<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_21_0159233</id>
	<title>The LHC, the Higgs Boson, and the Chicago Cubs</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1256140920000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Following up our earlier discussion of the theory that the <a href="//science.slashdot.org/story/09/10/13/1826206/The-LHC-the-Higgs-Boson-and-Fate">Higgs boson might time-travel to avoid being found</a>, reader gpronger notes an interview with MIT (and LHC) physicist Steven Nahn, in which he <a href="http://www.scientificcomputing.com/news-HPC-LHC-Physicist-Steven-Nahn-on-the-Elusive-Higgs-Boson-101909.aspx">comments on Nielsen and Ninomiya's unlikely-sounding theory</a>. <i>"The premise is fairly crazy, but many things in physics are constructed that way... The difference here is that... previous 'crazy' ideas gave consequences that were clearly testable and attestable to the new nature of the theory, in an objective manner, and involved the behavior of inanimate objects (i.e., not humans). However, in this case, the consequences seem quite contrived... Exactly in line with their argument, I could say that Nature abhors the Chicago Cubs, such that the theory which describes the evolution of our universe prescribed <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve\_Bartman\_incident">Steve Bartman</a> to interfere on October 14, 2003, extending the 'bad luck' of the Cubbies."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Following up our earlier discussion of the theory that the Higgs boson might time-travel to avoid being found , reader gpronger notes an interview with MIT ( and LHC ) physicist Steven Nahn , in which he comments on Nielsen and Ninomiya 's unlikely-sounding theory .
" The premise is fairly crazy , but many things in physics are constructed that way... The difference here is that... previous 'crazy ' ideas gave consequences that were clearly testable and attestable to the new nature of the theory , in an objective manner , and involved the behavior of inanimate objects ( i.e. , not humans ) .
However , in this case , the consequences seem quite contrived... Exactly in line with their argument , I could say that Nature abhors the Chicago Cubs , such that the theory which describes the evolution of our universe prescribed Steve Bartman to interfere on October 14 , 2003 , extending the 'bad luck ' of the Cubbies .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Following up our earlier discussion of the theory that the Higgs boson might time-travel to avoid being found, reader gpronger notes an interview with MIT (and LHC) physicist Steven Nahn, in which he comments on Nielsen and Ninomiya's unlikely-sounding theory.
"The premise is fairly crazy, but many things in physics are constructed that way... The difference here is that... previous 'crazy' ideas gave consequences that were clearly testable and attestable to the new nature of the theory, in an objective manner, and involved the behavior of inanimate objects (i.e., not humans).
However, in this case, the consequences seem quite contrived... Exactly in line with their argument, I could say that Nature abhors the Chicago Cubs, such that the theory which describes the evolution of our universe prescribed Steve Bartman to interfere on October 14, 2003, extending the 'bad luck' of the Cubbies.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819197</id>
	<title>Whoa</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256058240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Least coherent summary ever.  I read it twice and I'm still not sure I understand what we're talking about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Least coherent summary ever .
I read it twice and I 'm still not sure I understand what we 're talking about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Least coherent summary ever.
I read it twice and I'm still not sure I understand what we're talking about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819355</id>
	<title>Physicist humor, reporter humor</title>
	<author>lieutenant24</author>
	<datestamp>1256059380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This might simply be a matter of physicist humor not translating into reporter humor:

Physicist says, "Maybe we're violating the laws of the universe and it's out to get us (chuckle, chuckle)."

Reporter thinks, "That sounds like front-page news!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>This might simply be a matter of physicist humor not translating into reporter humor : Physicist says , " Maybe we 're violating the laws of the universe and it 's out to get us ( chuckle , chuckle ) .
" Reporter thinks , " That sounds like front-page news !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This might simply be a matter of physicist humor not translating into reporter humor:

Physicist says, "Maybe we're violating the laws of the universe and it's out to get us (chuckle, chuckle).
"

Reporter thinks, "That sounds like front-page news!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819295</id>
	<title>That's what happened, isn't it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256058960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Turns out, nature DOES abhor the Cubs.  Showed you, mr fancy physicist guy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Turns out , nature DOES abhor the Cubs .
Showed you , mr fancy physicist guy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Turns out, nature DOES abhor the Cubs.
Showed you, mr fancy physicist guy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819331</id>
	<title>Re:Whoa</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1256059260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's just you.  Read it again.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's just you .
Read it again .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's just you.
Read it again.
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819609</id>
	<title>Time does not exist</title>
	<author>SirAstral</author>
	<datestamp>1256061720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time does not exist in corporeal reality.  It only exists in concept as a tool to methodically track and gauge the progression of the state of matter/energy.</p><p>Math is a concept, abstract, invention of the mind.  Likewise so is Time.</p><p>It has been the here and now since the beginning of "time".  All that has changed, is state of the matter in our observable vicinities!</p><p>There is no grandfather clock with a massive pendulum swinging in the heavens declaring every second that has been, is now, or yet to come.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time does not exist in corporeal reality .
It only exists in concept as a tool to methodically track and gauge the progression of the state of matter/energy.Math is a concept , abstract , invention of the mind .
Likewise so is Time.It has been the here and now since the beginning of " time " .
All that has changed , is state of the matter in our observable vicinities ! There is no grandfather clock with a massive pendulum swinging in the heavens declaring every second that has been , is now , or yet to come .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time does not exist in corporeal reality.
It only exists in concept as a tool to methodically track and gauge the progression of the state of matter/energy.Math is a concept, abstract, invention of the mind.
Likewise so is Time.It has been the here and now since the beginning of "time".
All that has changed, is state of the matter in our observable vicinities!There is no grandfather clock with a massive pendulum swinging in the heavens declaring every second that has been, is now, or yet to come.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29821939</id>
	<title>Re:Attention Humans</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256131860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have sometimes toyed with the idea that maybe time travel is actually an extremely trivial thing that you can accomplish with two rocks and a string, but this 'Novikov Effect' guarantees that we end up with an universe where it simply never occurs to anyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have sometimes toyed with the idea that maybe time travel is actually an extremely trivial thing that you can accomplish with two rocks and a string , but this 'Novikov Effect ' guarantees that we end up with an universe where it simply never occurs to anyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have sometimes toyed with the idea that maybe time travel is actually an extremely trivial thing that you can accomplish with two rocks and a string, but this 'Novikov Effect' guarantees that we end up with an universe where it simply never occurs to anyone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819247</id>
	<title>Re:Whoa</title>
	<author>Cryacin</author>
	<datestamp>1256058600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Least coherent summary ever. I read it twice and I'm still not sure I understand what we're talking about.</p></div><p>That's just because the Higgs Boson was there in the discussion before and after you read it, but not during.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Least coherent summary ever .
I read it twice and I 'm still not sure I understand what we 're talking about.That 's just because the Higgs Boson was there in the discussion before and after you read it , but not during .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Least coherent summary ever.
I read it twice and I'm still not sure I understand what we're talking about.That's just because the Higgs Boson was there in the discussion before and after you read it, but not during.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29823295</id>
	<title>Re:Whoa</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256139240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try being a Lions FAN.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try being a Lions FAN .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try being a Lions FAN.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29822345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819701</id>
	<title>Well</title>
	<author>ShooterNeo</author>
	<datestamp>1256062560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The theory may be silly, and currently it appears to violate Occam's razor.  It's pretty implausible for now.

But, what if every time they try to discover the Higg's Boson, an even unlikelier mishap prevents them?  Janitors tripping over power cords, meteors, lightning strikes, structural collapse...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The theory may be silly , and currently it appears to violate Occam 's razor .
It 's pretty implausible for now .
But , what if every time they try to discover the Higg 's Boson , an even unlikelier mishap prevents them ?
Janitors tripping over power cords , meteors , lightning strikes , structural collapse.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The theory may be silly, and currently it appears to violate Occam's razor.
It's pretty implausible for now.
But, what if every time they try to discover the Higg's Boson, an even unlikelier mishap prevents them?
Janitors tripping over power cords, meteors, lightning strikes, structural collapse...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29838643</id>
	<title>Re:Wait...</title>
	<author>GargamelSpaceman</author>
	<datestamp>1256241420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you read Nielsen's page, he's interested in the possibility that the physical laws might be so enormously complex that they would appear random, but they are such that in the limit they appear to conform to the familiar ones we know.  So I don't think this is time travel, but more like, the physical laws of the universe ALWAYS WERE such that Higgs Bosons are not created.  Nothing 'reached back in time' to perturb the minds of the Congresspeople into Scuttling the Superconducting Supercollider.  The laws of the universe are just such that the minds of the Congresspeople were perturbed when they had to be in order to scuttle the SSC.
</p><p>Possibly different physical laws ( which have not changed ) caused the LHC to have problems.
</p><p>Of course this is only what I think the argument is.  I have no idea if A) I am right in my interpretation, or B) if the argument holds water.  But it is interesting.
</p><p> <a href="http://www.nbi.dk/~kleppe/random/rel.html" title="www.nbi.dk">This page was linked to from Holger Nielsen's web page</a> [www.nbi.dk]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you read Nielsen 's page , he 's interested in the possibility that the physical laws might be so enormously complex that they would appear random , but they are such that in the limit they appear to conform to the familiar ones we know .
So I do n't think this is time travel , but more like , the physical laws of the universe ALWAYS WERE such that Higgs Bosons are not created .
Nothing 'reached back in time ' to perturb the minds of the Congresspeople into Scuttling the Superconducting Supercollider .
The laws of the universe are just such that the minds of the Congresspeople were perturbed when they had to be in order to scuttle the SSC .
Possibly different physical laws ( which have not changed ) caused the LHC to have problems .
Of course this is only what I think the argument is .
I have no idea if A ) I am right in my interpretation , or B ) if the argument holds water .
But it is interesting .
This page was linked to from Holger Nielsen 's web page [ www.nbi.dk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you read Nielsen's page, he's interested in the possibility that the physical laws might be so enormously complex that they would appear random, but they are such that in the limit they appear to conform to the familiar ones we know.
So I don't think this is time travel, but more like, the physical laws of the universe ALWAYS WERE such that Higgs Bosons are not created.
Nothing 'reached back in time' to perturb the minds of the Congresspeople into Scuttling the Superconducting Supercollider.
The laws of the universe are just such that the minds of the Congresspeople were perturbed when they had to be in order to scuttle the SSC.
Possibly different physical laws ( which have not changed ) caused the LHC to have problems.
Of course this is only what I think the argument is.
I have no idea if A) I am right in my interpretation, or B) if the argument holds water.
But it is interesting.
This page was linked to from Holger Nielsen's web page [www.nbi.dk]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819583</id>
	<title>Re:Oh get real</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1256061420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the Cubs win it all in 2012, THEN the Mayans may be on to something...</p><p>The Pittsburgh Pirates are an example of a badly run team and franchise.  The Cubs are on a whole new level.  They've had some really good teams, but yet, no Worlds Series in 100+ years.  Even the two newest franchises in the National League have not only been to a Worlds Series, they've won it!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/ducks</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the Cubs win it all in 2012 , THEN the Mayans may be on to something...The Pittsburgh Pirates are an example of a badly run team and franchise .
The Cubs are on a whole new level .
They 've had some really good teams , but yet , no Worlds Series in 100 + years .
Even the two newest franchises in the National League have not only been to a Worlds Series , they 've won it !
/ducks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the Cubs win it all in 2012, THEN the Mayans may be on to something...The Pittsburgh Pirates are an example of a badly run team and franchise.
The Cubs are on a whole new level.
They've had some really good teams, but yet, no Worlds Series in 100+ years.
Even the two newest franchises in the National League have not only been to a Worlds Series, they've won it!
/ducks</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29826733</id>
	<title>Higgs-Boson vs. Chicago Cubs?</title>
	<author>grikdog</author>
	<datestamp>1256154060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So.  Higgs-Boson, testable.  Chicago Cubs, detestable.  Makes sense to me, but only if you simultaneously answer the seemingly unentangled questions "testable by what" and "detestable to whom" since if there IS a God particle it seems likely that it plays some other game.  We posit, then, that if Death plays chess, God <i>must</i> play solitaire.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So .
Higgs-Boson , testable .
Chicago Cubs , detestable .
Makes sense to me , but only if you simultaneously answer the seemingly unentangled questions " testable by what " and " detestable to whom " since if there IS a God particle it seems likely that it plays some other game .
We posit , then , that if Death plays chess , God must play solitaire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So.
Higgs-Boson, testable.
Chicago Cubs, detestable.
Makes sense to me, but only if you simultaneously answer the seemingly unentangled questions "testable by what" and "detestable to whom" since if there IS a God particle it seems likely that it plays some other game.
We posit, then, that if Death plays chess, God must play solitaire.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819551</id>
	<title>Fairy Story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256061120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Finally, a sensible objection!</p><p>To say "a time-distorting bogon from the future did it" is about as scientific as saying that "a fairy did it", or whichever turn of phrase you prefer, if you're not going to then follow it with: "and this can be demonstrated because of such and such, and therefore the consequences are so and so."</p><p>Because while a time-distorting bogon from the future might indeed be responsible; that does not mean that it's the least bit a scientific explanation if you don't spell out a testable hypothesis, or all of the qualities of the scenario you're describing such that one can be formed. Without a testable hypothesis, an explanation is just a fairy story.</p><p>(I'm deliberately using the term bogon, don't flame me for misunderstanding Higgs boson)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally , a sensible objection ! To say " a time-distorting bogon from the future did it " is about as scientific as saying that " a fairy did it " , or whichever turn of phrase you prefer , if you 're not going to then follow it with : " and this can be demonstrated because of such and such , and therefore the consequences are so and so .
" Because while a time-distorting bogon from the future might indeed be responsible ; that does not mean that it 's the least bit a scientific explanation if you do n't spell out a testable hypothesis , or all of the qualities of the scenario you 're describing such that one can be formed .
Without a testable hypothesis , an explanation is just a fairy story .
( I 'm deliberately using the term bogon , do n't flame me for misunderstanding Higgs boson )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally, a sensible objection!To say "a time-distorting bogon from the future did it" is about as scientific as saying that "a fairy did it", or whichever turn of phrase you prefer, if you're not going to then follow it with: "and this can be demonstrated because of such and such, and therefore the consequences are so and so.
"Because while a time-distorting bogon from the future might indeed be responsible; that does not mean that it's the least bit a scientific explanation if you don't spell out a testable hypothesis, or all of the qualities of the scenario you're describing such that one can be formed.
Without a testable hypothesis, an explanation is just a fairy story.
(I'm deliberately using the term bogon, don't flame me for misunderstanding Higgs boson)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29833949</id>
	<title>Re:Novikov self-consistency</title>
	<author>torako</author>
	<datestamp>1256218320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can think of at least one way it might - the Higgs Boson is critical to our understanding gravity.</p> </div><p>This is a common misconception. The Higgs mechanism only generates the current masses, it does not connect at all to General Relativity, which is the connection we'd need to understanding gravity in a quantum context.
</p><p>
Also, matter is usually made up of composite structures, like protons / neutrons, atoms etc. These masses are largely explained by bound states, the Higgs mechanism only makes up for a small percentage of the masses of those objects.
</p><p>
The Higgs mechanism is very interesting in the framework of particle theory, but it does not help with gravity and it certainly does not explain how the masses of all matter objects are generated.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can think of at least one way it might - the Higgs Boson is critical to our understanding gravity .
This is a common misconception .
The Higgs mechanism only generates the current masses , it does not connect at all to General Relativity , which is the connection we 'd need to understanding gravity in a quantum context .
Also , matter is usually made up of composite structures , like protons / neutrons , atoms etc .
These masses are largely explained by bound states , the Higgs mechanism only makes up for a small percentage of the masses of those objects .
The Higgs mechanism is very interesting in the framework of particle theory , but it does not help with gravity and it certainly does not explain how the masses of all matter objects are generated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can think of at least one way it might - the Higgs Boson is critical to our understanding gravity.
This is a common misconception.
The Higgs mechanism only generates the current masses, it does not connect at all to General Relativity, which is the connection we'd need to understanding gravity in a quantum context.
Also, matter is usually made up of composite structures, like protons / neutrons, atoms etc.
These masses are largely explained by bound states, the Higgs mechanism only makes up for a small percentage of the masses of those objects.
The Higgs mechanism is very interesting in the framework of particle theory, but it does not help with gravity and it certainly does not explain how the masses of all matter objects are generated.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819503</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29822345</id>
	<title>Re:Whoa</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1256134560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Higgs bosun, my hairy white aging ass. The Cubs could win a world series -- but there's only one group of people who could make it happen. That's the Cubs fans.</p><p>My daughter tells me that if I want to see a Cardinals game not only affordably but cheap, wait until the Cardinals play the Reds in Cincinnati and drive there. Seems ticket and beer prices are dirt cheap there. Why? Because people in Cincinnati won't support a bunch of incompetent losers, unlike people in Chicago.</p><p>Major league baseball is not a game and not a sport. It's a billion dollar business. If it was a sport, they would not have cancelled the World Series over a strike/lockout when the millionaires fought the billionaires.</p><p>The Cubs fans fill those losers' stadiums, drink the overpriced beer, buy the overpriced hats and shirts, and spend spend spend -- on a bunch of LOSERS, the only team in major league baseball ever to go over a century without winning the World Series. Why should the owners shell out dough to field a good team, good coaching staff, and good management when they can rake in billions on a perpetually losing team?</p><p>If you Cubs fans want to see your team win the series, you're simply going to have to stop supporting those losers. When the stands are empty like they are in Cincinnati, management will have to lower prices and field a good team, good coaches and good management. When that happens, then you can go back to supporting the former losers.</p><p>Just stay away, and they'll eventually win the series.</p><p>BTW, <b>GO CARDS!</b> Damn, they didn't even make the playoffs this year =(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Higgs bosun , my hairy white aging ass .
The Cubs could win a world series -- but there 's only one group of people who could make it happen .
That 's the Cubs fans.My daughter tells me that if I want to see a Cardinals game not only affordably but cheap , wait until the Cardinals play the Reds in Cincinnati and drive there .
Seems ticket and beer prices are dirt cheap there .
Why ? Because people in Cincinnati wo n't support a bunch of incompetent losers , unlike people in Chicago.Major league baseball is not a game and not a sport .
It 's a billion dollar business .
If it was a sport , they would not have cancelled the World Series over a strike/lockout when the millionaires fought the billionaires.The Cubs fans fill those losers ' stadiums , drink the overpriced beer , buy the overpriced hats and shirts , and spend spend spend -- on a bunch of LOSERS , the only team in major league baseball ever to go over a century without winning the World Series .
Why should the owners shell out dough to field a good team , good coaching staff , and good management when they can rake in billions on a perpetually losing team ? If you Cubs fans want to see your team win the series , you 're simply going to have to stop supporting those losers .
When the stands are empty like they are in Cincinnati , management will have to lower prices and field a good team , good coaches and good management .
When that happens , then you can go back to supporting the former losers.Just stay away , and they 'll eventually win the series.BTW , GO CARDS !
Damn , they did n't even make the playoffs this year = (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Higgs bosun, my hairy white aging ass.
The Cubs could win a world series -- but there's only one group of people who could make it happen.
That's the Cubs fans.My daughter tells me that if I want to see a Cardinals game not only affordably but cheap, wait until the Cardinals play the Reds in Cincinnati and drive there.
Seems ticket and beer prices are dirt cheap there.
Why? Because people in Cincinnati won't support a bunch of incompetent losers, unlike people in Chicago.Major league baseball is not a game and not a sport.
It's a billion dollar business.
If it was a sport, they would not have cancelled the World Series over a strike/lockout when the millionaires fought the billionaires.The Cubs fans fill those losers' stadiums, drink the overpriced beer, buy the overpriced hats and shirts, and spend spend spend -- on a bunch of LOSERS, the only team in major league baseball ever to go over a century without winning the World Series.
Why should the owners shell out dough to field a good team, good coaching staff, and good management when they can rake in billions on a perpetually losing team?If you Cubs fans want to see your team win the series, you're simply going to have to stop supporting those losers.
When the stands are empty like they are in Cincinnati, management will have to lower prices and field a good team, good coaches and good management.
When that happens, then you can go back to supporting the former losers.Just stay away, and they'll eventually win the series.BTW, GO CARDS!
Damn, they didn't even make the playoffs this year =(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29835753</id>
	<title>Re:Whoa-Apology</title>
	<author>gpronger</author>
	<datestamp>1256228880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I feel a bit remiss in this summary. I had submitted the stuff, but later that day, it struck me that the way I presented it was approaching slanderous (basically very strongly dismissing the original premise) and hoped that the summary wasn't posted. Slashdot editor kdawson took pity on me and re-worded; and frankly I'm grateful for it. My guess is that in re-wording, some was lost in the translation.<br> <br>

