Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Diamond Rain In Saturn

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the diamonds-are-a-leviathan's-best-friend dept.

Space 177

Taco Cowboy writes "Back in 1999, it was postulated that diamonds may rain from the sky in the atmospheres of our solar system's gas giants. Now, research has shown that diamond rains on Saturn are more than probable. '"We don't want to give people the impression that we have a Titanic-sized diamondberg floating around," said researcher Mona Delitsky, of California Specialty Engineering, "We're thinking they're more like something you can hold in your hand." Recent data compiled by planetary scientists ... has been combined with newly published pressure temperature diagrams of Jupiter and Saturn. These diagrams, known as adiabats, allow researchers to decipher at what interior level that diamond would become stable. They also allow for calculations at lower levels – regions where both temperature and pressure are so concentrated that diamond becomes a liquid. Imagine diamond rain or rivulets of pure gemstone.' 'At even greater depths, the scientists say the diamond will eventually melt to form liquid diamond, which may then form a stable ocean layer.'

cancel ×

177 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Old news (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45101577)

Those diamonds have been there for eons.

Re:Old news (4, Funny)

Culture20 (968837) | about a year ago | (#45102195)

Well, diamonds *are* forever.

Re:Old news (0, Flamebait)

Alorelith (118865) | about a year ago | (#45102681)

And in other news, Israel has recently decided to develop a fully operational space program, with its first destinations to be Saturn and Jupiter.

Lucy in the sky with diamonds (4, Funny)

conscarcdr (1429747) | about a year ago | (#45101587)

Sorry, someone has to say it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDl0qPfkSRw [youtube.com]

Re:Lucy in the sky with diamonds (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45101621)

Diamond rain / Some stay dry and others feel the pain;

Re: Lucy in the sky with diamonds (1)

corbettw (214229) | about a year ago | (#45101955)

Maybe so but thankfully the rest of us don't have to click it.

Re:Lucy in the sky with diamonds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45102073)

Windy, actually!

Re:Lucy in the sky with diamonds (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year ago | (#45102113)

LUCY IS HERE

No, wait, that's on Europa.

Lucid in the sky with diamonds (1)

SeeingMole (1965542) | about a year ago | (#45102595)

"Lucid in the sky with diamonds" or "Lucy in disguise with diamonds"?

Obligatory Bond quote. (4, Funny)

Picass0 (147474) | about a year ago | (#45101613)

James, how the hell do we get those diamonds down again?

Re:Obligatory Bond quote. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45102335)

Since when is 007 obligatory on Slasdot?

Re:Obligatory Bond quote. (5, Funny)

tinkerton (199273) | about a year ago | (#45102391)

007 isn't, but the word 'Obligatory' is.

Liquid diamond!? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45101625)

What is that supposed to be when diamond is defined as a crystalline form of carbon and a crystalline material is by definition a solid?

Re:Liquid diamond!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45101733)

It's mixed with liquid uranium.

Re:Liquid diamond!? (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#45101735)

Who has ever heard of a Liquid Crystal? Imagine if you could use them to make a Display.

Re:Liquid diamond!? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45102193)

That's a (solid) crystal suspended in a liquid, dumbass.

sucks to be a dumbass jerk, doesn't it (1)

raymorris (2726007) | about a year ago | (#45102791)

It sucks to be wrong when you're being a jerk, doesn't it.

Rule 1: don't be a jerk when you might be wrong.
Rule 2: you can always be wrong.

Re:Liquid diamond!? (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about a year ago | (#45102299)

The obelisks did that with Jupiter in 2010. Never had any good shows on.

Re:Liquid diamond!? (2)

graphius (907855) | about a year ago | (#45101799)

My thoughts exactly. Couldn't we also say it is raining graphene? Graphene is the golden child of the carbon family lately.

Re:Liquid diamond!? (3, Insightful)

egcagrac0 (1410377) | about a year ago | (#45103025)

If this story was on the internet 150 years ago, they would have been excited about the oceans of liquid coal.

