Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Space Science

The Galaxy's Largest Diamond 364

Posted by michael
from the you-pay-shipping dept.
unassimilatible writes "The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics reports 'to impress your favorite lady this Valentine's Day, get her the galaxy's largest diamond.' A newly discovered cosmic diamond is a chunk of crystallized carbon 50 light-years from the Earth in the constellation Centaurus. It is 2,500 miles across and weighs 5 million trillion trillion pounds, which translates to approximately 10 billion trillion trillion carats, or a one followed by 34 zeros. A cheesy, unrealistic simulation is also available. AP has a story as well."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Galaxy's Largest Diamond

Comments Filter:
  • by Alizarin Erythrosin (457981) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:02AM (#8278237)
    DeBeers has announced their official entry into the X-prize competition...
  • closer (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kyshtock (608605) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:03AM (#8278239)
    Wasn't there a theory that the core of Jupiter was diamond?

    • Re:closer (Score:2, Insightful)

      by klasikahl (627381)
      Would that not imply that Jupiter is a star-turned-white-dwarf? I'm pretty sure it would. In which case, it is highly unlikely that Jupiter once was a star.
      • That's right. Jupiter was never a star. Its its hottest, its core temperature never got above about 1/3 what was necessary for fusion to occur.
    • 2010 : Odyssey Two (Score:5, Informative)

      by MichaelGCD (728279) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:35AM (#8278371) Homepage
      I remember reading that in 2010: Odyssey Two. In the book, there's a diamond the size of earth at it's core.
    • Re:closer (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Genda (560240) <(mariet) (at) (got.net)> on Saturday February 14, 2004 @04:10AM (#8278464) Journal
      Uh no... no diamond at the core of Jupiter... there is still some question about rocky, heavy metal, or metalic hydrogen at the core...

      In any of those cases, the state of matter at jupiter's core would be pretty exotic stuff, even a diamond at those temperatures and pressures would flow like water...

      And no, jupiter was never large enough to have sustained fusion, though it does emit a whole lotta heat and readio waves.

      Genda Bendte
      • Re:closer (Score:3, Funny)

        by DroopyStonx (683090)
        Heavy Metal indeed.

        It's rumored that GWAR originally came from the core of Jupiter before the Master sent them, the Scumdogs of the Universe, to an iceberg in Antactica.
  • DeBeers (Score:5, Funny)

    by stibles (708899) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:04AM (#8278241)
    Sadly DeBeers has already posted one poor volunteer from South Africa to sit on it until it gets close enough to rope in.
  • by meeotch (524339) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:05AM (#8278252) Homepage
    ...it's full of Retsyn!

    mitch

  • by werdnapk (706357) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:07AM (#8278259)
    Is the high resolution image for the women?
  • by antispamist (653732) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:08AM (#8278262) Homepage Journal
    Great, now I have to haul my ass all the way to where?

    This getting married thing is getting more and more complicated each year.
  • Largest diamond? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    > A newly discovered cosmic diamond is a chunk of crystallized carbon 50 light-years from the Earth in the constellation Centaurus. It is 2,500 miles across...

    Then again, maybe Sir Arthur's conjecture is right and there's a much larger diamond in our own "backyard". Now if only the Firstborn would do their thing and fire up Lucifer, diamond would be as cheap as sand...

    http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q2270.html
  • ppfffttt (Score:5, Insightful)

    by phlegmofdiscontent (459470) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:09AM (#8278270)
    When the hell are news outlets going to hire writers that at least understand science somewhat and won't dumb it down so far that it becomes just another fluff story next to the one about the cute puppies? Granted, it's cool that scientists can confirm a hunk of crystallized carbon that large, but give me a friggin break....
    • Re:ppfffttt (Score:3, Insightful)

      by azcoffeehabit (533327)
      yeah seriously, there has to be more to say about this discovery then "you couldnt wear it as a ring" wtf is that about. You would think a group with the name The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics would have a bit more of a profound view on the crystalization(sp?) of a star, than "bill gates couldn't afford it". Oh well, lets hope for a more scientific update on this.
  • Quite the sparkle? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by loyalsonofrutgers (736778) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:09AM (#8278271)
    My understanding is that the vast majority of a diamond's "sparkle" is the result of careful cutting and controlling where the light enters the diamond. Slicing through an otherwise uncut diamond would not be too impressive, I'd imagine. Especially considering the lack of a strong light source.