Greg</htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel a bit remiss in this summary .
I had submitted the stuff , but later that day , it struck me that the way I presented it was approaching slanderous ( basically very strongly dismissing the original premise ) and hoped that the summary was n't posted .
Slashdot editor kdawson took pity on me and re-worded ; and frankly I 'm grateful for it .
My guess is that in re-wording , some was lost in the translation .
Greg</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel a bit remiss in this summary.
I had submitted the stuff, but later that day, it struck me that the way I presented it was approaching slanderous (basically very strongly dismissing the original premise) and hoped that the summary wasn't posted.
Slashdot editor kdawson took pity on me and re-worded; and frankly I'm grateful for it.
My guess is that in re-wording, some was lost in the translation.
Greg</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819407</id>
	<title>Random Assumptions.</title>
	<author>Erythros</author>
	<datestamp>1256059860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, what this article is saying is that as you increase the number of  random assumptions the validity of linked assumption increases.</p><p>Assumptions;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -The Higgs Boson particle exists.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -Nature abhors this particle.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -Time travel is possible.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -This inanimate particle will use this possible time travel to sabotage machine that can theoretically create theoretical particle.</p><p>Allow me to paraphrase in a manner that slashdotters understand.</p><p>Assumptions;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -Nature abhors slashdotters.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -Time travel is possible<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -Slashdotters Procreate<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -Time warps and shifts so that the procreation never happens since it is so against the natural order of things.</p><p>OMG it is true................</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , what this article is saying is that as you increase the number of random assumptions the validity of linked assumption increases.Assumptions ;             -The Higgs Boson particle exists .
            -Nature abhors this particle .
            -Time travel is possible .
            -This inanimate particle will use this possible time travel to sabotage machine that can theoretically create theoretical particle.Allow me to paraphrase in a manner that slashdotters understand.Assumptions ;             -Nature abhors slashdotters .
            -Time travel is possible             -Slashdotters Procreate             -Time warps and shifts so that the procreation never happens since it is so against the natural order of things.OMG it is true............... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, what this article is saying is that as you increase the number of  random assumptions the validity of linked assumption increases.Assumptions;
            -The Higgs Boson particle exists.
            -Nature abhors this particle.
            -Time travel is possible.
            -This inanimate particle will use this possible time travel to sabotage machine that can theoretically create theoretical particle.Allow me to paraphrase in a manner that slashdotters understand.Assumptions;
            -Nature abhors slashdotters.
            -Time travel is possible
            -Slashdotters Procreate
            -Time warps and shifts so that the procreation never happens since it is so against the natural order of things.OMG it is true................</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819451</id>
	<title>magic and time travel</title>
	<author>Odinlake</author>
	<datestamp>1256060160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I could believe that there was some strange time-travel-effects going on to prevent this poor Boson, but I can't imagine that it would establish itself as suspicious high-level events such as meteorite impacts or whatever "chance" events people are going on about. If it is happening I bet it is in the form of some new repulsive force that doesn't follow from other theories, or something basic like that. Something we will be able to measure and something we will probably be able to take advantage of.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I could believe that there was some strange time-travel-effects going on to prevent this poor Boson , but I ca n't imagine that it would establish itself as suspicious high-level events such as meteorite impacts or whatever " chance " events people are going on about .
If it is happening I bet it is in the form of some new repulsive force that does n't follow from other theories , or something basic like that .
Something we will be able to measure and something we will probably be able to take advantage of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could believe that there was some strange time-travel-effects going on to prevent this poor Boson, but I can't imagine that it would establish itself as suspicious high-level events such as meteorite impacts or whatever "chance" events people are going on about.
If it is happening I bet it is in the form of some new repulsive force that doesn't follow from other theories, or something basic like that.
Something we will be able to measure and something we will probably be able to take advantage of.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819607</id>
	<title>This post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256061660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This post will enlighten you into the inner minds of a regular Slashdot reader. By the end of this post you will know everything.</p><p>So here's the deal...</p><p>Wait, you look like me. Is that a gun? No! Let me finish typ</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This post will enlighten you into the inner minds of a regular Slashdot reader .
By the end of this post you will know everything.So here 's the deal...Wait , you look like me .
Is that a gun ?
No ! Let me finish typ</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This post will enlighten you into the inner minds of a regular Slashdot reader.
By the end of this post you will know everything.So here's the deal...Wait, you look like me.
Is that a gun?
No! Let me finish typ</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29826705</id>
	<title>Can we shut this thing off?</title>
	<author>jasd2d</author>
	<datestamp>1256154000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not to sound like a sissy, but can we shut this thing off and not mess with it? I've played enough Half Life and Doom, seen enough movies, and read enough sci-fi to know that we really shouldn't mess with crazy particle accelerator devices. Seriously, some of the elite physicists in the world are saying that the particles are communicating through time to ensure we don't do what this thing was designed to do?

Is this REALLY a good idea?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to sound like a sissy , but can we shut this thing off and not mess with it ?
I 've played enough Half Life and Doom , seen enough movies , and read enough sci-fi to know that we really should n't mess with crazy particle accelerator devices .
Seriously , some of the elite physicists in the world are saying that the particles are communicating through time to ensure we do n't do what this thing was designed to do ?
Is this REALLY a good idea ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to sound like a sissy, but can we shut this thing off and not mess with it?
I've played enough Half Life and Doom, seen enough movies, and read enough sci-fi to know that we really shouldn't mess with crazy particle accelerator devices.
Seriously, some of the elite physicists in the world are saying that the particles are communicating through time to ensure we don't do what this thing was designed to do?
Is this REALLY a good idea?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29822991</id>
	<title>Let's all just try tp remember...</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1256137680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...that the arXiv is not a peer-reviewed journal. The <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0811.0304" title="arxiv.org">article</a> [arxiv.org] that started this has not survived peer-review and is not reflective of the opinions of every physicist on the planet. If you read the article it's also clear that the author is only being half-serious about the whole thing and his collaborators have left their names off the paper.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...that the arXiv is not a peer-reviewed journal .
The article [ arxiv.org ] that started this has not survived peer-review and is not reflective of the opinions of every physicist on the planet .
If you read the article it 's also clear that the author is only being half-serious about the whole thing and his collaborators have left their names off the paper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...that the arXiv is not a peer-reviewed journal.
The article [arxiv.org] that started this has not survived peer-review and is not reflective of the opinions of every physicist on the planet.
If you read the article it's also clear that the author is only being half-serious about the whole thing and his collaborators have left their names off the paper.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819901</id>
	<title>Consider yourself lucky</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1256065200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If Higgs Boson makes time loops that get solved when something break and then is not discovered, really weird things could happen to end those loops (i.e. in FAQ about time travel there were giant ants, and in PKDick's Medler were intelligent killer butterflies). That so far has been just somewhat minor problems that affected only the LHC, but next try could happen something that ends civilization, life on earth or the entire universe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Higgs Boson makes time loops that get solved when something break and then is not discovered , really weird things could happen to end those loops ( i.e .
in FAQ about time travel there were giant ants , and in PKDick 's Medler were intelligent killer butterflies ) .
That so far has been just somewhat minor problems that affected only the LHC , but next try could happen something that ends civilization , life on earth or the entire universe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Higgs Boson makes time loops that get solved when something break and then is not discovered, really weird things could happen to end those loops (i.e.
in FAQ about time travel there were giant ants, and in PKDick's Medler were intelligent killer butterflies).
That so far has been just somewhat minor problems that affected only the LHC, but next try could happen something that ends civilization, life on earth or the entire universe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29822577</id>
	<title>Re:Time will tell</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1256135760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Obviously the aliens are afraid we'll discover the secret element that makes FTL travel possible. And that could lead us to realize that we've been sitting on a huge mine of it all along, right here on earth--hidden deep in the rectums of rednecks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously the aliens are afraid we 'll discover the secret element that makes FTL travel possible .
And that could lead us to realize that we 've been sitting on a huge mine of it all along , right here on earth--hidden deep in the rectums of rednecks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously the aliens are afraid we'll discover the secret element that makes FTL travel possible.
And that could lead us to realize that we've been sitting on a huge mine of it all along, right here on earth--hidden deep in the rectums of rednecks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819231</id>
	<title>Re:Whoa</title>
	<author>belthize</author>
	<datestamp>1256058540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Must be a White Sox fan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Must be a White Sox fan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Must be a White Sox fan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819569</id>
	<title>Run it, I dare ya!</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1256061360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><tt><br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; God.print(9 / 0);<br></tt></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>    God.print ( 9 / 0 ) ;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    God.print(9 / 0);</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29825057</id>
	<title>Re:Novikov self-consistency</title>
	<author>nsheppar</author>
	<datestamp>1256147700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So, according to this conjecture if the manifestation or observation of the Higgs Boson eventually lead us to develop technology with which we might otherwise violate causality, we'll never discover it.</p></div><p>But what decides where the line is?  If this theory is true, why didn't we get hung up before the discovery of the electron?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , according to this conjecture if the manifestation or observation of the Higgs Boson eventually lead us to develop technology with which we might otherwise violate causality , we 'll never discover it.But what decides where the line is ?
If this theory is true , why did n't we get hung up before the discovery of the electron ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, according to this conjecture if the manifestation or observation of the Higgs Boson eventually lead us to develop technology with which we might otherwise violate causality, we'll never discover it.But what decides where the line is?
If this theory is true, why didn't we get hung up before the discovery of the electron?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819503</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29823189</id>
	<title>Re:Whoa</title>
	<author>CopaceticOpus</author>
	<datestamp>1256138760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is a nice theory, but the Cubs already have the third highest team salary in baseball. They won their division in 2007 and 2008, and in 2008 they were expected to go far in the playoffs. Somehow, they managed to fall apart and lose in three games. I don't think it is caused by the fans or the curse so much as it is bad luck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is a nice theory , but the Cubs already have the third highest team salary in baseball .
They won their division in 2007 and 2008 , and in 2008 they were expected to go far in the playoffs .
Somehow , they managed to fall apart and lose in three games .
I do n't think it is caused by the fans or the curse so much as it is bad luck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is a nice theory, but the Cubs already have the third highest team salary in baseball.
They won their division in 2007 and 2008, and in 2008 they were expected to go far in the playoffs.
Somehow, they managed to fall apart and lose in three games.
I don't think it is caused by the fans or the curse so much as it is bad luck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29822345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819727</id>
	<title>Analogy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256062800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't get it, can you give me a cars' analogy?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't get it , can you give me a cars ' analogy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't get it, can you give me a cars' analogy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29820155</id>
	<title>Star Trek IV &amp; The cubs</title>
	<author>Bill, Shooter of Bul</author>
	<datestamp>1256068560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What many people do not realize, is that the cubs that won in 1908 were a completely different team playing in a different field. Wrigely field ( then called wigman park) was built for the Chicago Whales. The whales kicked but winning two championships at the same ballpark that the Cubs suck in. So yadda yadda yadda. Federal league goes kaput, the whales owner buys the cubs, just changes the name of the whales to the cubs and presto chango they never win again.</p><p>The obvious problem is that aliens can no longer communicate with the chicago whales. And thus are cursing them from space. Manipulating the flights of balls. Temporary blinding out fielders. Not even the Modern steroids coursing through Sosa's veins were a match for the alien interlopers.</p><p>So we need to go back, BACK into the past and rescue the chicago whales and bring them into the modern era where they can successfully communicate with the pissed aliens and allow the Cubs to win or lose as their abilities permit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What many people do not realize , is that the cubs that won in 1908 were a completely different team playing in a different field .
Wrigely field ( then called wigman park ) was built for the Chicago Whales .
The whales kicked but winning two championships at the same ballpark that the Cubs suck in .
So yadda yadda yadda .
Federal league goes kaput , the whales owner buys the cubs , just changes the name of the whales to the cubs and presto chango they never win again.The obvious problem is that aliens can no longer communicate with the chicago whales .
And thus are cursing them from space .
Manipulating the flights of balls .
Temporary blinding out fielders .
Not even the Modern steroids coursing through Sosa 's veins were a match for the alien interlopers.So we need to go back , BACK into the past and rescue the chicago whales and bring them into the modern era where they can successfully communicate with the pissed aliens and allow the Cubs to win or lose as their abilities permit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What many people do not realize, is that the cubs that won in 1908 were a completely different team playing in a different field.
Wrigely field ( then called wigman park) was built for the Chicago Whales.
The whales kicked but winning two championships at the same ballpark that the Cubs suck in.
So yadda yadda yadda.
Federal league goes kaput, the whales owner buys the cubs, just changes the name of the whales to the cubs and presto chango they never win again.The obvious problem is that aliens can no longer communicate with the chicago whales.
And thus are cursing them from space.
Manipulating the flights of balls.
Temporary blinding out fielders.
Not even the Modern steroids coursing through Sosa's veins were a match for the alien interlopers.So we need to go back, BACK into the past and rescue the chicago whales and bring them into the modern era where they can successfully communicate with the pissed aliens and allow the Cubs to win or lose as their abilities permit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819913</id>
	<title>Re:Time will tell</title>
	<author>jrumney</author>
	<datestamp>1256065380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anyone would think this is April Fools day with this retro Slashdot skin that almost works, and people talking about the meteor impact that broke the space time continuum as if it never happened.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone would think this is April Fools day with this retro Slashdot skin that almost works , and people talking about the meteor impact that broke the space time continuum as if it never happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone would think this is April Fools day with this retro Slashdot skin that almost works, and people talking about the meteor impact that broke the space time continuum as if it never happened.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819415</id>
	<title>that is right the cubs must win it all before the</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256059920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that is right the cubs must win it all before the World can end also the maybe the LHC can take out the Earth but the universe? other allens out there likely have much better tech.</p><p>also is the goat tied to this as well? and we need game 7 to be at 1060 west addison and WE NEED TO DROP THE ALL STAR GAME COUNTING.</p><p>at least the blackhawks and bears look good this year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that is right the cubs must win it all before the World can end also the maybe the LHC can take out the Earth but the universe ?
other allens out there likely have much better tech.also is the goat tied to this as well ?
and we need game 7 to be at 1060 west addison and WE NEED TO DROP THE ALL STAR GAME COUNTING.at least the blackhawks and bears look good this year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that is right the cubs must win it all before the World can end also the maybe the LHC can take out the Earth but the universe?
other allens out there likely have much better tech.also is the goat tied to this as well?
and we need game 7 to be at 1060 west addison and WE NEED TO DROP THE ALL STAR GAME COUNTING.at least the blackhawks and bears look good this year.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29821961</id>
	<title>What no one seems to be saying</title>
	<author>Kopachris</author>
	<datestamp>1256131980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a joke.  Period.  Physicists have a sense of humor too, and the whole community is laughing at our sorry butts for falling for it.  The two physicists that are perpetrating this joke seem more like pranksters than crackpots to me.

