drying.

The best part about it is that the couple hours of reading will inspire month’s worth of energy that you can apply to healing yourself and others. It will be one of those books that you’ll want to read multiple times. At least it was for me, but, I’m one of those people that has a fascination for learning and seeking out the details in other people’s intention.

Get the book, I’m sure it will inspire you too.

The return of Planet X

Io. One of Jupiter's moons

Here is one of those topics that can’t be proven or disproven, yet the natural laws that mankind has discovered about the universe can help provide order to the chaos that everyone writing about this subject seems to focus on.

So, have you heard about Planet X? A Google search will bring up a number of sites with all kinds of doom and gloom information.  There are video’s and graphic pictures that people have created that show you Planet X, yet, the pictures are artists renditions of what people think the planet looks like – no one has actually seen it.

The internet is really good at providing information as truth; yet, a casual observation can settle the mind back in the reality of logic. If someone has witnessed Planet X, natural laws suggest that we ALL would also witness the event in short order. So let’s investigate the issue a little.

A year or so ago I spent some time watching the latest videos and reading the most visited sites to learn more about Planet X. What drove me to investigate were claims that people were making in random internet conversations and emails that I received. People were stating things like, “Can you see Planet X in this photo that I took? It’s right next to the sun” Or things like “An Australian astronomer has spotted the planet, which you can only see from the southern hemisphere. He was using a small telescope.” Or, one of my favorites, “Planet X can only be seen from the south pole.” My first thoughts were a mixture of excitement and sadness, then, after a little research, they mellowed knowing that people are gullible and the Planet X can’t be disproven.

I have to admit that it’s been a while since I read through those top rated sites, but here are some and some quotes that I’ve found.

The Planet X Video site is the top Google hit. The first thing that I notice when I load that page is the advertisement for 2012 Planet X. Looks like they have a store in which they’re selling a bunch of stuff. Getting past that, they do have a bunch of little videos that can be viewed in which they have a number of different people talk about Earth’s past, trying to link it to the super long planetary orbit that they state Planet X has. They also bring in a lot of religious history, which helps bring the story ‘home’ for people. Yet, the graphic at the bottom of their introduction page hints at their real understanding. In that graphic they state:

    • What happens as Planet X completes its 3600 year orbit?
    • What caused the great flood, ice ages, and Atlantis to sink?
    • What are the indicators that Planet X is inbound at this time?
    • Will Planet X arrive in our lifetime? Why are some preparing?

Which are all really good questions that I’m sure everyone would like a reasonable answer too.

Another site, xfacts, seems to focus more on the alien side of things, but they do have a little info about Planet X. On the xfacts planet X page, they state:

In the early 1990’s, calculations by the United States Naval Observatory have confirmed the orbital perturbation exhibited by Uranus and Neptune, which Dr. Thomas C Van Flandern, an astronomer at the observatory, says could be explained by “a single undiscovered planet”. He and a colleague, Dr. Robert Harrington, calculate that the 10th planet should be two to five times more massive than Earth and have a highly elliptical orbit that takes it some 5 billion miles beyond that of Pluto.

Take note that this discovery took place back in the 1990’s. At this point, that could have been twenty years ago. A little further down on the same page.

Why has Planet X not been seen in recent times? Views from modern and ancient astronomy, which both suggest a highly elliptical, comet-like orbit, takes Planet X into the depths of space, well beyond the orbit of Pluto.

They even have a great diagram (at the bottom of the page) showing the elliptical orbit of Planet X. Yet, if the planet is incoming it should be nearly 20 years closer.

Moving on to the third top found site by Google, we find a site with the graphic reading “Uh-oh… Planet-X Is At It Again!” This site is a little more critical of the Planet X theory’s, yet I haven’t looked it over much. I just might have too, but for now, I’ll leave that as an exercise for the reader.

The next entry that Google provides is from the Wikipedia. Looks like there is a bit of history with the label “X”. It also states that:

Today, the astronomical community widely agrees that Planet X, as originally envisioned, does not exist. However, the concept of Planet X has been revived by a number of astronomers to explain other anomalies observed in the outer Solar System. In popular culture, and even among some astronomers,[5] Planet X has become a stand-in term for any undiscovered planet in the outer Solar System, regardless of its relationship to Lowell’s hypothesis. Other trans-Neptunian planets have also been suggested, based on different evidence.

But, that is not enough to persuade anyone that something doesn’t exist. Just because we don’t have evidence today, doesn’t mean that we might come up with evidence tomorrow that the Planet X really does exist.

So that brings us around to a little science or, simply, logical thinking to help shed some light on the subject.

