<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_09_1823212</id>
	<title>Measuring the Hubble Constant Better</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1244574000000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>eldavojohn writes <i>"The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble's\_law#Determining\_the\_Hubble\_constant">Hubble Constant</a> is used for many things in astrophysics: from determining how fast things are moving away from us, to the total volume of the universe, to predicting how our universe will end. The current best value for the Hubble Constant is <a href="http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2009/08/full/">74.2 &#177; 3.6 (km/s)/Mpc according to recent conventional methods</a> and the recently restored Hubble Telescope. Most astronomers agree that that's within 10\% of its actual value. Researchers now claim that they might be able to get to 3\% using water molecules in galactic disks to act as <a href="http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/090608-aas-megamaser-hubble-constant.html">masers that amplify radio waves</a>, to analyze galaxies seven times as far away as the current measurements. The further away the 'standard candle' is, the more assured they can be that local effects are not skewing the measurements. From one of the researchers: 'We measured a direct, geometric distance to the galaxy, independent of the complications and assumptions inherent in other techniques. The measurement highlights a valuable method that can be used to determine the local expansion rate of the universe, which is essential in our quest to find the nature of dark energy.' Once the Square Kilometer Array is completed, they hope to get even closer to the actual value."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>eldavojohn writes " The Hubble Constant is used for many things in astrophysics : from determining how fast things are moving away from us , to the total volume of the universe , to predicting how our universe will end .
The current best value for the Hubble Constant is 74.2   3.6 ( km/s ) /Mpc according to recent conventional methods and the recently restored Hubble Telescope .
Most astronomers agree that that 's within 10 \ % of its actual value .
Researchers now claim that they might be able to get to 3 \ % using water molecules in galactic disks to act as masers that amplify radio waves , to analyze galaxies seven times as far away as the current measurements .
The further away the 'standard candle ' is , the more assured they can be that local effects are not skewing the measurements .
From one of the researchers : 'We measured a direct , geometric distance to the galaxy , independent of the complications and assumptions inherent in other techniques .
The measurement highlights a valuable method that can be used to determine the local expansion rate of the universe , which is essential in our quest to find the nature of dark energy .
' Once the Square Kilometer Array is completed , they hope to get even closer to the actual value .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eldavojohn writes "The Hubble Constant is used for many things in astrophysics: from determining how fast things are moving away from us, to the total volume of the universe, to predicting how our universe will end.
The current best value for the Hubble Constant is 74.2 ± 3.6 (km/s)/Mpc according to recent conventional methods and the recently restored Hubble Telescope.
Most astronomers agree that that's within 10\% of its actual value.
Researchers now claim that they might be able to get to 3\% using water molecules in galactic disks to act as masers that amplify radio waves, to analyze galaxies seven times as far away as the current measurements.
The further away the 'standard candle' is, the more assured they can be that local effects are not skewing the measurements.
From one of the researchers: 'We measured a direct, geometric distance to the galaxy, independent of the complications and assumptions inherent in other techniques.
The measurement highlights a valuable method that can be used to determine the local expansion rate of the universe, which is essential in our quest to find the nature of dark energy.
' Once the Square Kilometer Array is completed, they hope to get even closer to the actual value.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28273237</id>
	<title>Re:How big?</title>
	<author>meringuoid</author>
	<datestamp>1244551500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The name sounds impressive, but how big will it be?</i>

<p>One square kilometre to begin with, although the rate at which it will be expanding is yet to be measured to sufficient accuracy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The name sounds impressive , but how big will it be ?
One square kilometre to begin with , although the rate at which it will be expanding is yet to be measured to sufficient accuracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The name sounds impressive, but how big will it be?
One square kilometre to begin with, although the rate at which it will be expanding is yet to be measured to sufficient accuracy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28271565</id>
	<title>cave man measure hubble constant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244541780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>cave man measure it good</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>cave man measure it good</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cave man measure it good</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270283</id>
	<title>Um, no. Hubble's assistant says its not a constant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244579400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Halton C. Arp, a professional astronomer was Edwin Hubble's assistant, says otherwise<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p><a href="http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm" title="electric-cosmos.org">http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm</a> [electric-cosmos.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Halton C. Arp , a professional astronomer was Edwin Hubble 's assistant , says otherwise ...http : //www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm [ electric-cosmos.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Halton C. Arp, a professional astronomer was Edwin Hubble's assistant, says otherwise ...http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm [electric-cosmos.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28275919</id>
	<title>Re:Hubble constant now a misnomer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244574300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your correct in that the hubble constant implies a limit on the observable universe from each observer (In some sense we are each the "center" of the universe)</p><p>We are however able to view distant galaxies receeding at faster than the speed of light (from our perspective!!) due to metric expansion of space itself.</p><p>Obviously at some point light from outside our verse pointing twoard our verse will never reach us because at extremely large distances space between expands faster than information can travel.</p><p>I don't think its correct that red-shifting causes objects in the observable universe to disappear.  The CMB is the most distant thing we can observe and yet we can still detect it at Microwave energies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your correct in that the hubble constant implies a limit on the observable universe from each observer ( In some sense we are each the " center " of the universe ) We are however able to view distant galaxies receeding at faster than the speed of light ( from our perspective ! !
) due to metric expansion of space itself.Obviously at some point light from outside our verse pointing twoard our verse will never reach us because at extremely large distances space between expands faster than information can travel.I do n't think its correct that red-shifting causes objects in the observable universe to disappear .
The CMB is the most distant thing we can observe and yet we can still detect it at Microwave energies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your correct in that the hubble constant implies a limit on the observable universe from each observer (In some sense we are each the "center" of the universe)We are however able to view distant galaxies receeding at faster than the speed of light (from our perspective!!
) due to metric expansion of space itself.Obviously at some point light from outside our verse pointing twoard our verse will never reach us because at extremely large distances space between expands faster than information can travel.I don't think its correct that red-shifting causes objects in the observable universe to disappear.
