snails.
on the day of chem paper, of all things, of all things, i decided to give one more look at the 'did you know' section of the chemistry book.
so, did you know that rubies are nothing more than imperfect diamonds with a bit of chromium to give it its colour.
it just says one thing - beauty lies in imperfection.
yeah, so lets screw the tetrahedral structure, forgoe the idea that the whole diamond has to consist of carbon particles and carbon particles alone. i mean carbon? that probably explains why natural diamonds look so dull. even rubies to some extent. the only thing that gives it's value is it's cut. cut in such a way that light refracts, reflects and does some other weird squash moves till it reaches the eye in an euphemitc way. diamond being the hardest material on earth involves immense amount of energy to cut. they usually are the cutting device. perhaps as iron sharpons iron, diamond sharpens diamond. no, that was just me talking absolute crap. like crap.
i dont want to know any more about total internal reflection. what the heck is 'sin c'. but then again, i cant say 'any more' when i never knew.
but, just because i dont know my physics (although the paper was disgustingly easy) will you discriminate me. once again, beauty lies in imperfection. or should i say, value. value lies in imperfection.
than again, considering the constant change in light directions, are diamonds really beautiful, or are than just mere illusions on one's eyes.
than again, what is beautiful.
beauty lies in the eye of the beholder.
what if beauty was just some concept designed long time ago and has been taught ever since.
as a kid, one probably has zero impressions. but as a kid grows older (like the x-box advert) he learns that some designs are better accepted. some people are more good looking. so, what is good looking? the perception of our ancestors passed down over the years? or is it changed every generation by some anomolous non-conformist once in a while.
i guess, maybe, to think from a science point of view, it could simply be genetic. a lowest common denominator of beauty. than again, no1 really knows.
therefore, dont bother.
hence, i have once again wasted my monday afternoon randomly puching keys in the keyboard and somehow lucky enough to hit keys that forms sentances.
luck is on my side.
now to read sheng's 100 pages of emails.
on the day of chem paper, of all things, of all things, i decided to give one more look at the 'did you know' section of the chemistry book.
so, did you know that rubies are nothing more than imperfect diamonds with a bit of chromium to give it its colour.
it just says one thing - beauty lies in imperfection.
yeah, so lets screw the tetrahedral structure, forgoe the idea that the whole diamond has to consist of carbon particles and carbon particles alone. i mean carbon? that probably explains why natural diamonds look so dull. even rubies to some extent. the only thing that gives it's value is it's cut. cut in such a way that light refracts, reflects and does some other weird squash moves till it reaches the eye in an euphemitc way. diamond being the hardest material on earth involves immense amount of energy to cut. they usually are the cutting device. perhaps as iron sharpons iron, diamond sharpens diamond. no, that was just me talking absolute crap. like crap.
i dont want to know any more about total internal reflection. what the heck is 'sin c'. but then again, i cant say 'any more' when i never knew.
but, just because i dont know my physics (although the paper was disgustingly easy) will you discriminate me. once again, beauty lies in imperfection. or should i say, value. value lies in imperfection.
than again, considering the constant change in light directions, are diamonds really beautiful, or are than just mere illusions on one's eyes.
than again, what is beautiful.
beauty lies in the eye of the beholder.
what if beauty was just some concept designed long time ago and has been taught ever since.
as a kid, one probably has zero impressions. but as a kid grows older (like the x-box advert) he learns that some designs are better accepted. some people are more good looking. so, what is good looking? the perception of our ancestors passed down over the years? or is it changed every generation by some anomolous non-conformist once in a while.
i guess, maybe, to think from a science point of view, it could simply be genetic. a lowest common denominator of beauty. than again, no1 really knows.
therefore, dont bother.
hence, i have once again wasted my monday afternoon randomly puching keys in the keyboard and somehow lucky enough to hit keys that forms sentances.
luck is on my side.
now to read sheng's 100 pages of emails.