A practically limitless supply of coal, essential for rail transport and industry, we just need to build a 1.2 terameter long pipeline...

Re:Liquid diamond!? (2, Funny)

mmell (832646) | about a year ago | (#45102909)

Liquid Schwartz!

Is there a cartel on Saturn? (3, Interesting)

istartedi (132515) | about a year ago | (#45101627)

Is there a cartel on Saturn? Because, you know, that's the only thing that really makes them special. This is something the goldbugs have right. Diamonds? You can make them out of carbon, via chemistry. Gold? You need nuclear processes that are currently uneconomical. Barring some spectacular breakthrough in nuclear technology, the supply of gold remains limited.

Re:Is there a cartel on Saturn? (3, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#45101659)

It also remains far over valued versus its industrial use. This means we are limiting its use so that goldbugs can hoard it. Not much better than a cartel.

Re:Is there a cartel on Saturn? (2, Insightful)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about a year ago | (#45101705)

It [gold] also remains far over valued versus its industrial use

so does paper with funny symbols, old dude's faces and a signature printed on it.

Re:Is there a cartel on Saturn? (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#45101741)

But the same paper without does not, so we can freely use that for industrial use.

See the difference?

Re:Is there a cartel on Saturn? (2)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year ago | (#45101757)

Given that their "industrial use" is to be traded for goods and services, they seem to be valued quite exactly according to their industrial use.

Re:Is there a cartel on Saturn? (2)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about a year ago | (#45102049)

It's also useful in electronics because it's a not-awful conductor and incredibly resistant to corrosion. That's why you'll see gold-tipped electronics.

Re: Is there a cartel on Saturn? (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | about a year ago | (#45101953)

Four C's:
Color, Clarity, Cut, and Carat. It's the right combination of all four that makes a diamond valuable. This is regardless of the cartel. Quality is quality.

http://gia4cs.gia.edu/en-us/the-diamond-4-cs.htm [gia.edu]

Re: Is there a cartel on Saturn? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#45102093)

Even with all 4Cs without the cartel prices would drop like mad. They are limiting the supply in an artificial manner.

Re: Is there a cartel on Saturn? (3, Insightful)

Instantlemming (816917) | about a year ago | (#45102115)

Colour other than 'no colour' used to be thought of as inferior/impure, and those diamonds were ground up and used as industrial sandpaper. So quality is very, very subjective.

Re: Is there a cartel on Saturn? (4, Insightful)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year ago | (#45102181)

Color, Clarity, Cut, and Carat. It's the right combination of all four that makes a diamond valuable. This is regardless of the cartel. Quality is quality.

Not true. A "cultured" diamond will sell for considerably less than a mined diamond of the same quality. The DeBeers diamond cartel has gone to considerable effort and expense to promote the perception that laboratory grown diamonds are somehow inferior to "real" diamonds produced by African children digging up hundreds of tons of dirt.

Re: Is there a cartel on Saturn? (2)

mythosaz (572040) | about a year ago | (#45102949)

Five C's determine their value, mostly weighted by Cartel.

Re:Is there a cartel on Saturn? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45102757)

If billons needed here are used to finance an expedition to Saturn to get a lot of diamonds, they could as well put them in Uranus

Re:Is there a cartel on Saturn? (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year ago | (#45101749)

Industrial diamonds cannot be made in large, flawless sizes. But there aren't any industrial uses for large sizes, either. So the availability of industrial diamond has little impact on the gemstone industry.

Re:Is there a cartel on Saturn? (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about a year ago | (#45102061)

However, artificial diamonds can be created of far superior color, clarity, cut, and carat than natural diamonds for far less than the value of an equivalent natural diamond.

Re:Is there a cartel on Saturn? (4, Interesting)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year ago | (#45102325)

Industrial diamonds cannot be made in large, flawless sizes.

The quality has improved in recent years. For some colored diamonds, lab grown diamonds are already superior.

But there aren't any industrial uses for large sizes, either.

Large diamonds have applications in optics. Diamonds have a high index of refraction, very low absorption of infrared light, and are easy to keep cool because of their very high thermal conductivity. This makes diamonds very useful for high powered IR optics, including CO2 lasers.

