Reading TFA, they apparently used a Diamond Anvil Cell to measure the hardness. This apprently consists of "two opposing cone-shaped diamonds squeezed together by a lever arm" (wikipedia).
So my question is: If this stuff is harder than diamonds, surely the "opposing cone-shaped diamonds" would deform before the sample being measured?
From the British side of things, it's also worth checking out W. Heath Robinson's work. In the UK, one look at a machine like that might make you say "that looks a bit heath-robinson".
Actually, the true scientific method (formalised and discussed by philosophers such as Hume and Popper) that is carried out by good scientists is the opposite of this: They will form a conjecture (or hypothesis), and then they will design their experiments to attempt to disprove their conjecture, rather than prove it.
Oh for goodness sake, can't you tell he was joking?
in reply to
> Oh for goodness sake, can't you tell he was joking?
> in reply to
>> Oh for goodness sake, can't you tell he was joking?
>> in reply to
>>> Oh for goodness sake, can't you tell he was joking?
>>> in reply to
>>>>... ad infinitum
Slashdot Mirror
What a ridiculous argument. What's a tenth of a yard then?
Er no. We buy beer in 568 millilitre measurements. Which just happens to be equal to an imperial pint....
My wife works for the FSA and cannot access gmail/yahoo there.
Reading TFA, they apparently used a Diamond Anvil Cell to measure the hardness. This apprently consists of "two opposing cone-shaped diamonds squeezed together by a lever arm" (wikipedia).
So my question is: If this stuff is harder than diamonds, surely the "opposing cone-shaped diamonds" would deform before the sample being measured?
From the British side of things, it's also worth checking out W. Heath Robinson's work. In the UK, one look at a machine like that might make you say "that looks a bit heath-robinson".
Actually, the true scientific method (formalised and discussed by philosophers such as Hume and Popper) that is carried out by good scientists is the opposite of this: They will form a conjecture (or hypothesis), and then they will design their experiments to attempt to disprove their conjecture, rather than prove it.
Oh for goodness sake, can't you tell he was joking? ... ad infinitum
in reply to
> Oh for goodness sake, can't you tell he was joking?
> in reply to
>> Oh for goodness sake, can't you tell he was joking?
>> in reply to
>>> Oh for goodness sake, can't you tell he was joking?
>>> in reply to
>>>>