    Maybe a more worthwhile story would be on the fact that the entire diamond industry is created by incredibly strict control of the supply, which is kept artificially low to dramatically inflate price. If people knew, and accepted, the truth this wouldn't be considered that much more special than the fact that some other planets are just big, big versions of rocks. Gasp!
    • by ClubStew (113954) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:35AM (#8278368)

      Actually, the sad thing is that most people seem to already know this but no one does / can do (?) anything to stop them. DeBeers, after all, pretty much controls the majority of diamonds on this planet.

      To give DeBeers the slap in the face they need, maybe we should harvest this white dwarf. Heck, just tell Liz Taylor about this and she'll get that "sparkly" diamond almost half as big as she is in no time!

    • by Animats (122034) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:39AM (#8278384) Homepage
      Yeah, and Gemesys [gemesys.com], the new synthetic diamond gem manufacturer, caved in to deBeers and are now engraving "Gemesis created" and a serial number on each stone.

      But in time, the bottom will fall out. In 1943, Linde Chemical created the first synthetic sapphire. Now, you can buy 200mm sapphire bar stock. [maintechsapphires.com] Big 16mm gem-quality sapphires are available for about $10. The same thing happened to rubies and emeralds.

      They're just rocks, people.

      • Corrected URL (Score:5, Informative)

        by Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @11:40AM (#8280017) Homepage Journal
        http://www.gemesis.com/home.htm

        They're selling yellow diamonds. I thought the Russians had a process years ago for adding some metal to the stew that hoovered up the nitrogen that caused the yellow color, producing clear diamonds.

        I'm with the Slashdotter who said that even at the same price, he'd prefer to own or give a jewel embodying human science, engineering, ingenuity and cooperation rather than one dug out of the ground in an armed camp. My wife feels the same way. If I had to have a natural diamond I'd wait for a Martian one.
  • Woo. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Renraku (518261) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:10AM (#8278273) Homepage
    Us guys will be in seriously deep shit with our signifigant others if someone gives that to his signifigant other.
  • Is this a stellar mass squeezed down to planetary size, or what?
  • by Anonymous Coward
    with something like "I heard Shelly's daughter has one with 10 billion trillion trillion TRILLION carats."
    "You dont love me...."

    *sigh*
  • Formation (Score:4, Interesting)

    by whereiswaldo (459052) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:12AM (#8278290) Journal

    Did this diamond form based on the same principles as diamonds here on Earth? I thought coal had to be very highly compressed for ages before it became a diamond. Not so?
    • by zokrath (593920) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:19AM (#8278317)
      All it takes is blue spandex, a cape, and a wry grin given to an amazed coal worker.
    • by MachDelta (704883) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:26AM (#8278337)
      Carbon + Heat + Pressure = Diamond

      So maybe its a chunk of a planet that got creamed by a really big rock.

      Or, more likely, its a rejected engagement ring on some faraway planet.
      Female Alien: Only 10 billion trillion trillion carats?! You OBVIOUSLY don't love me that much if thats all you can afford! Throw it into space, I don't want it!! *stomps off*
    • Re:Formation (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Xeriar (456730) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:30AM (#8278354) Homepage
      Sort of. Stars will fuse elements into heavier and heavier elements, up to iron (since making heavier elements actually takes energy, any larger atoms are made in negligable quantities outside of supernovas).

      Anyway, my (educated) guess would be that this given star had enough mass to fuse elements up to carbon, but not further - not enough to sustain its continued existance as a 'star', anyway.