Re:Is there a cartel on Saturn? (3, Interesting)

ssam (2723487) | about a year ago | (#45102449)

There is interest in using diamonds for LHC detectors, due to its superior radiation hardness compared to silicon.
http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/april-2012/signal-to-background [symmetrymagazine.org]

If diamond was as cheep as silicon, then they would be using tonnes of it.

Dibs (1)

linear a (584575) | about a year ago | (#45101643)

Gimme

DeBeers! (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year ago | (#45101663)

At least this should help fund space programs and work on asteroid capture. A bit sad that it will be used to adjust Saturn's orbit into the Sun but hey...progress right?

Re:DeBeers! (1)

Picass0 (147474) | about a year ago | (#45101761)

Greed and ambition have always been engines for progress.

Re:DeBeers! (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year ago | (#45101791)

and entertainment, I know I wont live to see it, but I have faith the Darwin Awards will long survive me, and be there to bring future people's the stories of idiots managing to remove themselves from the gene pool in hare brained schemes to get at those Saturn diamonds.

Re:DeBeers! (1)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | about a year ago | (#45102859)

You say they are the engines for progress, but quite often, they are the roadblocks as well.

FLYING MONKEY ON STATURN WOULD SELL BETTER !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45101683)

Damn hippies !!

In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45101697)

On Uranus it rains Cocoa Puffs.

wrong (5, Insightful)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#45101717)

"temperature and pressure are so concentrated that diamond becomes a liquid"
Correction:
"temperature and pressure are so concentrated that carbon becomes a liquid"
It's not considered a diamond if it's a liquid. Diamonds are crystalline.

Re:wrong (2)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45101847)

So ice does not become a liquid?

Re:wrong (2)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year ago | (#45101919)

If it's not a solid we call it water or steam. But remember that Steam is only available for Windows, OS X and Linux.

Re:wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45102371)

Drat! I'm stuck with Plan9!

Re:wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45102475)

It does, we like to call it water.
whats your point?

Re:wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45102053)

Could be a liquid crystal. Too bad it'd "freeze" into diamond once it left the planet, having a cheap source of huge LCD monitors would be handy.

Re:wrong (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | about a year ago | (#45102177)

It's not considered a diamond if it's a liquid. Diamonds are crystalline.

Aye, which is why they use the word "becomes." I.e. it changes from one thing (diamond) into another (liquid carbon). When something becomes something else, it often does not stay the first thing (sometimes it does, sometimes it does). Both sentences are valid: the first is just more specific (and therefore superior), as it tells you what form the carbon was in prior to becoming a liquid, while the second does not.

Re:wrong (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45102409)

It's not considered a diamond if it's a liquid. Diamonds are crystalline.

You are being too pedantic. There is a difference between supercooled liquid carbon that will precipitate diamond versus a different PV state that would produce another allotrope. Reality is much more complicated than the simple 3-phase taxonomy you learned in grade school. Using the phrase "liquid diamond" is perfectly sensible shorthand for a state that is distinct from "liquid graphite".

Re:wrong (1)

Ferrofluid (2979761) | about a year ago | (#45102549)

It was my understanding that, if you look at a phase diagram for any material, there may well be many distinct solid phases but only one liquid phase. How can you have different phases of liquid?

Re:wrong (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45102723)

How can you have different phases of liquid?

Supercooled region
Compressible region
Incompressible region
Supercritical region

It gets really weird at extreme temperatures and pressures. Solids don't get to have all the fun.

Re:wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45102715)

And if I'm not mistaken it'd be just as accurate to say the diamonds become liquid asbestos.

Diamonds aren't rare at all. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45101729)

Yet society has convinced people to pay a fortune for them. Sigh.

Re:Diamonds aren't rare at all. (4, Informative)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year ago | (#45101779)

That someone is De Beers. That company basically *is* the international diamond market.

