<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_15_155242</id>
	<title>"Burning Walls" May Stop Black Hole Formation</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1245082320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://arxivblog.technologyreview.com/" rel="nofollow">KentuckyFC</a> writes <i>"Black holes are thought to form when a star greater than 4 times the mass of the Sun explodes in a supernova and then collapses. The force of this collapse is so great that no known force can stop it. In less massive stars, the collapse cannot overcome so-called neutron degeneracy, the force that stops neutrons from being squashed together.  Now a Russian physicist says another effect may be involved. He points out that quantum chromodynamics predicts that when neutrons are squashed together, matter undergoes a phase transition into "subhadronic" matter. This is very different from ordinary matter. In subhadronic form, space is essentially empty. So the phase change creates a sudden reduction in pressure, forcing any ordinary matter in the star to implode into this new vacuum. The result is a massive increase in temperature of this matter that creates a "burning wall" within the supernova. And it is this <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23677/">burning wall that stops the formation of a black hole</a>, not just the degeneracy pressure of neutrons. This should lead to much greater energies inside a supernova than had been thought possible until now. And that's important because it could explain the formation of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma\_ray\_burst">high energy gamma ray bursts</a> that have long puzzled astrophysicists."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>KentuckyFC writes " Black holes are thought to form when a star greater than 4 times the mass of the Sun explodes in a supernova and then collapses .
The force of this collapse is so great that no known force can stop it .
In less massive stars , the collapse can not overcome so-called neutron degeneracy , the force that stops neutrons from being squashed together .
Now a Russian physicist says another effect may be involved .
He points out that quantum chromodynamics predicts that when neutrons are squashed together , matter undergoes a phase transition into " subhadronic " matter .
This is very different from ordinary matter .
In subhadronic form , space is essentially empty .
So the phase change creates a sudden reduction in pressure , forcing any ordinary matter in the star to implode into this new vacuum .
The result is a massive increase in temperature of this matter that creates a " burning wall " within the supernova .
And it is this burning wall that stops the formation of a black hole , not just the degeneracy pressure of neutrons .
This should lead to much greater energies inside a supernova than had been thought possible until now .
And that 's important because it could explain the formation of high energy gamma ray bursts that have long puzzled astrophysicists .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>KentuckyFC writes "Black holes are thought to form when a star greater than 4 times the mass of the Sun explodes in a supernova and then collapses.
The force of this collapse is so great that no known force can stop it.
In less massive stars, the collapse cannot overcome so-called neutron degeneracy, the force that stops neutrons from being squashed together.
Now a Russian physicist says another effect may be involved.
He points out that quantum chromodynamics predicts that when neutrons are squashed together, matter undergoes a phase transition into "subhadronic" matter.
This is very different from ordinary matter.
In subhadronic form, space is essentially empty.
So the phase change creates a sudden reduction in pressure, forcing any ordinary matter in the star to implode into this new vacuum.
The result is a massive increase in temperature of this matter that creates a "burning wall" within the supernova.
And it is this burning wall that stops the formation of a black hole, not just the degeneracy pressure of neutrons.
This should lead to much greater energies inside a supernova than had been thought possible until now.
And that's important because it could explain the formation of high energy gamma ray bursts that have long puzzled astrophysicists.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336867</id>
	<title>Re:I love this kind of story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245088080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In other words, he just put forth a possible explanation without any hard data to back it up.  People have done the same in the past, only to have the observations go against their hypotheses.  Building a hypothesis is only half the battle; you still need to gather evidence to support it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words , he just put forth a possible explanation without any hard data to back it up .
People have done the same in the past , only to have the observations go against their hypotheses .
Building a hypothesis is only half the battle ; you still need to gather evidence to support it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words, he just put forth a possible explanation without any hard data to back it up.
People have done the same in the past, only to have the observations go against their hypotheses.
Building a hypothesis is only half the battle; you still need to gather evidence to support it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336657</id>
	<title>wowsa !</title>
	<author>tommeke100</author>
	<datestamp>1245087120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Quantum chromodynamics, "subhadronic" matter,.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... , I think you got me lost there<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)<br>
How can these hypotheses be checked?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quantum chromodynamics , " subhadronic " matter, .
.... , I think you got me lost there ; - ) How can these hypotheses be checked ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quantum chromodynamics, "subhadronic" matter,.
.... , I think you got me lost there ;-)
How can these hypotheses be checked?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336857</id>
	<title>Re:I love this kind of story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245088020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Revelation based on fact</i></p><p>WTH man, we were about to have a nice discussion about blackholes and astronomy but you just had to go and do that.  Now this place is going to turn into a science vs religion flamewar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Revelation based on factWTH man , we were about to have a nice discussion about blackholes and astronomy but you just had to go and do that .
Now this place is going to turn into a science vs religion flamewar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Revelation based on factWTH man, we were about to have a nice discussion about blackholes and astronomy but you just had to go and do that.
Now this place is going to turn into a science vs religion flamewar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28339061</id>
	<title>Re:Scientific method to the rescue</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1245097260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Great! Let's use the scientific method to test this hypothesis. Oh wait, nevermind.</p></div><p>Sorry, but if you don't understand how to test these hypotheses using the scientific method, you clearly don't understand science well enough to have a clue.  What you really mean is, it's hard not to be cynical when you don't have a clue and can't be bothered to get one.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Great !
Let 's use the scientific method to test this hypothesis .
