The diamond planet

The universe is just full of wonders, and here is another one:

Astronomers have spotted an exotic planet that seems to be made of diamond racing around a tiny star in our galactic backyard.

The new planet is far denser than any other known so far and consists largely of carbon. Because it is so dense, scientists calculate the carbon must be crystalline, so a large part of this strange world will effectively be diamond.

“The evolutionary history and amazing density of the planet all suggest it is comprised of carbon — i.e. a massive diamond orbiting a neutron star every two hours in an orbit so tight it would fit inside our own Sun,” said Matthew Bailes of Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne.

Lying 4,000 light years away, or around an eighth of the way toward the center of the Milky Way from the Earth, the planet is probably the remnant of a once-massive star that has lost its outer layers to the so-called pulsar star it orbits.

via Astronomers discover planet made of diamond | Reuters.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Booklover

    Cool

  • Booklover

    Cool

  • WebMonk

    to the so-called pulsar star it orbits.

    “So-called”??? What the heck? The diamond star is orbiting a pulsar. What’s with the “so-called” part?!? Does he doubt pulsars exist?

    #grumble# #grumble# clueless #grumble# #grumble# reporters
    :-)

  • WebMonk

    to the so-called pulsar star it orbits.

    “So-called”??? What the heck? The diamond star is orbiting a pulsar. What’s with the “so-called” part?!? Does he doubt pulsars exist?

    #grumble# #grumble# clueless #grumble# #grumble# reporters
    :-)

  • Dennis Peskey

    Webmonk – Ben Hirschler is only a journalist; let’s cut him some slack. Just because the alleged “pulsar” has been studied by Australia, Hawaii and British astronomical stations is apparently insufficient evidence to establish its existence. Besides, at a distance of 4,000 light years, I will not be planning any vacations to the diamond dome in the near future.
    Pax,
    Dennis

  • Dennis Peskey

    Webmonk – Ben Hirschler is only a journalist; let’s cut him some slack. Just because the alleged “pulsar” has been studied by Australia, Hawaii and British astronomical stations is apparently insufficient evidence to establish its existence. Besides, at a distance of 4,000 light years, I will not be planning any vacations to the diamond dome in the near future.
    Pax,
    Dennis

  • Tom Hering

    So which Hollywood star is going to show up wearing it when she gets engaged?

  • Tom Hering

    So which Hollywood star is going to show up wearing it when she gets engaged?

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    So how long until De Beers seeks ownership?

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    So how long until De Beers seeks ownership?

  • Tom Hering

    De Beers Galactic will keep the planet off the market, in order to maintain the current, artificial rarity of diamonds – keeping the price high well into the future.

  • Tom Hering

    De Beers Galactic will keep the planet off the market, in order to maintain the current, artificial rarity of diamonds – keeping the price high well into the future.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Diamonds! A whole planet made of diamonds!
    Let us mount a journey aboard His Majesty’s Spaceship, The Bounty…
    Diamonds gotta be better than breadfruit.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Diamonds! A whole planet made of diamonds!
    Let us mount a journey aboard His Majesty’s Spaceship, The Bounty…
    Diamonds gotta be better than breadfruit.

  • SKPeterson

    As Tom notes, De Beers has already laid claim to the planet, now officially dubbed “New Rhodesia,” and are planning the construction of starship/orbital mining platform Kimberley immediately. Financing is currently being arranged through banks in Lebanon and Israel to underwrite the construction costs. BHP Billiton says they have already put claims in on any planets discovered to be made mostly of copper or potash.

  • SKPeterson

    As Tom notes, De Beers has already laid claim to the planet, now officially dubbed “New Rhodesia,” and are planning the construction of starship/orbital mining platform Kimberley immediately. Financing is currently being arranged through banks in Lebanon and Israel to underwrite the construction costs. BHP Billiton says they have already put claims in on any planets discovered to be made mostly of copper or potash.

  • –helen

    “Diamonds gotta be better than breadfruit.”

    Only until you get hungry!

  • –helen

    “Diamonds gotta be better than breadfruit.”

    Only until you get hungry!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    What’s funny to me is how this science story has legs for completely unscientific reasons.

