<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_29_1541227</id>
	<title>Intergalactic Race Shows That Einstein Still Rules</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1256833680000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://poncacityweloveyou.com/" rel="nofollow">Ponca City, We love you</a> writes <i>"The NY Times reports that after a journey of 7.3 billion light-years, a race between gamma rays ranging from 31 billion electron volts to 10,000 electron volts, a factor of more than a million, in a burst from an exploding star, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/science/space/29light.html">have arrived within nine-tenths of a second of each other</a>. A detector on NASA&rsquo;s Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope confirmed Einstein&rsquo;s proclamation in his 1905 theory of relativity that the speed of light is constant and independent of its color, energy, direction or how you yourself are moving. Some theorists had suggested that space on very small scales has <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/mission\_pages/GLAST/news/first\_year.html">a granular structure that would speed some light waves faster than others</a> &mdash; in short, that relativity could break down on the smallest scales. Until now such quantum gravity theories have been untestable because ordinarily you would have to see details as small as the so-called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck\_length">Planck length, which is vastly smaller than an atom</a> &mdash; to test these theories in order to discern the bumpiness of space."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ponca City , We love you writes " The NY Times reports that after a journey of 7.3 billion light-years , a race between gamma rays ranging from 31 billion electron volts to 10,000 electron volts , a factor of more than a million , in a burst from an exploding star , have arrived within nine-tenths of a second of each other .
A detector on NASA    s Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope confirmed Einstein    s proclamation in his 1905 theory of relativity that the speed of light is constant and independent of its color , energy , direction or how you yourself are moving .
Some theorists had suggested that space on very small scales has a granular structure that would speed some light waves faster than others    in short , that relativity could break down on the smallest scales .
Until now such quantum gravity theories have been untestable because ordinarily you would have to see details as small as the so-called Planck length , which is vastly smaller than an atom    to test these theories in order to discern the bumpiness of space .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ponca City, We love you writes "The NY Times reports that after a journey of 7.3 billion light-years, a race between gamma rays ranging from 31 billion electron volts to 10,000 electron volts, a factor of more than a million, in a burst from an exploding star, have arrived within nine-tenths of a second of each other.
A detector on NASA’s Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope confirmed Einstein’s proclamation in his 1905 theory of relativity that the speed of light is constant and independent of its color, energy, direction or how you yourself are moving.
Some theorists had suggested that space on very small scales has a granular structure that would speed some light waves faster than others — in short, that relativity could break down on the smallest scales.
Until now such quantum gravity theories have been untestable because ordinarily you would have to see details as small as the so-called Planck length, which is vastly smaller than an atom — to test these theories in order to discern the bumpiness of space.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29924431</id>
	<title>Re:Planck length</title>
	<author>Wargames</author>
	<datestamp>1256920260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yet if it were infantessimally small Achilles could not outrun the tortoise.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's\_paradoxes" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's\_paradoxes</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet if it were infantessimally small Achilles could not outrun the tortoise .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno 's \ _paradoxes [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet if it were infantessimally small Achilles could not outrun the tortoise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's\_paradoxes [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29913821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912149</id>
	<title>Re:i'm confused</title>
	<author>oodaloop</author>
	<datestamp>1256837820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Probably due to the reflex time when they started and stopped their stopwatches.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably due to the reflex time when they started and stopped their stopwatches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably due to the reflex time when they started and stopped their stopwatches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29915247</id>
	<title>String Theory Scale...</title>
	<author>Xin Jing</author>
	<datestamp>1256849820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In "The Elegant Universe" Brian Greene <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian\_Greene" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian\_Greene</a> [wikipedia.org] made a similar analogy in regards to string theory: if an atom were expanded to the size of our solar system, an individual string would be the size of a tree.</p><p>However, He didn't specify what kind of tree.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In " The Elegant Universe " Brian Greene http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian \ _Greene [ wikipedia.org ] made a similar analogy in regards to string theory : if an atom were expanded to the size of our solar system , an individual string would be the size of a tree.However , He did n't specify what kind of tree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In "The Elegant Universe" Brian Greene http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian\_Greene [wikipedia.org] made a similar analogy in regards to string theory: if an atom were expanded to the size of our solar system, an individual string would be the size of a tree.However, He didn't specify what kind of tree.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29913821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912279</id>
	<title>Re:i'm confused</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256838180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>9/10th of a second is only about 3/4th the distance from earth to the moon. I don't know for sure but I think that's a rather small difference and could be accounted for just by the size of the star that exploded. Our own sun is about 4 seconds across isn't it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>9/10th of a second is only about 3/4th the distance from earth to the moon .