      At least, I'm inferring from the article that this star is fast becoming a 'black dwarf' - I could be wrong and this is just a white dwarf in its carbon stage, but by that measure there would certainly be far, far larger diamonds out there (and in great numbers).
      • Re:Formation (Score:4, Informative)

        by zabieru (622547) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @05:46AM (#8278685)
        Well, that's actually a myth. They won't fuse all the way to iron normally... Mostly just to carbon, a little higher in some very hot or very unusual stars, but generally the limit is carbon. Yes, theoretically fusing higher elements produces a bit of energy, but for reasons I don't entirely understand it doesn't actually happen. Most everything higher than carbon comes from supernovas. Novas and near-nova stars produce carbon and I think lithium. Regular stars produce pretty much just helium. If you want more, ask a real physicist. I ain't one.
        • Re:Formation (Score:5, Informative)

          by GreenPhreak (60944) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @11:28AM (#8279937)
          The lifetime of the star (and the elements that it ends up fusing to sustain that lifetime) are determined only by the initial mass of the star. Most stars are low mass stars (it's easier to form smaller clumps of gas), and these stars take a long time to run out of their hydrogen supply (in fact the least massive of these still haven't run out, and won't for several billion years).
          As stars run out of hydrogen, they start fusing other elements present in their cores. This takes them through different stages of stellar evolution (red giant, horizontal branch stars, assymptotic branch stars, etc.) They continue to gain energy from this process until they reach iron. When these stars fuse elements heavier than iron, they don't actually get a net energy output from the reaction and thus their pressure source (fusion) cannot sustain the equilibrium against the gravitational force that constantly tries to collapse them. This is when a supernovae event occurs. As the star collapses under its own gravitation, the core rapidly fuses anything it can as the density increases. This is why the previous poster is right in saying that the main source for elements heavier than iron in the universe is supernovae.
    • I can imagine that its own gravity was enough to compress it into a diamond.
  • valuables in space (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jjeffries (17675) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:18AM (#8278313)
    I wonder if these kinds of discoveries could get otherwise uninterested parties into the space biz. Plenty of scenerios have us mining the moon for oxygen, fuel, etc, in order to survive up there, but what about other minerals/precious stones? If a huge chunk of [gold|platinium|unobtainium] were found on the moon, would it be cost effective to mine it and send it back to earth?

    I'm sure there will be other such finds. This huge diamond probably doesn't even scratch the surface. (ha!)
    • If a huge chunk of [gold|platinium|unobtainium] were found on the moon, would it be cost effective to mine it and send it back to earth?

      The main problem is that the Earth's economy would be screwed up if something of immense value was brought back.

      The value of gold (and our reliance on it to balance certain markets) or oil is based on there being a fixed amount of it, a regulated supply of it, or both. If you brought back several trillion dollars worth of gold in one giant lump from the Moon, the price o
      • This is because gold is, effectively, useless, and only holds stature for traditional and rarity reasons (i.e. 'lots of gold makes me look good because there's so little of it available'). If they brought back significant amounts of oil, however, things would be quite different, as oil has a non-cosmetic use.

        Actually, gold is a very useful material. Check out this link [goldinstitute.org] for some uses. It doesn't corrode, it is an excellent conductor of heat and electricity, and can be made into really thin wires without br
      • by silentbozo (542534) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:52AM (#8278413) Journal
        Gold and diamonds have industrial uses as conductors and abrasives. While having a large amount of either would depress the commodity markets (and send many speculators to the depths of dispair) it would bolster the industries that utilize these items for manufacturing.

        Imagine if gold were cheaper than lead - we could market environmentally friendly "lead-free" ammunition. If we had access to diamond sheets large enough, perhaps we could construct windows out of it. Instead of copper wiring, we'd have gold wiring instead. Circuit boards would be plated with gold, and maybe we'd see the return of $20 gold coins that are actually worth $20.

        What would REALLY be valuable would be catalytic elements like platinum or palladium. Bring back enough of those and whole new industries could be built around them...
        • by gotr00t (563828) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @12:06PM (#8280152) Journal
          However, don't forget that despite the fact that most of the world is off the gold standard, gold is still used to stabilize the currency. Out of all the things that money could be backed by, a precious mineral like gold is the most stable because the amount in the world is fixed.

          If you introduce so much gold into the world that its as abundant as lead, then there would need to be a new rare mineral to back currency. If this was to happen, every currency would be worthless, and so would gold. It would be just like the massive inflation Germany suffered in the 1920's... imagine pushing cartloads of gold to buy one loaf of bread.

