I was gonna get into that diamond discussion but I think billgates handled it well enough, and like others said I'm still interested to see what kind of booze you get from this???

Pretty!

Yet again, something mildly interesting that is over hyped to the point of ridiculous nonsense. These berries are quite obviously NOT the "worlds shiniest natural object"

If you track the story back to it's original source at Smithsonian.com, no mention is made of them being worlds shiniest anything, or any reference to them even being shiny..the article is about the berries PERSISTENCE of color for decades after being picked.

The interesting thing is the intensely colored berries have no pigment, the color is completely an artifact of reflective iridescence.

But it seems some jackass at dvice.com couldn't think of a way to describe that (or understand it) in less than 10 words for a headline...and just made shit up.

i thought it was water

Does anyone else want to smear them all over their face? or is that just me?

I dunno... I've seen some REALLY shiny beetles. What was the shiniest natural object up until this point?

Shinier than fish scales?
Shinier than diamonds?
Sure, seems legit...

diamonds don't reflect they refract.
and I am fairly certain a fish scale doesn't reflect more than 30%

Fair point, except for it being nonsense.

Diamonds reflect AND refract. If they didn't reflect you wouldn't see light reflecting off of them.

I believe he knows they do both, however if diamonds only reflected light they would not be anywhere near as brilliant as they are, he's just saying the refraction is responsible for the shine, if they were cut to just let light shine through they wouldn't be so bright. Also stop trolling becuase I'm sure I really didn't have to explain that to you. Oh and before I forget the article did state natually occuring which in that state diamonds don't shine much at all.

If he "knows they do both", then the statement "diamonds don't reflect they refract" was fairly poorly worded, and his insistence in defending it was rather pointless.

You might want to google up some photos of raw diamonds, "don't shine much at all" is utterly incorrect. They are quite shiny by most people's definition.

Took your advice looked 'em up, not impressed, I stand with my statement that raw diamonds are not that shiny at all; once cut the refraction and reflection make them look quite bright, but raw they look like quartz stones which aren't that shiny, I didn't say not at all just not that much, also I'm not most peoples and therefore don't accept their definitions and realities but instead substitute my own in which raw diamonds are not that shiny.

they may reflect but the radiance you see from a diamond is due to the high refractive index they possess.

cool story. But diamonds do reflect, a fact that is obvious to anyone who has ever looked at one.

yes...most things reflect. if they didn't you could not see them and most likely would be staring into a black hole. facets in a diamond are cut in a way to refract the light through them and capture through inside reflection.
the glitter of a diamond is due to refraction, not reflection

It's far less subtle than staring into a black hole.

Diamonds are in fact VERY reflective. the fact that they refract also is just trivia. The "radiance" you refer to IS a reflection...a very bright one.

refraction of a diamond is trivia? so the knowledge of shaping a polished diamond to bend (refract) light is trivial knowledge. take note any gemologists out there. your job is trivial
reflection, refraction and dispersion.20% of light directly reflects off the surface of a polished diamond. the other 80% enters the stone and is bent (refracted) by the pavilion facets and is directed back out the crown facet of the diamond. as that light is bent (refracted) back out of the diamond the light is dispersed and the spectrum of color is seen.
the high refractive index and moderate dispersion properties give polished diamonds their brilliance not reflective light.

You should have just dummed it down most people don't understand the difference between the two {in caveman voice} "refraction shiny from inside, reflection shiny from outside" the only thing I will say is natually diamonds aren't that shiny at all they look like quartz before they're cut and the only reason fish seem shiny is becuase they're wet, if fish weren't covered in water their scale would not apear as bright. After all water reflects almost 100% of light.

in the context of this discussion, refraction is trivia. It is unrelated to the subject at hand.

The only reason it is IN the discussion is because you made an utterly false statement regarding it. You also made an incorrect statement about the reflectivity of fish scales.

No amount of googling is going to make the statement "diamonds don't reflect they refract" correct.

so facets are cut into a diamond for what purpose? to reflect? no. to refract the light inside the diamond in a controlled manner and to control dispersion of said light. that is refraction. and seeing how diamonds are graded with a refraction index not a reflection index proves that refraction is not trivial in regards to polished diamonds. trolling is trivial. rule 14