I do n't know for sure but I think that 's a rather small difference and could be accounted for just by the size of the star that exploded .
Our own sun is about 4 seconds across is n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>9/10th of a second is only about 3/4th the distance from earth to the moon.
I don't know for sure but I think that's a rather small difference and could be accounted for just by the size of the star that exploded.
Our own sun is about 4 seconds across isn't it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29917583</id>
	<title>Re:i'm confused</title>
	<author>shaitand</author>
	<datestamp>1256815260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"smaller than a planck length (which is the assumed smallest possible distance that something measurable can happen in classical physics)"</p><p>Something seems to be amiss here. If the variation is smaller than a planck doesn't that debunk aforementioned assumption?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" smaller than a planck length ( which is the assumed smallest possible distance that something measurable can happen in classical physics ) " Something seems to be amiss here .
If the variation is smaller than a planck does n't that debunk aforementioned assumption ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"smaller than a planck length (which is the assumed smallest possible distance that something measurable can happen in classical physics)"Something seems to be amiss here.
If the variation is smaller than a planck doesn't that debunk aforementioned assumption?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912185</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29913799</id>
	<title>Dispersion</title>
	<author>sugarmotor</author>
	<datestamp>1256844060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought the speed of light does depend on the medium through which light travels.</p><p>
&nbsp; * <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion\_(optics)" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion\_(optics)</a> [wikipedia.org]<br>
&nbsp; * <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prism\_(optics)" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prism\_(optics)</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>What they measured is a bit surprising that way.</p><p>Stephan</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought the speed of light does depend on the medium through which light travels .
  * http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion \ _ ( optics ) [ wikipedia.org ]   * http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prism \ _ ( optics ) [ wikipedia.org ] What they measured is a bit surprising that way.Stephan</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought the speed of light does depend on the medium through which light travels.
  * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion\_(optics) [wikipedia.org]
  * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prism\_(optics) [wikipedia.org]What they measured is a bit surprising that way.Stephan</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29924719</id>
	<title>Intergalactic Race?</title>
	<author>alexo</author>
	<datestamp>1256921400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And here I was, all ready to welcome our new overlords...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And here I was , all ready to welcome our new overlords.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And here I was, all ready to welcome our new overlords...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912185</id>
	<title>Re:i'm confused</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1256837880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The importance is that that puts the effect at smaller than a planck length (which is the assumed smallest possible distance that something measurable can happen in classical physics).  From the first article:<p><div class="quote"><p>The spread in travel time of 0.9 second between the highest- and lowest-energy gamma rays, if attributed to quantum effects rather than the dynamics of the explosion itself, suggested that any quantum effects in which the slowing of light is proportional to its energy do not show up until you get down to sizes about <b>eight-tenths of the Planck length</b>, according to the Nature paper, whose lead author was Sylvain Guiriec of the University of Alabama.</p> </div><p>Granted they say it would have to be proven much smaller than a planck length for most people to accept this as empirical proof, it is empirical data backing Einstein.  The 9/10s could be due to the explosion or a physical effect but the latter is now more unlikely given the many light year distance.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The importance is that that puts the effect at smaller than a planck length ( which is the assumed smallest possible distance that something measurable can happen in classical physics ) .
From the first article : The spread in travel time of 0.9 second between the highest- and lowest-energy gamma rays , if attributed to quantum effects rather than the dynamics of the explosion itself , suggested that any quantum effects in which the slowing of light is proportional to its energy do not show up until you get down to sizes about eight-tenths of the Planck length , according to the Nature paper , whose lead author was Sylvain Guiriec of the University of Alabama .
Granted they say it would have to be proven much smaller than a planck length for most people to accept this as empirical proof , it is empirical data backing Einstein .
The 9/10s could be due to the explosion or a physical effect but the latter is now more unlikely given the many light year distance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The importance is that that puts the effect at smaller than a planck length (which is the assumed smallest possible distance that something measurable can happen in classical physics).
From the first article:The spread in travel time of 0.9 second between the highest- and lowest-energy gamma rays, if attributed to quantum effects rather than the dynamics of the explosion itself, suggested that any quantum effects in which the slowing of light is proportional to its energy do not show up until you get down to sizes about eight-tenths of the Planck length, according to the Nature paper, whose lead author was Sylvain Guiriec of the University of Alabama.
Granted they say it would have to be proven much smaller than a planck length for most people to accept this as empirical proof, it is empirical data backing Einstein.
