World Famous Diamonds

The most famous diamonds in the world carry with them rich histories of the fortune and calamity of the lives which they have touched throughout time. Some world renowned diamonds have made the journey through the hands of royalty over centuries while others have only been unearthed in recent decades. Here we examine a few of the most coveted diamonds that have ever been discovered.

-The Hope Diamond: Perhaps the most well-known diamond in the United States, the Hope diamond endured hundreds of years and passed through several owners before it was donated by Harry Winston Inc. to the Smithsonian Institution in 1958. This 45.52 carat dark grayish blue cushion antique cut diamond has long been thought to bestow upon its owners a curse of tragedy and misfortune.

-The Cullinan Diamond: The largest rough diamond ever unearthed, the original Cullinan was discovered in South Africa in 1905 and weighed an astonishing 3,106 carats. The Cullinan diamond, named after the owner of the mining company where it was discovered, was later cut into 105 diamonds, the most notable of which is the pear shaped Cullinan I, also known as the Star of Africa diamond, weighing 530.2 carats. For many years the Star of Africa was known as the largest cut diamond in the world, though in recent years this record has been surpassed by The Golden Jubilee, at 545.67 carats, and a nameless fancy black diamond weighing in at 555.55 carats.


-The Regent Diamond: Thought by many to be the most stunning diamond worldwide, the perfectly cut Regent Diamond has a history of both prestige and voracity. The Regent was originally called the Pitt after Sir Thomas Pitt, a governor who purchased the diamond in the 1700s and had it cut and polished into the cushion shaped, 140.5 carat diamond in the French Royal Treasury today. Becoming known as the Regent in 1717 when it was purchased for the French Crown, the Regent Diamond has adorned the Crown of Louis XV and the sword of Napoleon Bonaparte.

-The Centenary Diamond: Esteemed by diamond connoisseurs for its purity and color, the Centenary Diamond was discovered at the Premier Mine in July of 1986. Weighing 599.10 carats in the rough, the Centenary Diamond was carefully cut by Gabi Tolkowsky into the present day 273.85 carat modern cut flawless diamond residing since 1991 at the Tower of London.


-The Orlov (sometimes called Orloff): This uniquely shaped diamond was set in the Imperial Sceptre during the reign of Catherine the Great in the late 1700s. The shape of this bluish green tinted diamond weighing in at 189.62 carats has been widely likened to that of half of a pigeon’s egg. The distinctive shape of the Orlov leads many to believe that there exists a counterpart that has yet to be discovered.

Dawkins, Theory of African Eve and Cultural Relativism

In the essay, All Africa and Her Progenies,” Richard Dawkins addresses the issue of evolution in human beings. He tries to show that Natural Selection, a theory developed by Charles Darwin, applies to humans as well as animals. He first addresses the philosophy of Cultural Relativism. This belief holds that all or any culture’s beliefs are equal relative to their truth. Cultural Relativists feel that if we want to think we respect other cultures, we must believe that what is true in their culture must be true to them.

Dawkins does not agree with this philosophy, however. He believes that there is an objective and discoverable reality. He feels that it is possible for human beings to find this truth, and it is, in fact, the duty of human beings to search for this truth. He even goes so far to say that cultural relativists are being lazy by accepting all theories of other cultures.

Secondly, Dawkins discusses what he calls “African Eve” or “Mitochondrial Eve,” which is the main argument of his essay. This theory suggests that all humans living today are descendants of one woman, Eve, who lived in Africa. This means that all of us have the same ancestors, and therefore, all of us are related. Dawkins’ evidence to prove this theory lies in something called mitochondria.

Mitochondria, in Dawkins’ words, are “tiny, lozenge-shaped bodies swarming by the thousands in each of our cells.” The presence of these mitochondria is absolutely necessary in humans. We would die without them. Scientists can trace this mitochondria back to “Eve” because each mitochondria has its own DNA, and they are only passed down each generation through the maternal side of a family.

Natural Selection now comes into play in Dawkins’ theory. One might question that if we all come from the same ancestors, why then do we have so many physical differences? Dawkins ascribes these differences as natural selection at work. The environment and other outside influences, Dawkins would say, were the determining factors in shaping our physical selves.

In regards to this essay, I agree with Dawkins’ theory of African Eve, in which I feel he gives ample evidence to clearly prove his theory. I do not, however, feel his opposition to cultural relativism is well-supported.

Dawkins regards cultural relativism as lazy, but it seems to me that it is the very definition of lazy to dismiss another philosophy so quickly like he has done in his essay. Being a cultural relativist myself, I believe it is Dawkins’ truth that this philosophy is not a good one. However, I do not feel that he can rightly call those who believe in this philosophy lazy and “hypocritical.”