Smallish diamonds aren't that rare, no. The price is kept artificially high. The ridiculously huge ones are, though. The ones only affordable by royalty and the mega-rich. Still, if they want to spend their wealth buying pieces of shiny rock, let them.

Re:Diamonds aren't rare at all. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45102365)

Can't we just make the huge ones in a lab?

Re:Diamonds aren't rare at all. (2)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#45101785)

Not entirely true. Large diamonds with few or no flaws are fairly rare on earth. Small diamonds, not so much. This is why small diamonds ( .2 carat) are pretty cheap.

Re:Diamonds aren't rare at all. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45101903)

While their workers work in dangerous conditions for low wages. That's why I only support African conflict diamonds, or "Blood Diamonds". At least then the money is going to the locals.

Liquid carbon (5, Informative)

Saethan (2725367) | about a year ago | (#45101737)

Aren't they essentially saying there might be oceans of carbon, but using diamond to make better headlines?

Re:Liquid carbon (2)

Saethan (2725367) | about a year ago | (#45101873)

I should add that yes, at certain pressures there is probably solid diamond (there are theories of exoplanets that are almost entirely diamond, in fact), but the 'rain' would be liquid carbon.

Re:Liquid carbon (1)

taiwanjohn (103839) | about a year ago | (#45102051)

Yes. I also wonder about the "in Saturn" vs. "on Saturn" phrasing. With a gas giant, where do you draw the line between "in" and "on"??

Re:Liquid carbon (2)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year ago | (#45102199)

With a gas giant, where do you draw the line between "in" and "on"??

I don't think people even agree at this point about the interior of a gas giant. Best I can make out, it's likely a plasma that's squeezed so tight it behaves like a solid, but with its electrons floating all over the place, so not at all like any solid we've encountered.

Re:Liquid carbon (1)

Gavagai80 (1275204) | about a year ago | (#45102323)

The point where your diamond rain turns into a liquid carbon ocean.

Re:Liquid carbon (2)

mrchaotica (681592) | about a year ago | (#45102497)

Also, shouldn't it be diamond snow?

Re:Liquid carbon (3, Informative)

kimvette (919543) | about a year ago | (#45102625)

It depends - many scientists are fairly certain Neptune and Urectum (oh wait, it's still Uranus until 2620) have solid cores, so you can almost certainly land "on" those planets (ignoring pressure issues). Saturn and Jupiter are also thought to have rocky cores, or to have had them originally, but it is uncertain. It's entirely possible due to gravitational pressures and electrical current the cores are not really a solid nor a liquid but an ultra-dense plasma. The idea that the gas giants in our solar system possess (or possessed) solid cores is a fairly new theory based on data (gravitational, magnetic, and radar) gathered by various probes as well as mathematical predictions.

Re:Liquid carbon (2)

necro81 (917438) | about a year ago | (#45102267)

I agree that it was probably written in a that way to make for a better headline.

on the other hand, many (most?) people don't actually know that diamond is just a particular crystalline form of pure carbon, like graphite, etc. This is sad, yes, but so it goes. So in order to convey the liquid nature at certain depths, they may have said "liquid diamond" just to keep in line with what they were talking about earlier with diamond chunks floating around.

Or, they could just be talking out of their ass.

Re:Liquid carbon (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45102481)

What if a chunk of titanium, the strongest metal, traveling the speed of light slammed into that ocean of diamond, the hardest metal known to man?

The next mission to Saturn (1)

Voyager529 (1363959) | about a year ago | (#45101751)

Will be funded by Zales.

Re:The next mission to Saturn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45101977)

Wrong! The next mission to Saturn with a return capability will be sabotaged by DeBeers.

oblig (5, Funny)

dforreal (1078047) | about a year ago | (#45101763)

Then god created Saturn, and he liked it, so he put a ring on it.

Re:oblig (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#45102809)

And put also diamonds there. But in the other hand, god definately didn't liked Uranus.

Re:oblig (1)

Xyrus (755017) | about a year ago | (#45102893)

Then I guess Jupiter was the result of the wild bachelor party before he put the ring on Saturn.

good news for space exploration (3, Insightful)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about a year ago | (#45101777)

Nothing prompts exploration like greed.