The 9/10s could be due to the explosion or a physical effect but the latter is now more unlikely given the many light year distance.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912123</id>
	<title>Re:i'm confused</title>
	<author>DreadPiratePizz</author>
	<datestamp>1256837760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Over 7.8 billion light years, a difference of 9/10 of a second is such an incredibly small margin.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Over 7.8 billion light years , a difference of 9/10 of a second is such an incredibly small margin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Over 7.8 billion light years, a difference of 9/10 of a second is such an incredibly small margin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29914703</id>
	<title>I missed it!</title>
	<author>homesnatch</author>
	<datestamp>1256847600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Man oh man.. I stepped out to use the bathroom and I missed it...  I had been waiting 7.3 billion years for this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Man oh man.. I stepped out to use the bathroom and I missed it... I had been waiting 7.3 billion years for this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man oh man.. I stepped out to use the bathroom and I missed it...  I had been waiting 7.3 billion years for this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29916611</id>
	<title>Time</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1256811540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The observed time between the events could represent a much wider differential thanm the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.9 seconds. If the faster photon starts at the begining of the 'ka', and the slower one starts at the end of the 'boom', with the faster particle passing the slower one sometime during the 7.3 million years, then you have a possible difference of (0.9 + 2.2 + 0.9) = 4 seconds. What is the expected time differential expected if the speed is based on wavelength?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The observed time between the events could represent a much wider differential thanm the .9 seconds .
If the faster photon starts at the begining of the 'ka ' , and the slower one starts at the end of the 'boom ' , with the faster particle passing the slower one sometime during the 7.3 million years , then you have a possible difference of ( 0.9 + 2.2 + 0.9 ) = 4 seconds .
What is the expected time differential expected if the speed is based on wavelength ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The observed time between the events could represent a much wider differential thanm the .9 seconds.
If the faster photon starts at the begining of the 'ka', and the slower one starts at the end of the 'boom', with the faster particle passing the slower one sometime during the 7.3 million years, then you have a possible difference of (0.9 + 2.2 + 0.9) = 4 seconds.
What is the expected time differential expected if the speed is based on wavelength?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29919173</id>
	<title>GRB have no known sources</title>
	<author>forand</author>
	<datestamp>1256824320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just to be clear while there have been some correlations between super-nova and GRBs, they are not confirmed to be from any single source. None have occurred within our Galaxy during the modern era.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just to be clear while there have been some correlations between super-nova and GRBs , they are not confirmed to be from any single source .
None have occurred within our Galaxy during the modern era .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just to be clear while there have been some correlations between super-nova and GRBs, they are not confirmed to be from any single source.
None have occurred within our Galaxy during the modern era.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29913425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29917085</id>
	<title>Doubly Special Relativity</title>
	<author>tylersoze</author>
	<datestamp>1256813220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's one theory that posits the speed of light would vary depending on the energy scale. Basically the thinking is that the Planck length should also remain an invariant quantity regardless of the reference frame, so you modify the Lorentz transformation in such a way to make that work.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubly-special\_relativity" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubly-special\_relativity</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's one theory that posits the speed of light would vary depending on the energy scale .
Basically the thinking is that the Planck length should also remain an invariant quantity regardless of the reference frame , so you modify the Lorentz transformation in such a way to make that work.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubly-special \ _relativity [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's one theory that posits the speed of light would vary depending on the energy scale.
Basically the thinking is that the Planck length should also remain an invariant quantity regardless of the reference frame, so you modify the Lorentz transformation in such a way to make that work.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubly-special\_relativity [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29913073</id>
	<title>Re:i'm confused</title>
	<author>AndrewNeo</author>
	<datestamp>1256841060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=diameter+of+the+sun+in+light+seconds" title="wolframalpha.com">4.64 seconds</a> [wolframalpha.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>4.64 seconds [ wolframalpha.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>4.64 seconds [wolframalpha.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29916801</id>
	<title>Original article</title>
	<author>TeethWhitener</author>
	<datestamp>1256812140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For those of us who have a subscription to Nature but not to NYT for whatever reason: <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature08574.html" title="nature.com" rel="nofollow">Here's</a> [nature.com] the original article.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For those of us who have a subscription to Nature but not to NYT for whatever reason : Here 's [ nature.com ] the original article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those of us who have a subscription to Nature but not to NYT for whatever reason: Here's [nature.com] the original article.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29920717</id>
	<title>Re:i'm confused</title>
	<author>HydroPhonic</author>
	<datestamp>1256838660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It might be that the photons in question took <i>slightly</i> different paths through the myriad gravity wells there and here, such that the "distance" they traveled was not equal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It might be that the photons in question took slightly different paths through the myriad gravity wells there and here , such that the " distance " they traveled was not equal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It might be that the photons in question took slightly different paths through the myriad gravity wells there and here, such that the "distance" they traveled was not equal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29916131</id>
	<title>Was there ever a doubt?</title>
	<author>stakovahflow</author>
	<datestamp>1256809860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Was there ever a doubt that Einstein still rules. Just look at Isaac Newton, that "gravity" of his was made a law. Hooray, Science! *Just stating the obvious* -Stak</htmltext>
<tokenext>Was there ever a doubt that Einstein still rules .