If we think about planetary motion, it would make sense to bring up Kepler’s laws of planetary motion. The Wikipedia is a great source for information on these key laws. In a nutshell, the laws can be stated as:

  1. The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the Sun at a focus.
  2. A line joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time.[1]
  3. The square of the orbital period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit.

Logically, one would have to believe that if Planet X actually had an orbit around the sun; it would follow the basic behavior that all the other objects that circle the sun follow. So, we’d have to say that Planet X is an elliptical orbit (which fits what the other Planet X supporting websites say).

Diagram A

The second law brings in one of the fundamental concepts of calculus. BasicallThe second law brings in one of the fundamental concepts of calculus. Basically, if you can carve an area into enough little countable rectangular pieces, you can determine what the area is. Then, when you consider Kepler’s second law, the area swept out by the planet moving is always equal relative in time.

Looking closer at that concept, and looking closer at the diagram that Wikipedia provides (Diagram A).

Examining A1 and A2 in the diagram should give you the idea that when the planet is at the furthest points away from the sun the distance traveled in a short period of time will be very small. Whereas, if the planet were really close to the sun it would have to travel a large distance in order to sweep out an equivalent area. This next diagram (Diagram B) illustrates the concept nicely.

Now let’s consider an orbit of a planet we already know a lot about. Take Jupiter for instance. It has an orbit of just about 12 years. It’s also fairly circular. Then, looking at Saturn, which also has a relatively circular orbit; it takes about 29 years to circle the sun.

Diagram B

The key note here is that if a planet has an orbit of 3600 years, if it has a circular orbit, it would be sitting way out in space. The result is that it would have nothing to do with earth. It would not pass by the earth and it would have no gravitational effect on the earth.

But the claims are that it ‘passes by’ the earth during its orbit. Thus, the logical conclusion is that the orbit must be elliptical – which is what the supporters claim. Which implies, based on Kepler’s second law that the speed of the planet will behave like a comet, let’s look at Halley’s Comet. It has an orbital that is about 75 years, yet the period of time that it spends close to the sun is brief. Last time that comet came around, we got a few days to witness its presence.

Also, as we all know, the further you get away from an object (planet sun) the smaller the pull of gravity. Take for instance, the moon and mars. The moon is relatively small, but it’s very close to the earth, thus the gravitational pull has enough of a pull to draw the oceans toward it – thus causing the tides we witness on the beach. Yet, Mars is much greater in size and it has relatively no measurable effect on earth (ok, it’s slight and can be expressed in mathematical formulas, but it doesn’t warp our planet).

It holds the same for the other planets that circle our sun. The gravitational forces are relatively negligible. In order for Jupiter to really have an effect, it would have to be much closer than is sits today.

So, the most important tidbit of information to take out of all of this is that if the planet were to act like a comet and comets follow Kepler’s second law (areas swept out are equal for equal periods of time), it would mean that the period of time that the planet spent near the sun would be very small and it would be moving extremely fast. Just like many comets that only show themselves for a few days as they burn their way around the sun, a comet like planet would most likely do the same thing. It would be traveling so fast that it would circle the sun in days and travel through our solar system in weeks. It would also have to fall close enough to the sun that the gravitational forces would fully act upon the Planet.

With this in mind, it would seem logical that the planet would have to pass close enough to the sun for the sun’s influence to fully act upon the object to keep it in a captured state. And, if so, even if the mass of the planet is fairly large, it would most likely have a very small pull on the earth (if any) as it passes by. Just like Mars of Venus as they pass by the earth.

So, now we revisit the original triggers that got me thinking about this project. Would people’s claims that they have seen Planet X hold up under Kepler’s scrutiny? Probably not. For by the time that the planet is seen it will be traveling so fast that it will streak around the sun and in a few days be gone. So, if someone were to really see Planet X, it would not take much time for EVERYONE to see Planet X.

Also, will Planet X tear apart the earth when it passes? Well, that is also highly unlikely, for the gravitational pull of the sun on the Planet would force it in so close that it would most likely affect the earth in the same way that Mars or Venus does. So far, we haven’t detected any earthquake relationship between those planets and earth.

Now, what if Planet X has moons and one of those moons were to collide with the earth? What I’d think would be a higher probability is that the moon would hit the sun. As the planet sweeps around the sun, the probability that a moon could get captured by the sun seems high. And, if Planet X has been circling the sun for … ever, then the probably would be high that the sun would have already consumed the moons thus leaving the planet moonless.

What about Planet X dragging in other space junk that might collide with the earth? Well, if Planet X’s gravitational plug were strong enough to capture some space junk, that space junk would do the same thing that space junk around the earth does. It falls towards the earth.  If it doesn’t fall towards the planet, then it’s a moon, which, well, is kind of covered on the previous paragraph.