The CMB is the most distant thing we can observe and yet we can still detect it at Microwave energies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270151</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270523</id>
	<title>Re:*Checks the Hubble Constant*</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244580300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Yep, he's still dead.</i></p><p>But that measurement is only accurate to within 10\%.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , he 's still dead.But that measurement is only accurate to within 10 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, he's still dead.But that measurement is only accurate to within 10\%.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28269865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28271439</id>
	<title>Within 10\%???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244541180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just don't understand this.</p><p>FTA:<br>1) The current best value for the Hubble Constant is 74.2 &#194;&#177; 3.6 (km/s)/Mpc<br>2) Most astronomers agree that that's within 10\% of its actual value</p><p>But shouldn't everyone, even astronomers, agree that value is within 5\% of 74.2?<br>If the actual value is, say 80, then why say &#194;&#177; 3.6?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just do n't understand this.FTA : 1 ) The current best value for the Hubble Constant is 74.2     3.6 ( km/s ) /Mpc2 ) Most astronomers agree that that 's within 10 \ % of its actual valueBut should n't everyone , even astronomers , agree that value is within 5 \ % of 74.2 ? If the actual value is , say 80 , then why say     3.6 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just don't understand this.FTA:1) The current best value for the Hubble Constant is 74.2 Â± 3.6 (km/s)/Mpc2) Most astronomers agree that that's within 10\% of its actual valueBut shouldn't everyone, even astronomers, agree that value is within 5\% of 74.2?If the actual value is, say 80, then why say Â± 3.6?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28271817</id>
	<title>So their measurement of the Hubble constant is 69</title>
	<author>boot\_img</author>
	<datestamp>1244543100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to the article "the astronomers determined that the galaxy UGC 3789 is 160 million light-years from Earth". This translates to 49 Mpc. According to <a href="http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/nph-objsearch?objname=UGC+3789&amp;extend=no&amp;hconst=73&amp;omegam=0.27&amp;omegav=0.73&amp;corr\_z=1&amp;out\_csys=Equatorial&amp;out\_equinox=J2000.0&amp;obj\_sort=RA+or+Longitude&amp;of=pre\_text&amp;zv\_breaker=30000.0&amp;list\_limit=5&amp;img\_stamp=YES" title="caltech.edu">NED</a> [caltech.edu], the velocity (in the Cosmic Microwave Background frame) is 3385 km/s.</p><p>Therefore this measurement of the Hubble parameter is then 3385/49 = 69 km/s/Mpc.</p><p>(Unfortunately the article does not quote an uncertainty on the 49 Mpc measurement.  Because of peculiar velocities, I would estimate that there is at least a 300 km/s uncertainty on the 3385 km/s velocity. )</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the article " the astronomers determined that the galaxy UGC 3789 is 160 million light-years from Earth " .
This translates to 49 Mpc .
According to NED [ caltech.edu ] , the velocity ( in the Cosmic Microwave Background frame ) is 3385 km/s.Therefore this measurement of the Hubble parameter is then 3385/49 = 69 km/s/Mpc .
( Unfortunately the article does not quote an uncertainty on the 49 Mpc measurement .
Because of peculiar velocities , I would estimate that there is at least a 300 km/s uncertainty on the 3385 km/s velocity .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the article "the astronomers determined that the galaxy UGC 3789 is 160 million light-years from Earth".
This translates to 49 Mpc.
According to NED [caltech.edu], the velocity (in the Cosmic Microwave Background frame) is 3385 km/s.Therefore this measurement of the Hubble parameter is then 3385/49 = 69 km/s/Mpc.
(Unfortunately the article does not quote an uncertainty on the 49 Mpc measurement.
Because of peculiar velocities, I would estimate that there is at least a 300 km/s uncertainty on the 3385 km/s velocity.
)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28271147</id>
	<title>hubble ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244539860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why do they call it hubble ? seriously was it funded by scientology ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why do they call it hubble ?
seriously was it funded by scientology ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why do they call it hubble ?
seriously was it funded by scientology ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28271283</id>
	<title>To get it over with...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244540520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>now all we need are tiarks with frickin' mazer beams on their heads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>now all we need are tiarks with frickin ' mazer beams on their heads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>now all we need are tiarks with frickin' mazer beams on their heads.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28274917</id>
	<title>Re:Hubble constant now a misnomer</title>
	<author>Artifakt</author>
	<datestamp>1244565900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some of the inflationary models also suggest the universe is very, very much bigger than the part we could theoretically see, a factor of about 10e30 times or more. (We could theoretically look back close to the total age of the universe, and because of expansion, the total distance would actually be at least a bit more than 2x larger than that roughly 12 Billion years would seem to allow, say 26-30 Billion LY radius.).<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; For those models where the total size of the universe is so much bigger than the observable part, theory predicts there could be many zones, each with differing Hubble constants as well as other variant properties. So even if it turns out the local expansion isn't really accelerating, 'The' Hubble constant may still be just one of many.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of the inflationary models also suggest the universe is very , very much bigger than the part we could theoretically see , a factor of about 10e30 times or more .
( We could theoretically look back close to the total age of the universe , and because of expansion , the total distance would actually be at least a bit more than 2x larger than that roughly 12 Billion years would seem to allow , say 26-30 Billion LY radius. ) .
        For those models where the total size of the universe is so much bigger than the observable part , theory predicts there could be many zones , each with differing Hubble constants as well as other variant properties .
So even if it turns out the local expansion is n't really accelerating , 'The ' Hubble constant may still be just one of many .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of the inflationary models also suggest the universe is very, very much bigger than the part we could theoretically see, a factor of about 10e30 times or more.
(We could theoretically look back close to the total age of the universe, and because of expansion, the total distance would actually be at least a bit more than 2x larger than that roughly 12 Billion years would seem to allow, say 26-30 Billion LY radius.).
        For those models where the total size of the universe is so much bigger than the observable part, theory predicts there could be many zones, each with differing Hubble constants as well as other variant properties.
So even if it turns out the local expansion isn't really accelerating, 'The' Hubble constant may still be just one of many.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28269855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270579</id>
	<title>Good Enough?</title>
	<author>Kozar\_The\_Malignant</author>
	<datestamp>1244580480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I was doing university physics with a slide rule, three significant figures ( 74.2 &#194;&#177; 3.6 (km/s)/Mpc) was good enough for anything.  Is our next probe going to miss M31?  Oh yeah, get off my lawn too.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I was doing university physics with a slide rule , three significant figures ( 74.2     3.6 ( km/s ) /Mpc ) was good enough for anything .
Is our next probe going to miss M31 ?
Oh yeah , get off my lawn too .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I was doing university physics with a slide rule, three significant figures ( 74.2 Â± 3.6 (km/s)/Mpc) was good enough for anything.
Is our next probe going to miss M31?
Oh yeah, get off my lawn too.
:-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270233</id>
	<title>Re:Volume of universe?</title>
	<author>Yokaze</author>
	<datestamp>1244579220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AFAIK, the universe is not infinite in size, it is just infinite. The very same way a circle is infinite, but has a length, or a ball or torus a surface.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AFAIK , the universe is not infinite in size , it is just infinite .