    A planet consisting largely of carbon? Trust me, that story’s going nowhere. A planet consisting entirely of one big non-carbon crystal (say, silicon)? Also a big yawn.

    Ah, but when a planet can be compared to a material that is valued on Earth because of its rarity — which is why it is prized as a material in jewelry — then it becomes one “wonder” of many in the universe.

    Meh.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    What’s funny to me is how this science story has legs for completely unscientific reasons.

    A planet consisting largely of carbon? Trust me, that story’s going nowhere. A planet consisting entirely of one big non-carbon crystal (say, silicon)? Also a big yawn.

    Ah, but when a planet can be compared to a material that is valued on Earth because of its rarity — which is why it is prized as a material in jewelry — then it becomes one “wonder” of many in the universe.

    Meh.

  • Tom Hering

    Diamonds aren’t all that rare on Earth. Now it seems they’re quite a common material “out there.” Which leads me to speculate that the aliens who landed in Dr. Veith’s garden were after something much rarer than diamonds: zucchini.

  • Tom Hering

    Diamonds aren’t all that rare on Earth. Now it seems they’re quite a common material “out there.” Which leads me to speculate that the aliens who landed in Dr. Veith’s garden were after something much rarer than diamonds: zucchini.

  • SKPeterson

    Just zucchini? Or are yellow summer squashes included?

    As to rarity, it is true that diamonds are not especially rare, but the number of gem-quality diamonds is rare relative to the total supply. Now, there are some monopoly profits that De Beers is able to command, but prices are not too high relative to other gem-quality stones such as emeralds or rubies. Perhaps if more women would accept an emerald, sapphire or ruby studded wedding ring, the demand for diamonds would fall, but until that type of demand change occurs, diamonds will continue to command a premium in the jewelry market.

  • SKPeterson

    Just zucchini? Or are yellow summer squashes included?

    As to rarity, it is true that diamonds are not especially rare, but the number of gem-quality diamonds is rare relative to the total supply. Now, there are some monopoly profits that De Beers is able to command, but prices are not too high relative to other gem-quality stones such as emeralds or rubies. Perhaps if more women would accept an emerald, sapphire or ruby studded wedding ring, the demand for diamonds would fall, but until that type of demand change occurs, diamonds will continue to command a premium in the jewelry market.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Good grief, Todd. Lots of things are rare, but not valuable. Diamonds have always been valued because of their beauty, by what they do to light. You always give me a hard time because you think I don’t know anything about science, but this is the problem with the scientific mind: when it becomes reductionistic, making things seem less than they are. And when they are dismissive of things like “wonder.” The greatest scientific discoveries, in my mind, are those that show us how complex and mysterious and wondrous the universe is. Not those that we can turn into another consumer product or that can make us think we now have everything figured out.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Good grief, Todd. Lots of things are rare, but not valuable. Diamonds have always been valued because of their beauty, by what they do to light. You always give me a hard time because you think I don’t know anything about science, but this is the problem with the scientific mind: when it becomes reductionistic, making things seem less than they are. And when they are dismissive of things like “wonder.” The greatest scientific discoveries, in my mind, are those that show us how complex and mysterious and wondrous the universe is. Not those that we can turn into another consumer product or that can make us think we now have everything figured out.

  • Helen K.

    SKPeterson @ 12
    How about just a little gold band? Never wanted a diamond although I have one courtesy of my Mom. Used to think I’d rather have an emerald if anything. But…..just a little gold band or maybe white gold. Sorry to be so simple. (:

    Have to say I agree with Dr. Veith’s last comment re: wonders, mysteries, and complexity of the universe. What a great God we have! And science is confirming that.

  • Helen K.

    SKPeterson @ 12
    How about just a little gold band? Never wanted a diamond although I have one courtesy of my Mom. Used to think I’d rather have an emerald if anything. But…..just a little gold band or maybe white gold. Sorry to be so simple. (:

    Have to say I agree with Dr. Veith’s last comment re: wonders, mysteries, and complexity of the universe. What a great God we have! And science is confirming that.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dr. Veith (@13) said:

    Lots of things are rare, but not valuable. Diamonds have always been valued because of their beauty, by what they do to light.