Oh wait , nevermind.Sorry , but if you do n't understand how to test these hypotheses using the scientific method , you clearly do n't understand science well enough to have a clue .
What you really mean is , it 's hard not to be cynical when you do n't have a clue and ca n't be bothered to get one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great!
Let's use the scientific method to test this hypothesis.
Oh wait, nevermind.Sorry, but if you don't understand how to test these hypotheses using the scientific method, you clearly don't understand science well enough to have a clue.
What you really mean is, it's hard not to be cynical when you don't have a clue and can't be bothered to get one.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337547</id>
	<title>Re:Scientific method to the rescue</title>
	<author>michaelwv</author>
	<datestamp>1245091140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's exactly what we will do.  This hypothesis will be quantified into making predictions about what we will see from supernovae and gamma-ray bursts (and perhaps other events).  We will then plan and conduct observations of these events and see if the predictions of this hypothesis are consistent with the new data.

A lot of interesting ideas like this come out but then stall for a while as people try translate qualitative ideas into quantitative predictions.  Once that happens we can go out and test them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's exactly what we will do .
This hypothesis will be quantified into making predictions about what we will see from supernovae and gamma-ray bursts ( and perhaps other events ) .
We will then plan and conduct observations of these events and see if the predictions of this hypothesis are consistent with the new data .
A lot of interesting ideas like this come out but then stall for a while as people try translate qualitative ideas into quantitative predictions .
Once that happens we can go out and test them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's exactly what we will do.
This hypothesis will be quantified into making predictions about what we will see from supernovae and gamma-ray bursts (and perhaps other events).
We will then plan and conduct observations of these events and see if the predictions of this hypothesis are consistent with the new data.
A lot of interesting ideas like this come out but then stall for a while as people try translate qualitative ideas into quantitative predictions.
Once that happens we can go out and test them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28339621</id>
	<title>Re:I love this kind of story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245099360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't always the case.  No one need be reminded of the massive amount of explanation and modeling that went into both geocentrism and heliocentrism.  Just because you can make nuances fit doesn't mean they belong in the paradigm of the day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't always the case .
No one need be reminded of the massive amount of explanation and modeling that went into both geocentrism and heliocentrism .
Just because you can make nuances fit does n't mean they belong in the paradigm of the day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't always the case.
No one need be reminded of the massive amount of explanation and modeling that went into both geocentrism and heliocentrism.
Just because you can make nuances fit doesn't mean they belong in the paradigm of the day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336431</id>
	<title>Use Vulcan Technology</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245086100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think we have cinematic proof that Red Matter would work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think we have cinematic proof that Red Matter would work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think we have cinematic proof that Red Matter would work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336991</id>
	<title>Only works for really big stars...</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1245088620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Damn those degenerate neutrons!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn those degenerate neutrons !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn those degenerate neutrons!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28338447</id>
	<title>observational tests?</title>
	<author>bcrowell</author>
	<datestamp>1245095280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
There are a lot of very difficult theoretical problems involved in trying to describe the structure of neutron stars. The classic picture of a star made of nothing but neutrons is probably not quite right, and is possibly qualitatively wrong in important ways. There's supposed to be an upper limit on the mass of a neutron star, and the theoretical uncertainties get greater as you get closer to this mass limit. E.g., it's possible that you get quark stars. We just don't know, because we don't know the behavior of the strong and weak nuclear forces with sufficient precision to be able to extrapolate to these extreme conditions.
</p><p>
Given all that uncertainty, which has existed for many decades, it's not at all surprising to me that there's a corresponding uncertainty about the conditions under which a neutron star is or isn't unstable with respect to collapse into a black hole. The <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.1929" title="arxiv.org">paper</a> [arxiv.org], which is linked to from the end of the Technology Review article, is pretty heavy going. My field is nuclear physics, not relativistic astrophysics, and I had a hard time understanding it. The author's English is also pretty hard to understand, so it's hard to tell exactly what he's saying his conclusions are. But if you look at the end, he seems to be suggesting that black holes actually do not form.
</p><p>
I wonder to what extent existing observations constrain this idea. For instance, we know that the Sagittarius A* object at the center of our galaxy has a mass of at least 3.7 million solar masses and a radius of less than 6.25 light-hours.
It would be interesting to know what he proposes this object is, if he says it's not a black hole.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a lot of very difficult theoretical problems involved in trying to describe the structure of neutron stars .
The classic picture of a star made of nothing but neutrons is probably not quite right , and is possibly qualitatively wrong in important ways .
There 's supposed to be an upper limit on the mass of a neutron star , and the theoretical uncertainties get greater as you get closer to this mass limit .
E.g. , it 's possible that you get quark stars .
We just do n't know , because we do n't know the behavior of the strong and weak nuclear forces with sufficient precision to be able to extrapolate to these extreme conditions .
Given all that uncertainty , which has existed for many decades , it 's not at all surprising to me that there 's a corresponding uncertainty about the conditions under which a neutron star is or is n't unstable with respect to collapse into a black hole .
The paper [ arxiv.org ] , which is linked to from the end of the Technology Review article , is pretty heavy going .
My field is nuclear physics , not relativistic astrophysics , and I had a hard time understanding it .
The author 's English is also pretty hard to understand , so it 's hard to tell exactly what he 's saying his conclusions are .
But if you look at the end , he seems to be suggesting that black holes actually do not form .
I wonder to what extent existing observations constrain this idea .
For instance , we know that the Sagittarius A * object at the center of our galaxy has a mass of at least 3.7 million solar masses and a radius of less than 6.25 light-hours .