The very same way a circle is infinite , but has a length , or a ball or torus a surface .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AFAIK, the universe is not infinite in size, it is just infinite.
The very same way a circle is infinite, but has a length, or a ball or torus a surface.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28280107</id>
	<title>Re:*Checks the Hubble Constant*</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1244650680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'E's not dead! 'E's pinin' for the nebulas!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'E 's not dead !
'E 's pinin ' for the nebulas !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'E's not dead!
'E's pinin' for the nebulas!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28269865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270767</id>
	<title>Re:Volume of universe?</title>
	<author>JustSee12</author>
	<datestamp>1244538240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What are you talking about? The Milky Way alone has a diameter of around 100,000 light years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What are you talking about ?
The Milky Way alone has a diameter of around 100,000 light years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are you talking about?
The Milky Way alone has a diameter of around 100,000 light years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28274235</id>
	<title>Re:Volume of universe?</title>
	<author>Betelgeuse</author>
	<datestamp>1244559960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know what you're saying, but I think you're just confusing it.</p><p>The standard way to say this is that the universe is "finite but unbounded," in the same way that the [i]surface[/i] of a sphere is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know what you 're saying , but I think you 're just confusing it.The standard way to say this is that the universe is " finite but unbounded , " in the same way that the [ i ] surface [ /i ] of a sphere is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know what you're saying, but I think you're just confusing it.The standard way to say this is that the universe is "finite but unbounded," in the same way that the [i]surface[/i] of a sphere is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270545</id>
	<title>Re:Volume of universe?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244580420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How can something of infinite size have a volume?</p></div><p>The universe is finite.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How can something of infinite size have a volume ? The universe is finite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can something of infinite size have a volume?The universe is finite.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270271</id>
	<title>Great Experimental Idea</title>
	<author>Colonel Korn</author>
	<datestamp>1244579340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1 - Distance measurements are currently kludged together very carefully using bridging.  We use one measurement, for instance parallax based on the Earth's movement over 6 months, to show us the distance to a star that has some particular properties and which our models say should always be a certain luminosity.  The parallax measurement has error bars.</p><p>2- Then we find a much more distant star of that same type that is near a particular type of supernova, and measure its brightness, comparing that to the brightness of our first star to give the distance to the distant star, and thus the supernova as well.  That has bigger error bars.</p><p>3- Then we look for that type of supernova in very very distant galaxies.  Supernovae are brighter than the rest of their galaxy put together while they're burning hot, so we can see them at tremendous distances.  We use the measured brightness of that supernova to determine the distance to its galaxy.</p><p>4- Then we pair the knowledge of its distance with its velocity with respect to us, which we can determine through redshifting of something with a familiar spectrum.  More error bars.  That becomes a single point for the determination of the Hubble Constant (and yes, the "constant" is changing).</p><p>With only a cursory glance at TFA, it looks to me like this is a way to skip to step 3 or 4, thereby avoiding the need to bridge these length-scales using several techniques.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 - Distance measurements are currently kludged together very carefully using bridging .
We use one measurement , for instance parallax based on the Earth 's movement over 6 months , to show us the distance to a star that has some particular properties and which our models say should always be a certain luminosity .
The parallax measurement has error bars.2- Then we find a much more distant star of that same type that is near a particular type of supernova , and measure its brightness , comparing that to the brightness of our first star to give the distance to the distant star , and thus the supernova as well .
That has bigger error bars.3- Then we look for that type of supernova in very very distant galaxies .
Supernovae are brighter than the rest of their galaxy put together while they 're burning hot , so we can see them at tremendous distances .
We use the measured brightness of that supernova to determine the distance to its galaxy.4- Then we pair the knowledge of its distance with its velocity with respect to us , which we can determine through redshifting of something with a familiar spectrum .
More error bars .
That becomes a single point for the determination of the Hubble Constant ( and yes , the " constant " is changing ) .With only a cursory glance at TFA , it looks to me like this is a way to skip to step 3 or 4 , thereby avoiding the need to bridge these length-scales using several techniques .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1 - Distance measurements are currently kludged together very carefully using bridging.
We use one measurement, for instance parallax based on the Earth's movement over 6 months, to show us the distance to a star that has some particular properties and which our models say should always be a certain luminosity.
The parallax measurement has error bars.2- Then we find a much more distant star of that same type that is near a particular type of supernova, and measure its brightness, comparing that to the brightness of our first star to give the distance to the distant star, and thus the supernova as well.
That has bigger error bars.3- Then we look for that type of supernova in very very distant galaxies.
Supernovae are brighter than the rest of their galaxy put together while they're burning hot, so we can see them at tremendous distances.
We use the measured brightness of that supernova to determine the distance to its galaxy.4- Then we pair the knowledge of its distance with its velocity with respect to us, which we can determine through redshifting of something with a familiar spectrum.
More error bars.
That becomes a single point for the determination of the Hubble Constant (and yes, the "constant" is changing).With only a cursory glance at TFA, it looks to me like this is a way to skip to step 3 or 4, thereby avoiding the need to bridge these length-scales using several techniques.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270311</id>
	<title>Re:Hubble constant now a misnomer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244579520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And how come it's measured in some stupid space unit? It's a frequency so it wants hertz!</p><p><a href="http://www19.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=hubble+constant+in+hertz" title="wolframalpha.com" rel="nofollow">http://www19.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=hubble+constant+in+hertz</a> [wolframalpha.com]</p><p>It's called SI. Get with the program dudes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And how come it 's measured in some stupid space unit ?
It 's a frequency so it wants hertz ! http : //www19.wolframalpha.com/input/ ? i = hubble + constant + in + hertz [ wolframalpha.com ] It 's called SI .
Get with the program dudes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And how come it's measured in some stupid space unit?
It's a frequency so it wants hertz!http://www19.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=hubble+constant+in+hertz [wolframalpha.com]It's called SI.