So I’m not saying that Planet X doesn’t exist, I’m just saying that if it does and it follows the natural laws that we know about, it will most likely pass very close to the sun and have next to no gravitational pull on the earth. Also, the time that it spends in our inner solar system where we could view it would be extremely short due to Kepler’s second law.

Also, the idea that it’s behind the sun, or that it’s just beyond Saturn also doesn’t fit the calculations of how comets (or planets) work. If it’s behind the sun and traveling like a comet, it would simply take a few days before the planet were visible. If it has a mirrored orbit with earth, like a sister planet (twin), then its orbit around the sun is 1 year, not 3600. If someone has discovered it in the outer reaches of the solar system, say, just beyond Saturn, then again, because it’s acting like a comet, it will only take a few days, weeks to travel around the sun.

Now, if Planet X is NOT captured by the sun then we have a completely different story to talk about. But that would change some of the ideas that are well established in the Planet X community. It would be like claiming the world is round when everyone else knows that the world is flat.

In any case, the information that I’ve reviewed over the years regarding Planet X is more imaginative than factual.

I’ll keep an open mind with the hope that my life will be filled with beautiful celestial events, while building upon natural laws that are commonly observable and believable.

The Raw Chocolate Recipe

When biting into a raw chocolate truffle that snaps between your teeth and then melts over the tongue blasting your mouth with the succulent essence of cacao, you can’t help but feel how good it can really be!

When I first read that raw chocolate is actually good for you I couldn’t help but think back to all the candy bars I consumed as a kid. On Saturdays or summer holidays (from school) I’d scrounge up all the nickels and quarters I could find and when I’d get enough for a Milky Way bar, I’d peddle the couple miles to either the grocery store or trailer town (where they sold candy to the people in the park). Pounds and pounds of candy melted in my mouth, but never did I feel anything but a sugar high!

That all changed a few months ago when I tried raw chocolate for the first time. I ate a couple truffles worth of chocolate and found myself feeling good all afternoon. I’d heard that there was a compound in chocolate that would give you a sense of euphoria, but I’d never experienced it. As it turns out, looks like there’s a compound called anandamide that might be responsible for this reaction. I found a little bit might explain this reaction from Exploratorium.  

THC, however, is not found in chocolate. Instead, another chemical, a neurotransmitter called anandamide, has been isolated in chocolate. Interestingly, anandamide is also produced naturally in the brain. Both diTomaso and Piomelli went to great lengths to explain that this finding doesn’t mean that eating chocolate will get you high, but rather that there are compounds in chocolate that may be associated with the good feeling that chocolate consumption provides.

It’s funny that they relate it to THC because my experience what nothing like that!  Lol.

The important part is that I’ve never felt this way from eating refined (cooked) chocolate. Maybe this molecule is sensitive and breaks down under the heat of the refining process.

Here is another little tidbit from

A make you feel happy molecule: Anandamide

Anandamide’s long hydrocarbon tail makes it fat-soluble and allows it to easily slip across the hydrocarbon-rich curtain that isolates the brain from the bloodstream. Notice that its three-dimensional shape strongly resembles that of THC. But unlike THC, anandamide is fragile. It breaks down very quickly in the body. That explains why anandamide doesn’t produce a perpetual natural ‘high’.

In any case, you’re not going to find me eating a lot of “cooked” chocolate. I think I’d rather take advantage of, not only the calories, but the feeling that chocolate in the raw provides.

So, I’ve been making it for a while now and everyone asks – how do you make it?  Well, it’s pretty easy. Take the following ingredients:

And combine. Well, actually, you’ll want to melt the cacao into a liquid so that you can mix everything in. When I first started, I sliced the cacao thinly, placed in a bowl and then placed that bowl in a hot water bath until it melted. Now I just place it in the dehydrator. Once it’s melted, mix it all together. Make sure you taste it. If the vanilla is not all that strong, you may find you’ll have to add a little more. Or, if the dark cacao is a bit more bitter, you’ll find a little more Agave will mellow it out.

After it tastes right (you’ll get a better feel after making it a couple times) you’ll want to cool it in the fridge. I do this by lining a casserole pan with some parchment paper so that I can just pour the mix (to make bark chocolate). After it sits in the fridge for a few hours, the mix sets up.

Go easy on the stuff for it might keep you up all night.  I try to limit myself to only a few pieces around lunch.

There are lots of great sources on the web that talk about raw chocolate. One of my favorite sites is The Sunny Raw Kitchen’s For the love of chocolate page. That page has lots of recipes that include coconut oil, which softens the chocolate.

Also check out EssentialLivingFoods website and view the raw cacao video. Or view it on YouTube.