I also disagree with Dawkins’ disapproval of cultural relativism. It seems incredibly arrogant to me to believe that Western culture is right in everything they have discovered through science, and that every other culture is wrong, just because they believe something else.

Science seems to be only another myth or set of beliefs. There is no scientist that can prove a theory without a doubt. There are exceptions to every rule. No one can tell me that something I believe is simply wrong. They can give me their evidence and I can make an educated decision. I may still, in their words, be wrong, but in my mind I am not, and that is my truth. Whatever I believe is my truth. Science is nothing but the beliefs of the majority of a culture.

I also disagree with Dawkins’ view that there is an objective and discoverable truth that human beings must search for. Hundreds and hundreds of years ago, our scientists believed completely different things. Take the placement of planets in our solar system. Scientists, so many years ago, were believers in geocentrism, the belief that the Earth is the center of the solar system. Then scientists started believing that the sun, in fact, was at the center, or heliocentric. My argument is, if they were wrong in the past, who is to say they will not be wrong in the present or even in the future. One day caffeine is good for you, the next day it will kill you, then it’s good for you again. It’s basically all theory.

As I mentioned before, however, I do feel that Dawkins’ African Eve theory is a good one. He gives very good evidence to prove his theory. The following is Dawkins’ example to prove all humans today are related. If you take for granted that you had two parents, four grandparents, eight grandparents, etc., and that with each generation the number doubles, then about two thousand years ago there would have been, according to Dawkins’ calculations, “a trillion American trillions” of ancestors living at that time. This was in no way possible at the time due to the fact that the Earth could not sustain that amount of people. This theory proves that al of us, eventually come to have related ancestors when you trace our ancestral histories. This seems like very logical supportable evidence. His evidence of mitochondria is a bit confusing, but upon close inspection, it appears to be convincing.

Dawkins’ criticism of Cultural Relativism seems a bit out of place in his essay, more conjecture than science.

Cars moving to three wheels

There is another style of car coming out in the alternative car market. It has been reported not only to be an electric car, but will only have three wheels. The car will tilt and slide around corners like a motorcycle. The company creating the design, Venture Vehicles, has said they aim to market the vehicle for 2009

The steering of the car is the most important aspect, as the engineers had to combine the concept of a car with a motorbike. Carver, based in Holland, invented the design for the steering technology.

It has been reported that the steering will cost $20,000 for a hybrid version or $25,000 for a full electric version. The vehicle will hold two passengers and have an optional luggage container that straps onto the roof. The car will be able to turn into a convertible with the easy removal of the roof.

The three-wheeled car will be named Venture One. It will be ideal for high traffic areas and close knit cities where space is a problem. Venture one is only 40 inches wide, and is shorter than the average car, so parking problems will be a thing of the past. Two Venture Ones will be able to fit into one parking space. However passengers don't sit next to one another, but more in a motorbike style of one behind the other.

For the hybrid, which takes petrol, the gas mileage is a low 120 miles per gallon. The electric version will go an easy 120 miles before needing a charge. Although it is created for urban living, the car is able to keep its pace on the freeway as well, going from zero to 60 in five seconds.

The company is trying to capitalise on the green car market and is working with battery maker A123 system on the design. They are also involved in loading a variety of safety features, to ensure the vehicle still has some of the safety and security that a car offers.

Although the car is able to tilt 25 degrees, it's almost impossible to tip over, so there is no need for passengers to worry about falling, as one would do in a motorbike. The car looks like a tornado with its aerodynamic shape and sleek feel, however this might just be the next bold advancement in car evolution. The combination of motorbikes and cars into one compact machine has resulted into a possible green future prospect of car evolution.

Swimming in A Pool of Atoms and Molecules

For microscopic swimmers, near atomic levels, paddling is difficult because at such tiny lengths, water seems to be as thick as honey. Imagine if you will, swimming in a pool packed full of small beach balls instead of water. Not only would swimming be a difficult task, the simple action of moving from one of the pool to the other would require an enormous amount of effort and be very difficult due to the "viscosity' of the beach balls through which you were moving.

In an attempt to circumnavigate this viscosity, scientists from the University of Sheffield in England and their fellow colleagues have managed to develop plastic swimmers without any moving parts. The elimination of external "appendages", though they tend to aid in the movement of some objects through fluids, also add to the resistance experienced by the main body. They began their experiment by coating 1.6-micron-wide balls on one side with a very thin layer of platinum and then placed them in a solution comprised of hydrogen peroxide and water. The platinum metal catalyzes the breakdown of hydrogen peroxide into oxygen and water, which in turn propels the balls at speeds of up to five microns per second through the solution. To further show relationship, this is half as fast as comparably sized bacteria move. After a few seconds, though, the balls begin to get crowded and push around the surrounding atoms and molecules and finally begin to wander aimlessly.