Get with the program dudes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28269855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270097</id>
	<title>How big?</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1244578800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Once the Square Kilometer Array is completed</p></div><p>The name sounds impressive, but how big will it be?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once the Square Kilometer Array is completedThe name sounds impressive , but how big will it be ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once the Square Kilometer Array is completedThe name sounds impressive, but how big will it be?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270465</id>
	<title>Re:Volume of universe?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244580120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you've accepted that universe started in Big Bang and expanded ever since, how difficult it is to accept it expanded to a some finite point?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 've accepted that universe started in Big Bang and expanded ever since , how difficult it is to accept it expanded to a some finite point ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you've accepted that universe started in Big Bang and expanded ever since, how difficult it is to accept it expanded to a some finite point?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28271047</id>
	<title>Bad Labrador</title>
	<author>Bad Labrador</author>
	<datestamp>1244539440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been following Alexander F Mayers work on Minkowski's (Einsteins Maths Teacher) space time mathematics which Einstein, who didn't understand them, called "superfluous erudition'. Mayer derives a model for the universe that does not require the universe to be expanding, let alone accelerating expansion, does not require "Dark matter" nor "Dark energy", that makes a damn sight more cosmological sense than the "Big Bang" and fits the current observations, much, much better, with no free variables like "quintessence". He makes a prediction for the LRO mission as well.

  <a href="http://www.jaypritzker.org/index.html" title="jaypritzker.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.jaypritzker.org/index.html</a> [jaypritzker.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been following Alexander F Mayers work on Minkowski 's ( Einsteins Maths Teacher ) space time mathematics which Einstein , who did n't understand them , called " superfluous erudition' .
Mayer derives a model for the universe that does not require the universe to be expanding , let alone accelerating expansion , does not require " Dark matter " nor " Dark energy " , that makes a damn sight more cosmological sense than the " Big Bang " and fits the current observations , much , much better , with no free variables like " quintessence " .
He makes a prediction for the LRO mission as well .
http : //www.jaypritzker.org/index.html [ jaypritzker.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been following Alexander F Mayers work on Minkowski's (Einsteins Maths Teacher) space time mathematics which Einstein, who didn't understand them, called "superfluous erudition'.
Mayer derives a model for the universe that does not require the universe to be expanding, let alone accelerating expansion, does not require "Dark matter" nor "Dark energy", that makes a damn sight more cosmological sense than the "Big Bang" and fits the current observations, much, much better, with no free variables like "quintessence".
He makes a prediction for the LRO mission as well.
http://www.jaypritzker.org/index.html [jaypritzker.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270073</id>
	<title>FYI: A maser is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244578680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A microwave aser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A microwave aser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A microwave aser.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28275733</id>
	<title>Re:Hubble constant now a misnomer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244572500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The expansion of the universe is expanding because the universe is expanding...</p><p>The hubble constant is kind of like compound interest - the more money you have the more in interest you get.  The "interest" rate itself is a fixed constant value but the money increases over time.</p><p>Think of the distance between most gravitationally unbound galaxies as money and the hubble constant is the interest rate (Amount of new space created between galaxies)</p><p>There is more and more space so galaxies expand faster and faster but at any point in time the expansion rate given any current distance is goverened by the hubble constant.</p><p>Now there are plenty of "theories" out there that play with the hubble constant (interest rate) over time... None of which have ever predicted anything useful<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The expansion of the universe is expanding because the universe is expanding...The hubble constant is kind of like compound interest - the more money you have the more in interest you get .
The " interest " rate itself is a fixed constant value but the money increases over time.Think of the distance between most gravitationally unbound galaxies as money and the hubble constant is the interest rate ( Amount of new space created between galaxies ) There is more and more space so galaxies expand faster and faster but at any point in time the expansion rate given any current distance is goverened by the hubble constant.Now there are plenty of " theories " out there that play with the hubble constant ( interest rate ) over time... None of which have ever predicted anything useful : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The expansion of the universe is expanding because the universe is expanding...The hubble constant is kind of like compound interest - the more money you have the more in interest you get.
The "interest" rate itself is a fixed constant value but the money increases over time.Think of the distance between most gravitationally unbound galaxies as money and the hubble constant is the interest rate (Amount of new space created between galaxies)There is more and more space so galaxies expand faster and faster but at any point in time the expansion rate given any current distance is goverened by the hubble constant.Now there are plenty of "theories" out there that play with the hubble constant (interest rate) over time... None of which have ever predicted anything useful :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28269855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28271329</id>
	<title>Re:Volume of universe?</title>
	<author>JustinOpinion</author>
	<datestamp>1244540760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>We have to be more careful with what we mean by 'size' and 'volume' and such.<br> <br>

The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable\_universe" title="wikipedia.org">observable universe</a> [wikipedia.org] is the region of space we can see. The universe has a finite age, so there is a finite distance over which we can see. Any further than that, and light literally hasn't had enough time to reach us. So there is indeed a boundary beyond which we cannot observe. This boundary recedes as time goes on. The universe is ~13.5 billion years old, but because the universe was expanding during all that time, the observable universe is bigger than just 13.5 billion light-years (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comoving\_distance" title="wikipedia.org">comoving distance</a> [wikipedia.org])... in fact it is 46.5 billion light-years in radius.<br> <br>

Now there is every indication that the universe extends beyond the cosmological horizon. So as the universe ages, we see more and more of the full universe, which is much larger than our observation volume. So how big is the universe as a whole? Our best understanding right now is based on the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape\_of\_the\_Universe" title="wikipedia.org">curvature of spacetime</a> [wikipedia.org]. If spacetime at large scales is curved, then the universe can loop back upon itself and thus the universe is finite. If spacetime is perfectly flat on cosmological scales, then in fact the universe as a whole is infinite in size.<br> <br>

Our best measurements indicate the universe is flat, within error. Our best theories of the origin of the universe, coupled with available data, generically predict that the universe is infinite. So our current best answer is that the universe is infinite in size/volume. A strange result, perhaps, but that's our best understanding of the current data. Now there are indeed errors on our measurements, so our universe could be smaller. But the curvature is so small that it implies our universe contains <a href="http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/multiverse.html" title="mit.edu">at least</a> [mit.edu] 1000 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble\_sphere" title="wikipedia.org">Hubble volumes</a> [wikipedia.org] (the Hubble volume is the surrounding space beyond which nothing is accessible since matter is receding faster than light). Others have analyzed the night-sky looking for 'repeat patterns' that would be expected for smaller closed universes, and no such patterns have been found.<br> <br>

So the observable universe is finite (but ever-expanding), and the full universe is considerably larger (infinite according to our current best data and theories).</htmltext>
<tokenext>We have to be more careful with what we mean by 'size ' and 'volume ' and such .
The observable universe [ wikipedia.org ] is the region of space we can see .
The universe has a finite age , so there is a finite distance over which we can see .
Any further than that , and light literally has n't had enough time to reach us .