On the other hand, it was a very well-played joke.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a joke .
Period. Physicists have a sense of humor too , and the whole community is laughing at our sorry butts for falling for it .
The two physicists that are perpetrating this joke seem more like pranksters than crackpots to me .
On the other hand , it was a very well-played joke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a joke.
Period.  Physicists have a sense of humor too, and the whole community is laughing at our sorry butts for falling for it.
The two physicists that are perpetrating this joke seem more like pranksters than crackpots to me.
On the other hand, it was a very well-played joke.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819497</id>
	<title>Wait...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256060700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would it even HAVE to come back in time to stop from being discovered unless it had already been discovered? In which case, isn't it too late? The only conclusion that makes sense then is that there are multiple time lines, in which case it still wouldn't matter if it were discovered on ours. I think.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would it even HAVE to come back in time to stop from being discovered unless it had already been discovered ?
In which case , is n't it too late ?
The only conclusion that makes sense then is that there are multiple time lines , in which case it still would n't matter if it were discovered on ours .
I think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would it even HAVE to come back in time to stop from being discovered unless it had already been discovered?
In which case, isn't it too late?
The only conclusion that makes sense then is that there are multiple time lines, in which case it still wouldn't matter if it were discovered on ours.
I think.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819279</id>
	<title>Well, duh!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256058720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nature *does* abhor the Chicago Cubs.  What's your point?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nature * does * abhor the Chicago Cubs .
What 's your point ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nature *does* abhor the Chicago Cubs.
What's your point?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29839467</id>
	<title>Re:Whoa</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1256202360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that the Higgs Boson is causing Cubs fans to continue to go to games and buy merchandise, preventing them from winning and thus the LHC from ever working?</p><p>It all makes sense!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , if I understand you correctly , you 're saying that the Higgs Boson is causing Cubs fans to continue to go to games and buy merchandise , preventing them from winning and thus the LHC from ever working ? It all makes sense !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that the Higgs Boson is causing Cubs fans to continue to go to games and buy merchandise, preventing them from winning and thus the LHC from ever working?It all makes sense!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29822345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819375</id>
	<title>Oh get real</title>
	<author>areusche</author>
	<datestamp>1256059560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't believe in luck. The problem at the LHC that occurred over a year ago was a mistake and not the machine destroying itself in some weird physics different universe crap. The Chicago Cubs aren't doing well because well, maybe they're a bad team. Like a really bad team and need to do a complete overall to maybe start doing well. For the record I hate baseball and I don't care or follow it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't believe in luck .
The problem at the LHC that occurred over a year ago was a mistake and not the machine destroying itself in some weird physics different universe crap .
The Chicago Cubs are n't doing well because well , maybe they 're a bad team .
Like a really bad team and need to do a complete overall to maybe start doing well .
For the record I hate baseball and I do n't care or follow it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't believe in luck.
The problem at the LHC that occurred over a year ago was a mistake and not the machine destroying itself in some weird physics different universe crap.
The Chicago Cubs aren't doing well because well, maybe they're a bad team.
Like a really bad team and need to do a complete overall to maybe start doing well.
For the record I hate baseball and I don't care or follow it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29821699</id>
	<title>Re:magic and time travel</title>
	<author>khakipuce</author>
	<datestamp>1256130000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really don't get all this time travel stuff, and I would love someone to explain to me why physicists even consider it possible. It seems to me that time is just the rate of propagation of change. A photon cannot move from a source to a detector instantly, the change introduced to the system by emitting a photon can only be detected after the change has propagated to the detector.</p><p>An often quoted example of why time is a dimension is that to meet someone you need there coordinates (x,y,z) and a time, ergo time is a dimension. However another way of thinking about it is to say meet me on the 20th floor of 2nd and 5th after a certain amount of change has occurred in the universe. Our most obvious  method of monitoring universal change is the movement of the earth around the sun.</p><p>On this basis there is no way you can travel back in time, because anything you do creates change, even when it undoes a previous action - erasing a pencil mark does not cause time travel back to a point before the pencil mark was made)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do n't get all this time travel stuff , and I would love someone to explain to me why physicists even consider it possible .
It seems to me that time is just the rate of propagation of change .
A photon can not move from a source to a detector instantly , the change introduced to the system by emitting a photon can only be detected after the change has propagated to the detector.An often quoted example of why time is a dimension is that to meet someone you need there coordinates ( x,y,z ) and a time , ergo time is a dimension .
However another way of thinking about it is to say meet me on the 20th floor of 2nd and 5th after a certain amount of change has occurred in the universe .
Our most obvious method of monitoring universal change is the movement of the earth around the sun.On this basis there is no way you can travel back in time , because anything you do creates change , even when it undoes a previous action - erasing a pencil mark does not cause time travel back to a point before the pencil mark was made )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really don't get all this time travel stuff, and I would love someone to explain to me why physicists even consider it possible.
It seems to me that time is just the rate of propagation of change.
A photon cannot move from a source to a detector instantly, the change introduced to the system by emitting a photon can only be detected after the change has propagated to the detector.An often quoted example of why time is a dimension is that to meet someone you need there coordinates (x,y,z) and a time, ergo time is a dimension.
However another way of thinking about it is to say meet me on the 20th floor of 2nd and 5th after a certain amount of change has occurred in the universe.
Our most obvious  method of monitoring universal change is the movement of the earth around the sun.On this basis there is no way you can travel back in time, because anything you do creates change, even when it undoes a previous action - erasing a pencil mark does not cause time travel back to a point before the pencil mark was made)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29821661</id>
	<title>Re:Steve Bartman incident for those who don't know</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1256129700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And my brother still insists, that we are not evolving backwards...</p><p>Shit, I would not even blink with an eye, to burn up every single one of those drooling retards that would want to hurt him for this. Were are we? in the dark ages??</p><p>That's what reverse natural selection &mdash; the fostering and supporting of the worst parts of society, while insulting and mistreating the best from the very beginning of education &mdash; does for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And my brother still insists , that we are not evolving backwards...Shit , I would not even blink with an eye , to burn up every single one of those drooling retards that would want to hurt him for this .
Were are we ?
in the dark ages ?
? That 's what reverse natural selection    the fostering and supporting of the worst parts of society , while insulting and mistreating the best from the very beginning of education    does for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And my brother still insists, that we are not evolving backwards...Shit, I would not even blink with an eye, to burn up every single one of those drooling retards that would want to hurt him for this.
Were are we?
in the dark ages?
?That's what reverse natural selection — the fostering and supporting of the worst parts of society, while insulting and mistreating the best from the very beginning of education — does for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819447</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819965</id>
	<title>Re:Surpisingly many respectible physists talking</title>
	<author>AuMatar</author>
	<datestamp>1256066100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not strange at all.  If they spin it the right way, they can charm the governments and come out on top.  Besides when you compare the cost of a new collider to their national bottom lines it just isn't that significant.  Sure if they manage to pop up with a new particle or two they can get it quicker, but even without that the knowledge that these particles don't exist means it isn't just money flushed down the drain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not strange at all .
If they spin it the right way , they can charm the governments and come out on top .
Besides when you compare the cost of a new collider to their national bottom lines it just is n't that significant .
Sure if they manage to pop up with a new particle or two they can get it quicker , but even without that the knowledge that these particles do n't exist means it is n't just money flushed down the drain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not strange at all.
If they spin it the right way, they can charm the governments and come out on top.
Besides when you compare the cost of a new collider to their national bottom lines it just isn't that significant.
Sure if they manage to pop up with a new particle or two they can get it quicker, but even without that the knowledge that these particles don't exist means it isn't just money flushed down the drain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819281</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29825845</id>
	<title>Re:Time will tell</title>
	<author>brasscount</author>
	<datestamp>1256150760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everyone repeat after me:<br> <br> <b>Correlation Does NOT Imply Causation.</b> <br> <br>Unless of course causation is established after correlation is recognized...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone repeat after me : Correlation Does NOT Imply Causation .
Unless of course causation is established after correlation is recognized.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone repeat after me:  Correlation Does NOT Imply Causation.
Unless of course causation is established after correlation is recognized...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29820443</id>
	<title>Re:Surpisingly many respectible physists talking</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1256115720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Surprisingly many respectable physicists talking, about this dumb nature abores the Higgs theory.</p></div></blockquote><p>Its becoming a hallmark of theoretical physics. Underproducing and over-respected scholars prattling on about any nonsense they can dress up in sophistic argument.</p><p>Theoretical physics has produced essentially no results for 40 years. Even when faced with outright contradictions of the standard model, i.e. neutrino mass, they do little but concoct the same convoluted models that lead to nowhere. String theory is the prime example of this, but things like loop quantum gravity and dark matter are no less terminal. For four decades physicists have produced theories that raise only more questions and don't answer anything.</p><p>In light of this, it's easy to see why nonsense such as the multi-verse, the anthropic principle, and of course this travesty come out of the mouths of men and women who are tired of seeing their more rigorous efforts achieve little and less. By proposing these theories, they can reach virtually the same results and conclusion they otherwise would (i.e nothing of value), yet need expend only a fraction of the effort. PLus, by dressing it all up even a little, they can wow the odd committee and perhaps get a bit more funding.</p><p>Meanwhile, despite the odds against it, science moves on.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Surprisingly many respectable physicists talking , about this dumb nature abores the Higgs theory.Its becoming a hallmark of theoretical physics .
Underproducing and over-respected scholars prattling on about any nonsense they can dress up in sophistic argument.Theoretical physics has produced essentially no results for 40 years .
Even when faced with outright contradictions of the standard model , i.e .
neutrino mass , they do little but concoct the same convoluted models that lead to nowhere .
String theory is the prime example of this , but things like loop quantum gravity and dark matter are no less terminal .
For four decades physicists have produced theories that raise only more questions and do n't answer anything.In light of this , it 's easy to see why nonsense such as the multi-verse , the anthropic principle , and of course this travesty come out of the mouths of men and women who are tired of seeing their more rigorous efforts achieve little and less .
By proposing these theories , they can reach virtually the same results and conclusion they otherwise would ( i.e nothing of value ) , yet need expend only a fraction of the effort .
PLus , by dressing it all up even a little , they can wow the odd committee and perhaps get a bit more funding.Meanwhile , despite the odds against it , science moves on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surprisingly many respectable physicists talking, about this dumb nature abores the Higgs theory.Its becoming a hallmark of theoretical physics.
Underproducing and over-respected scholars prattling on about any nonsense they can dress up in sophistic argument.Theoretical physics has produced essentially no results for 40 years.
Even when faced with outright contradictions of the standard model, i.e.
neutrino mass, they do little but concoct the same convoluted models that lead to nowhere.
String theory is the prime example of this, but things like loop quantum gravity and dark matter are no less terminal.
For four decades physicists have produced theories that raise only more questions and don't answer anything.In light of this, it's easy to see why nonsense such as the multi-verse, the anthropic principle, and of course this travesty come out of the mouths of men and women who are tired of seeing their more rigorous efforts achieve little and less.
By proposing these theories, they can reach virtually the same results and conclusion they otherwise would (i.e nothing of value), yet need expend only a fraction of the effort.
PLus, by dressing it all up even a little, they can wow the odd committee and perhaps get a bit more funding.Meanwhile, despite the odds against it, science moves on.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819281</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819217</id>
	<title>I can't be the only one...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256058420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>who read the headline and was disappointed when this wasn't some kind of joke</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>who read the headline and was disappointed when this was n't some kind of joke</tokentext>
<sentencetext>who read the headline and was disappointed when this wasn't some kind of joke</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819281</id>
	<title>Surpisingly many respectible physists talking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256058780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Surprisingly many respectable physicists talking, about this dumb
nature abores the Higgs theory. You see there all very excited
about the relaunch of the LHC, about finally finding the Higgs,
super-symmetric particles, or maybe something new, that there
hyping it up. They need it to, without a bit of public excitement,
the enormous amounts of money needed for each big generation
of collider, aren't going to get spent.
<p>
Hope the LHC finds something, and something mysterious and
exacting. If nothing governments are very unlikely to fund a 100
billion for a 100 TeV collider. (that would be very strange, the Standard model need
 some new physics before about 10TeV, to stablise the masses of the W,Z particles).
</p><p>
---
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/blogs/LHC/feed.html" title="feeddistiller.com">LHC</a> [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ <a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/" title="feeddistiller.com">Feed Distiller</a> [feeddistiller.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surprisingly many respectable physicists talking , about this dumb nature abores the Higgs theory .
You see there all very excited about the relaunch of the LHC , about finally finding the Higgs , super-symmetric particles , or maybe something new , that there hyping it up .
They need it to , without a bit of public excitement , the enormous amounts of money needed for each big generation of collider , are n't going to get spent .
Hope the LHC finds something , and something mysterious and exacting .
If nothing governments are very unlikely to fund a 100 billion for a 100 TeV collider .
( that would be very strange , the Standard model need some new physics before about 10TeV , to stablise the masses of the W,Z particles ) .
--- LHC [ feeddistiller.com ] Feed @ Feed Distiller [ feeddistiller.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surprisingly many respectable physicists talking, about this dumb
nature abores the Higgs theory.
You see there all very excited
about the relaunch of the LHC, about finally finding the Higgs,
super-symmetric particles, or maybe something new, that there
hyping it up.
They need it to, without a bit of public excitement,
the enormous amounts of money needed for each big generation
of collider, aren't going to get spent.
Hope the LHC finds something, and something mysterious and
exacting.
If nothing governments are very unlikely to fund a 100
billion for a 100 TeV collider.
(that would be very strange, the Standard model need
 some new physics before about 10TeV, to stablise the masses of the W,Z particles).
---