    Sorry, but if it were solely aesthetic, then I believe we’d value cubic zirconia, etc., much more than we do. But we don’t, even though it’s often indistinguishable to the untrained eye from diamond. Pretty certain rarity plays a large role in diamonds’ value, with not a little post-hoc rationalization from us humans as to why rarer things are prettier.

    After all, I think copper is prettier than either platinum or silver. But it’s much more common. I think the (semi-)free market backs me up on this one — it’s about rarity.

    This is the problem with the scientific mind: when it becomes reductionistic, making things seem less than they are. And when they are dismissive of things like “wonder.”

    But what, exactly, is being made by me to “seem less than” it is? Nobody’s seen this planet. They’ve just made measurements, and inferences from those measurements, and we’ve added connotations to those inferences based entirely on the prevalence of those materials on our planet and our tendency to use them in jewelry. Again, if the calculations showed that this planet’s carbon were not in a crystalline formation, but rather in sheets, would anyone use words like “wonder” to describe a giant hunk of graphite (aka pencil lead) out in space that still hadn’t been visually observed?

    I’m all for wonder. Astronomical photos are full of them, and no matter how much a scientist might use dull terms to describe the phenomena, that won’t take away their visual beauty. But I think you’re overplaying your hand here. Again, if this planet were a crystalline hunk of silicon, would you find it “wondrous”? I’m going to go ahead and guess not, because crystalline silicon means nothing to us here on Earth, culturally. That’s all this about — not science, but culture.

    The greatest scientific discoveries, in my mind, are those that show us how complex and mysterious and wondrous the universe is.

    Sure, fine. But what, exactly, is “complex and mysterious” about a measured quantity of carbon circling a star somehwere? It sounds, at some level, like you expect me to share your aesthetic sense, and if I don’t, it must all be the fault of science.

    I mean, I can read all day about the interplay of harmonic frequencies, but it’ll never take away my sense of wonder at Beethoven’s 7th symphony, mvmt. II. But a planet made of dense carbon? Do I have to marvel at that?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dr. Veith (@13) said:

    Lots of things are rare, but not valuable. Diamonds have always been valued because of their beauty, by what they do to light.

    Sorry, but if it were solely aesthetic, then I believe we’d value cubic zirconia, etc., much more than we do. But we don’t, even though it’s often indistinguishable to the untrained eye from diamond. Pretty certain rarity plays a large role in diamonds’ value, with not a little post-hoc rationalization from us humans as to why rarer things are prettier.

    After all, I think copper is prettier than either platinum or silver. But it’s much more common. I think the (semi-)free market backs me up on this one — it’s about rarity.

    This is the problem with the scientific mind: when it becomes reductionistic, making things seem less than they are. And when they are dismissive of things like “wonder.”

    But what, exactly, is being made by me to “seem less than” it is? Nobody’s seen this planet. They’ve just made measurements, and inferences from those measurements, and we’ve added connotations to those inferences based entirely on the prevalence of those materials on our planet and our tendency to use them in jewelry. Again, if the calculations showed that this planet’s carbon were not in a crystalline formation, but rather in sheets, would anyone use words like “wonder” to describe a giant hunk of graphite (aka pencil lead) out in space that still hadn’t been visually observed?

    I’m all for wonder. Astronomical photos are full of them, and no matter how much a scientist might use dull terms to describe the phenomena, that won’t take away their visual beauty. But I think you’re overplaying your hand here. Again, if this planet were a crystalline hunk of silicon, would you find it “wondrous”? I’m going to go ahead and guess not, because crystalline silicon means nothing to us here on Earth, culturally. That’s all this about — not science, but culture.

    The greatest scientific discoveries, in my mind, are those that show us how complex and mysterious and wondrous the universe is.

    Sure, fine. But what, exactly, is “complex and mysterious” about a measured quantity of carbon circling a star somehwere? It sounds, at some level, like you expect me to share your aesthetic sense, and if I don’t, it must all be the fault of science.

    I mean, I can read all day about the interplay of harmonic frequencies, but it’ll never take away my sense of wonder at Beethoven’s 7th symphony, mvmt. II. But a planet made of dense carbon? Do I have to marvel at that?

  • WebMonk

    Actually, tODD, I would be absolutely amazed by a silicone star remnant! It would require some VERY funky situations for a star to go all the way through burning hydrogen, helium, carbon, neon, and oxygen to leave a silicon remnant without also blowing itself to pieces in a supernova.