  • by mattkime (8466) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:18AM (#8278314)
    on closer inspection it is revealed to be cubic zirconium which drastically reduces it value at the local pawn shop.
  • NASA's moon/mars missions have been scrapped. Details vauge. In an unrelated story, DeBeers' announced they will be starting a space program with primary research into developing inter-space missiles.
  • Numbers (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:19AM (#8278318)
    Phrases like '5 million trillion trillion" are silly. They should put the number's real name, write it out in digits, and-or use scientific notation (or a variant like C-style "e notation"). It ticks me off -- the magnitude is already so large that it's incredibly hard to visualize, so they should put it in the clearest format possible. Do people say "there are sixty hundred hundred hundred hundred people alive on earth"? No, of course not, they say "six billion" or "6,000,000,000". If the people printing this assume that no one knows the words for numbers above a trillion, they could at least use the semi-easily-parsed "followed by n zeros" format consistently.
    • Re:Numbers (Score:4, Insightful)

      by crabpeople (720852) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @04:22AM (#8278497) Journal
      " They should put the number's real name"

      well i see they took the same amount of time and effort as you did. do you actually know what a number with 34 zeros behind it is called??
      no? well then. shut the fuck up - it is in the clearest possible format for most people.

      oh and i did bother to google [google.ca] for it and the first result tells me that it is 10 decilion to americans, or 10 000 quintillion to the rest of the world.


      dont just bitch, actually try and learn something - its not hard.

      • Re:Numbers (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Just Some Guy (3352)
        do you actually know what a number with 34 zeros behind it is called??

        Yeah, it's called n*10^34 by everyone I'd ever discuss such large numbers with. Assigning an arbitrary and inconsistent name (see your US vs. everybody comment) is just plain dumb. Do you think crypto guys convert between decillions and decajillions when discussing collision rates, or that physicists have any interest in petadillions or hexamuphillions other than when they have to write a press release? No. There's a widely used and

    • They should put the number's real name

      *Is* there even a proper name for "5 million trillion trillion"? I've heard that the British use some funny system where a billion is a million million instead of a thousand million, and if that's true they might have a name for it, but do people who use normal number-naming schemes?
      • Re:Numbers (Score:4, Informative)

        by RogerWilco (99615) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @06:21AM (#8278762) Homepage Journal
        In the rest of the World:
        million: 6 zeroes
        milliard: 9 zeroes
        billion: 12
        billiard: 15
        trillion: 18
        trilliard: 21
        quadrillion: 24
        quintillion: 30
        hexillion or sexillion: 36
        septillion: 42
        octillion: 48
        nonillion: 54
        decillion: 60
        undecillion: 66
        duodecillion: 72
        A duodecillion is about as big as you get, roughly being the number of particles in the galaxy. You could keep on counting if you liked, the system is a derivative of roman numerals (with some greek for flavour).
        In the 17th century the French decided to get rid of all the "iard"'s and have steps of 3 zeroes instead of 6 between the "ion"'s. The USA adopted this system.
        The Brittish kept the original system, and in 1948 the French reverted to the "iard" system, this leaving the USA as the only country ussing a different system, giving rise to much misunderstanding and potential problems like space probes hitting Mars.

        Adriaan Renting.
      • Re:Numbers (Score:3, Informative)

        by chongo (113839) *
        ''*Is* there even a proper name for "5 million trillion trillion"?''''

        You can find the name for "5 million trillion trillion" == 5e30 by using my English name of a number [isthe.com], an open source Perl program that can generate names of numbers of any size (e.g., the English name of the largest known prime [isthe.com]).

        In the above article, one could replace ''5 million trillion trillion pounds'' with:

        • five nonillion pounds in the so-called American system
        • five quintillion pounds in the so-called European system

        And one

    • Re:Numbers (Score:5, Funny)

      by concepthouse (325685) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @05:39AM (#8278665) Homepage
      At least the journalist on this piece didn't tell us how much the star weighed using the IEEE international standard of Volkswagen Beetles.
  • by SavannahLion (701337) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:20AM (#8278320) Homepage

    It wouldn't matter if someone went up and brought the diamond back. As soon as you send it to the jewelers to be mapped and evaluated, they'll just swap it out for another, lesser quality, diamond without you even knowing.

    I say leave it in place. We could shave off the first 30 miles of top layer and shine a giant laser at it for the largest intergalactic network ever known to man. Since it would take light 50 years to travel to the planet, Half-Life 2 should be just about ready to play by then.
  • by AltGrendel (175092) <ag-slashdot @ e x i t0.us> on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:23AM (#8278327) Homepage
    So far.