Just look at Isaac Newton , that " gravity " of his was made a law .
Hooray , Science !
* Just stating the obvious * -Stak</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was there ever a doubt that Einstein still rules.
Just look at Isaac Newton, that "gravity" of his was made a law.
Hooray, Science!
*Just stating the obvious* -Stak</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29915819</id>
	<title>I thought intergalactic gas had more effect</title>
	<author>shoor</author>
	<datestamp>1256808900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought electromagnetic radiation of different frequencies traveled at different speeds through a medium (as opposed to a vacuum).  In this case, the medium would be intergalactic gas, very thin, but there's 7 billion light years of it.  How come that didn't spread things out?  Is it because the frequencies involved are so high?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought electromagnetic radiation of different frequencies traveled at different speeds through a medium ( as opposed to a vacuum ) .
In this case , the medium would be intergalactic gas , very thin , but there 's 7 billion light years of it .
How come that did n't spread things out ?
Is it because the frequencies involved are so high ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought electromagnetic radiation of different frequencies traveled at different speeds through a medium (as opposed to a vacuum).
In this case, the medium would be intergalactic gas, very thin, but there's 7 billion light years of it.
How come that didn't spread things out?
Is it because the frequencies involved are so high?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29915041</id>
	<title>Re:Planck length</title>
	<author>Akardam</author>
	<datestamp>1256849040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>... the Planck length would be about as long as a tall cedar tree.</i></p><p>I prefer to measure my Plank lengths in redwood or pine, myself.</p><p>Oh, wait...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... the Planck length would be about as long as a tall cedar tree.I prefer to measure my Plank lengths in redwood or pine , myself.Oh , wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... the Planck length would be about as long as a tall cedar tree.I prefer to measure my Plank lengths in redwood or pine, myself.Oh, wait...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29913821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29920897</id>
	<title>Re:i'm confused</title>
	<author>AniVisual</author>
	<datestamp>1256842260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> As for how small a neutron star is, it's ~20 km in diameter. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As for how small a neutron star is , it 's ~ 20 km in diameter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> As for how small a neutron star is, it's ~20 km in diameter. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29913425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912247</id>
	<title>Re:i'm confused</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256838060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The light propagated through space for 7.3 billion years. A delta of +/-0.000000000000000039\% is not even close to statistically significant. It could have been from local variations in the density of a nebula or something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The light propagated through space for 7.3 billion years .
A delta of + /-0.000000000000000039 \ % is not even close to statistically significant .
It could have been from local variations in the density of a nebula or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The light propagated through space for 7.3 billion years.
A delta of +/-0.000000000000000039\% is not even close to statistically significant.
It could have been from local variations in the density of a nebula or something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29920901</id>
	<title>Re:i'm confused</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1256842320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uuum, how do they know that the rays *started* at the same time? It can easily be a set of those rays of different energies starting at different times, that happened to end up here at that same time. Sorry, but there is no way in hell, they can know when those rays started. Let alone this exact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uuum , how do they know that the rays * started * at the same time ?
It can easily be a set of those rays of different energies starting at different times , that happened to end up here at that same time .
Sorry , but there is no way in hell , they can know when those rays started .
Let alone this exact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uuum, how do they know that the rays *started* at the same time?
It can easily be a set of those rays of different energies starting at different times, that happened to end up here at that same time.
Sorry, but there is no way in hell, they can know when those rays started.
Let alone this exact.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912185</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29919293</id>
	<title>lots of authors</title>
	<author>rgravina</author>
	<datestamp>1256825160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny... I sent the link to a friend who does GRB-related research, and she said "thanks, I already know about it though, I'm one of the authors"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:). Apparently there are 210 authors on that paper though. Imagine coordinating that.</p><p>Anyway, I don't know a thing about astrophysics so that's about all I can contribute to this discussion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny... I sent the link to a friend who does GRB-related research , and she said " thanks , I already know about it though , I 'm one of the authors " : ) .