The scientists propose that magnetic fields might help guide the swimmers and contribute to longer paths of purpose. They also suggest they might be able to adapt them for guided work in fluids such as blood, to help deliver drugs within the body.

Is Science About To Change As We Know It?

Many times in human history science has had to make revolutionary changes. What we thought we knew, becomes something completely different. We fight these changes. We do not like finding out we are wrong.


Galileo looked through the telescope and discovered the Earth was not the center of the Universe. Newton defined the "invisible force" that changed the way we viewed the Universe. Einstein wrote his theory of relativity and again we were forced to change the way we think of science.


We have also had many "bad" or "wrong" theories through out History. Not all new theories are wright, not all are wrong. Quite often, we do not recognize a theory as being wright until the originator of the theory is dead. Some new evidence comes along and the scientific community finally says, "Hey, wait a minute, this actually proves so and so to be wright." We may be living in one of those times when what we thought we knew, is not as it should be.


For the past 70 years or so we have had competing theories to explain why animals and plants on continents separated by hundreds of miles of ocean were so similar. Three centuries earlier Abraham Ortelius looked at a globe, he could see how the pieces south America and Africa fit together like puzzle pieces. Out of this observation Pangaea the super continent was born. Then we had to explain how this super continent broke apart.


One theory called Continental Drift and one called Earth Expansion tried to explain this. Continental drift first developed by Alfred Lothar Wegener. In Wegener's mind, the drifting of continents after the break-up of Pangaea explained not only the matching fossil occurrences but also the evidence of dramatic climate changes on some continents. Wegener's theory of Continental Drift was at first shunned by the scientific community. Continental drift was hotly debated off and on for decades following Wegener's death before it was largely dismissed as being eccentric, preposterous, and improbable. However, beginning in the 1950s, a wealth of new evidence emerged to revive the debate about Wegener's provocative ideas and their implications. The theory of continental drift would become the spark that ignited a new way of viewing the Earth. Eventually Plate Tectonics as we know it today became the accepted theory.


A second theory was called Earth Expansion, physicist Paul Dirac (1902-1984) suggested the Earth's gravitational constant had decreased in the billions of years of its existence. This led German physicist Pascual Jordan to a modification of general relativity and to propose in 1964 that all planets slowly expand. Samuel Warren Carey was an Australian geologist who was an early advocate of the theory of continental drift. His work on plate tectonics reconstructions led him to develop the theory of the expanding earth. Investigating "continental drift" on his own, Carey made a large globe on which he manipulated detailed models of the continents. Dissatisfied with his results, he eventually concluded that the continents fit together properly only on a globe that had once been smaller. With that core idea, many other details seemed to fall in place.


The primary differences between the two theories is the mechanism that explains the movements of the continents. Carey felt the earth was expanding, from an earth that was 50% smaller than todays earth. Plate Tectonics felt that the earth expanded and subducted to recycle the earths crust, therefore maintaining a constant size.


Today, we see the old theory of Earth Expansion updated with a new one called Earth Growth. This theory is primarily promoted by Neal Adams, and has a sub theory of Prime Matter as a method for the Earth and other planets to grow. His updated version of planetary growth could very well change science on many different levels. His theory appears to work on Mars, and several moons in our solar system, including our moon. If his theory proves to be correct, we will have to revise other theories including the "Big Bang" theory.


We also have a new theory presented and promoted by J Marvin Herndon called Whole Earth Decompression Dynamics. This theory says that the inner planets were once gas giants under extreme pressure until the Sun's solar flares striped the planets of the gas, and the inner planets then began to decompress. This theory merges the the "subduction" and "expansion" theories together. If proven correct, this theory will change the way we see solar system and planet formation.


As before in history these revolutionary theories are scoffed by the general scientific community. After all, rewriting text books is expensive. When will science learn to explore new theories with enthusiasm. They should be debated. Yet, the general scientific community ignores these theories. Science can be quick to view theories that explain something that does not yet have an explanation, and very slow to explore those that explain something they feel is already explained. Science is about observation, and change. Still scientist get stuck in what they were taught, and changing the mind of what should be open minded people, is a time consuming process.


In todays world of information, the average person can now be exposed to new ideas like never before. The average science enthusiast can explore and present theories that can change the way we view the universe. Perhaps this is a revolution in and of itself. With exposure, maybe, just maybe, we don't have to wait for great minds to pass away before we accept their ideas.