    I hear that Tau Ceti is bragging that they bought a larger one.

  • by The_Steel_General (196801) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:26AM (#8278336)
    Everyone remember, carat is only one of the Four C's. You need to consider the color (it was only blue-white while it was burning) the clarity (probably easy to see some flaws if you got close enough) and the cut (currently round but not brilliant, I suspect)

    So, don't overpay for it, no matter what the salesman says about size mattering...

    TSG

  • - The universe's largest collection of AOL CDs, approximately a terragoogle of them circling Saturn in the form of one of its rings. Results of failed marketing campaign circa 2501ad.

    - A twenty-billion tonne meteor shaped exactly like the Hand of God, heading straight for Ur^h^h the planet Earth.

    - Life on Mars, complete with funky trance tunes and dayglo noserings.

    - A bong the size of NYC, containing twenty billion tonnes of a material that under examination appears to be chemically identical to Tunisian purple haze. Said bong is orbiting the Sun quite close to Mars and already the petition to send a manned mission to Mars has collected five hundred and thirty million signatures. Most of them say, "send me, send me!" Others just say, "Dude, that's too much!"

    - A radio beacon embedded in the heart of a small black rock circling one of Pluto's moon. After the rock is detected and retrieved in 2032 at incredible expense, and cracked open following ten years of drilling, it is found to contain a copy of MAD Magazine from circa 1972 and a small piece of paper with the words "regular delivery to this address, please" on it.

    - The discovery, in a deep crater on Mars, of an underground passage leading to a huge room filled with silent, brooding machines. After long study and careful analysis of the patterns and markings, we activate one of the machines. Immediately the whole room comes to life and a small black hole appears in its center. The Martian surface starts to slide into the black hole, then the entire planet, and finally the whole Solar System. A team of two plutonaughts watch the scene from the far boundaries of the Plutonian orbit, and as the last specks are absorbed into the now huge and pulsating black hole, they read, in huge flashing letters, the text "ZIPPING COMPLETE. NOW REFORMATTING MEDIA... 1% COMPLETE, PLEASE WAIT."
  • They'll probably stuff the diamond star into a warehouse complex somewhere in Texas, force slaves to chisel off small amounts of it to create the perception of "rareness", and artificially drive up the price to screw ignorant consumers.
  • by fractaltiger (110681) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:29AM (#8278350) Journal
    This puts another spin on the phrase "reaching the stars for HER" right?
  • by fafalone (633739) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:35AM (#8278372)
    Why must people write numbers like that? It's unfathomable anyway so just write the proper name (10 decillion in the US system) instead of obnoxious "billion trillion billion mllion" nonsense. Writing 10 billion trillion trillion doesn't help people understand it better, it just annoys those who know how to correctly name extremely large numbers.
  • by fmlug.org (695374) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:49AM (#8278408) Homepage

    Yes but can fedex or UPS deliver it for Valentines day, any geek could get laid with one of these.
  • calculations (again) (Score:5, Informative)

    by maddh (608481) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:56AM (#8278425)
    I was curious about if they could land on that to mine it (interstellar distances aside) what kinda gravity would be at the surface. so i did some simple physics calculation, double check my work.

    Gravitatotional Force
    Fg = G * m1 * m2 * r^-2
    Gravitational Acceleration Fg/m2
    Ag = G *m1 * r^-2

    G = 6.67E-11
    m1= 5 million trillion trillion lbs = 5 * 10^6 * 10^12 * 10^12 lbs= 5E30 lbs *(1kg/2.2lbs) = 2.26E30 kg
    r = diameter of 2500mi/2 = 1250mi * (1609 m/mi) = 2011680 meters
    Ag= 6.67E-11 * 2.26E30kg * (2011680m)^-2 = 37,249,159.4 m/s^2

    Ag = (37,249,159.4 m/s^2)/(9.8 m/s^2)= 3,800,934.63 g's

    3.8 million times earth gravity?
    Unless there was some mistake in the way they described the mass (million billion trillion) that seems pretty rough right?

    again correct me if i was wrong.

