You can use all the critical thinking and logic you like...but in the end the truth will be stranger than fiction.
Today's fiction is often tomorrow's fact...so what can be achieved by rejecting something outright because it does not agree with current scientific understanding.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3492919.stm
Twinkle Twinkle Little Star
Twinkle, twinkle, little star,
How I wonder what you are!
Up above the world so high,
Like a diamond in the sky!
When the blazing sun is gone,
When he nothing shines upon,
Then you show your little light,
Twinkle, twinkle, all the night.
Then the traveller in the dark,
Thanks you for your tiny spark,
He could not see which way to go,
If you did not twinkle so.
In the dark blue sky you keep,
And often through my curtains peep,
For you never shut your eye,
Till the sun is in the sky.
As your bright and tiny spark,
Lights the traveller in the dark,—
Though I know not what you are,
Twinkle, twinkle, little star.
Jane Taylor (1793 - 1824)
Can you offer any stranger than fiction cases?
![]()
Last edited by SorryImPsychic; 3rd May 2009 at 01:34 PM.
Incidentally, Taylor's poem doesn't say that the star is a diamond - it just uses a simile.
What's so strange about carbon?
There are also clouds of amino acids, and other clouds of alcohol. There are stars made of degenerate atoms, or even degenerate nuclei, both far more exotic than crystalline carbon. The only reason the papers make such a fuss about a diamond star is the "Wow - think how much I could sell that for!" factor.
Nothing is strange about carbon! The formation of a giant diamond in the sky is simply wonderfully ironic in view of " Twinkle twinkle little star ...like a diamond...how I wonder what you are!
It is just like the saying "raining cats and dogs" as metaphor....what if it did rain "cats and dogs" in some form of pet virus contaminating atmosphere and water cycle! It's possible.
It has rained fish!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raining_animals
By the way, I claim that diamond. It's mine, all mine.
Last edited by SorryImPsychic; 4th May 2009 at 07:22 AM.
Why? You've already said it's a simile. It's certainly nothing to do with your assertion that "today's fiction is often tomorrow's fact".
Do you have any evidence that the posited existence of large amounts of crystalline carbon has been "reject[ed] outright because it does not agree with current scientific understanding"?
Last edited by Mojo; 4th May 2009 at 07:59 AM.
Bookmarks