So there is indeed a boundary beyond which we can not observe .
This boundary recedes as time goes on .
The universe is ~ 13.5 billion years old , but because the universe was expanding during all that time , the observable universe is bigger than just 13.5 billion light-years ( see comoving distance [ wikipedia.org ] ) ... in fact it is 46.5 billion light-years in radius .
Now there is every indication that the universe extends beyond the cosmological horizon .
So as the universe ages , we see more and more of the full universe , which is much larger than our observation volume .
So how big is the universe as a whole ?
Our best understanding right now is based on the curvature of spacetime [ wikipedia.org ] .
If spacetime at large scales is curved , then the universe can loop back upon itself and thus the universe is finite .
If spacetime is perfectly flat on cosmological scales , then in fact the universe as a whole is infinite in size .
Our best measurements indicate the universe is flat , within error .
Our best theories of the origin of the universe , coupled with available data , generically predict that the universe is infinite .
So our current best answer is that the universe is infinite in size/volume .
A strange result , perhaps , but that 's our best understanding of the current data .
Now there are indeed errors on our measurements , so our universe could be smaller .
But the curvature is so small that it implies our universe contains at least [ mit.edu ] 1000 Hubble volumes [ wikipedia.org ] ( the Hubble volume is the surrounding space beyond which nothing is accessible since matter is receding faster than light ) .
Others have analyzed the night-sky looking for 'repeat patterns ' that would be expected for smaller closed universes , and no such patterns have been found .
So the observable universe is finite ( but ever-expanding ) , and the full universe is considerably larger ( infinite according to our current best data and theories ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have to be more careful with what we mean by 'size' and 'volume' and such.
The observable universe [wikipedia.org] is the region of space we can see.
The universe has a finite age, so there is a finite distance over which we can see.
Any further than that, and light literally hasn't had enough time to reach us.
So there is indeed a boundary beyond which we cannot observe.
This boundary recedes as time goes on.
The universe is ~13.5 billion years old, but because the universe was expanding during all that time, the observable universe is bigger than just 13.5 billion light-years (see comoving distance [wikipedia.org])... in fact it is 46.5 billion light-years in radius.
Now there is every indication that the universe extends beyond the cosmological horizon.
So as the universe ages, we see more and more of the full universe, which is much larger than our observation volume.
So how big is the universe as a whole?
Our best understanding right now is based on the curvature of spacetime [wikipedia.org].
If spacetime at large scales is curved, then the universe can loop back upon itself and thus the universe is finite.
If spacetime is perfectly flat on cosmological scales, then in fact the universe as a whole is infinite in size.
Our best measurements indicate the universe is flat, within error.
Our best theories of the origin of the universe, coupled with available data, generically predict that the universe is infinite.
So our current best answer is that the universe is infinite in size/volume.
A strange result, perhaps, but that's our best understanding of the current data.
Now there are indeed errors on our measurements, so our universe could be smaller.
But the curvature is so small that it implies our universe contains at least [mit.edu] 1000 Hubble volumes [wikipedia.org] (the Hubble volume is the surrounding space beyond which nothing is accessible since matter is receding faster than light).
Others have analyzed the night-sky looking for 'repeat patterns' that would be expected for smaller closed universes, and no such patterns have been found.
So the observable universe is finite (but ever-expanding), and the full universe is considerably larger (infinite according to our current best data and theories).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28274265</id>
	<title>Re:Great Experimental Idea</title>
	<author>Betelgeuse</author>
	<datestamp>1244560200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The trouble is that these galaxies aren't that far away (despite the article summary says). They're quite a bit further away than the previous measurements of water masers, but you still need to use Type Ia supernovae to actually get to the distances where this discussion gets interesting. The cool thing about the water masers is that they might allow us to get out a bit further without using another "rung" on the distance ladder, but there is no way that they are going to replace the (much, much more distant) Type Ia supernovae.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The trouble is that these galaxies are n't that far away ( despite the article summary says ) .
They 're quite a bit further away than the previous measurements of water masers , but you still need to use Type Ia supernovae to actually get to the distances where this discussion gets interesting .
The cool thing about the water masers is that they might allow us to get out a bit further without using another " rung " on the distance ladder , but there is no way that they are going to replace the ( much , much more distant ) Type Ia supernovae .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The trouble is that these galaxies aren't that far away (despite the article summary says).
They're quite a bit further away than the previous measurements of water masers, but you still need to use Type Ia supernovae to actually get to the distances where this discussion gets interesting.
The cool thing about the water masers is that they might allow us to get out a bit further without using another "rung" on the distance ladder, but there is no way that they are going to replace the (much, much more distant) Type Ia supernovae.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270965</id>
	<title>Re:Volume of universe?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244539140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It isn't infinite in size.  The size is approaching infinity, though.  The universe is finite, but unbounded--meaning it is finite in volume at any given time, but is constantly increasing in size as space expands.</p><p>We may never know exactly "how big" the universe really is, since we are effectively cut off from whatever is beyond the edge of the observable universe.  Anything that might be beyond that is expanding "away" from us faster than light--so we can never see it from here, and can likely never go there (barring discovery of true FTL travel).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is n't infinite in size .
The size is approaching infinity , though .
The universe is finite , but unbounded--meaning it is finite in volume at any given time , but is constantly increasing in size as space expands.We may never know exactly " how big " the universe really is , since we are effectively cut off from whatever is beyond the edge of the observable universe .
Anything that might be beyond that is expanding " away " from us faster than light--so we can never see it from here , and can likely never go there ( barring discovery of true FTL travel ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It isn't infinite in size.
The size is approaching infinity, though.
The universe is finite, but unbounded--meaning it is finite in volume at any given time, but is constantly increasing in size as space expands.We may never know exactly "how big" the universe really is, since we are effectively cut off from whatever is beyond the edge of the observable universe.
Anything that might be beyond that is expanding "away" from us faster than light--so we can never see it from here, and can likely never go there (barring discovery of true FTL travel).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270033</id>
	<title>Volume of universe?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244578560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How can something of infinite size have a volume?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How can something of infinite size have a volume ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can something of infinite size have a volume?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270497</id>
	<title>Re:Hubble constant now a misnomer</title>
	<author>Daniel Dvorkin</author>
	<datestamp>1244580240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's measured in "stupid space units" because it's used in astronomy, of course.  "Kilometers per second per megaparsec" has a much more intuitive interpretation, when considering the speed at which distant galaxies are moving away from us, than does "cycles per second."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's measured in " stupid space units " because it 's used in astronomy , of course .