    Carbon is a potential part of a stable star, and can even be part of the primary, long-term energy generation of a star in the CNO fusion cycle. Our Sun uses at least a little of the CNO cycle, and so the Sun’s remnant will someday have lots of carbon in it.

    A mostly carbon star remnant, well it’s cool and probably pretty rare to find, but not particularly unexpected. We’ve found some that are mostly O, Ne, and Mg. None that are almost exclusively one of those elements, though. (that I know of)

    Now, a silicon star remnant would be fascinating!

    By the time a star is fusing oxygen as its fuel to produce silicon, it’s well on the way to going supernova. If we found a silicon star we would have to heavily re-write some of the steps we think happen as massive stars (>~7 solar masses) age.

    I probably wouldn’t bother mentioning it on here, but a silicon star would consume me with fascination for weeks, at least! Some of my professional astronomer friends would have to block my number and email to have a moment’s peace! :-)

    I’m fascinated just with thinking about how it might be possible to generate a silicon star! It would almost certainly require some sort of interrupt process along the way, maybe a binary star system of some sort could provide that. Maybe during one of the expansions, if the partner star were close enough it could strip off a lot of the larger star’s mass, leaving an iron core with silicon all around it. Maybe.

    Anyway, I for one would be MUCH more fascinated by a silicon star than a “diamond” star.

    (And just to ruin everyone’s day – what they found is not a diamond star, even though that’s what is being reported – it’s a carbon nucleus latticework that is probably solid. Diamonds are created by carbons in a crystallized electron bond with other carbon atoms. The carbon nuclei in the discovered star don’t have any electrons to form those bonds. The nuclear bond structure is similar to the electron bond structure of diamonds, but has none of the optical characteristics of diamonds.)

  • WebMonk

    Actually, tODD, I would be absolutely amazed by a silicone star remnant! It would require some VERY funky situations for a star to go all the way through burning hydrogen, helium, carbon, neon, and oxygen to leave a silicon remnant without also blowing itself to pieces in a supernova.

    Carbon is a potential part of a stable star, and can even be part of the primary, long-term energy generation of a star in the CNO fusion cycle. Our Sun uses at least a little of the CNO cycle, and so the Sun’s remnant will someday have lots of carbon in it.

    A mostly carbon star remnant, well it’s cool and probably pretty rare to find, but not particularly unexpected. We’ve found some that are mostly O, Ne, and Mg. None that are almost exclusively one of those elements, though. (that I know of)

    Now, a silicon star remnant would be fascinating!

    By the time a star is fusing oxygen as its fuel to produce silicon, it’s well on the way to going supernova. If we found a silicon star we would have to heavily re-write some of the steps we think happen as massive stars (>~7 solar masses) age.

    I probably wouldn’t bother mentioning it on here, but a silicon star would consume me with fascination for weeks, at least! Some of my professional astronomer friends would have to block my number and email to have a moment’s peace! :-)

    I’m fascinated just with thinking about how it might be possible to generate a silicon star! It would almost certainly require some sort of interrupt process along the way, maybe a binary star system of some sort could provide that. Maybe during one of the expansions, if the partner star were close enough it could strip off a lot of the larger star’s mass, leaving an iron core with silicon all around it. Maybe.

    Anyway, I for one would be MUCH more fascinated by a silicon star than a “diamond” star.

    (And just to ruin everyone’s day – what they found is not a diamond star, even though that’s what is being reported – it’s a carbon nucleus latticework that is probably solid. Diamonds are created by carbons in a crystallized electron bond with other carbon atoms. The carbon nuclei in the discovered star don’t have any electrons to form those bonds. The nuclear bond structure is similar to the electron bond structure of diamonds, but has none of the optical characteristics of diamonds.)

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Todd, I’m not playing a hand, or trying to get you to share my aesthetic sense. You make fun of being interested in something scientists discover “for completely unscientific reasons.” So are scientific reasons the only acceptable reactions to a scientific discovery? Yes, diamonds have particular cultural associations that make us like them so much, though the brilliance of their light is far greater than cubic zirconium. So why should that make me not feel wonder at a whole planet made of the stuff?