It would be interesting to know what he proposes this object is , if he says it 's not a black hole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
There are a lot of very difficult theoretical problems involved in trying to describe the structure of neutron stars.
The classic picture of a star made of nothing but neutrons is probably not quite right, and is possibly qualitatively wrong in important ways.
There's supposed to be an upper limit on the mass of a neutron star, and the theoretical uncertainties get greater as you get closer to this mass limit.
E.g., it's possible that you get quark stars.
We just don't know, because we don't know the behavior of the strong and weak nuclear forces with sufficient precision to be able to extrapolate to these extreme conditions.
Given all that uncertainty, which has existed for many decades, it's not at all surprising to me that there's a corresponding uncertainty about the conditions under which a neutron star is or isn't unstable with respect to collapse into a black hole.
The paper [arxiv.org], which is linked to from the end of the Technology Review article, is pretty heavy going.
My field is nuclear physics, not relativistic astrophysics, and I had a hard time understanding it.
The author's English is also pretty hard to understand, so it's hard to tell exactly what he's saying his conclusions are.
But if you look at the end, he seems to be suggesting that black holes actually do not form.
I wonder to what extent existing observations constrain this idea.
For instance, we know that the Sagittarius A* object at the center of our galaxy has a mass of at least 3.7 million solar masses and a radius of less than 6.25 light-hours.
It would be interesting to know what he proposes this object is, if he says it's not a black hole.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336453</id>
	<title>Burning walls...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245086160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry, but after reading the title of the article, all I can think about is all that spicy food I ate last night...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , but after reading the title of the article , all I can think about is all that spicy food I ate last night.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, but after reading the title of the article, all I can think about is all that spicy food I ate last night...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28340793</id>
	<title>He's still looking for Klingons ...</title>
	<author>powerlord</author>
	<datestamp>1245060600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But what they're saying that the new Star Trek movie had it backwards?  That Walls of Fire stop Black Holes, not the other way around?  Wow.</p><p>I knew J.J. Abrams was good, but to hit you with a twist ending AFTER you've already left the theater is incredible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But what they 're saying that the new Star Trek movie had it backwards ?
That Walls of Fire stop Black Holes , not the other way around ?
Wow.I knew J.J. Abrams was good , but to hit you with a twist ending AFTER you 've already left the theater is incredible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But what they're saying that the new Star Trek movie had it backwards?
That Walls of Fire stop Black Holes, not the other way around?
Wow.I knew J.J. Abrams was good, but to hit you with a twist ending AFTER you've already left the theater is incredible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337429</id>
	<title>Scientific method to the rescue</title>
	<author>s\_p\_oneil</author>
	<datestamp>1245090660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great! Let's use the scientific method to test this hypothesis. Oh wait, nevermind.</p><p>Sorry, but it's hard not to be cynical about astrophysics. Dark matter sounds like something invented by a writer for a Japanese cartoon series, and the scientific explanation sounds about as likely to be true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great !
Let 's use the scientific method to test this hypothesis .
Oh wait , nevermind.Sorry , but it 's hard not to be cynical about astrophysics .
Dark matter sounds like something invented by a writer for a Japanese cartoon series , and the scientific explanation sounds about as likely to be true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great!
Let's use the scientific method to test this hypothesis.
Oh wait, nevermind.Sorry, but it's hard not to be cynical about astrophysics.
Dark matter sounds like something invented by a writer for a Japanese cartoon series, and the scientific explanation sounds about as likely to be true.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337597</id>
	<title>Re:Burning walls...</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1245091380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At first I thought this was an article about how to stop the LHC from destroying the earth. Oh well, I guess I'll resume writing my will and last testament...</htmltext>
<tokenext>At first I thought this was an article about how to stop the LHC from destroying the earth .
Oh well , I guess I 'll resume writing my will and last testament.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At first I thought this was an article about how to stop the LHC from destroying the earth.
Oh well, I guess I'll resume writing my will and last testament...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28338981</id>
	<title>Re:wowsa !</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1245096960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Quantum chromodynamics, "subhadronic" matter,.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... , I think you got me lost there<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)

How can these hypotheses be checked?</p></div><p>I just checked.  There's so such thing as "subhadronic" matter.  Wikipedia gives me a "page not found".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quantum chromodynamics , " subhadronic " matter, .
.... , I think you got me lost there ; - ) How can these hypotheses be checked ? I just checked .
There 's so such thing as " subhadronic " matter .
Wikipedia gives me a " page not found " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quantum chromodynamics, "subhadronic" matter,.
.... , I think you got me lost there ;-)

How can these hypotheses be checked?I just checked.
There's so such thing as "subhadronic" matter.
Wikipedia gives me a "page not found".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337545</id>
	<title>Re:wowsa !</title>
	<author>davidshewitt</author>
	<datestamp>1245091140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Quantum chromodynamics, "subhadronic" matter,.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... , I think you got me lost there<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div><p>You must be new here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quantum chromodynamics , " subhadronic " matter, .
.... , I think you got me lost there ; - ) You must be new here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quantum chromodynamics, "subhadronic" matter,.