" Kilometers per second per megaparsec " has a much more intuitive interpretation , when considering the speed at which distant galaxies are moving away from us , than does " cycles per second .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's measured in "stupid space units" because it's used in astronomy, of course.
"Kilometers per second per megaparsec" has a much more intuitive interpretation, when considering the speed at which distant galaxies are moving away from us, than does "cycles per second.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270311</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270895</id>
	<title>Re:Volume of universe?</title>
	<author>Celestial Avatar</author>
	<datestamp>1244538840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>  The observable universe is about 93 light years across</p></div><p>So you're one of those reeeally young earth creationists...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The observable universe is about 93 light years acrossSo you 're one of those reeeally young earth creationists.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  The observable universe is about 93 light years acrossSo you're one of those reeeally young earth creationists...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28277077</id>
	<title>10\%? I should hope so</title>
	<author>jandersen</author>
	<datestamp>1244630220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The current best value for the Hubble Constant is 74.2 &#177; 3.6 (km/s)/Mpc according to recent conventional methods and the recently restored Hubble Telescope. Most astronomers agree that that's within 10\% of its actual value.</p></div><p>10\% of 74 is 7.4, corresponding to &#177; 3.7; meaning that in the very worst case, where the true value is at one end of the interval, we can only get about 10\% away. What the astronomers agree on is that the estimate of the uncertainty on the measurements is something like &#177; 3.6. This is not as trivial a matter as it would seem - it can be quite complex to calculate and is a source of many of the more embarrasing errors in science.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The current best value for the Hubble Constant is 74.2   3.6 ( km/s ) /Mpc according to recent conventional methods and the recently restored Hubble Telescope .
Most astronomers agree that that 's within 10 \ % of its actual value.10 \ % of 74 is 7.4 , corresponding to   3.7 ; meaning that in the very worst case , where the true value is at one end of the interval , we can only get about 10 \ % away .
What the astronomers agree on is that the estimate of the uncertainty on the measurements is something like   3.6 .
This is not as trivial a matter as it would seem - it can be quite complex to calculate and is a source of many of the more embarrasing errors in science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The current best value for the Hubble Constant is 74.2 ± 3.6 (km/s)/Mpc according to recent conventional methods and the recently restored Hubble Telescope.
Most astronomers agree that that's within 10\% of its actual value.10\% of 74 is 7.4, corresponding to ± 3.7; meaning that in the very worst case, where the true value is at one end of the interval, we can only get about 10\% away.
What the astronomers agree on is that the estimate of the uncertainty on the measurements is something like ± 3.6.
This is not as trivial a matter as it would seem - it can be quite complex to calculate and is a source of many of the more embarrasing errors in science.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28277941</id>
	<title>Re:Hubble constant now a misnomer</title>
	<author>michaelwv</author>
	<datestamp>1244640060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The expansion rate of the Universe at the present time is called the Hubble constant.  Astronomers more generally refer to the Hubble parameter to describe the expansion rate as a function of cosmic time.  We have known that the Hubble parameter changes with time for at least 60 years, but, as you note,  we've only known that the rate is currently accelerating for the past decade.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The expansion rate of the Universe at the present time is called the Hubble constant .
Astronomers more generally refer to the Hubble parameter to describe the expansion rate as a function of cosmic time .
We have known that the Hubble parameter changes with time for at least 60 years , but , as you note , we 've only known that the rate is currently accelerating for the past decade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The expansion rate of the Universe at the present time is called the Hubble constant.
Astronomers more generally refer to the Hubble parameter to describe the expansion rate as a function of cosmic time.
We have known that the Hubble parameter changes with time for at least 60 years, but, as you note,  we've only known that the rate is currently accelerating for the past decade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28269855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28325781</id>
	<title>The Perimeter Institute recently gave a lecture...</title>
	<author>NoseyNick</author>
	<datestamp>1244983620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Perimeter Institute recently gave a lecture on this, by Brian Schmidt, Australian National University - "The Universe From Beginning to End". I understand they will EVENTUALLY make these lectures available on their website, after they've made a bit of money by showing them on Discovery etc: <a href="https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/en/Outreach/Public\_Lectures/Public\_Lectures/" title="perimeterinstitute.ca">https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/en/Outreach/Public\_Lectures/Public\_Lectures/</a> [perimeterinstitute.ca]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Perimeter Institute recently gave a lecture on this , by Brian Schmidt , Australian National University - " The Universe From Beginning to End " .
I understand they will EVENTUALLY make these lectures available on their website , after they 've made a bit of money by showing them on Discovery etc : https : //www.perimeterinstitute.ca/en/Outreach/Public \ _Lectures/Public \ _Lectures/ [ perimeterinstitute.ca ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Perimeter Institute recently gave a lecture on this, by Brian Schmidt, Australian National University - "The Universe From Beginning to End".
I understand they will EVENTUALLY make these lectures available on their website, after they've made a bit of money by showing them on Discovery etc: https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/en/Outreach/Public\_Lectures/Public\_Lectures/ [perimeterinstitute.ca]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28272307</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244545320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The actual value is 42 nmi/sec/MPC. It would be in nautical miles because the Earth was designed to calculate the answer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The actual value is 42 nmi/sec/MPC .
It would be in nautical miles because the Earth was designed to calculate the answer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The actual value is 42 nmi/sec/MPC.
It would be in nautical miles because the Earth was designed to calculate the answer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270151</id>
	<title>Re:Hubble constant now a misnomer</title>
	<author>OeLeWaPpErKe</author>
	<datestamp>1244578980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't this constant place an additional limit on the size of the universe (or at least the part of the universe we're ever going to see) ?</p><p>c / 74.2 km/s * Mpc = 300000 / 74.2 * 3 261 636.26 lightyear (1 Mpc = 3 261 636.26) or about 1.31872075 &#195;-- 10^10 lightyear, about 13 billion lightyear.</p><p>Because at that distance, the stars would be moving away from us at light speed, so in reality there's an event horizon between us and stars at that distance. Light from stars further away would never reach us, due to it having unlimited redshift.</p><p>As you can see, if the hubble constant becomes bigger, the universe shrinks. If it lowers, the universe becomes bigger.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't this constant place an additional limit on the size of the universe ( or at least the part of the universe we 're ever going to see ) ? c / 74.2 km/s * Mpc = 300000 / 74.2 * 3 261 636.26 lightyear ( 1 Mpc = 3 261 636.26 ) or about 1.31872075   -- 10 ^ 10 lightyear , about 13 billion lightyear.Because at that distance , the stars would be moving away from us at light speed , so in reality there 's an event horizon between us and stars at that distance .