LHC [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29821609</id>
	<title>Re:Time will tell</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1256129280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uuum, where have you been? It is <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/10/16/2229233/LHC-Successfully-Cools-To-19K-In-Lead-Up-To-Restart" title="slashdot.org">up and running</a> [slashdot.org]!</p><p>I hope they get it running by new year's eve. So all the monkey boys and time travel loonies can all shoot themselves and their sorry cult. ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uuum , where have you been ?
It is up and running [ slashdot.org ] ! I hope they get it running by new year 's eve .
So all the monkey boys and time travel loonies can all shoot themselves and their sorry cult .
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uuum, where have you been?
It is up and running [slashdot.org]!I hope they get it running by new year's eve.
So all the monkey boys and time travel loonies can all shoot themselves and their sorry cult.
^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29841975</id>
	<title>Re:Whoa</title>
	<author>Linuxmonger</author>
	<datestamp>1256220180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Because people in Cincinnati won't support a bunch of incompetent losers, unlike people in Chicago.</p></div><p>Ever hear of the Bengals?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because people in Cincinnati wo n't support a bunch of incompetent losers , unlike people in Chicago.Ever hear of the Bengals ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because people in Cincinnati won't support a bunch of incompetent losers, unlike people in Chicago.Ever hear of the Bengals?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29822345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819535</id>
	<title>What if there were time travel?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256061060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If people could travel in time, the universe would become unstable.  People would keep going back and changing history which would result in those same people not going back and changing history<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>If the universe is going to be stable (which it seems to be) in the face of time travel (by particles or people) there must be a mechanism that keeps it stable.  If it looks to us like the Boson going back and sabotaging the LHC<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If people could travel in time , the universe would become unstable .
People would keep going back and changing history which would result in those same people not going back and changing history ...If the universe is going to be stable ( which it seems to be ) in the face of time travel ( by particles or people ) there must be a mechanism that keeps it stable .
If it looks to us like the Boson going back and sabotaging the LHC .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If people could travel in time, the universe would become unstable.
People would keep going back and changing history which would result in those same people not going back and changing history ...If the universe is going to be stable (which it seems to be) in the face of time travel (by particles or people) there must be a mechanism that keeps it stable.
If it looks to us like the Boson going back and sabotaging the LHC ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819833</id>
	<title>Re:Time will tell</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256064300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wouldn't a highly improbable event like a meteor hitting the LHC itself create a high probability that something is amiss with the universe?  I suspect the stronger the improbability of the failure event, the more probable it would appear that the universe is indeed attempting to prevent something.  Wouldn't this indirectly assign a probability to the existence of the Higgs boson?  That is, wouldn't the universe, by openly trying to obstruct investigation, reveal by that obstruction the existence of exactly what it is trying to hide?</p><p>It follows that only obstacles that are likely in the ordinary course of events can stand in the way of the LHC team; unlikely obstacles would become evidence for what the universe is hiding.  Thus coolant leaks or metal stress or funding issues can arise, but not meteors.</p><p>The notion of a conspiratorial universe also thus precludes the possibility of science taking that same notion seriously: if we really thought the universe were preventing this discovery, we'd have evidence for the existence of the Higgs boson; thus the "theory" (which can't be a scientific theory) itself must be discredited in order to be true.</p><p>This is the same sort of thinking that leads people to believe that a shadow conspiracy killed JFK to prevent Obama from being born on the moon, which we never reached.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't a highly improbable event like a meteor hitting the LHC itself create a high probability that something is amiss with the universe ?
I suspect the stronger the improbability of the failure event , the more probable it would appear that the universe is indeed attempting to prevent something .
Would n't this indirectly assign a probability to the existence of the Higgs boson ?
That is , would n't the universe , by openly trying to obstruct investigation , reveal by that obstruction the existence of exactly what it is trying to hide ? It follows that only obstacles that are likely in the ordinary course of events can stand in the way of the LHC team ; unlikely obstacles would become evidence for what the universe is hiding .
Thus coolant leaks or metal stress or funding issues can arise , but not meteors.The notion of a conspiratorial universe also thus precludes the possibility of science taking that same notion seriously : if we really thought the universe were preventing this discovery , we 'd have evidence for the existence of the Higgs boson ; thus the " theory " ( which ca n't be a scientific theory ) itself must be discredited in order to be true.This is the same sort of thinking that leads people to believe that a shadow conspiracy killed JFK to prevent Obama from being born on the moon , which we never reached .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't a highly improbable event like a meteor hitting the LHC itself create a high probability that something is amiss with the universe?
I suspect the stronger the improbability of the failure event, the more probable it would appear that the universe is indeed attempting to prevent something.
Wouldn't this indirectly assign a probability to the existence of the Higgs boson?
That is, wouldn't the universe, by openly trying to obstruct investigation, reveal by that obstruction the existence of exactly what it is trying to hide?It follows that only obstacles that are likely in the ordinary course of events can stand in the way of the LHC team; unlikely obstacles would become evidence for what the universe is hiding.
Thus coolant leaks or metal stress or funding issues can arise, but not meteors.The notion of a conspiratorial universe also thus precludes the possibility of science taking that same notion seriously: if we really thought the universe were preventing this discovery, we'd have evidence for the existence of the Higgs boson; thus the "theory" (which can't be a scientific theory) itself must be discredited in order to be true.This is the same sort of thinking that leads people to believe that a shadow conspiracy killed JFK to prevent Obama from being born on the moon, which we never reached.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29822243</id>
	<title>Maybe I'm not remembering this correctly....</title>
	<author>NiteShaed</author>
	<datestamp>1256133900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...but I don't think the point was that a sentient universe was specifically reaching backward in time to mess with Higgs producing devices.</p><p>I read the article, but I don't have it handy right now, but here's what I thought it was really suggesting:</p><p>The universe abhors Higgs particles, not on a conscious level, but in the same way nature abhors a vacuum.  The production of a Higgs particle is so catastrophic though, that it effectively causes the end of the universe.  BUT, if new universes are actually spawned every time a decision state is reached, it follows that some number of those universes will produce a string of events, however unlikely, that precludes the creation of a Higgs particle.  Magnets break, parts shipments are stolen, terrorist attacks at the facility that intends to create them, whatever.  From our point of view, we will always be in the universe where the thing didn't work, because in the other bubble universes there are no observers left to see the outcome.  Why is it "us" that are in the universe(es) that survived?  Because we're still here.</p><p>I don't think they were suggesting that a "caring universe" is saving us from ourselves, or even saving itself from us. If you accept the possibility of bubble universes it's inevitable that there will be surviving universes where the catastrophic event didn't occur, and we'll always end up being in one of the "lucky ones", because if we weren't we wouldn't be having this discussion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...but I do n't think the point was that a sentient universe was specifically reaching backward in time to mess with Higgs producing devices.I read the article , but I do n't have it handy right now , but here 's what I thought it was really suggesting : The universe abhors Higgs particles , not on a conscious level , but in the same way nature abhors a vacuum .
The production of a Higgs particle is so catastrophic though , that it effectively causes the end of the universe .
BUT , if new universes are actually spawned every time a decision state is reached , it follows that some number of those universes will produce a string of events , however unlikely , that precludes the creation of a Higgs particle .
Magnets break , parts shipments are stolen , terrorist attacks at the facility that intends to create them , whatever .
From our point of view , we will always be in the universe where the thing did n't work , because in the other bubble universes there are no observers left to see the outcome .
Why is it " us " that are in the universe ( es ) that survived ?
Because we 're still here.I do n't think they were suggesting that a " caring universe " is saving us from ourselves , or even saving itself from us .
If you accept the possibility of bubble universes it 's inevitable that there will be surviving universes where the catastrophic event did n't occur , and we 'll always end up being in one of the " lucky ones " , because if we were n't we would n't be having this discussion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but I don't think the point was that a sentient universe was specifically reaching backward in time to mess with Higgs producing devices.I read the article, but I don't have it handy right now, but here's what I thought it was really suggesting:The universe abhors Higgs particles, not on a conscious level, but in the same way nature abhors a vacuum.
The production of a Higgs particle is so catastrophic though, that it effectively causes the end of the universe.
BUT, if new universes are actually spawned every time a decision state is reached, it follows that some number of those universes will produce a string of events, however unlikely, that precludes the creation of a Higgs particle.
Magnets break, parts shipments are stolen, terrorist attacks at the facility that intends to create them, whatever.
From our point of view, we will always be in the universe where the thing didn't work, because in the other bubble universes there are no observers left to see the outcome.
Why is it "us" that are in the universe(es) that survived?
Because we're still here.I don't think they were suggesting that a "caring universe" is saving us from ourselves, or even saving itself from us.
If you accept the possibility of bubble universes it's inevitable that there will be surviving universes where the catastrophic event didn't occur, and we'll always end up being in one of the "lucky ones", because if we weren't we wouldn't be having this discussion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29824065</id>
	<title>Re:Whoa</title>
	<author>swanzilla</author>
	<datestamp>1256143200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>BTW, <b>GO CARDS!</b> Damn, they didn't even make the playoffs this year =(</p></div><p>
The Cardinals won the NL Central and played in the NLDS.  Baseball fans refer to this as the postseason.  In non-MLB terms, it would be analogous to making the playoffs in the NFL.
<br>
<br>
Perhaps the frowny face emoticon would be more appropriate when mentioning that the Cards got swept in the NLDS....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>BTW , GO CARDS !
Damn , they did n't even make the playoffs this year = ( The Cardinals won the NL Central and played in the NLDS .
Baseball fans refer to this as the postseason .
In non-MLB terms , it would be analogous to making the playoffs in the NFL .
Perhaps the frowny face emoticon would be more appropriate when mentioning that the Cards got swept in the NLDS... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BTW, GO CARDS!
Damn, they didn't even make the playoffs this year =(
The Cardinals won the NL Central and played in the NLDS.
Baseball fans refer to this as the postseason.
In non-MLB terms, it would be analogous to making the playoffs in the NFL.
Perhaps the frowny face emoticon would be more appropriate when mentioning that the Cards got swept in the NLDS....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29822345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29820751</id>
	<title>Re:Surpisingly many respectible physists talking</title>
	<author>Another, completely</author>
	<datestamp>1256119800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Besides when you compare the cost of a new collider to their national bottom lines it just isn't that significant.</p></div><p>Not sure if you meant this seriously, but <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/05/08/1325221/Austria-To-Pull-Out-of-CERN" title="slashdot.org">Austria compared it with their national bottom line</a> [slashdot.org], and <a href="http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/269331,amid-protests-austria-scraps-plan-to-quit-cern.html" title="earthtimes.org">almost</a> [earthtimes.org] cut it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides when you compare the cost of a new collider to their national bottom lines it just is n't that significant.Not sure if you meant this seriously , but Austria compared it with their national bottom line [ slashdot.org ] , and almost [ earthtimes.org ] cut it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Besides when you compare the cost of a new collider to their national bottom lines it just isn't that significant.Not sure if you meant this seriously, but Austria compared it with their national bottom line [slashdot.org], and almost [earthtimes.org] cut it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29822355</id>
	<title>Higgs-Boson only  a theory not "missing in action"</title>
	<author>smoker2</author>
	<datestamp>1256134620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Higgs Boson is a theoretical particle. We have no way of knowing whether it exists at all. The LHC might find it, but only if it exists to be found. What if the theory that predicted it is wrong ? I can devise a theory that deposits $100M in my bank account. When it doesn't happen, is that because the universe is somehow conspiring against me ?<br> <br>On a related note, regarding dark matter/ dark energy - if quantum uncertainty is true, and a particle is never actually in existence in a certain place until you observe it, wouldn't that account for the "missing" matter / energy ? Because it actually "exists" in all dimensions at once, maybe the combined effect would explain the discrepancy we think we have found. I don't actually believe the basis for the dark matter theory anyway. Noticing that a galaxy's rotation is uniform from the centre to the edge is odd, but why would dark matter help ? Why does the solar system not act the same ? It was the application of the solar gravitational model to galaxies that brought the subject up in the first place. Maybe the discrepancy is due to the solar system not being centred around a super massive black hole. Of course the models will be different. And the fact that spiral galaxies exist surely shows that the "arms" have travelled slower than the centre at some stage. Maybe the rotation at the centre has slowed down to match that of the arms, making us think we need extra matter to account for the observation.<br> <br>Questions, questions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Higgs Boson is a theoretical particle .
We have no way of knowing whether it exists at all .
The LHC might find it , but only if it exists to be found .
What if the theory that predicted it is wrong ?
I can devise a theory that deposits $ 100M in my bank account .
When it does n't happen , is that because the universe is somehow conspiring against me ?
On a related note , regarding dark matter/ dark energy - if quantum uncertainty is true , and a particle is never actually in existence in a certain place until you observe it , would n't that account for the " missing " matter / energy ?
Because it actually " exists " in all dimensions at once , maybe the combined effect would explain the discrepancy we think we have found .
I do n't actually believe the basis for the dark matter theory anyway .
Noticing that a galaxy 's rotation is uniform from the centre to the edge is odd , but why would dark matter help ?
Why does the solar system not act the same ?
It was the application of the solar gravitational model to galaxies that brought the subject up in the first place .
Maybe the discrepancy is due to the solar system not being centred around a super massive black hole .
Of course the models will be different .
And the fact that spiral galaxies exist surely shows that the " arms " have travelled slower than the centre at some stage .
Maybe the rotation at the centre has slowed down to match that of the arms , making us think we need extra matter to account for the observation .
Questions , questions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Higgs Boson is a theoretical particle.
We have no way of knowing whether it exists at all.
The LHC might find it, but only if it exists to be found.
What if the theory that predicted it is wrong ?
I can devise a theory that deposits $100M in my bank account.
When it doesn't happen, is that because the universe is somehow conspiring against me ?
On a related note, regarding dark matter/ dark energy - if quantum uncertainty is true, and a particle is never actually in existence in a certain place until you observe it, wouldn't that account for the "missing" matter / energy ?
Because it actually "exists" in all dimensions at once, maybe the combined effect would explain the discrepancy we think we have found.
I don't actually believe the basis for the dark matter theory anyway.
Noticing that a galaxy's rotation is uniform from the centre to the edge is odd, but why would dark matter help ?
Why does the solar system not act the same ?
It was the application of the solar gravitational model to galaxies that brought the subject up in the first place.
Maybe the discrepancy is due to the solar system not being centred around a super massive black hole.
Of course the models will be different.
And the fact that spiral galaxies exist surely shows that the "arms" have travelled slower than the centre at some stage.
Maybe the rotation at the centre has slowed down to match that of the arms, making us think we need extra matter to account for the observation.
Questions, questions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29822681</id>
	<title>Re:Surpisingly many respectible physists talking</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1256136300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Surprisingly many respectable physicists talking</i> </p><p>Which physicists and who are they talking to? What makes it into the news isn't an accurate representation of the work that's being done by those who work in the field. The small, interesting discoveries don't get reported on by the media; it's the crazy theories and cool ideas that get coverage. I can guarantee you that most of the work work being done at CERN is mind-numbingly boring as far as the general population is concerned, but it's very good work.</p><p>Don't mistake entertaining musings and fun thought experiments as being the opinion of the lead researchers. It may be the musings that are reported on but it's the research that runs the accelerator.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surprisingly many respectable physicists talking Which physicists and who are they talking to ?
What makes it into the news is n't an accurate representation of the work that 's being done by those who work in the field .
The small , interesting discoveries do n't get reported on by the media ; it 's the crazy theories and cool ideas that get coverage .
I can guarantee you that most of the work work being done at CERN is mind-numbingly boring as far as the general population is concerned , but it 's very good work.Do n't mistake entertaining musings and fun thought experiments as being the opinion of the lead researchers .
It may be the musings that are reported on but it 's the research that runs the accelerator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Surprisingly many respectable physicists talking Which physicists and who are they talking to?
What makes it into the news isn't an accurate representation of the work that's being done by those who work in the field.
The small, interesting discoveries don't get reported on by the media; it's the crazy theories and cool ideas that get coverage.
I can guarantee you that most of the work work being done at CERN is mind-numbingly boring as far as the general population is concerned, but it's very good work.Don't mistake entertaining musings and fun thought experiments as being the opinion of the lead researchers.
It may be the musings that are reported on but it's the research that runs the accelerator.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819281</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819623</id>
	<title>Attention Humans</title>
	<author>cjfs</author>
	<datestamp>1256061780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The earth is not the center of the universe. You can't travel back in time and create paradoxes anymore than a hydrogen atom can. The Higgs boson isn't hiding from you and your macroscopic view. You're not special.</p><p>Either I'm missing something, or the level of arrogance in this 'theory' is exceptionally high.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The earth is not the center of the universe .
You ca n't travel back in time and create paradoxes anymore than a hydrogen atom can .
The Higgs boson is n't hiding from you and your macroscopic view .
You 're not special.Either I 'm missing something , or the level of arrogance in this 'theory ' is exceptionally high .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The earth is not the center of the universe.
You can't travel back in time and create paradoxes anymore than a hydrogen atom can.
The Higgs boson isn't hiding from you and your macroscopic view.
You're not special.Either I'm missing something, or the level of arrogance in this 'theory' is exceptionally high.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29829291</id>
	<title>Re:magic and time travel</title>
	<author>tkw954</author>
	<datestamp>1256122380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure why everyone is concentrating so much on time travel and backward causality.  There is a perfectly simple explanation for why it appears that LHC can not be activated: it would destroy the universe if it was turned on (much to the glee of a certain group of people whose sanity I will not question at this time).  Therefore, the only surviving universes are those in which some event (no matter how improbable) has prevented its use.  The upshot of this is that, once one has a universe-destroying device, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogosort#Quantum\_Bogosort" title="wikipedia.org">quantum bogosort</a> [wikipedia.org] suddenly becomes practical.  This would also make cryptography based on one-way functions obsolete, so don't be surprised if the NSA is watching very carefully.</p><p>Note: I'm not sure if I'm joking or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure why everyone is concentrating so much on time travel and backward causality .
There is a perfectly simple explanation for why it appears that LHC can not be activated : it would destroy the universe if it was turned on ( much to the glee of a certain group of people whose sanity I will not question at this time ) .
Therefore , the only surviving universes are those in which some event ( no matter how improbable ) has prevented its use .
The upshot of this is that , once one has a universe-destroying device , quantum bogosort [ wikipedia.org ] suddenly becomes practical .
This would also make cryptography based on one-way functions obsolete , so do n't be surprised if the NSA is watching very carefully.Note : I 'm not sure if I 'm joking or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure why everyone is concentrating so much on time travel and backward causality.
There is a perfectly simple explanation for why it appears that LHC can not be activated: it would destroy the universe if it was turned on (much to the glee of a certain group of people whose sanity I will not question at this time).
Therefore, the only surviving universes are those in which some event (no matter how improbable) has prevented its use.
The upshot of this is that, once one has a universe-destroying device, quantum bogosort [wikipedia.org] suddenly becomes practical.
This would also make cryptography based on one-way functions obsolete, so don't be surprised if the NSA is watching very carefully.Note: I'm not sure if I'm joking or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819813</id>
	<title>Re:Attention Humans</title>
	<author>bane2571</author>
	<datestamp>1256063880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, it's a pretty cool Sciencey-fiction plot. Ever see the butterfly effect? Think about it, human kind invents time travel, almost wipes itself out because of it so goes back and prevents the original invention. Pick a point of failure that is sufficiently essoteric like the higgs boson and humanity might come to believe time travel is not even possible.<br> <br>
Cool for fiction, not so sure I'd want to be the one to suggest time traveling ninja assasins as the reason I failed at my lab work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , it 's a pretty cool Sciencey-fiction plot .
Ever see the butterfly effect ?
Think about it , human kind invents time travel , almost wipes itself out because of it so goes back and prevents the original invention .
Pick a point of failure that is sufficiently essoteric like the higgs boson and humanity might come to believe time travel is not even possible .
Cool for fiction , not so sure I 'd want to be the one to suggest time traveling ninja assasins as the reason I failed at my lab work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, it's a pretty cool Sciencey-fiction plot.
Ever see the butterfly effect?
Think about it, human kind invents time travel, almost wipes itself out because of it so goes back and prevents the original invention.
Pick a point of failure that is sufficiently essoteric like the higgs boson and humanity might come to believe time travel is not even possible.
Cool for fiction, not so sure I'd want to be the one to suggest time traveling ninja assasins as the reason I failed at my lab work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819623</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819239</id>
	<title>Re:Whoa</title>
	<author>Tubal-Cain</author>
	<datestamp>1256058540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think he's talking about a group of people that do something out in the big blue room.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think he 's talking about a group of people that do something out in the big blue room .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think he's talking about a group of people that do something out in the big blue room.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819485</id>
	<title>Re:Well, duh!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256060460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As much as I like the Cubs, and would root for them when they got close to a world series...  I always felt if they won it, it would be one of the pre-conditions necessary for the apocalypse or ragnarok or whatever EOTWAWKI scenario.</p><p>Which probably means the LHC will continue to fail to destroy the universe unless something alters the space-time probability curve so that the Cubs actually win a world series. (Since their only 1908 win that is.)</p><p>Maybe it's just a stupid and random nihilist fantasy, but it's funny to think of a reason for that scenario to exist. At least now I know I'm not alone in this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As much as I like the Cubs , and would root for them when they got close to a world series... I always felt if they won it , it would be one of the pre-conditions necessary for the apocalypse or ragnarok or whatever EOTWAWKI scenario.Which probably means the LHC will continue to fail to destroy the universe unless something alters the space-time probability curve so that the Cubs actually win a world series .
( Since their only 1908 win that is .
) Maybe it 's just a stupid and random nihilist fantasy , but it 's funny to think of a reason for that scenario to exist .
At least now I know I 'm not alone in this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As much as I like the Cubs, and would root for them when they got close to a world series...  I always felt if they won it, it would be one of the pre-conditions necessary for the apocalypse or ragnarok or whatever EOTWAWKI scenario.Which probably means the LHC will continue to fail to destroy the universe unless something alters the space-time probability curve so that the Cubs actually win a world series.
(Since their only 1908 win that is.
)Maybe it's just a stupid and random nihilist fantasy, but it's funny to think of a reason for that scenario to exist.
At least now I know I'm not alone in this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29822793</id>
	<title>Re:Whoa</title>
	<author>Chas</author>
	<datestamp>1256136840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>The Cubs could win a world series -- but there's only one group of people who could make it happen. That's the Cubs fans.</b>