    • by Hunzpunz (634432) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @06:54AM (#8278845)
      I'd readjust the calculation a little bit, it was talked about 10 million trillion trillion carats, not 5 million trillion trillion pounds... a carat is 1 carat [google.com], and therefore i'd adjust the result by dividing it by 1250 ((a pound / 0.2 grams)/2 (because he started with 5 billion... instead of 10...)).

      so we'll end with round about 3040.74 g's, if everything else is right, which i didn't check.
  • by jms (11418) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @04:00AM (#8278435)
    According to Google Calculator [google.com], this diamond has ~ 330,000 times the mass of the planet earth.

  • anyone here up on their physics? i think i'm doing this right...

    acceleration = Gm/r^2

    G = Gravitational constant = 6.67*10^-11
    m = mass (Kg) = 2.26796185*10^30 Kg (or - 5*10^30 Lb)
    r = radius to the center of the object (m) = 2011680 m (or - 2500miles / 2)

    acceleration = (6.67*10^-11)(2.26796185*10^30 Kg) / (2011680 m ^2)

    acceleration due to gravity = 37,380,386.1 m/s^2 !?!?!?!?
  • Is it just me or does it look suspiciously like a scene from the TV series of The Hitch Hikers Guide To The Galaxy [bbc.co.uk]?
  • Well well (Score:3, Funny)

    by mog007 (677810) <Mog007@@@gmail...com> on Saturday February 14, 2004 @04:05AM (#8278453)
    I bet this is going to piss off DeBeers to no end, but...

    I for one, welcome our new diamond overlords.
  • by ArcticPuppy (592282) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @04:22AM (#8278492) Journal
    ..Women worldwide ambigous...
  • DeBeers? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Lord_Dweomer (648696) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @04:26AM (#8278509) Homepage
    So how is DeBeers going to get all those miners from Sierra Leone into space? WTF would you call them anyways? Leonauts?

  • and now... (Score:3, Funny)

    by DotQuantum (749611) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @04:34AM (#8278524)
    ... and now to make [the 14th] it complete, where is the /. article about the largest chocolate in the galaxy ?!
  • Percieved Value (Score:2, Informative)

    by mac os ken (732050)
    Sorry to post this on Valentine's Day but it must be said. Diamonds are not really a precious stone. Most of the world's diamond supplies are locked away by DeBeers and released into the market slowly to inflate perceived value. Diamonds have no real resale value, they only have sentimental value. Ever try to sell your diamond encrusted jewelry? You'll never get as much as you paid for them unless your piece is literally one in a million.

    Diamonds unfortunately are the product of blood feuds, multination
  • Comics (Score:3, Funny)

    by Flyboy Connor (741764) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @04:49AM (#8278564)
    Sounds like this would have an irresistable attraction on Scrooge McDuck.
  • all these replies, and still no mention of lucy - in the sky with diamonds.
  • stupid (Score:2, Insightful)

    by supernova87a (532540)
    i'm a little tired of astronomers trotting out stupid gimmicks to "market" each one of their discoveries and try to make it sexy. I know that you need a catch line to get people interested and all, but stuff like this is just stupid.

    when I read about a huge diamond in space, I expect a little more than a white dwarf discovery. Come on, this is ridiculous.
  • space diamonds? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by axxackall (579006) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @05:35AM (#8278657) Homepage Journal
    If it exists in the Universe as a whole, it can exist also in pieces. There could be many reasons why another big diamond would be broken into millions of smaller (but still huge) pieces.

    We know (we think we know) that there is a lot of dark matter between star ssystems and between galaxies. No need to go that far - there is a belt of cold rocks outside of Pluto. Who knows, maybe some of those rocks are broken pieces of one of such diamond star.

    Now, it's a matter of time that they will discover of proof of such diamond rocks there and begin hunting for them. Can it stimulate investors to space industry?

    • No (Score:3, Insightful)

      by brucmack (572780)
      Nobody would bother going to space for diamonds, because there are already too many of them down here. We're just supposed to believe that there aren't many so that we can pay a higher price for them.
  • Dammit! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Mistshadow2k4 (748958) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @07:39AM (#8278952) Journal
    My husband only got me a 120 gig external hard drive for Valentine's Day! What a gyp!
  • by drago (1334) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @09:17AM (#8279236)
    Hey, has anybody thought about selling the thing on ebay? Auction starting at $1, self-collectors only ;-)

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..." -- Isaac Asimov

Working...