Liquid diamonds cannot exist.

Diamond DefinitionI will start out by immediately rejecting Pro’s definition of a diamond. Given that Pro did not define a diamond within the rules round then it is most certainly up for debate. The problem with Pro’s definition is that diamonds have been known for nearly 3,000 years, and have been used in jewellery since antiquity. The discovery of diamond’s chemical composition, crystal structure and morphophology did not begin to occur until the 18th century with the works of Antione Lavoisier, Smithson Tennet and onwards. [5]As such, the chemical properties of diamonds are a discovered identity, rather than a formal definition. One can come up with another definition of diamond to include it’s chemical properties, but they are doing so arbitrarily. o illustrate this point, IF it was discovered instead in the 18/19th century that diamond was actually an allotrope of silicon, then it would still be labelled a “diamond”, since it is it’s predating macroscopic properties that define that a diamond is. Melting Diamonds While Diamond does not melt at ambient pressure (it sublimes directly into a gas instead), it is known to melt under extreme pressures (>450,000 atmospheres! ). While these conditions are extreme, it is black and white evidence that diamonds are capable of going directly to a liquid phase. [1,2] A computational phase diagram of carbon, including diamond’s molten phase is given below:[3] Water Also, Pro runs into serious problems when he defines water by its molecules. Water is known to be partially ionised, even once it has been purified to near essentially 100% purity. This is because the water molecule (H2O) disassociates into hydroxide (OH-) and hydronium (H3O+) ions under the conditions in which “liquid water” exists (at pH 7 there is 10-7 mol/dm3 of ionised “water”). This ionisation is partially why water conducts electricity. Thus, even what we classify as “pure water” is not actually “pure water” according to Pro’s definition of what makes water, water, which is absurd. If do not define water according to its covalent chemical bonding however then we do not run into this problem. Thus, according to Pro’s logic, it is essentially impossible to have “liquid water” since covalent bonds are invariably broken in that state. Diamond – The Molecule Pro is partially right in that any diamond is essentially, a large molecule. However, Pro is incorrect the nature of a “diamond” IS to be a large molecule. When we apply chemical identities, virtually any explicit molecule has a well-defined chemical structure that is specific in both its size and connectivity. However, a diamond “molecule” is not specific in size, as it can take a plethora of shapes and sizes. Thus a diamond is clearly not defined by the fact that it is *a* molecule. This is extended by the fact that impurities incorporated into the molecules, both internally and at the surface such as nitrogen, silicon and sulphur, which are incorporated within the covalent scaffold, yet a diamond remains a diamond. [4] If we take any organic molecule, such as ethanol, and start covalently sticking sulphur atoms onto it, then I wager the local brewery isn’t going to be happy having stinky sulphides maintaining the label of ethanol! Thus, there is a clear distinction between how a diamond is defined, and how a molecule is defined. Moreover, the definition of a diamond holds even in spite of impurities within the lattice, which gives excellent reason to prefer the traditional definition of a diamond over Pro’s definition. As such, diamonds do melt! References1. . http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...2. . http://www.nature.com...3. . http://journals.aps.org...4. . http://en.wikipedia.org...5. . http://en.wikipedia.org...;