Re:good news for space exploration (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45102057)

That would actually be a bad idea. The universe is full of gold and diamonds, there are even star-sized diamonds around (well... cores of stars).

Even finding a single block of diamonds in space will invalidate the material's worth on earth here due to the sheer number of diamond available. Maybe diamond keeps its value as we still can make diamonds much cheaper than "dug from earth" ones so people are still paying much, much more for "dug from earth" ones instead of artificial ones (which are physically and chemically the very same but... they do not care).

But for Gold and Platinum you probably would not make the big money you think you would. You might not even get your investments back by bringing a couple of containers full of gold back to earth.

The true wealth you can make by mining/finding stuff in space is not the luxuary segment (at least not at first) but by bringing in "useful" materials in very largue amounts (meaning VERY cheap per ton). You are not going to compete successfully because your iron is so much worth but because the stuff you make from it is plentyful and very cheap (per unit).
Imagine you having a few billion tons of copper available and ship the stuff in quantities measured in 1000s of tons and can sell everything made from copper for half the price than those who have to buy earthly ressources (in quantities measured in tons). You're making your money because both of you sell for 100 or even 1000000 but your ressources cost you next to nothing due to the large amounts you have hauled back.

Re:good news for space exploration (1)

3.5 stripes (578410) | about a year ago | (#45102347)

Gold has a lot of industrial uses, I could see it being worth bringing back.. maybe I'm wrong though.

Re:good news for space exploration (1)

Gavagai80 (1275204) | about a year ago | (#45102375)

If you have a few billion tons of copper, how are you going to get it to earth without unfathomable fuel costs?

Re:good news for space exploration (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | about a year ago | (#45102555)

The question should be, "how are you going to get it to earth without either unfathomable fuel costs or an extinction-level impact event?"

Re: good news for space exploration (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45102679)

Sell it on the intergalactic exchange market for credits of course. Then use the said credits on earth.

Re:good news for space exploration (1)

Ferrofluid (2979761) | about a year ago | (#45102727)

If you don't mind waiting a long time, perhaps you could use solar sails? Although, I'd guess that solar sails are only useful for providing radial acceleration (i.e. away from the sun), so this might not be useful if you're mining the stuff beyond the earth's orbit and are trying to bring it back home. And I doubt there's an analogue to "tacking" in the vacuum of space.

An alternative is to use solar cells to provide electrical power, and use the copper itself as propellant in some sort of high-efficiency ion engine or accelerator. You'd be cannibalizing your payload to use as reaction mass. Copper probably isn't an ideal propellant in such a system, but if you have billions of tons of it, you probably don't mind wasting a significant fraction of it.

A third option could be nuclear pulse propulsion. Something like the orion project?

Weather report for: Greater Metropolitan Saturn (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45101795)

Typical. Another example of how Slashdot's been going downhill for years: Now they're just giving weather reports. Who the hell goes to Saturn, anyway?

I mean, I've got friends upstate who vacation in Iowa for who knows what reason, so that's sort of the same thing, but they don't bother checking the weather before they go anymore.

Re:Weather report for: Greater Metropolitan Saturn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45101983)

I bet the weather on Uranus is pretty balmy.

Cool ... (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#45101805)

This is awesome. The more we learn about the universe, the more we discover there's some really cool (and weird) shit out there.

Raining diamonds. I can only imagine what other wacky stuff is out there we'll never know about.

Like some moon with seas made of the finest quality single-malt scotch. :-P

Diamond Rain (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45101851)

Some stay dry, and others feel the pain.

More concerned (1)

g0bshiTe (596213) | about a year ago | (#45102007)

I'm more concerned about the impact of xtonic rays on earth.

Extremeophiles (1)

wjcofkc (964165) | about a year ago | (#45102077)

Oceans of liquid carbon? Despite the immense gravity and high temperatures, I can't help but wonder if epochs of time have resulted in forms of life we would find bizarre.