Light from stars further away would never reach us , due to it having unlimited redshift.As you can see , if the hubble constant becomes bigger , the universe shrinks .
If it lowers , the universe becomes bigger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't this constant place an additional limit on the size of the universe (or at least the part of the universe we're ever going to see) ?c / 74.2 km/s * Mpc = 300000 / 74.2 * 3 261 636.26 lightyear (1 Mpc = 3 261 636.26) or about 1.31872075 Ã-- 10^10 lightyear, about 13 billion lightyear.Because at that distance, the stars would be moving away from us at light speed, so in reality there's an event horizon between us and stars at that distance.
Light from stars further away would never reach us, due to it having unlimited redshift.As you can see, if the hubble constant becomes bigger, the universe shrinks.
If it lowers, the universe becomes bigger.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28269855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270415</id>
	<title>Re:Hubble constant now a misnomer</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1244579880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Technically, the only way the Hubble constant can be a constant is if the universe is expanding exponentially.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Technically , the only way the Hubble constant can be a constant is if the universe is expanding exponentially .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Technically, the only way the Hubble constant can be a constant is if the universe is expanding exponentially.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28269855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28269839</id>
	<title>In related news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244577720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pi is exactly equal to 3!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pi is exactly equal to 3 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pi is exactly equal to 3!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28271681</id>
	<title>Re:Good Enough?</title>
	<author>Prof.Phreak</author>
	<datestamp>1244542380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed. This constant may not be a constant. It may not be the same everywhere in the universe. So by observing things very far away (distance and time), we may actually end up with a less accurate number for a `local' variable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
This constant may not be a constant .
It may not be the same everywhere in the universe .
So by observing things very far away ( distance and time ) , we may actually end up with a less accurate number for a ` local ' variable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
This constant may not be a constant.
It may not be the same everywhere in the universe.
So by observing things very far away (distance and time), we may actually end up with a less accurate number for a `local' variable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28269865</id>
	<title>*Checks the Hubble Constant*</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244577780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep, he's still dead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , he 's still dead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, he's still dead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270363</id>
	<title>Good enough?</title>
	<author>dandart</author>
	<datestamp>1244579700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Presumably "Erm, around 100" isn't good enough then?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Presumably " Erm , around 100 " is n't good enough then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Presumably "Erm, around 100" isn't good enough then?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270153</id>
	<title>Award for finding the Hubble Constant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244578980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://newsroom.melbourne.edu/studio/ep-24" title="melbourne.edu" rel="nofollow">Jeremy Mould talks about it here</a> [melbourne.edu]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jeremy Mould talks about it here [ melbourne.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jeremy Mould talks about it here [melbourne.edu]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28269841</id>
	<title>fp</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244577720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>fp</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>fp</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fp</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28269855</id>
	<title>Hubble constant now a misnomer</title>
	<author>Omnifarious</author>
	<datestamp>1244577780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From what I know, it's been discovered in the past decade or so to not be a constant.  The expansion of the universe is accelerating.  This is a minor nitpick, I know.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I know , it 's been discovered in the past decade or so to not be a constant .
The expansion of the universe is accelerating .
This is a minor nitpick , I know .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I know, it's been discovered in the past decade or so to not be a constant.
The expansion of the universe is accelerating.
This is a minor nitpick, I know.
:-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270865</id>
	<title>Re:Hubble constant now a misnomer</title>
	<author>Celestial Avatar</author>
	<datestamp>1244538720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hubble's constant is a measure of how the expansion velocity (in units of kilometers per second) of the universe changes with an object's distance from us (in units of megaparsecs), yielding units of km/s/Mpc.  It is improper to simply cancel the distance units which would leave you with units of frequency (i.e., inverse seconds).  <br> <br>

Another example in astronomy is the unit given to monochromatic flux, which typically has units of Joules/meter^2/second/Hertz.  Note that the unit has both seconds and Hertz.  Now, one may naively simply cancel Hertz and seconds, leaving the unit as Joules/meter^2, but this is wrong. Monochromatic flux measures the energy (in Joules) passing through an area (in square meters) in a given time interval (in seconds) of light of a specific frequency (in Hertz).  Seconds and Hertz are measuring different quantities and cannot be cancelled when dealing with monochromatic flux.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hubble 's constant is a measure of how the expansion velocity ( in units of kilometers per second ) of the universe changes with an object 's distance from us ( in units of megaparsecs ) , yielding units of km/s/Mpc .
It is improper to simply cancel the distance units which would leave you with units of frequency ( i.e. , inverse seconds ) .
Another example in astronomy is the unit given to monochromatic flux , which typically has units of Joules/meter ^ 2/second/Hertz .
Note that the unit has both seconds and Hertz .
Now , one may naively simply cancel Hertz and seconds , leaving the unit as Joules/meter ^ 2 , but this is wrong .
Monochromatic flux measures the energy ( in Joules ) passing through an area ( in square meters ) in a given time interval ( in seconds ) of light of a specific frequency ( in Hertz ) .
Seconds and Hertz are measuring different quantities and can not be cancelled when dealing with monochromatic flux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hubble's constant is a measure of how the expansion velocity (in units of kilometers per second) of the universe changes with an object's distance from us (in units of megaparsecs), yielding units of km/s/Mpc.
It is improper to simply cancel the distance units which would leave you with units of frequency (i.e., inverse seconds).
Another example in astronomy is the unit given to monochromatic flux, which typically has units of Joules/meter^2/second/Hertz.
Note that the unit has both seconds and Hertz.
Now, one may naively simply cancel Hertz and seconds, leaving the unit as Joules/meter^2, but this is wrong.
Monochromatic flux measures the energy (in Joules) passing through an area (in square meters) in a given time interval (in seconds) of light of a specific frequency (in Hertz).
Seconds and Hertz are measuring different quantities and cannot be cancelled when dealing with monochromatic flux.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270311</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28271455</id>
	<title>Re:How big?</title>
	<author>Zerth</author>
	<datestamp>1244541240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Around pi * 318,309.886 m^2</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Around pi * 318,309.886 m ^ 2</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Around pi * 318,309.886 m^2</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28272123</id>
	<title>Re:Volume of universe?</title>
	<author>Jarjarthejedi</author>
	<datestamp>1244544360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who modded "a circle is infinite" as insightful? A circle with a finite radius has a finite area, only a circle with infinite radius has infinite area. As the other responses to this say a circle does have some qualities which are infinite, but that doesn't make it infinite (anymore than 1 is infinite because it belongs to the natural numbers which are infinite is a good argument).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who modded " a circle is infinite " as insightful ?