<p>Yeah.  But only if the baseball season is being replicated on a gaming console.  IRL, the Cubs make more money as lovable losers than they ever would as champions (and then former champions).
</p><p>It's a prime example of vertical marketing at it's finest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Cubs could win a world series -- but there 's only one group of people who could make it happen .
That 's the Cubs fans .
Yeah. But only if the baseball season is being replicated on a gaming console .
IRL , the Cubs make more money as lovable losers than they ever would as champions ( and then former champions ) .
It 's a prime example of vertical marketing at it 's finest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Cubs could win a world series -- but there's only one group of people who could make it happen.
That's the Cubs fans.
Yeah.  But only if the baseball season is being replicated on a gaming console.
IRL, the Cubs make more money as lovable losers than they ever would as champions (and then former champions).
It's a prime example of vertical marketing at it's finest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29822345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29822471</id>
	<title>just anonymous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256135160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm really interested to die. Thats why am reading this and start think about mysterius things that will change my life forever. So. - Less peolpe will think about die, - less die will happen. Not statistically but forever. Just imagine that bad things happen, BUT not with us. - Who than will mention scientists ? From other hand: that one who not try, - will not make mistakes. Let's be so saigthfull to undersatand, that our bigger mistake is not believe to ourselves. everyone of us can make greatest equations, but not wveryone of us want to. Thats only and only because of that we are not sure that this is the right future for us and others. Those ones, who lack of self criticism in the hihest order, - are able to make equations and even believe - they are right.<br>It's good for others if they are really good. But we must admit: the good is not left for our understandig. The good is left for random event.<br>We leave to understand random event for people who "feels confident". That's not right. This talk would be zero, if noone would uderstand, that he is determininig the future of the world. the world he is living in, and have choosed to follow. He (or I'm) not follow anthing that was destined to "filter" by my understanding, or my health. So health is your understanding of what to follow for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm really interested to die .
Thats why am reading this and start think about mysterius things that will change my life forever .
So. - Less peolpe will think about die , - less die will happen .
Not statistically but forever .
Just imagine that bad things happen , BUT not with us .
- Who than will mention scientists ?
From other hand : that one who not try , - will not make mistakes .
Let 's be so saigthfull to undersatand , that our bigger mistake is not believe to ourselves .
everyone of us can make greatest equations , but not wveryone of us want to .
Thats only and only because of that we are not sure that this is the right future for us and others .
Those ones , who lack of self criticism in the hihest order , - are able to make equations and even believe - they are right.It 's good for others if they are really good .
But we must admit : the good is not left for our understandig .
The good is left for random event.We leave to understand random event for people who " feels confident " .
That 's not right .
This talk would be zero , if noone would uderstand , that he is determininig the future of the world .
the world he is living in , and have choosed to follow .
He ( or I 'm ) not follow anthing that was destined to " filter " by my understanding , or my health .
So health is your understanding of what to follow for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm really interested to die.
Thats why am reading this and start think about mysterius things that will change my life forever.
So. - Less peolpe will think about die, - less die will happen.
Not statistically but forever.
Just imagine that bad things happen, BUT not with us.
- Who than will mention scientists ?
From other hand: that one who not try, - will not make mistakes.
Let's be so saigthfull to undersatand, that our bigger mistake is not believe to ourselves.
everyone of us can make greatest equations, but not wveryone of us want to.
Thats only and only because of that we are not sure that this is the right future for us and others.
Those ones, who lack of self criticism in the hihest order, - are able to make equations and even believe - they are right.It's good for others if they are really good.
But we must admit: the good is not left for our understandig.
The good is left for random event.We leave to understand random event for people who "feels confident".
That's not right.
This talk would be zero, if noone would uderstand, that he is determininig the future of the world.
the world he is living in, and have choosed to follow.
He (or I'm) not follow anthing that was destined to "filter" by my understanding, or my health.
So health is your understanding of what to follow for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29829989</id>
	<title>Wait a minute.</title>
	<author>roc97007</author>
	<datestamp>1256126820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&gt; Exactly in line with their argument, I could say that Nature abhors the Chicago Cubs
</p><p>
I thought that was already a given.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Exactly in line with their argument , I could say that Nature abhors the Chicago Cubs I thought that was already a given .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
&gt; Exactly in line with their argument, I could say that Nature abhors the Chicago Cubs