    (I keep thinking of the song, “Twinkle, twinkle little star/How I wonder what you are/Up above the world so high/Like a diamond in the sky.” That’s not a bad poem, by the way, with its imagery. Do you tell a child, “No! The light of the stars only seems to twinkle because of our atmosphere! They aren’t like diamonds! Stop that singing!”)

    I would also feel the same at the thought of a planet made all of gold, or copper. I also like the gaseous, liquid ones like Jupiter. And ordinary ones made up of lots of things. I’m just saying that Webmonk strikes me as having the true scientific spirit, getting all excited at the very prospect however impossible of a silicon planet!

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Todd, I’m not playing a hand, or trying to get you to share my aesthetic sense. You make fun of being interested in something scientists discover “for completely unscientific reasons.” So are scientific reasons the only acceptable reactions to a scientific discovery? Yes, diamonds have particular cultural associations that make us like them so much, though the brilliance of their light is far greater than cubic zirconium. So why should that make me not feel wonder at a whole planet made of the stuff?

    (I keep thinking of the song, “Twinkle, twinkle little star/How I wonder what you are/Up above the world so high/Like a diamond in the sky.” That’s not a bad poem, by the way, with its imagery. Do you tell a child, “No! The light of the stars only seems to twinkle because of our atmosphere! They aren’t like diamonds! Stop that singing!”)

    I would also feel the same at the thought of a planet made all of gold, or copper. I also like the gaseous, liquid ones like Jupiter. And ordinary ones made up of lots of things. I’m just saying that Webmonk strikes me as having the true scientific spirit, getting all excited at the very prospect however impossible of a silicon planet!

  • WebMonk

    I’m hardcore geek, with borderline nerd tendencies. No fair bringing me into this. I get excited about the latest and greatest chipsets from AMD too. :-)

    Though tODD does have a point. If the news hadn’t jumped onto the term “diamond” when describing this star, there’s no way anyone would have bothered to read the articles (if they had ever been written), much less get excited about it.

    We’re excited about the mental image of a giant diamond, twinkling wildly from the nearby star’s light.

  • WebMonk

    I’m hardcore geek, with borderline nerd tendencies. No fair bringing me into this. I get excited about the latest and greatest chipsets from AMD too. :-)

    Though tODD does have a point. If the news hadn’t jumped onto the term “diamond” when describing this star, there’s no way anyone would have bothered to read the articles (if they had ever been written), much less get excited about it.

    We’re excited about the mental image of a giant diamond, twinkling wildly from the nearby star’s light.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dr. Veith (@17), do let me know if I’m legitimately annoying you. I don’t want to do that. I do enjoy a good repartee, you may have noticed, but I don’t know you well enough to know when I’m getting on your nerves. That prologue written, once more unto the breach…

    You make fun of being interested in something scientists discover “for completely unscientific reasons.”

    No, I wasn’t trying to “make fun” (@10). I was observing, a la WebMonk (@18), that this isn’t really about science. There’s nothing wrong with people’s being interested in this story for cultural reasons, as such. But it’s not really about science qua science, either.

    This is actually an issue I have with science reporting, in general. Newspaper articles have a very hard time just discussing the progress of science for its own sake. They always have to toss in some “how this might help you in the future” bit to explain why you should care — four out of five times, it’s potentially curing some disease or leading to smaller/faster computers — because, well, that’s what most people want to hear. Heck, that’s what most science funding agencies want to hear, as well, as far as I can tell.

    “So you’re going to build a giant underground tunnel and do what now?”

    “Smash atoms and other tiny particles into each other.”

    “Why?”

    “To see what’s inside, more or less.”

    “Ah. Well, thanks for coming in Mister, um, … but I’m afraid money is tight right now and…”

    “The discoveries we make might possibly help lead us to energy independence.”

    “…Energy independence, eh? Tell me more!”

    Something like that. It’s not a transcript.

    So are scientific reasons the only acceptable reactions to a scientific discovery?

    No, obviously not. But let’s be honest about why we enjoy the things we do. There’s a difference between being truly excited about advances in, I don’t know, quantum computing technologies and merely being excited about the idea that your phone might someday be smaller, even if both are “acceptable”.