.... , I think you got me lost there ;-)You must be new here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337003</id>
	<title>Re:Burning walls...</title>
	<author>JustOK</author>
	<datestamp>1245088680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're talking interstellar, and you can't see past Uranus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're talking interstellar , and you ca n't see past Uranus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're talking interstellar, and you can't see past Uranus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28338725</id>
	<title>Re:I love this kind of story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245096240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every problem has a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every problem has a solution that is simple , elegant , and wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every problem has a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337189</id>
	<title>Re:wowsa !</title>
	<author>donaggie03</author>
	<datestamp>1245089580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Create some subhadronic matter and see if it causes a region of space with lower pressure than the surrounding space.  As a bonus, measure the temperature of that space before and after the pressure vacuum stabilizes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Create some subhadronic matter and see if it causes a region of space with lower pressure than the surrounding space .
As a bonus , measure the temperature of that space before and after the pressure vacuum stabilizes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Create some subhadronic matter and see if it causes a region of space with lower pressure than the surrounding space.
As a bonus, measure the temperature of that space before and after the pressure vacuum stabilizes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337787</id>
	<title>Re:Scientific method to the rescue</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1245092280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The SF explanation : all the missing matter is made of Dyson spheres...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The SF explanation : all the missing matter is made of Dyson spheres.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The SF explanation : all the missing matter is made of Dyson spheres...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28338237</id>
	<title>Re:wowsa !</title>
	<author>jd</author>
	<datestamp>1245094320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ideally, you'd also ensure it had a negative energy density. Then, when it supernovas, you will flood the universe with exotic matter and wormholes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ideally , you 'd also ensure it had a negative energy density .
Then , when it supernovas , you will flood the universe with exotic matter and wormholes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ideally, you'd also ensure it had a negative energy density.
Then, when it supernovas, you will flood the universe with exotic matter and wormholes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336513</id>
	<title>This story gives the term "Firewall" new meaning.</title>
	<author>revjtanton</author>
	<datestamp>1245086400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm just sayin'...they shoulda called it a firewall instead of "burning walls"....it appears science has no room for marketing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm just sayin'...they shoulda called it a firewall instead of " burning walls " ....it appears science has no room for marketing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm just sayin'...they shoulda called it a firewall instead of "burning walls"....it appears science has no room for marketing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28339675</id>
	<title>Re:I love this kind of story</title>
	<author>ubermiester</author>
	<datestamp>1245099540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That is what science is about. Revelation based on fact, not faith.</p></div><p>But you realize that faith is not an inherently religious concept.  You have faith that science will explain things like the "Big Bang" and the "cause" of gravity.  In fact, you have faith that science is a useful tool in the first place.  What if all of our observations are based on a lie perpetrated by an all-powerful trickster (see Descartes)?  Or perhaps reality is merely a series of shadows projected on a cave wall in front of a captive audience (see Plato).

Attempting to set science above religious dogma based on some notion of absolute certainty is to engage in the same kind of hubris you chastise.

Faith is an essential part of life.  It is a bridge between what we have proven to be true and what we intuitively understand to be true based on personal experience.  And if you say you know science to be "true", then go talk to Socrates - he's got some questions for you...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is what science is about .
Revelation based on fact , not faith.But you realize that faith is not an inherently religious concept .
You have faith that science will explain things like the " Big Bang " and the " cause " of gravity .
In fact , you have faith that science is a useful tool in the first place .
What if all of our observations are based on a lie perpetrated by an all-powerful trickster ( see Descartes ) ?
Or perhaps reality is merely a series of shadows projected on a cave wall in front of a captive audience ( see Plato ) .
Attempting to set science above religious dogma based on some notion of absolute certainty is to engage in the same kind of hubris you chastise .
Faith is an essential part of life .
It is a bridge between what we have proven to be true and what we intuitively understand to be true based on personal experience .
And if you say you know science to be " true " , then go talk to Socrates - he 's got some questions for you.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is what science is about.
Revelation based on fact, not faith.But you realize that faith is not an inherently religious concept.
You have faith that science will explain things like the "Big Bang" and the "cause" of gravity.
In fact, you have faith that science is a useful tool in the first place.
What if all of our observations are based on a lie perpetrated by an all-powerful trickster (see Descartes)?
Or perhaps reality is merely a series of shadows projected on a cave wall in front of a captive audience (see Plato).
Attempting to set science above religious dogma based on some notion of absolute certainty is to engage in the same kind of hubris you chastise.
Faith is an essential part of life.
It is a bridge between what we have proven to be true and what we intuitively understand to be true based on personal experience.
And if you say you know science to be "true", then go talk to Socrates - he's got some questions for you...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336625</id>
	<title>I love this kind of story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245086880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I never like when scientists can't explain a major aspect of something like a black hole.  They have models/predictions etc., but there are these little pieces that are missing.</p><p>Then someone comes along with an elegant solution that fits perfectly into the existing theory/model/design and suddenly all these unexplained pieces make perfect sense.</p><p>That is what science is about.  Revelation based on fact, not faith.  At the end of the day I think it's a lot more rewarding, although a lot harder to come by.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I never like when scientists ca n't explain a major aspect of something like a black hole .
They have models/predictions etc. , but there are these little pieces that are missing.Then someone comes along with an elegant solution that fits perfectly into the existing theory/model/design and suddenly all these unexplained pieces make perfect sense.That is what science is about .
Revelation based on fact , not faith .
At the end of the day I think it 's a lot more rewarding , although a lot harder to come by .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never like when scientists can't explain a major aspect of something like a black hole.
They have models/predictions etc., but there are these little pieces that are missing.Then someone comes along with an elegant solution that fits perfectly into the existing theory/model/design and suddenly all these unexplained pieces make perfect sense.That is what science is about.
Revelation based on fact, not faith.