I thought that was already a given.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819507</id>
	<title>Capitalising on Higgs</title>
	<author>pyrocam</author>
	<datestamp>1256060760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If this is true. can someone point the Higgs Boson to my website? I should be earning megabucks by now. <a href="http://www.blackholebunker.com/" title="blackholebunker.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.blackholebunker.com/</a> [blackholebunker.com] for all your Black Hole and other Cosmic Anomaly protection needs</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this is true .
can someone point the Higgs Boson to my website ?
I should be earning megabucks by now .
http : //www.blackholebunker.com/ [ blackholebunker.com ] for all your Black Hole and other Cosmic Anomaly protection needs</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this is true.
can someone point the Higgs Boson to my website?
I should be earning megabucks by now.
http://www.blackholebunker.com/ [blackholebunker.com] for all your Black Hole and other Cosmic Anomaly protection needs</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29822229</id>
	<title>Re:Whoa</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1256133840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's because the Higgs Boson traveled back through time to obfuscate the summary so that no one would understand it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because the Higgs Boson traveled back through time to obfuscate the summary so that no one would understand it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because the Higgs Boson traveled back through time to obfuscate the summary so that no one would understand it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29826505</id>
	<title>Alex Gonzalez</title>
	<author>JackL</author>
	<datestamp>1256153160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, it was not Steve Bartman that caused the cubs to lose that day. It was Alex Gozalez's inability to field a routine ground ball later in the innning.</p><p>As long as we are time travelling, we may as well get the history right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , it was not Steve Bartman that caused the cubs to lose that day .
It was Alex Gozalez 's inability to field a routine ground ball later in the innning.As long as we are time travelling , we may as well get the history right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, it was not Steve Bartman that caused the cubs to lose that day.
It was Alex Gozalez's inability to field a routine ground ball later in the innning.As long as we are time travelling, we may as well get the history right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29820279</id>
	<title>Time loop</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256156940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually we're stuck in a time loop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time\_loop).</p><p>And the only way to break out of it to fix LHC again and again until we finally discover the Higgs particle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually we 're stuck in a time loop ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time \ _loop ) .And the only way to break out of it to fix LHC again and again until we finally discover the Higgs particle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually we're stuck in a time loop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time\_loop).And the only way to break out of it to fix LHC again and again until we finally discover the Higgs particle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29822435</id>
	<title>What do you mean not testable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256135040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought the original article gave a quick run-down of a test you could do for this one. From what I recall, it was something along like attach a gambling mechanism to the "start button" on the LHC - if we win the experiment goes, if we lose then the experiment is called off for a day. Then, make the odds of losing vanishingly small but non-zero, say 1 in 10^18 or something huge. That way, there is a clear way to see if something is playing with probability, something that depends on inanimate objects - not people. If the Higgs (or its discovery) actually is anathema to the universe, then at some critical point the gamble button should hit a loss every day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought the original article gave a quick run-down of a test you could do for this one .
From what I recall , it was something along like attach a gambling mechanism to the " start button " on the LHC - if we win the experiment goes , if we lose then the experiment is called off for a day .
Then , make the odds of losing vanishingly small but non-zero , say 1 in 10 ^ 18 or something huge .
That way , there is a clear way to see if something is playing with probability , something that depends on inanimate objects - not people .
If the Higgs ( or its discovery ) actually is anathema to the universe , then at some critical point the gamble button should hit a loss every day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought the original article gave a quick run-down of a test you could do for this one.
From what I recall, it was something along like attach a gambling mechanism to the "start button" on the LHC - if we win the experiment goes, if we lose then the experiment is called off for a day.
Then, make the odds of losing vanishingly small but non-zero, say 1 in 10^18 or something huge.
That way, there is a clear way to see if something is playing with probability, something that depends on inanimate objects - not people.
If the Higgs (or its discovery) actually is anathema to the universe, then at some critical point the gamble button should hit a loss every day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29820585</id>
	<title>Re:Surpisingly many respectible physists talking</title>
	<author>Rosyna</author>
	<datestamp>1256117520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Surprisingly many respectable physicists talking, about this dumb nature abores the Higgs theory.</p></div><p>Sometimes science is about taking the utterly absurd and finding a way to rationalize it. Such as I'm about to do.</p><p>This time traveling Higgs Boson would support the principal of self-consistency. In a non-multiverse universe (redundant), no event could ever occur that would create a paradox. Viewing the Higgs Boson would create a logical (perhaps ontological) paradox. Thus, it can never happen.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Surprisingly many respectable physicists talking , about this dumb nature abores the Higgs theory.Sometimes science is about taking the utterly absurd and finding a way to rationalize it .
Such as I 'm about to do.This time traveling Higgs Boson would support the principal of self-consistency .
In a non-multiverse universe ( redundant ) , no event could ever occur that would create a paradox .
Viewing the Higgs Boson would create a logical ( perhaps ontological ) paradox .
Thus , it can never happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surprisingly many respectable physicists talking, about this dumb nature abores the Higgs theory.Sometimes science is about taking the utterly absurd and finding a way to rationalize it.
Such as I'm about to do.This time traveling Higgs Boson would support the principal of self-consistency.
In a non-multiverse universe (redundant), no event could ever occur that would create a paradox.
Viewing the Higgs Boson would create a logical (perhaps ontological) paradox.
Thus, it can never happen.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819281</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819275</id>
	<title>Time will tell</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1256058720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the LHC gets hit by a meteor five minutes before it is next switched on we may conclude that something strange is going on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the LHC gets hit by a meteor five minutes before it is next switched on we may conclude that something strange is going on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the LHC gets hit by a meteor five minutes before it is next switched on we may conclude that something strange is going on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819821</id>
	<title>Nonsense</title>
	<author>ocean\_soul</author>
	<datestamp>1256064120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The "theory" of Nielsen and Ninomiya is complete nonsense. Read <a href="http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=2373" title="columbia.edu" rel="nofollow">this</a> [columbia.edu] and <a href="http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=2384" title="columbia.edu" rel="nofollow">this</a> [columbia.edu] for more information about these crackpots.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The " theory " of Nielsen and Ninomiya is complete nonsense .
Read this [ columbia.edu ] and this [ columbia.edu ] for more information about these crackpots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "theory" of Nielsen and Ninomiya is complete nonsense.
Read this [columbia.edu] and this [columbia.edu] for more information about these crackpots.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819799</id>
	<title>Re:Time will tell</title>
	<author>DigiShaman</author>
	<datestamp>1256063700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Proof that God exists! He doesn't want his particle to be found and his universe destroyed.</p><p>Uh oh, I dumped the chum in the water again. Sorry.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Proof that God exists !
He does n't want his particle to be found and his universe destroyed.Uh oh , I dumped the chum in the water again .
Sorry. ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Proof that God exists!
He doesn't want his particle to be found and his universe destroyed.Uh oh, I dumped the chum in the water again.
Sorry. ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29821401</id>
	<title>Parallel Universes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256127420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A much more likely explanation is that each time we attempt to observe the Higgs boson, the universe splits into two alternate paths: the one that succeeds is immediately destroyed, and the one that fails continues on.  We are by definition in the universe that has (so far) failed to detect it.  As far as we will ever be able to know, all attempts to measure the Higgs boson will always fail--the versions of ourselves that learn otherwise will immediately cease to exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A much more likely explanation is that each time we attempt to observe the Higgs boson , the universe splits into two alternate paths : the one that succeeds is immediately destroyed , and the one that fails continues on .
We are by definition in the universe that has ( so far ) failed to detect it .
As far as we will ever be able to know , all attempts to measure the Higgs boson will always fail--the versions of ourselves that learn otherwise will immediately cease to exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A much more likely explanation is that each time we attempt to observe the Higgs boson, the universe splits into two alternate paths: the one that succeeds is immediately destroyed, and the one that fails continues on.
We are by definition in the universe that has (so far) failed to detect it.
As far as we will ever be able to know, all attempts to measure the Higgs boson will always fail--the versions of ourselves that learn otherwise will immediately cease to exist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29820049</id>
	<title>Breaking sensibly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256066880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's silliness and mere opportunism to suggest the LHC will continue to break in ways similar to how it has already--before reaching substantial energies--or that some other weird catastrophe will always occur--all because the Higgs boson is somehow "immune to detection". I can only see the LHC breaking in a spectacular new way when its highest designed energies are achieved--and that at its strangest it might break due to some new phenomenon the designers had not anticipated. The shame would be if the scientists don't obtain enough information to figure out why the LHC broke. Trying to debug such an energetic system could be a problem!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's silliness and mere opportunism to suggest the LHC will continue to break in ways similar to how it has already--before reaching substantial energies--or that some other weird catastrophe will always occur--all because the Higgs boson is somehow " immune to detection " .
I can only see the LHC breaking in a spectacular new way when its highest designed energies are achieved--and that at its strangest it might break due to some new phenomenon the designers had not anticipated .
The shame would be if the scientists do n't obtain enough information to figure out why the LHC broke .
Trying to debug such an energetic system could be a problem !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's silliness and mere opportunism to suggest the LHC will continue to break in ways similar to how it has already--before reaching substantial energies--or that some other weird catastrophe will always occur--all because the Higgs boson is somehow "immune to detection".
I can only see the LHC breaking in a spectacular new way when its highest designed energies are achieved--and that at its strangest it might break due to some new phenomenon the designers had not anticipated.
The shame would be if the scientists don't obtain enough information to figure out why the LHC broke.
Trying to debug such an energetic system could be a problem!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29834391</id>
	<title>Re:Surpisingly many respectible physists talking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256221440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ha ha Quark jokes....does that make me a bit of a saddo<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ha ha Quark jokes....does that make me a bit of a saddo ; (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ha ha Quark jokes....does that make me a bit of a saddo ;(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819447</id>
	<title>Steve Bartman incident for those who don't know...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256060160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve\_Bartman\_incident" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve\_Bartman\_incident</a> [wikipedia.org]<br><a href="http://baseball.wikia.com/wiki/Steve\_Bartman" title="wikia.com">http://baseball.wikia.com/wiki/Steve\_Bartman</a> [wikia.com]<br><a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=bartman" title="go.com">http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=bartman</a> [go.com]<br><a href="http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/cubfan1.html" title="thesmokinggun.com">http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/cubfan1.html</a> [thesmokinggun.com]<br><a href="http://www.tampabay.com/sports/baseball/rays/article998054.ece" title="tampabay.com">http://www.tampabay.com/sports/baseball/rays/article998054.ece</a> [tampabay.com]</p><p>Osama Bin Laden is safer walking down the streets of New York City than Steve Bartman is walking down the streets of Chicago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve \ _Bartman \ _incident [ wikipedia.org ] http : //baseball.wikia.com/wiki/Steve \ _Bartman [ wikia.com ] http : //sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story ? page = bartman [ go.com ] http : //www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/cubfan1.html [ thesmokinggun.com ] http : //www.tampabay.com/sports/baseball/rays/article998054.ece [ tampabay.com ] Osama Bin Laden is safer walking down the streets of New York City than Steve Bartman is walking down the streets of Chicago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve\_Bartman\_incident [wikipedia.org]http://baseball.wikia.com/wiki/Steve\_Bartman [wikia.com]http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=bartman [go.com]http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/cubfan1.html [thesmokinggun.com]http://www.tampabay.com/sports/baseball/rays/article998054.ece [tampabay.com]Osama Bin Laden is safer walking down the streets of New York City than Steve Bartman is walking down the streets of Chicago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29822817</id>
	<title>One issue...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256136960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One issue I have with this theory...Equating it to throwing a baseball into a worm hole only to have it pop out the other end and hit itself on the way in, it seems the LHC wasn't even to the point of 'throwing the baseball'  They were barely circulating the first beams and far from a full power collision which would have a chance to produce Higgs.</p><p>This would be more equivalent to walking down the street on the way to the rocket launch pad to go out to the worm hole and a car runs you over.  How far back in time can things be allowed to travel to prevent future events?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One issue I have with this theory...Equating it to throwing a baseball into a worm hole only to have it pop out the other end and hit itself on the way in , it seems the LHC was n't even to the point of 'throwing the baseball ' They were barely circulating the first beams and far from a full power collision which would have a chance to produce Higgs.This would be more equivalent to walking down the street on the way to the rocket launch pad to go out to the worm hole and a car runs you over .
How far back in time can things be allowed to travel to prevent future events ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One issue I have with this theory...Equating it to throwing a baseball into a worm hole only to have it pop out the other end and hit itself on the way in, it seems the LHC wasn't even to the point of 'throwing the baseball'  They were barely circulating the first beams and far from a full power collision which would have a chance to produce Higgs.This would be more equivalent to walking down the street on the way to the rocket launch pad to go out to the worm hole and a car runs you over.
How far back in time can things be allowed to travel to prevent future events?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29821427</id>
	<title>Re:Steve Bartman incident for those who don't know</title>
	<author>metrix007</author>
	<datestamp>1256127600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Idiots. Sure, it sucked, but your team losing should not be an excuse to want to inflict grevious harm upon another human being.</p><p>Idiots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Idiots .
Sure , it sucked , but your team losing should not be an excuse to want to inflict grevious harm upon another human being.Idiots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Idiots.
Sure, it sucked, but your team losing should not be an excuse to want to inflict grevious harm upon another human being.Idiots.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819447</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29827841</id>
	<title>Re:Attention Humans</title>
	<author>dgriff</author>
	<datestamp>1256115780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's also pretty arrogant to think that each of us just by looking at the world around us causes the probabilistic wave functions to collapse. The world goes all wavy and blurry as soon as we stop looking and when we turn around - snap! - everything solidifies. Yet that's what QM teaches us and it's not some half-baked philosophical notion like the Higgs boson cloaking thing.

Besides which, what is the universe actually \_for\_? We are all with our consciousness and our arrogance just bits and blobs of the universe. Maybe the universe is becoming self-aware and we are just a part of that process. Personally I think the universe is a machine for creating stories.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's also pretty arrogant to think that each of us just by looking at the world around us causes the probabilistic wave functions to collapse .
The world goes all wavy and blurry as soon as we stop looking and when we turn around - snap !
- everything solidifies .
Yet that 's what QM teaches us and it 's not some half-baked philosophical notion like the Higgs boson cloaking thing .
Besides which , what is the universe actually \ _for \ _ ?
We are all with our consciousness and our arrogance just bits and blobs of the universe .
Maybe the universe is becoming self-aware and we are just a part of that process .
Personally I think the universe is a machine for creating stories .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's also pretty arrogant to think that each of us just by looking at the world around us causes the probabilistic wave functions to collapse.
The world goes all wavy and blurry as soon as we stop looking and when we turn around - snap!
- everything solidifies.
Yet that's what QM teaches us and it's not some half-baked philosophical notion like the Higgs boson cloaking thing.
Besides which, what is the universe actually \_for\_?
We are all with our consciousness and our arrogance just bits and blobs of the universe.
Maybe the universe is becoming self-aware and we are just a part of that process.
Personally I think the universe is a machine for creating stories.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819623</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29820001</id>
	<title>Re:Novikov self-consistency</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256066400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're assumption that finding the higgs boson will enable us to manipulate gravity is a lot like saying we couldn't discover the speed of light because someday we travel that fast, or faster, and be able to time travel! while we're dreaming, why not imagine that slashdot and the playboy mansion collide and everyone here gets laid!</p><p>WTF people!  get ahold of yourselves!  Anything discovered in the LHC probably isn't going to be very useful to us for <em>centuries</em>!</p><p>Discovery of new particles and a better understanding of the world aside.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're assumption that finding the higgs boson will enable us to manipulate gravity is a lot like saying we could n't discover the speed of light because someday we travel that fast , or faster , and be able to time travel !
while we 're dreaming , why not imagine that slashdot and the playboy mansion collide and everyone here gets laid ! WTF people !
get ahold of yourselves !
Anything discovered in the LHC probably is n't going to be very useful to us for centuries ! Discovery of new particles and a better understanding of the world aside .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're assumption that finding the higgs boson will enable us to manipulate gravity is a lot like saying we couldn't discover the speed of light because someday we travel that fast, or faster, and be able to time travel!
while we're dreaming, why not imagine that slashdot and the playboy mansion collide and everyone here gets laid!WTF people!
get ahold of yourselves!
Anything discovered in the LHC probably isn't going to be very useful to us for centuries!Discovery of new particles and a better understanding of the world aside.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819503</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29820183</id>
	<title>Re:Novikov self-consistency</title>
	<author>geekboy642</author>
	<datestamp>1256155620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Supposing that humanity learning how to manipulate gravity does indeed lead to violating causality, and that we live in one universe in an infinitely bifurcating multiverse, probability could indicate that any continuing stable universe is one which does not contain the discovery of the higgs boson.</p><p>All it takes is one madman with a sufficiently powerful time machine, and the entire shape of the involved universe is irrevocably altered--effectively destroyed. Or, over infinite future time, the probability that a universe containing time travel is destroyed by a time traveler must approach 1. Perhaps it's not any ham-fisted 'self-consistency' principle keeping us out of the cookie jar, it's just that the cookie jar is a disguised thermonuclear bomb.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Supposing that humanity learning how to manipulate gravity does indeed lead to violating causality , and that we live in one universe in an infinitely bifurcating multiverse , probability could indicate that any continuing stable universe is one which does not contain the discovery of the higgs boson.All it takes is one madman with a sufficiently powerful time machine , and the entire shape of the involved universe is irrevocably altered--effectively destroyed .
Or , over infinite future time , the probability that a universe containing time travel is destroyed by a time traveler must approach 1 .
Perhaps it 's not any ham-fisted 'self-consistency ' principle keeping us out of the cookie jar , it 's just that the cookie jar is a disguised thermonuclear bomb .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Supposing that humanity learning how to manipulate gravity does indeed lead to violating causality, and that we live in one universe in an infinitely bifurcating multiverse, probability could indicate that any continuing stable universe is one which does not contain the discovery of the higgs boson.All it takes is one madman with a sufficiently powerful time machine, and the entire shape of the involved universe is irrevocably altered--effectively destroyed.
Or, over infinite future time, the probability that a universe containing time travel is destroyed by a time traveler must approach 1.
Perhaps it's not any ham-fisted 'self-consistency' principle keeping us out of the cookie jar, it's just that the cookie jar is a disguised thermonuclear bomb.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819503</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29821945</id>
	<title>Re:Time will tell</title>
	<author>ciderVisor</author>
	<datestamp>1256131860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the LHC gets hit by a meteor five minutes before it is next switched on we may conclude that something strange is going on.</p></div><p>...because any self-respecting geek knows that meteor<i>ites</i> are what impact at ground level.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the LHC gets hit by a meteor five minutes before it is next switched on we may conclude that something strange is going on....because any self-respecting geek knows that meteorites are what impact at ground level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the LHC gets hit by a meteor five minutes before it is next switched on we may conclude that something strange is going on....because any self-respecting geek knows that meteorites are what impact at ground level.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29824403</id>
	<title>Re:Whoa</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256144700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have to read the previous article and/or be following the ongoing LHC drama. The premise of the idea in discussion here is that the Higgs Boson is such a fundamental particle of reality that nature or reality itself can't afford to let it be discovered or observed. So nature itself sets up roadblocks in advance (or time travels backwards) to prevent its discovery. Then the article makes a bad analogy to the Chicago Cubs.</p><p>I certainly understand what they mean by crazy ideas in Quantumn Physics. There are plenty of them. Electrons that behave differently when observed? Time traveling photons? Quantumn Entanglement? Wtf?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to read the previous article and/or be following the ongoing LHC drama .
The premise of the idea in discussion here is that the Higgs Boson is such a fundamental particle of reality that nature or reality itself ca n't afford to let it be discovered or observed .
So nature itself sets up roadblocks in advance ( or time travels backwards ) to prevent its discovery .
Then the article makes a bad analogy to the Chicago Cubs.I certainly understand what they mean by crazy ideas in Quantumn Physics .
There are plenty of them .
Electrons that behave differently when observed ?
Time traveling photons ?
Quantumn Entanglement ?
Wtf ? !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to read the previous article and/or be following the ongoing LHC drama.
The premise of the idea in discussion here is that the Higgs Boson is such a fundamental particle of reality that nature or reality itself can't afford to let it be discovered or observed.
So nature itself sets up roadblocks in advance (or time travels backwards) to prevent its discovery.
Then the article makes a bad analogy to the Chicago Cubs.I certainly understand what they mean by crazy ideas in Quantumn Physics.
There are plenty of them.
Electrons that behave differently when observed?
Time traveling photons?
Quantumn Entanglement?
Wtf?!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29823661</id>
	<title>Re:Whoa</title>
	<author>mea37</author>
	<datestamp>1256141100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes...  If only there were some way to get more information than just what's presented in the summary then perhaps we could make some sense of it; but alas, it's just another of life's mysteries.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes... If only there were some way to get more information than just what 's presented in the summary then perhaps we could make some sense of it ; but alas , it 's just another of life 's mysteries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes...  If only there were some way to get more information than just what's presented in the summary then perhaps we could make some sense of it; but alas, it's just another of life's mysteries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29825747</id>
	<title>Re:What if there were time travel?</title>
	<author>Dragonslicer</author>
	<datestamp>1256150340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If people could travel in time, the universe would become unstable.  People would keep going back and changing history which would result in those same people not going back and changing history<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>Your second sentence does not necessarily follow from your first sentence. It would be logically consistent (I would say "theoretically possible", but those words have a specific meaning in physics, and that's not the right meaning here) to travel from Time B back to Time A and have everything that happens between A and B lead to your traveling back in time. You can't travel back in time and change history, because, like you said, the change might lead to you not traveling back in time, creating a paradox. You could, however, travel back in time and <i>not</i> change history.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If people could travel in time , the universe would become unstable .
People would keep going back and changing history which would result in those same people not going back and changing history ...Your second sentence does not necessarily follow from your first sentence .
It would be logically consistent ( I would say " theoretically possible " , but those words have a specific meaning in physics , and that 's not the right meaning here ) to travel from Time B back to Time A and have everything that happens between A and B lead to your traveling back in time .
You ca n't travel back in time and change history , because , like you said , the change might lead to you not traveling back in time , creating a paradox .
You could , however , travel back in time and not change history .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If people could travel in time, the universe would become unstable.
People would keep going back and changing history which would result in those same people not going back and changing history ...Your second sentence does not necessarily follow from your first sentence.
It would be logically consistent (I would say "theoretically possible", but those words have a specific meaning in physics, and that's not the right meaning here) to travel from Time B back to Time A and have everything that happens between A and B lead to your traveling back in time.
You can't travel back in time and change history, because, like you said, the change might lead to you not traveling back in time, creating a paradox.
You could, however, travel back in time and not change history.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29823441</id>
	<title>Re:Whoa</title>
	<author>Eightbitgnosis</author>
	<datestamp>1256140080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Clearly your understanding is time traveling to not be found.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly your understanding is time traveling to not be found .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly your understanding is time traveling to not be found.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29821125</id>
	<title>No. really!</title>
	<author>WheelDweller</author>
	<datestamp>1256124600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe they're onto something.  It's not that their math is wrong, it's not that their hypothesis is wrong.  It's because the phenomenom ITSELF doesn't want to be found.</p><p>Yeah.</p><p>If this is true, we've cracked the case on why I send an even-number of socks to the laundry and they come back, odd.  Why I collect pocket fluff in my pockets from characters from ancient history....</p><p>I'm sorry, but to suggest the Higgs Boson is trying not to be found suggests an intelligence. Rain doesn't stop on it's fall to consider the consequences of it's landing, whether in the green grass or in the open sodium bin.</p><p>Maybe they've taken the GlobalWarming(TM) toolset into the making of this collider? "Whether it works or fails, both are proof of GlobalWarming(TM)."  You can see where this kind of lunacy will get ya off track pretty quickly.</p><p>And tell me one more time how I'm supposed to believe the Scientists *instead* of the Bible, because the scientist have a better track record again?  Weren't they just last week talking about how dark matter estimations were off by like 4x?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they 're onto something .
It 's not that their math is wrong , it 's not that their hypothesis is wrong .
It 's because the phenomenom ITSELF does n't want to be found.Yeah.If this is true , we 've cracked the case on why I send an even-number of socks to the laundry and they come back , odd .
Why I collect pocket fluff in my pockets from characters from ancient history....I 'm sorry , but to suggest the Higgs Boson is trying not to be found suggests an intelligence .
Rain does n't stop on it 's fall to consider the consequences of it 's landing , whether in the green grass or in the open sodium bin.Maybe they 've taken the GlobalWarming ( TM ) toolset into the making of this collider ?
" Whether it works or fails , both are proof of GlobalWarming ( TM ) .
" You can see where this kind of lunacy will get ya off track pretty quickly.And tell me one more time how I 'm supposed to believe the Scientists * instead * of the Bible , because the scientist have a better track record again ?
Were n't they just last week talking about how dark matter estimations were off by like 4x ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they're onto something.
It's not that their math is wrong, it's not that their hypothesis is wrong.
It's because the phenomenom ITSELF doesn't want to be found.Yeah.If this is true, we've cracked the case on why I send an even-number of socks to the laundry and they come back, odd.
Why I collect pocket fluff in my pockets from characters from ancient history....I'm sorry, but to suggest the Higgs Boson is trying not to be found suggests an intelligence.
Rain doesn't stop on it's fall to consider the consequences of it's landing, whether in the green grass or in the open sodium bin.Maybe they've taken the GlobalWarming(TM) toolset into the making of this collider?
"Whether it works or fails, both are proof of GlobalWarming(TM).
"  You can see where this kind of lunacy will get ya off track pretty quickly.And tell me one more time how I'm supposed to believe the Scientists *instead* of the Bible, because the scientist have a better track record again?
Weren't they just last week talking about how dark matter estimations were off by like 4x?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29821007</id>
	<title>Re:Time will tell</title>
	<author>Goffee71</author>
	<datestamp>1256123040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nah, now if it gets hit by a sudden downpour of molten Swiss cheese, THEN something will be going on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nah , now if it gets hit by a sudden downpour of molten Swiss cheese , THEN something will be going on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nah, now if it gets hit by a sudden downpour of molten Swiss cheese, THEN something will be going on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29823741</id>
	<title>Nature Abhors the Cubs</title>
	<author>mea37</author>
	<datestamp>1256141520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I need to go make some t-shirts...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I need to go make some t-shirts.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I need to go make some t-shirts...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29855105</id>
	<title>Re:Time will tell</title>
	<author>progliberty</author>
	<datestamp>1256380560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why don't the people from the future who keep screwing with the present at least leave behind some helpful graffiti?