A circle with a finite radius has a finite area , only a circle with infinite radius has infinite area .
As the other responses to this say a circle does have some qualities which are infinite , but that does n't make it infinite ( anymore than 1 is infinite because it belongs to the natural numbers which are infinite is a good argument ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who modded "a circle is infinite" as insightful?
A circle with a finite radius has a finite area, only a circle with infinite radius has infinite area.
As the other responses to this say a circle does have some qualities which are infinite, but that doesn't make it infinite (anymore than 1 is infinite because it belongs to the natural numbers which are infinite is a good argument).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270595</id>
	<title>Re:Volume of universe?</title>
	<author>JohnFluxx</author>
	<datestamp>1244580600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When people talk about whether the universe is infinite or not, they are referring to the whole thing.</p><p>When people talk about the volume, they are referring to the observable universe.  The observable universe is about 93 light years across</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When people talk about whether the universe is infinite or not , they are referring to the whole thing.When people talk about the volume , they are referring to the observable universe .
The observable universe is about 93 light years across</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When people talk about whether the universe is infinite or not, they are referring to the whole thing.When people talk about the volume, they are referring to the observable universe.
The observable universe is about 93 light years across</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270635</id>
	<title>Re:Great Experimental Idea</title>
	<author>anarchyboy</author>
	<datestamp>1244580840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes it looks like they are measuring the distance by paralax using the fact that galaxies are in fact quite wide really. From the article it looks like this has been done before for galaxies close by which is not very usefull for measuing hubbles constant but that  they have found way of amplifying the signal from distant galaxies. What the article doesn't say is how they measure both the linear and angular size of the gallaxy which is required to gauge the distance it just says that they did. If so then this is indeed very good news for narrowing down hubbles so called constant. <br> <br> As a side note using standard candles is as you said very hard and requires bridging as you put it, one method used is I believe to assume that distant galaxies have a maximum size / brightness which puts a bound on the distance to them. The measurement of velocity is actually very acurate and easy and while it may contribute to the error bars of the estimate in hubbles constant I think the contribution would be tiny compared to the problems in measuring distance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes it looks like they are measuring the distance by paralax using the fact that galaxies are in fact quite wide really .
From the article it looks like this has been done before for galaxies close by which is not very usefull for measuing hubbles constant but that they have found way of amplifying the signal from distant galaxies .
What the article does n't say is how they measure both the linear and angular size of the gallaxy which is required to gauge the distance it just says that they did .
If so then this is indeed very good news for narrowing down hubbles so called constant .
As a side note using standard candles is as you said very hard and requires bridging as you put it , one method used is I believe to assume that distant galaxies have a maximum size / brightness which puts a bound on the distance to them .
The measurement of velocity is actually very acurate and easy and while it may contribute to the error bars of the estimate in hubbles constant I think the contribution would be tiny compared to the problems in measuring distance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes it looks like they are measuring the distance by paralax using the fact that galaxies are in fact quite wide really.
From the article it looks like this has been done before for galaxies close by which is not very usefull for measuing hubbles constant but that  they have found way of amplifying the signal from distant galaxies.
What the article doesn't say is how they measure both the linear and angular size of the gallaxy which is required to gauge the distance it just says that they did.
If so then this is indeed very good news for narrowing down hubbles so called constant.
As a side note using standard candles is as you said very hard and requires bridging as you put it, one method used is I believe to assume that distant galaxies have a maximum size / brightness which puts a bound on the distance to them.
The measurement of velocity is actually very acurate and easy and while it may contribute to the error bars of the estimate in hubbles constant I think the contribution would be tiny compared to the problems in measuring distance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28273229</id>
	<title>Re:Hubble constant now a misnomer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244551500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Hubble *parameter* has never been a constant, even in the ''classical'' models. The Hubble *constant* usually means the rate of expansion as it is measured *now*. What has been discovered in 1998 is that the expansion is accelerating in stead of decelerating as they expected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Hubble * parameter * has never been a constant , even in the ''classical' ' models .
The Hubble * constant * usually means the rate of expansion as it is measured * now * .
What has been discovered in 1998 is that the expansion is accelerating in stead of decelerating as they expected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Hubble *parameter* has never been a constant, even in the ''classical'' models.
The Hubble *constant* usually means the rate of expansion as it is measured *now*.
What has been discovered in 1998 is that the expansion is accelerating in stead of decelerating as they expected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28269855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28277239</id>
	<title>ahh thats not exactly right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244632140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This thread is now about,<br><a href="http://jaypritzker.org/" title="jaypritzker.org" rel="nofollow">Alexander F. Mayer</a> [jaypritzker.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This thread is now about,Alexander F. Mayer [ jaypritzker.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This thread is now about,Alexander F. Mayer [jaypritzker.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270391</id>
	<title>Re:Volume of universe?</title>
	<author>harryandthehenderson</author>
	<datestamp>1244579760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whoever said the universe had an infinite size?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoever said the universe had an infinite size ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoever said the universe had an infinite size?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270033</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1823212_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28269865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1823212_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28271329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1823212_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28272123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1823212_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28274917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28269855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1823212_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28275919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270151
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28269855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1823212_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28273229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28269855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1823212_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28269855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1823212_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1823212_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28280107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28269865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1823212_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1823212_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28269855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1823212_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1823212_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28271681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270579
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1823212_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28269855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1823212_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1823212_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28275733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28269855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1823212_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1823212_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28271455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1823212_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28277941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28269855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1823212_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28273237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1823212_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1823212_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28274235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1823212_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_1823212_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28274265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_1823212.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270283
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_1823212.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28271047
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_1823212.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270579
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28271681
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_1823212.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28269841
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_1823212.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270097
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28271455
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28273237
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_1823212.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28269839
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_1823212.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28269855
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270415
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28277941
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28275733
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28274917
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28273229
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270311
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270865
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270497
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270151
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28275919
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_1823212.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28269865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28280107
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270523
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_1823212.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28271817
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_1823212.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270271
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28274265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270635
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_1823212.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270033
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270465
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270233
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28272123
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28274235
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270965
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28271329
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270391
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270595
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270767
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_1823212.28270895
</commentlist>
</conversation>