At the end of the day I think it's a lot more rewarding, although a lot harder to come by.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28341279</id>
	<title>Re:I love this kind of story</title>
	<author>servognome</author>
	<datestamp>1245063300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>That is what science is about. Revelation based on fact, not faith. At the end of the day I think it's a lot more rewarding, although a lot harder to come by.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Many scientific revalations were based on faith, the assumptions a scientist makes when creating their theory.  Unlike blind-faith commonly associated with religion, science allows those faith based assumptions to be tested.  Ptolemy created a scientifically valid geo-centric model of the solar system, in that it could accurately predict the motion of bodies in the sky.  Einstein created the cosmological constant based on his belief the universe was unchanging<br>It's important to understand that with science all you have at the end of the day is a working model.  While it might be more rewarding by giving us planes, computers, and spaceships; the search for "truth," is a lot harder to come by, and requires more than just science.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is what science is about .
Revelation based on fact , not faith .
At the end of the day I think it 's a lot more rewarding , although a lot harder to come by .
Many scientific revalations were based on faith , the assumptions a scientist makes when creating their theory .
Unlike blind-faith commonly associated with religion , science allows those faith based assumptions to be tested .
Ptolemy created a scientifically valid geo-centric model of the solar system , in that it could accurately predict the motion of bodies in the sky .
Einstein created the cosmological constant based on his belief the universe was unchangingIt 's important to understand that with science all you have at the end of the day is a working model .
While it might be more rewarding by giving us planes , computers , and spaceships ; the search for " truth , " is a lot harder to come by , and requires more than just science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is what science is about.
Revelation based on fact, not faith.
At the end of the day I think it's a lot more rewarding, although a lot harder to come by.
Many scientific revalations were based on faith, the assumptions a scientist makes when creating their theory.
Unlike blind-faith commonly associated with religion, science allows those faith based assumptions to be tested.
Ptolemy created a scientifically valid geo-centric model of the solar system, in that it could accurately predict the motion of bodies in the sky.
Einstein created the cosmological constant based on his belief the universe was unchangingIt's important to understand that with science all you have at the end of the day is a working model.
While it might be more rewarding by giving us planes, computers, and spaceships; the search for "truth," is a lot harder to come by, and requires more than just science.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337385</id>
	<title>Both?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245090480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So now the sky, <i>and</i> the walls are burning?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So now the sky , and the walls are burning ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So now the sky, and the walls are burning?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28338957</id>
	<title>Re:Must have been a Star Trek watcher</title>
	<author>ionix5891</author>
	<datestamp>1245096900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>voyyyyyyyaaaagggerr (in a khaaaaaan voice)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>voyyyyyyyaaaagggerr ( in a khaaaaaan voice )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>voyyyyyyyaaaagggerr (in a khaaaaaan voice)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337371</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28338537</id>
	<title>Re:Scientific method to the rescue</title>
	<author>ae1294</author>
	<datestamp>1245095580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sorry, but it's hard not to be cynical about astrophysics. Dark matter sounds like something invented by a writer for <b>Sailor Moon</b> the Japanese cartoon series, and the scientific explanation sounds about as likely to be true.</p></div><p>Fixed it for you...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but it 's hard not to be cynical about astrophysics .
Dark matter sounds like something invented by a writer for Sailor Moon the Japanese cartoon series , and the scientific explanation sounds about as likely to be true.Fixed it for you.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but it's hard not to be cynical about astrophysics.
Dark matter sounds like something invented by a writer for Sailor Moon the Japanese cartoon series, and the scientific explanation sounds about as likely to be true.Fixed it for you...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336423</id>
	<title>So</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245086100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>are supernovas now more or less likely to contribute to Global Warming?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>are supernovas now more or less likely to contribute to Global Warming ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>are supernovas now more or less likely to contribute to Global Warming?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28342141</id>
	<title>Re:I love this kind of story</title>
	<author>Lalo Martins</author>
	<datestamp>1245068400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where's the fact?  What I see here is "revelation" based on speculation...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where 's the fact ?
What I see here is " revelation " based on speculation.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where's the fact?
What I see here is "revelation" based on speculation...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28338675</id>
	<title>how could black hole ever form</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245096060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I never understood how a black hole could ever form if at the event horizon time at a distant perspective stops, matter would pass the event horizon infinitely far in the future, and this would effect the formation of the event horizon itself as the event horizon started to form, time at that location would grind to a halt. Now this creates a paradox as to what would happen to something at the event horizon, but I read a solution that thanks to hawkins radiation, you would never pass the event horizon (or the event horizon would never form) as the rate of hawkins would increase approaching infinity as you approach the event horizon, so you would pop out the other side of the black hole at some stupid amount of time in the future after watching the black hole evaporate away before you before you every entered it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I never understood how a black hole could ever form if at the event horizon time at a distant perspective stops , matter would pass the event horizon infinitely far in the future , and this would effect the formation of the event horizon itself as the event horizon started to form , time at that location would grind to a halt .
Now this creates a paradox as to what would happen to something at the event horizon , but I read a solution that thanks to hawkins radiation , you would never pass the event horizon ( or the event horizon would never form ) as the rate of hawkins would increase approaching infinity as you approach the event horizon , so you would pop out the other side of the black hole at some stupid amount of time in the future after watching the black hole evaporate away before you before you every entered it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never understood how a black hole could ever form if at the event horizon time at a distant perspective stops, matter would pass the event horizon infinitely far in the future, and this would effect the formation of the event horizon itself as the event horizon started to form, time at that location would grind to a halt.