Re:Extremeophiles (1)

Guest316 (3014867) | about a year ago | (#45102927)

Scientists refuse to comment on reports of what appears to be a fox and a cat aboard a sailing vessel crossing one of the expanses of liquid diamond.

diamondz in da hiz-ouse! (1)

JonnyO (119156) | about a year ago | (#45102081)

Every rapper in California is gonna want to make their next video there.

Re:diamondz in da hiz-ouse! (1)

bytesex (112972) | about a year ago | (#45102561)

Well that's just great - let's fill up a large spaceship and send them all there, I'd say!

BS nonsense (1)

kencurry (471519) | about a year ago | (#45102183)

If you change the crystal structure to make diamonds flow, they are not diamonds - it is soot. This is equivalent of saying I'm swimming in ICE (crystalline) when I am really swimming in WATER (liquid). dUMB!

Re:BS nonsense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45102507)

If you change the crystal structure to make diamonds flow, they are not diamonds - it is soot. This is equivalent of saying I'm swimming in ICE (crystalline) when I am really swimming in WATER (liquid). dUMB!

Glaciers flow. Glaciers are still ice.

TFA has temperatures and pressures far outside the oversimplified solid/liquid/gas model you learned in 5th grade. "Liquid diamond" is a perfectly apt term (and is different from "liquid graphite")

Missing gemstone world (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about a year ago | (#45102271)

Does this mean that in Star Control 2, Saturn should be reclassified as a diamond world? (No exotics, just carbon)

Re:Missing gemstone world (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45103007)

It is still a gas giant, right? The game doesn't let you land on gas giants. So no.

In the other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45102463)

Millions of Women attacked the Kennedy Space Center and demanded access to Rockets...

"Liquid Diamond"?- how low Slashdot has fallen (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45102739)

Diamond, by definition, described one of the solid forms of pure carbon. Melt a diamond into a liquid, and by definition, you get liquid carbon.

The paper, written by idiots clearly, uses the term 'liquid diamond' NOT to refer to liquid diamond, but liquid carbon in a state that is on the verge of solidifying into solid diamond NOT solid graphite. Why oh why do we need to dumb things down in science? Everyone with even a minimum knowledge of physics and chemistry understands the concept of pressure/temperature phase changes as matter moves between (often ill-defined) states of gas, liquid and solid.

Under ordinary atmospheric pressure, water has THREE distinct freezing points, NOT one. Complexity in phase changes is commonplace. We do NOT have to use "Janet and John" like terms in order to make science 'accessible'. It is the truth of science that is beautiful, and if a truth involves significant complexity, we should embrace that.

A true liquid should always be defined by the lack of permanent molecular bonds, denying the ability of a true liquid to be crystalline. Complexity in science allows molecular constructs to be neither true solids or true liquids, and we should be grown up enough to accept this fact.

The very worst example of the real world consequences of this dumbing down was when NASA, via a project headed by a woman who had ONLY been employed for reasons of political correctness, declared that the woman's 'team' had discovered creatures on Earth whose DNA used non-standard atoms. As soon as the woman declared that the DNA was identical to ordinary DNA, save for the fact that one type of atom had been substituted by another, I and thousands of others with scientific understanding realised we were witnessing one of the greatest pieces of JUNK SCIENCE in Human History.

This brainless female had taken the simplified nonsense taught to 10-year-olds about the periodic table ("elements in the same column can replace one another in chemical reactions") and had applied that 'logic' to the most complex biological machine known to man. It is as if someone suggested you can repair a broken CPU in a PC with an ABACUS, because the abacus and CPU are both members of the class of things that calculate. NASA had recruited a woman THIS stupid, simply because she was female, and had forced a whole bunch of proper MALE scientists to work beneath her, in order to produce such humiliating pseudo science. Political correctness has no place in science, and neither does 'dumbing down'.

So what? (1)

SeaFox (739806) | about a year ago | (#45102845)

It's not like we're going to start sending ships to Saturn to get them and bring them back. What makes a diamond valuable is its rarity on Earth.
Suddenly having access to a literal ocean of them might impact that value.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?