Why did Higgs have to nickname it "The God Particle"? Didn't he have any idea of how silly that was? He could have figured out it was a bad idea because someone wrote a whole mystical book ("The Tao of Physics") just because someone named something in particle physics "The Eightfold Way" - it had nothing to do with mysticism, it was just a way of putting particles into patterns that insinuated some deeper structural possibilities. (like, say, being made of quarks, or having consistent characteristics like spin, charge, etc)

Besides, every time we finally see proof of some hypothetical "god particle", a new hypothetical one comes along.

You can't name scientific stuff after mystical or religious things without expecting people to behave kind of goofy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't the people from the future who keep screwing with the present at least leave behind some helpful graffiti ?
Why did Higgs have to nickname it " The God Particle " ?
Did n't he have any idea of how silly that was ?
He could have figured out it was a bad idea because someone wrote a whole mystical book ( " The Tao of Physics " ) just because someone named something in particle physics " The Eightfold Way " - it had nothing to do with mysticism , it was just a way of putting particles into patterns that insinuated some deeper structural possibilities .
( like , say , being made of quarks , or having consistent characteristics like spin , charge , etc ) Besides , every time we finally see proof of some hypothetical " god particle " , a new hypothetical one comes along .
You ca n't name scientific stuff after mystical or religious things without expecting people to behave kind of goofy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't the people from the future who keep screwing with the present at least leave behind some helpful graffiti?
Why did Higgs have to nickname it "The God Particle"?
Didn't he have any idea of how silly that was?
He could have figured out it was a bad idea because someone wrote a whole mystical book ("The Tao of Physics") just because someone named something in particle physics "The Eightfold Way" - it had nothing to do with mysticism, it was just a way of putting particles into patterns that insinuated some deeper structural possibilities.
(like, say, being made of quarks, or having consistent characteristics like spin, charge, etc)

Besides, every time we finally see proof of some hypothetical "god particle", a new hypothetical one comes along.
You can't name scientific stuff after mystical or religious things without expecting people to behave kind of goofy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29820389</id>
	<title>It's NOT time 'travel' they're suggesting</title>
	<author>John Guilt</author>
	<datestamp>1256158260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What they're talking about is that the probability of any path in functional space for the universal wave function that includes an observed Higgs is zero.  Nothing 'causes' something in the past to happen differently than it could, no signal is sent back to 'prevent' something.
<p>

Observed classical physics corresponds to the highest-probability paths for the wave functions of the particles under consideration; these correspond to the extremal values for an integral of a particular function (related to the classical action) along the path---assuming that extremum is a minimum, it means that all other paths give a result for that path-integral that's higher than that.  Paths with higher values are \_less\_ likely, though not impossible if those values are finite.
</p><p>
The path-integral along a given path is exactly that:  it is characteristic of the path as a whole.  I believe that they are saying that all paths which include a universal state corresponding to any Higgs boson's being observed produce an effectively infinite path integral;  my guess (not having read them yet)  is that they claim that such a state makes the canonically real action acquire an imaginary component.
</p><p>
To make a rough analogy: even though there are very many possible air routes from Paris to New York, probably chosen to maximise total profit (say) by minimising fuel usage, or maximising the number of passengers by picking up some in London.  So some likely paths are a single arc, Paris to New York, another includes London---a third includes a stop in Iceland to pick up the eccentric billionaire who'll pay $10^6 for the lulz....but none of them include Proxima Centauri.  No signal is being sent back in time from New York telling the pilot not to go to Centauri, there is just no world in which she even tries to go there---an 'air route' must have air.  (This also conveniently leaves more bandwidth for the Illuminati to send their usual backwards-in-time instructions from New York.)-
</p><p>
(The preceding does not represent an endorsement of the validity of their conclusion, I just don't want to see what is being contended mischaracterised.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What they 're talking about is that the probability of any path in functional space for the universal wave function that includes an observed Higgs is zero .
Nothing 'causes ' something in the past to happen differently than it could , no signal is sent back to 'prevent ' something .
Observed classical physics corresponds to the highest-probability paths for the wave functions of the particles under consideration ; these correspond to the extremal values for an integral of a particular function ( related to the classical action ) along the path---assuming that extremum is a minimum , it means that all other paths give a result for that path-integral that 's higher than that .
Paths with higher values are \ _less \ _ likely , though not impossible if those values are finite .
The path-integral along a given path is exactly that : it is characteristic of the path as a whole .
I believe that they are saying that all paths which include a universal state corresponding to any Higgs boson 's being observed produce an effectively infinite path integral ; my guess ( not having read them yet ) is that they claim that such a state makes the canonically real action acquire an imaginary component .
To make a rough analogy : even though there are very many possible air routes from Paris to New York , probably chosen to maximise total profit ( say ) by minimising fuel usage , or maximising the number of passengers by picking up some in London .
So some likely paths are a single arc , Paris to New York , another includes London---a third includes a stop in Iceland to pick up the eccentric billionaire who 'll pay $ 10 ^ 6 for the lulz....but none of them include Proxima Centauri .
No signal is being sent back in time from New York telling the pilot not to go to Centauri , there is just no world in which she even tries to go there---an 'air route ' must have air .
( This also conveniently leaves more bandwidth for the Illuminati to send their usual backwards-in-time instructions from New York .
) - ( The preceding does not represent an endorsement of the validity of their conclusion , I just do n't want to see what is being contended mischaracterised .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What they're talking about is that the probability of any path in functional space for the universal wave function that includes an observed Higgs is zero.
Nothing 'causes' something in the past to happen differently than it could, no signal is sent back to 'prevent' something.
Observed classical physics corresponds to the highest-probability paths for the wave functions of the particles under consideration; these correspond to the extremal values for an integral of a particular function (related to the classical action) along the path---assuming that extremum is a minimum, it means that all other paths give a result for that path-integral that's higher than that.
Paths with higher values are \_less\_ likely, though not impossible if those values are finite.
The path-integral along a given path is exactly that:  it is characteristic of the path as a whole.
I believe that they are saying that all paths which include a universal state corresponding to any Higgs boson's being observed produce an effectively infinite path integral;  my guess (not having read them yet)  is that they claim that such a state makes the canonically real action acquire an imaginary component.
To make a rough analogy: even though there are very many possible air routes from Paris to New York, probably chosen to maximise total profit (say) by minimising fuel usage, or maximising the number of passengers by picking up some in London.
So some likely paths are a single arc, Paris to New York, another includes London---a third includes a stop in Iceland to pick up the eccentric billionaire who'll pay $10^6 for the lulz....but none of them include Proxima Centauri.
No signal is being sent back in time from New York telling the pilot not to go to Centauri, there is just no world in which she even tries to go there---an 'air route' must have air.
(This also conveniently leaves more bandwidth for the Illuminati to send their usual backwards-in-time instructions from New York.
)-