    The brilliance of [diamonds'] light is far greater than cubic zirconium

    “Far greater”? Maybe you know more about this than I do, but it’s certainly not obvious to me. I can tell you they have pretty similar refractive indexes, and cubic zirconia is said to be more “prismatic”.

    As to your question about “Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star”, you must be mistaking me for some straw-man scientist, like in a Mallard Fillmore cartoon or something. We’re not discussing the legitimacy of metaphor in art. If you like looking up at the stars because they’re pretty or remind you of pictures of animals, that’s fine. It’s not science, but it’s fine.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dr. Veith (@17), do let me know if I’m legitimately annoying you. I don’t want to do that. I do enjoy a good repartee, you may have noticed, but I don’t know you well enough to know when I’m getting on your nerves. That prologue written, once more unto the breach…

    You make fun of being interested in something scientists discover “for completely unscientific reasons.”

    No, I wasn’t trying to “make fun” (@10). I was observing, a la WebMonk (@18), that this isn’t really about science. There’s nothing wrong with people’s being interested in this story for cultural reasons, as such. But it’s not really about science qua science, either.

    This is actually an issue I have with science reporting, in general. Newspaper articles have a very hard time just discussing the progress of science for its own sake. They always have to toss in some “how this might help you in the future” bit to explain why you should care — four out of five times, it’s potentially curing some disease or leading to smaller/faster computers — because, well, that’s what most people want to hear. Heck, that’s what most science funding agencies want to hear, as well, as far as I can tell.

    “So you’re going to build a giant underground tunnel and do what now?”

    “Smash atoms and other tiny particles into each other.”

    “Why?”

    “To see what’s inside, more or less.”

    “Ah. Well, thanks for coming in Mister, um, … but I’m afraid money is tight right now and…”

    “The discoveries we make might possibly help lead us to energy independence.”

    “…Energy independence, eh? Tell me more!”

    Something like that. It’s not a transcript.

    So are scientific reasons the only acceptable reactions to a scientific discovery?

    No, obviously not. But let’s be honest about why we enjoy the things we do. There’s a difference between being truly excited about advances in, I don’t know, quantum computing technologies and merely being excited about the idea that your phone might someday be smaller, even if both are “acceptable”.

    The brilliance of [diamonds'] light is far greater than cubic zirconium

    “Far greater”? Maybe you know more about this than I do, but it’s certainly not obvious to me. I can tell you they have pretty similar refractive indexes, and cubic zirconia is said to be more “prismatic”.

    As to your question about “Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star”, you must be mistaking me for some straw-man scientist, like in a Mallard Fillmore cartoon or something. We’re not discussing the legitimacy of metaphor in art. If you like looking up at the stars because they’re pretty or remind you of pictures of animals, that’s fine. It’s not science, but it’s fine.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    tODD, you are not annoying me, but I had a little extra time today and thought I’d take issue with some of your, yes, nitpicking. Here is what you objected to: “The universe is just full of wonders, and here is another one.” You are calling me on THAT? That’s not scientific? Who said it was?

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    tODD, you are not annoying me, but I had a little extra time today and thought I’d take issue with some of your, yes, nitpicking. Here is what you objected to: “The universe is just full of wonders, and here is another one.” You are calling me on THAT? That’s not scientific? Who said it was?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dr. Veith (@20), is this an eye-for-an-eye kind of thing, where you erroneously nitpick at me to teach me a lesson about erroneous nitpicking? ;)

    Because I’m not “calling you” on having said “The universe is just full of wonders, and here is another one.” Read my opening statement here (@10): “What’s funny to me is how this science story has legs for completely unscientific reasons.”

    I didn’t actually address your introduction to the story. I just addressed the existence of the story in the mainstream media in the first place (your blog was, obviously, not the only place I’d heard this story).

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dr. Veith (@20), is this an eye-for-an-eye kind of thing, where you erroneously nitpick at me to teach me a lesson about erroneous nitpicking? ;)

    Because I’m not “calling you” on having said “The universe is just full of wonders, and here is another one.” Read my opening statement here (@10): “What’s funny to me is how this science story has legs for completely unscientific reasons.”

    I didn’t actually address your introduction to the story. I just addressed the existence of the story in the mainstream media in the first place (your blog was, obviously, not the only place I’d heard this story).


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X