Now this creates a paradox as to what would happen to something at the event horizon, but I read a solution that thanks to hawkins radiation, you would never pass the event horizon (or the event horizon would never form) as the rate of hawkins would increase approaching infinity as you approach the event horizon, so you would pop out the other side of the black hole at some stupid amount of time in the future after watching the black hole evaporate away before you before you every entered it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28341343</id>
	<title>Re:observational tests?</title>
	<author>mrtommyb</author>
	<datestamp>1245063780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>
Sagittarius A* object at the center of our galaxy has a mass of at least 3.7 million solar masses
</p></div><p>What the author is refering to is stellar mass black holes, ie. black holes that form from core collapse in star.  The Supermassive black holes such as the one in our galaxy are a different beast entirely.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sagittarius A * object at the center of our galaxy has a mass of at least 3.7 million solar masses What the author is refering to is stellar mass black holes , ie .
black holes that form from core collapse in star .
The Supermassive black holes such as the one in our galaxy are a different beast entirely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Sagittarius A* object at the center of our galaxy has a mass of at least 3.7 million solar masses
What the author is refering to is stellar mass black holes, ie.
black holes that form from core collapse in star.
The Supermassive black holes such as the one in our galaxy are a different beast entirely.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28338447</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337199</id>
	<title>Re:I love this kind of story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245089640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I was an undergrad, I worked on CASA, the Chicago Air Shower Array.  It was a big array of detectors in the Utah desert, designed to identify point souces of ultra-high energy gamma ray bursts and get more information about the showers of particles they create when they hit the atmosphere.</p><p>It's nice to see a model that could conceivably give an idea of how gamma ray bursts happen.  In 1988-89, there really weren't any very good candidates.  The problem was interesting enough to get James Cronin, who had won a Nobel Prize with Val Fitch for their discovery of a certain kind of symmetry violation in particle physics, interested in experimental astrophysics.  He was one of the principal scientists on the project.  And he even did some manual labor, like helping with wrapping detectors.  I remember him eating the lunch he had brought from home and talking to me about the health benefits of garlic as we worked on preparing detectors one day.</p><p>Each box had four detectors in it, each detector made of a piece of scintillator with a big photomultiplier attached, all wrapped in black to make it light-tight.  In addition to an identifying number, the grad students gave each box a name.  Some were named for blues musicians, for example.  At some point, the undergrads working on the project started expressing creativity by using made-up names to sign the detectors we had prepared and tested.  To this day I wonder if Cronin ever saw the one I had signed as "Cronan the Barbarian."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I was an undergrad , I worked on CASA , the Chicago Air Shower Array .
It was a big array of detectors in the Utah desert , designed to identify point souces of ultra-high energy gamma ray bursts and get more information about the showers of particles they create when they hit the atmosphere.It 's nice to see a model that could conceivably give an idea of how gamma ray bursts happen .
In 1988-89 , there really were n't any very good candidates .
The problem was interesting enough to get James Cronin , who had won a Nobel Prize with Val Fitch for their discovery of a certain kind of symmetry violation in particle physics , interested in experimental astrophysics .
He was one of the principal scientists on the project .
And he even did some manual labor , like helping with wrapping detectors .
I remember him eating the lunch he had brought from home and talking to me about the health benefits of garlic as we worked on preparing detectors one day.Each box had four detectors in it , each detector made of a piece of scintillator with a big photomultiplier attached , all wrapped in black to make it light-tight .
In addition to an identifying number , the grad students gave each box a name .
Some were named for blues musicians , for example .
At some point , the undergrads working on the project started expressing creativity by using made-up names to sign the detectors we had prepared and tested .
To this day I wonder if Cronin ever saw the one I had signed as " Cronan the Barbarian .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I was an undergrad, I worked on CASA, the Chicago Air Shower Array.
It was a big array of detectors in the Utah desert, designed to identify point souces of ultra-high energy gamma ray bursts and get more information about the showers of particles they create when they hit the atmosphere.It's nice to see a model that could conceivably give an idea of how gamma ray bursts happen.
In 1988-89, there really weren't any very good candidates.
The problem was interesting enough to get James Cronin, who had won a Nobel Prize with Val Fitch for their discovery of a certain kind of symmetry violation in particle physics, interested in experimental astrophysics.
He was one of the principal scientists on the project.
And he even did some manual labor, like helping with wrapping detectors.
I remember him eating the lunch he had brought from home and talking to me about the health benefits of garlic as we worked on preparing detectors one day.Each box had four detectors in it, each detector made of a piece of scintillator with a big photomultiplier attached, all wrapped in black to make it light-tight.
In addition to an identifying number, the grad students gave each box a name.
Some were named for blues musicians, for example.
At some point, the undergrads working on the project started expressing creativity by using made-up names to sign the detectors we had prepared and tested.
To this day I wonder if Cronin ever saw the one I had signed as "Cronan the Barbarian.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336679</id>
	<title>so</title>
	<author>syrinx</author>
	<datestamp>1245087240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So supernovae can stop black holes, but we also know from <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0796366/" title="imdb.com" rel="nofollow">documented evidence</a> [imdb.com] that black holes can stop a supernova, even one that threatens the entire galaxy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So supernovae can stop black holes , but we also know from documented evidence [ imdb.com ] that black holes can stop a supernova , even one that threatens the entire galaxy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So supernovae can stop black holes, but we also know from documented evidence [imdb.com] that black holes can stop a supernova, even one that threatens the entire galaxy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336743</id>
	<title>Supernovae</title>
	<author>SteelAngel</author>
	<datestamp>1245087420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Black holes are thought to form when a star greater than 4 times the mass of the Sun explodes in a supernova and then collapses. "</p><p>If a star is greater than \_8\_ solar masses you get a supernova.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Black holes are thought to form when a star greater than 4 times the mass of the Sun explodes in a supernova and then collapses .