(The preceding does not represent an endorsement of the validity of their conclusion, I just don't want to see what is being contended mischaracterised.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819783</id>
	<title>Re:Time does not exist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256063580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So time can be manipulated with gravity and velocity, and it's state has an effect on energy and mass, but it doesn't exist?  What definition of existence are you using?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So time can be manipulated with gravity and velocity , and it 's state has an effect on energy and mass , but it does n't exist ?
What definition of existence are you using ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So time can be manipulated with gravity and velocity, and it's state has an effect on energy and mass, but it doesn't exist?
What definition of existence are you using?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29820425</id>
	<title>Re:That's what happened, isn't it?</title>
	<author>Sulphur</author>
	<datestamp>1256158620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bet they won't let you take a seeing eye goat into the LHC either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet they wo n't let you take a seeing eye goat into the LHC either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet they won't let you take a seeing eye goat into the LHC either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29821573</id>
	<title>Could we please stop with the bullshit already?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1256128980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nothing against theories. Even the wild ones. But bring verifiable predictions, or stop acting as if it were a real theory. It's just an idea. And a pretty bad one to start with.</p><p>Mainly because, of all the stupid time travel models that were made up in movies, it is based on the by far stupidest. The one where you can cause time paradoxes, and there is somehow just one time line.<br>If there were some influence trough time, then that would mean the creation of new time lines. Just like you could kill your father and still live. Because you still came out of the time line where your father lived. You just could never return to it, but only to the newly created one(s), where your father would not exist anymore. Simple. Paradox-free.<br>But that would destroy the theory. ^^</p><p>And I am willing to bet any money you and I have, that they *will* be able to perform the proper experiments. In fact, I am willing to bet all I own, including my life and body on it. Go on. Bet against me.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing against theories .
Even the wild ones .
But bring verifiable predictions , or stop acting as if it were a real theory .
It 's just an idea .
And a pretty bad one to start with.Mainly because , of all the stupid time travel models that were made up in movies , it is based on the by far stupidest .
The one where you can cause time paradoxes , and there is somehow just one time line.If there were some influence trough time , then that would mean the creation of new time lines .
Just like you could kill your father and still live .
Because you still came out of the time line where your father lived .
You just could never return to it , but only to the newly created one ( s ) , where your father would not exist anymore .
Simple. Paradox-free.But that would destroy the theory .
^ ^ And I am willing to bet any money you and I have , that they * will * be able to perform the proper experiments .
In fact , I am willing to bet all I own , including my life and body on it .
Go on .
Bet against me .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing against theories.
Even the wild ones.
But bring verifiable predictions, or stop acting as if it were a real theory.
It's just an idea.
And a pretty bad one to start with.Mainly because, of all the stupid time travel models that were made up in movies, it is based on the by far stupidest.
The one where you can cause time paradoxes, and there is somehow just one time line.If there were some influence trough time, then that would mean the creation of new time lines.
Just like you could kill your father and still live.
Because you still came out of the time line where your father lived.
You just could never return to it, but only to the newly created one(s), where your father would not exist anymore.
Simple. Paradox-free.But that would destroy the theory.
^^And I am willing to bet any money you and I have, that they *will* be able to perform the proper experiments.
In fact, I am willing to bet all I own, including my life and body on it.
Go on.
Bet against me.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819503</id>
	<title>Novikov self-consistency</title>
	<author>Ryvar</author>
	<datestamp>1256060700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This whole 'theory' really just sounds like an application of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novikov\_self-consistency\_principle" title="wikipedia.org">the Novikov Self-Consistency Conjecture</a> [wikipedia.org] to particle physics.  The short version is: the probability of events which could lead to a violation of causality is zero.  So, according to this conjecture if the manifestation or observation of the Higgs Boson eventually lead us to develop technology with which we might otherwise violate causality, we'll never discover it.</p><p>I can think of at least one way it might - the Higgs Boson is critical to our understanding gravity.  We know from relativity that there are certain gravitric structures which might potentially lead to violations of causality.  One example is a toroidal singularity, spun extremely fast, which theoretically generates stable artificial wormhole along the axis of the spin with an opening small enough to fire, say, an x-ray laser through.  A signal sent through such a wormhole and then back again could lead to extremely clear-cut violations of causality.</p><p>Thus, if the Novikov Self-Consistency Conjecture is correct, the discovery of anything capable of allowing us to engage in large scale gravity manipulation of this sort might well have zero probability of ever occurring.</p><p>I don't really believe this is what's going onhere , but given the abject failure of every experiment that might lead us to real, large-scale gravity manipulation (I'm thinking of that experiment where extremely fine measurements of lasers fired down long tubes buried under the ground were supposed to be used to detect gravity waves), it's a neat idea.</p><p>--Ryvar</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This whole 'theory ' really just sounds like an application of the Novikov Self-Consistency Conjecture [ wikipedia.org ] to particle physics .
The short version is : the probability of events which could lead to a violation of causality is zero .
So , according to this conjecture if the manifestation or observation of the Higgs Boson eventually lead us to develop technology with which we might otherwise violate causality , we 'll never discover it.I can think of at least one way it might - the Higgs Boson is critical to our understanding gravity .
We know from relativity that there are certain gravitric structures which might potentially lead to violations of causality .
One example is a toroidal singularity , spun extremely fast , which theoretically generates stable artificial wormhole along the axis of the spin with an opening small enough to fire , say , an x-ray laser through .
A signal sent through such a wormhole and then back again could lead to extremely clear-cut violations of causality.Thus , if the Novikov Self-Consistency Conjecture is correct , the discovery of anything capable of allowing us to engage in large scale gravity manipulation of this sort might well have zero probability of ever occurring.I do n't really believe this is what 's going onhere , but given the abject failure of every experiment that might lead us to real , large-scale gravity manipulation ( I 'm thinking of that experiment where extremely fine measurements of lasers fired down long tubes buried under the ground were supposed to be used to detect gravity waves ) , it 's a neat idea.--Ryvar</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This whole 'theory' really just sounds like an application of the Novikov Self-Consistency Conjecture [wikipedia.org] to particle physics.
The short version is: the probability of events which could lead to a violation of causality is zero.
So, according to this conjecture if the manifestation or observation of the Higgs Boson eventually lead us to develop technology with which we might otherwise violate causality, we'll never discover it.I can think of at least one way it might - the Higgs Boson is critical to our understanding gravity.
We know from relativity that there are certain gravitric structures which might potentially lead to violations of causality.
One example is a toroidal singularity, spun extremely fast, which theoretically generates stable artificial wormhole along the axis of the spin with an opening small enough to fire, say, an x-ray laser through.
A signal sent through such a wormhole and then back again could lead to extremely clear-cut violations of causality.Thus, if the Novikov Self-Consistency Conjecture is correct, the discovery of anything capable of allowing us to engage in large scale gravity manipulation of this sort might well have zero probability of ever occurring.I don't really believe this is what's going onhere , but given the abject failure of every experiment that might lead us to real, large-scale gravity manipulation (I'm thinking of that experiment where extremely fine measurements of lasers fired down long tubes buried under the ground were supposed to be used to detect gravity waves), it's a neat idea.--Ryvar</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29829889</id>
	<title>Re:Surpisingly many respectible physists talking</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1256126040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Theoretical physics has produced essentially no results for 40 years."</p><p>Indeed. It's actually rather strange when you step back and look at it.</p><p>Newton gave us calculus, mechanics and kick-started the industrial revolution.</p><p>Maxwell in the 1860s produced a rich field of practical applications that we're still mining today.</p><p>Radioactivity and atomic theory in the late 1800s produced, well, very large bombs and power reactors which don't *always* kill people nastily. And a whole bunch of paradoxical complications which were 'solved' one by one in an ad-hoc manner leading to quantum mechanics.</p><p>Special relativity linked Maxwell and Newton and is used in a lot of engineering.</p><p>General relativity made gravitational maths vastly harder, predicted Mercury's precession and gravitational lensing (after a bit of fudging of the data), created cosmology which has no practical applications, led to Unified Field theory which... didn't work at all... and.... um. We'll get back to you in a billion years! Because that's the timescales it operates on! But it's useful, honest!</p><p>Quantum electrodynamics sorta-kinda linked SR and quantum mechanics, made the behaviour of light darn near impossible to think intuitively about, but seems to have led to useful results in microelectronics.</p><p>Quantum chromodynamics.... explains the results of collider experiments.... and.... well, because quarks don't exist unbound, there aren't any practical applications of that knowledge at all. But we need to build bigger colliders to generate more data to hand-tune our theory which explains the results of collider experiments. So we can tune our theory more. It's all useful, honest!</p><p>String theory... produces string theory, which produces string theory, which produces books complaining about string theory. It's useful, honest!</p><p>Even fun stuff like Bose-Einstein condensates are all using maths which dates back to the 1930s.</p><p>Post-1970s *engineering* has done amazing things applying and confirming existing theoretical models. But post-1970s theory doesn't seem to have gone anywhere. Isn't that odd? We had this huge Cambrian explosion in the 1800s to 1930s... then the tap just sort of dried up.</p><p>What's disturbing is not that post-1970 theory hasn't seemed to lead us anywhere, but that theoretical consensus has converged more and more on a deep pessimism about seeing any revolutionary changes. In the 1930s, the general air in physics seemed to be 'is your idea crazy enough to be true?' So we got science fiction. Now, it's 'ennh, there's a good reason why for any interesting X, we'll never be able to do that - Einstein/Feynman/Bohr deny it. Gravity control or cold fusion are only for crackpots. But give us billions for a new collider/tokamak anyway, just to prove that we can't do it. And stop bugging us for your jetpack, you'll never understand the maths anyway. Oh, and it's all useful, honest!'</p><p>Our best technology showpieces are still 1930s theory with 2000s engineering.</p><p>Something is wrong with this picture.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Theoretical physics has produced essentially no results for 40 years. " Indeed .
It 's actually rather strange when you step back and look at it.Newton gave us calculus , mechanics and kick-started the industrial revolution.Maxwell in the 1860s produced a rich field of practical applications that we 're still mining today.Radioactivity and atomic theory in the late 1800s produced , well , very large bombs and power reactors which do n't * always * kill people nastily .
And a whole bunch of paradoxical complications which were 'solved ' one by one in an ad-hoc manner leading to quantum mechanics.Special relativity linked Maxwell and Newton and is used in a lot of engineering.General relativity made gravitational maths vastly harder , predicted Mercury 's precession and gravitational lensing ( after a bit of fudging of the data ) , created cosmology which has no practical applications , led to Unified Field theory which... did n't work at all... and.... um .
We 'll get back to you in a billion years !
Because that 's the timescales it operates on !
But it 's useful , honest ! Quantum electrodynamics sorta-kinda linked SR and quantum mechanics , made the behaviour of light darn near impossible to think intuitively about , but seems to have led to useful results in microelectronics.Quantum chromodynamics.... explains the results of collider experiments.... and.... well , because quarks do n't exist unbound , there are n't any practical applications of that knowledge at all .
But we need to build bigger colliders to generate more data to hand-tune our theory which explains the results of collider experiments .
So we can tune our theory more .
It 's all useful , honest ! String theory... produces string theory , which produces string theory , which produces books complaining about string theory .
It 's useful , honest ! Even fun stuff like Bose-Einstein condensates are all using maths which dates back to the 1930s.Post-1970s * engineering * has done amazing things applying and confirming existing theoretical models .
But post-1970s theory does n't seem to have gone anywhere .
Is n't that odd ?
We had this huge Cambrian explosion in the 1800s to 1930s... then the tap just sort of dried up.What 's disturbing is not that post-1970 theory has n't seemed to lead us anywhere , but that theoretical consensus has converged more and more on a deep pessimism about seeing any revolutionary changes .
In the 1930s , the general air in physics seemed to be 'is your idea crazy enough to be true ?
' So we got science fiction .
Now , it 's 'ennh , there 's a good reason why for any interesting X , we 'll never be able to do that - Einstein/Feynman/Bohr deny it .
Gravity control or cold fusion are only for crackpots .
But give us billions for a new collider/tokamak anyway , just to prove that we ca n't do it .
And stop bugging us for your jetpack , you 'll never understand the maths anyway .
Oh , and it 's all useful , honest !
'Our best technology showpieces are still 1930s theory with 2000s engineering.Something is wrong with this picture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Theoretical physics has produced essentially no results for 40 years."Indeed.
It's actually rather strange when you step back and look at it.Newton gave us calculus, mechanics and kick-started the industrial revolution.Maxwell in the 1860s produced a rich field of practical applications that we're still mining today.Radioactivity and atomic theory in the late 1800s produced, well, very large bombs and power reactors which don't *always* kill people nastily.
And a whole bunch of paradoxical complications which were 'solved' one by one in an ad-hoc manner leading to quantum mechanics.Special relativity linked Maxwell and Newton and is used in a lot of engineering.General relativity made gravitational maths vastly harder, predicted Mercury's precession and gravitational lensing (after a bit of fudging of the data), created cosmology which has no practical applications, led to Unified Field theory which... didn't work at all... and.... um.
We'll get back to you in a billion years!
Because that's the timescales it operates on!
But it's useful, honest!Quantum electrodynamics sorta-kinda linked SR and quantum mechanics, made the behaviour of light darn near impossible to think intuitively about, but seems to have led to useful results in microelectronics.Quantum chromodynamics.... explains the results of collider experiments.... and.... well, because quarks don't exist unbound, there aren't any practical applications of that knowledge at all.
But we need to build bigger colliders to generate more data to hand-tune our theory which explains the results of collider experiments.
So we can tune our theory more.
It's all useful, honest!String theory... produces string theory, which produces string theory, which produces books complaining about string theory.
It's useful, honest!Even fun stuff like Bose-Einstein condensates are all using maths which dates back to the 1930s.Post-1970s *engineering* has done amazing things applying and confirming existing theoretical models.
But post-1970s theory doesn't seem to have gone anywhere.
Isn't that odd?
We had this huge Cambrian explosion in the 1800s to 1930s... then the tap just sort of dried up.What's disturbing is not that post-1970 theory hasn't seemed to lead us anywhere, but that theoretical consensus has converged more and more on a deep pessimism about seeing any revolutionary changes.
In the 1930s, the general air in physics seemed to be 'is your idea crazy enough to be true?
' So we got science fiction.
Now, it's 'ennh, there's a good reason why for any interesting X, we'll never be able to do that - Einstein/Feynman/Bohr deny it.
Gravity control or cold fusion are only for crackpots.
But give us billions for a new collider/tokamak anyway, just to prove that we can't do it.
And stop bugging us for your jetpack, you'll never understand the maths anyway.
Oh, and it's all useful, honest!
'Our best technology showpieces are still 1930s theory with 2000s engineering.Something is wrong with this picture.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29820443</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29820181</id>
	<title>Re:Time will tell</title>
	<author>GigaplexNZ</author>
	<datestamp>1256155620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>If the LHC gets hit by a meteor five minutes before it is next switched on we may conclude that something strange is going on.</p></div><p>Wouldn't a highly improbable event like a meteor hitting the LHC itself create a high probability that something is amiss with the universe?</p></div><p>That is what was just suggested. Your reading skills have earned you a gold star.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the LHC gets hit by a meteor five minutes before it is next switched on we may conclude that something strange is going on.Would n't a highly improbable event like a meteor hitting the LHC itself create a high probability that something is amiss with the universe ? That is what was just suggested .
Your reading skills have earned you a gold star .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the LHC gets hit by a meteor five minutes before it is next switched on we may conclude that something strange is going on.Wouldn't a highly improbable event like a meteor hitting the LHC itself create a high probability that something is amiss with the universe?That is what was just suggested.
Your reading skills have earned you a gold star.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29826711</id>
	<title>Predicting no Higgs</title>
	<author>sweetser</author>
	<datestamp>1256154000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hello:

<p>I don't know about your unified field theory, but mine predicts there is no Higgs particle. The standard model works so long as no particle has mass. That is silly. To get around the problem, there is the Higgs mechanism. The standard model + the Higgs mechanism says not a thing about gravity. Oops.

</p><p>Why I do is rewrite the Maxwell action using quaternions. The scalar is exactly the same as the tensor approach, B^2 - E^2. Because I am using quaternions which can form products (unlike tensors), I can represent SU(2) - also know as the unit quaternions with quaternions (duh). It is a simple exercise to write the gauge invariant action with all the symmetries of the standard model (U(1), SU(2), and SU(3)).

</p><p>To get to gravity, switch out the rules of multiplication. These types of numbers are known as hypercomplex numbers, and are even less popular that quaternions. Crank through Euler-Langrange, and out pops the field equations which in the static case is Newton's law.

</p><p>What is particularly fun is that one can combine the gauge-invariant Maxwell action with the gauge-invariant relativistic gravity action in a way where both of the field strength tensors are gauge-dependent, but those cancel each other out, leaving the action gauge-invariant. It is all up on YouTube, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrVW4QG8ei4" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrVW4QG8ei4</a> [youtube.com] for a talk I gave last weekend at an APS meeting.

</p><p>Doug</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hello : I do n't know about your unified field theory , but mine predicts there is no Higgs particle .
The standard model works so long as no particle has mass .
That is silly .
To get around the problem , there is the Higgs mechanism .
The standard model + the Higgs mechanism says not a thing about gravity .
Oops . Why I do is rewrite the Maxwell action using quaternions .
The scalar is exactly the same as the tensor approach , B ^ 2 - E ^ 2 .
Because I am using quaternions which can form products ( unlike tensors ) , I can represent SU ( 2 ) - also know as the unit quaternions with quaternions ( duh ) .
It is a simple exercise to write the gauge invariant action with all the symmetries of the standard model ( U ( 1 ) , SU ( 2 ) , and SU ( 3 ) ) .
To get to gravity , switch out the rules of multiplication .
These types of numbers are known as hypercomplex numbers , and are even less popular that quaternions .
Crank through Euler-Langrange , and out pops the field equations which in the static case is Newton 's law .
What is particularly fun is that one can combine the gauge-invariant Maxwell action with the gauge-invariant relativistic gravity action in a way where both of the field strength tensors are gauge-dependent , but those cancel each other out , leaving the action gauge-invariant .
It is all up on YouTube , http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = BrVW4QG8ei4 [ youtube.com ] for a talk I gave last weekend at an APS meeting .
Doug</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hello:

I don't know about your unified field theory, but mine predicts there is no Higgs particle.
The standard model works so long as no particle has mass.
That is silly.
To get around the problem, there is the Higgs mechanism.
The standard model + the Higgs mechanism says not a thing about gravity.
Oops.

Why I do is rewrite the Maxwell action using quaternions.
The scalar is exactly the same as the tensor approach, B^2 - E^2.
Because I am using quaternions which can form products (unlike tensors), I can represent SU(2) - also know as the unit quaternions with quaternions (duh).
It is a simple exercise to write the gauge invariant action with all the symmetries of the standard model (U(1), SU(2), and SU(3)).
To get to gravity, switch out the rules of multiplication.
These types of numbers are known as hypercomplex numbers, and are even less popular that quaternions.
Crank through Euler-Langrange, and out pops the field equations which in the static case is Newton's law.
What is particularly fun is that one can combine the gauge-invariant Maxwell action with the gauge-invariant relativistic gravity action in a way where both of the field strength tensors are gauge-dependent, but those cancel each other out, leaving the action gauge-invariant.
It is all up on YouTube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrVW4QG8ei4 [youtube.com] for a talk I gave last weekend at an APS meeting.
Doug</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_0159233_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_0159233_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_0159233_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29820751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819281
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_0159233_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29829291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_0159233_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29823189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29822345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_0159233_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29824065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29822345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_0159233_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29823295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29822345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_0159233_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29821699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_0159233_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29821007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_0159233_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29825747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819535
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_0159233_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29820585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819281
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_0159233_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29821427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819447
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_0159233_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29820183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_0159233_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29825057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_0159233_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29855105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_0159233_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29822229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_0159233_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29834391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819281
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_0159233_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29833949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_0159233_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29823661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_0159233_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29829889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29820443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819281
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_0159233_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_0159233_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29822793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29822345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_0159233_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29822681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819281
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_0159233_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_0159233_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29820425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_0159233_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29820001
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_0159233_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_0159233_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29821661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819447
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_0159233_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29821939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819623
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_0159233_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29835753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_0159233_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29841975
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29822345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_0159233_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29839467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29822345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_0159233_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29838643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_0159233_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29820181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_0159233_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_0159233_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29824403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_0159233_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29821609
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_0159233_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29823441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_0159233_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29825845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_0159233_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29821945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_0159233_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819609
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_0159233_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29821125
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_0159233_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_0159233_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29822577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_0159233_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29827841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819623
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_0159233.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819375
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819583
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_0159233.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819701
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_0159233.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819279
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819485
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_0159233.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819451
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29821699
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29829291
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_0159233.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819197
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819247
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29821125
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29822345
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29841975
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29824065
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29839467
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29822793
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29823295
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29823189
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29823661
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29824403
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819331
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819231
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29822229
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29835753
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29823441
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819239
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_0159233.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819447
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29821427
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29821661
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_0159233.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819217
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_0159233.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819727
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_0159233.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819535
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29825747
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_0159233.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819355
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_0159233.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819275
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29821007
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29821609
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819913
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29855105
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29825845
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29821945
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819833
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29820181
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29822577
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819799
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_0159233.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819609
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819783
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_0159233.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819497
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29838643
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_0159233.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819503
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29825057
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29833949
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29820183
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29820001
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_0159233.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29821573
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_0159233.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819295
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29820425
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_0159233.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819415
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_0159233.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29822243
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_0159233.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29820389
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_0159233.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819281
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29822681
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29820585
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29820443
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29829889
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819965
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29820751
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29834391
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_0159233.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819623
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29819813
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29821939
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_0159233.29827841
</commentlist>
</conversation>