" If a star is greater than \ _8 \ _ solar masses you get a supernova .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Black holes are thought to form when a star greater than 4 times the mass of the Sun explodes in a supernova and then collapses.
"If a star is greater than \_8\_ solar masses you get a supernova.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336845</id>
	<title>Re:Burning walls...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245087960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry, but THIS part:</p><p>"He points out that quantum chromodynamics predicts that when neutrons are squashed together, matter undergoes a phase transition into "subhadronic" matter. This is very different from ordinary matter. In subhadronic form, space is essentially empty. So the phase change creates a sudden reduction in pressure forcing any ordinary matter in the star to implode into this new vacuum. The result is a massive increase in temperature of this matter that creates a "burning wall" within the supernova. And it is this burning wall that stops the formation of a black hole, not just the degeneracy pressure of neutrons. This should lead to much greater energies inside a supernova than had been thought possible until now. And that's important because it could explain the formation of high energy gamma ray bursts that have long puzzled astrophysicists.""</p><p>reminds me of my first, full-on sex act. I wasn't even THINKING of the movie "The Black Hole", either... I did, tho, feel i was being pulled, squished, and exploded into multiple dimensions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , but THIS part : " He points out that quantum chromodynamics predicts that when neutrons are squashed together , matter undergoes a phase transition into " subhadronic " matter .
This is very different from ordinary matter .
In subhadronic form , space is essentially empty .
So the phase change creates a sudden reduction in pressure forcing any ordinary matter in the star to implode into this new vacuum .
The result is a massive increase in temperature of this matter that creates a " burning wall " within the supernova .
And it is this burning wall that stops the formation of a black hole , not just the degeneracy pressure of neutrons .
This should lead to much greater energies inside a supernova than had been thought possible until now .
And that 's important because it could explain the formation of high energy gamma ray bursts that have long puzzled astrophysicists .
" " reminds me of my first , full-on sex act .
I was n't even THINKING of the movie " The Black Hole " , either... I did , tho , feel i was being pulled , squished , and exploded into multiple dimensions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, but THIS part:"He points out that quantum chromodynamics predicts that when neutrons are squashed together, matter undergoes a phase transition into "subhadronic" matter.
This is very different from ordinary matter.
In subhadronic form, space is essentially empty.
So the phase change creates a sudden reduction in pressure forcing any ordinary matter in the star to implode into this new vacuum.
The result is a massive increase in temperature of this matter that creates a "burning wall" within the supernova.
And it is this burning wall that stops the formation of a black hole, not just the degeneracy pressure of neutrons.
This should lead to much greater energies inside a supernova than had been thought possible until now.
And that's important because it could explain the formation of high energy gamma ray bursts that have long puzzled astrophysicists.
""reminds me of my first, full-on sex act.
I wasn't even THINKING of the movie "The Black Hole", either... I did, tho, feel i was being pulled, squished, and exploded into multiple dimensions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337577</id>
	<title>Re:I love this kind of story</title>
	<author>NAR8789</author>
	<datestamp>1245091260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What?! No! The heart of science is not fitting hypotheses to data. That's the sort of dangerous fallacy that produces Aristotle's "science", and in fact what dangerous fundamentalists thrive on. The thing that sets science apart is <i>rigorous, repeatable empirical testing</i> of not previously observed <i>predictions</i>.

Not to say that the hypothesis in the article isn't exciting, but the already raising it up as a shining example of scientific triumph starts down a path I find terrifying.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What ? !
No ! The heart of science is not fitting hypotheses to data .
That 's the sort of dangerous fallacy that produces Aristotle 's " science " , and in fact what dangerous fundamentalists thrive on .
The thing that sets science apart is rigorous , repeatable empirical testing of not previously observed predictions .
Not to say that the hypothesis in the article is n't exciting , but the already raising it up as a shining example of scientific triumph starts down a path I find terrifying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?!
No! The heart of science is not fitting hypotheses to data.
That's the sort of dangerous fallacy that produces Aristotle's "science", and in fact what dangerous fundamentalists thrive on.
The thing that sets science apart is rigorous, repeatable empirical testing of not previously observed predictions.
Not to say that the hypothesis in the article isn't exciting, but the already raising it up as a shining example of scientific triumph starts down a path I find terrifying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337371</id>
	<title>Must have been a Star Trek watcher</title>
	<author>renimar</author>
	<datestamp>1245090420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The phrase that stuck out for me was, 'a phase transition into "subhadronic" matter'. While I certainly recognize the need for new vocabulary when a new model/theory/phenomenon is described or discovered, this particular phrase, "subhadronic matter", gives me Star Trek Voyager flashbacks.</p><p>"Captain, the Borg are pulling us in!"</p><p>"Lt. Torres, can you reroute the power to the deflection array dish, and invert the signal to send out a subhadronic matter stream? That should disrupt the tractor beam long enough for us to warp out!"</p><p>"Recreate the forces inside a collapsing star, of course! Why didn't I think of that?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The phrase that stuck out for me was , 'a phase transition into " subhadronic " matter' .
While I certainly recognize the need for new vocabulary when a new model/theory/phenomenon is described or discovered , this particular phrase , " subhadronic matter " , gives me Star Trek Voyager flashbacks .
" Captain , the Borg are pulling us in ! " " Lt .
Torres , can you reroute the power to the deflection array dish , and invert the signal to send out a subhadronic matter stream ?
That should disrupt the tractor beam long enough for us to warp out !
" " Recreate the forces inside a collapsing star , of course !
Why did n't I think of that ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The phrase that stuck out for me was, 'a phase transition into "subhadronic" matter'.
While I certainly recognize the need for new vocabulary when a new model/theory/phenomenon is described or discovered, this particular phrase, "subhadronic matter", gives me Star Trek Voyager flashbacks.
"Captain, the Borg are pulling us in!""Lt.
Torres, can you reroute the power to the deflection array dish, and invert the signal to send out a subhadronic matter stream?
That should disrupt the tractor beam long enough for us to warp out!
""Recreate the forces inside a collapsing star, of course!
Why didn't I think of that?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336741</id>
	<title>QCD Phases</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245087420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's an interesting article. New QCD phases have been postulated for quite a while (colour superconductors etc.) but last time I talked to an expert on it and asked whether it could account for the missing energy in a Supernova (currently SN models seem to fizzle more than explode) his reply was that the phase change was too slow to release enough energy to help the SN go bang. I'll have to read the paper to see it this idea addresses this issue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's an interesting article .
New QCD phases have been postulated for quite a while ( colour superconductors etc .
) but last time I talked to an expert on it and asked whether it could account for the missing energy in a Supernova ( currently SN models seem to fizzle more than explode ) his reply was that the phase change was too slow to release enough energy to help the SN go bang .
I 'll have to read the paper to see it this idea addresses this issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's an interesting article.
New QCD phases have been postulated for quite a while (colour superconductors etc.
) but last time I talked to an expert on it and asked whether it could account for the missing energy in a Supernova (currently SN models seem to fizzle more than explode) his reply was that the phase change was too slow to release enough energy to help the SN go bang.
I'll have to read the paper to see it this idea addresses this issue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337641</id>
	<title>IT Security admin's rejoice!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245091620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They can rest easy knowing that their Fire-Wall, will protect them from a Black Hole too...not just outside intruders!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They can rest easy knowing that their Fire-Wall , will protect them from a Black Hole too...not just outside intruders !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can rest easy knowing that their Fire-Wall, will protect them from a Black Hole too...not just outside intruders!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337509</id>
	<title>Re:I love this kind of story</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1245090960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>However, I have a lot of speculation on any theory especially those about space where we have yet to really explore and travel, where someone assumes a few laws about existence of such an anomaly, and therefor think themselves experts<br>on the subject. I tend to think it is a work in progress until we can provide 100\% proof that wood floats in water, or ice melts into water, etc....we have no proof of anything concerning black holes, because we don't even have one near us to view and analyze......!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>However , I have a lot of speculation on any theory especially those about space where we have yet to really explore and travel , where someone assumes a few laws about existence of such an anomaly , and therefor think themselves expertson the subject .
I tend to think it is a work in progress until we can provide 100 \ % proof that wood floats in water , or ice melts into water , etc....we have no proof of anything concerning black holes , because we do n't even have one near us to view and analyze...... !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, I have a lot of speculation on any theory especially those about space where we have yet to really explore and travel, where someone assumes a few laws about existence of such an anomaly, and therefor think themselves expertson the subject.
I tend to think it is a work in progress until we can provide 100\% proof that wood floats in water, or ice melts into water, etc....we have no proof of anything concerning black holes, because we don't even have one near us to view and analyze......!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28338547</id>
	<title>Re:Scientific method to the rescue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245095640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Dark matter sounds like something invented by a writer for a Japanese cartoon series, and the scientific explanation sounds about as likely to be true.</p></div><p>Would you prefer they call it "Here-Be-Dragons Matter"?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dark matter sounds like something invented by a writer for a Japanese cartoon series , and the scientific explanation sounds about as likely to be true.Would you prefer they call it " Here-Be-Dragons Matter " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Dark matter sounds like something invented by a writer for a Japanese cartoon series, and the scientific explanation sounds about as likely to be true.Would you prefer they call it "Here-Be-Dragons Matter"?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337429</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_155242_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28338537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_155242_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_155242_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28340793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336453
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_155242_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28338725
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_155242_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28338957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_155242_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_155242_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_155242_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_155242_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28339621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_155242_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28341279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_155242_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336453
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_155242_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28341343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28338447
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_155242_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28339061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_155242_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_155242_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28339675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_155242_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_155242_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28338237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_155242_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28338981
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_155242_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28342141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_155242_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_155242_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28338547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_155242_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336453
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_155242_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_155242.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337429
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28338547
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337787
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28339061
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337547
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28338537
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_155242.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28338675
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_155242.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336991
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_155242.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336453
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337597
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336845
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337003
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28340793
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_155242.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337371
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28338957
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_155242.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336657
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28338981
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337189
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28338237
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_155242.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336423
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_155242.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336625
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28341279
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336857
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28338725
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28342141
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337577
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336867
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28339675
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28339621
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337199
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_155242.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336743
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_155242.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28336741
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_155242.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28338447
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28341343
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_155242.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_155242.28337641
</commentlist>
</conversation>