Apparently there are 210 authors on that paper though .
Imagine coordinating that.Anyway , I do n't know a thing about astrophysics so that 's about all I can contribute to this discussion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny... I sent the link to a friend who does GRB-related research, and she said "thanks, I already know about it though, I'm one of the authors" :).
Apparently there are 210 authors on that paper though.
Imagine coordinating that.Anyway, I don't know a thing about astrophysics so that's about all I can contribute to this discussion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29914091</id>
	<title>Re:i'm confused</title>
	<author>steelfood</author>
	<datestamp>1256845140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Granted they say it would have to be proven much smaller than a planck length for most people to accept this as empirical proof</p></div><p>You mean most physicists. Most people couldn't tell you what qualifies as empirical proof, much less what planck's length is, if it hit them on the head.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Granted they say it would have to be proven much smaller than a planck length for most people to accept this as empirical proofYou mean most physicists .
Most people could n't tell you what qualifies as empirical proof , much less what planck 's length is , if it hit them on the head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Granted they say it would have to be proven much smaller than a planck length for most people to accept this as empirical proofYou mean most physicists.
Most people couldn't tell you what qualifies as empirical proof, much less what planck's length is, if it hit them on the head.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912185</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29921025</id>
	<title>Re:i'm confused</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1256844240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The fundamental result they get is from a single high-energy gamma ray at the end of the last spike in the burst, which comes 0.9 s after the onset of that spike (seen in the lower-energy photon flux). They do a lot of analysis to argue that the most plausible explanation of that single photon is that it is a member of that spike rather than a random cosmic ray. Anyone familiar with modern statistical techniques will see that this is straightforward, albeit non-trivial.</p></div><p>So the assumption is, that the photons of different energies that they compared in arrival time, come from the same ray, and from the same moment in that ray's wave. And the proof for the assumption is some pretty complex statistical analysis?</p><p>Sorry, but I'm still far away from sold. Please enlighten me, how statistical analysis can determine the exact same starting time, and cope with the time-warping (that can happen near any object with a big mass) that most likely also happened? I simply can't imagine that. (This is a honest question. Not a rhetorical one.*)</p><p>I think that it's very likely, that the photons they measured, were just the set of those that arrived at roughly the same moment, because the either started at the same time, OR were time-warped, had different speeds, or whatever, which made them end up in the same time, despite having started at different ones. And without being there at the time of start, or knowing the state of all of space that the photons passed through, there is no way to ever know which of those things happened.</p><p>It would be cool though, if you could *prove* me wrong with one (logically consistent and sound) paragraph.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br>\_\_\_<br>* From your comment I assume you're the exception here at<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., and don't take everything you read as a personal attack on your beliefs. ^^</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fundamental result they get is from a single high-energy gamma ray at the end of the last spike in the burst , which comes 0.9 s after the onset of that spike ( seen in the lower-energy photon flux ) .
They do a lot of analysis to argue that the most plausible explanation of that single photon is that it is a member of that spike rather than a random cosmic ray .
Anyone familiar with modern statistical techniques will see that this is straightforward , albeit non-trivial.So the assumption is , that the photons of different energies that they compared in arrival time , come from the same ray , and from the same moment in that ray 's wave .
And the proof for the assumption is some pretty complex statistical analysis ? Sorry , but I 'm still far away from sold .
Please enlighten me , how statistical analysis can determine the exact same starting time , and cope with the time-warping ( that can happen near any object with a big mass ) that most likely also happened ?
I simply ca n't imagine that .
( This is a honest question .
Not a rhetorical one .
* ) I think that it 's very likely , that the photons they measured , were just the set of those that arrived at roughly the same moment , because the either started at the same time , OR were time-warped , had different speeds , or whatever , which made them end up in the same time , despite having started at different ones .
And without being there at the time of start , or knowing the state of all of space that the photons passed through , there is no way to ever know which of those things happened.It would be cool though , if you could * prove * me wrong with one ( logically consistent and sound ) paragraph .
: ) \ _ \ _ \ _ * From your comment I assume you 're the exception here at /. , and do n't take everything you read as a personal attack on your beliefs .
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fundamental result they get is from a single high-energy gamma ray at the end of the last spike in the burst, which comes 0.9 s after the onset of that spike (seen in the lower-energy photon flux).
They do a lot of analysis to argue that the most plausible explanation of that single photon is that it is a member of that spike rather than a random cosmic ray.
Anyone familiar with modern statistical techniques will see that this is straightforward, albeit non-trivial.So the assumption is, that the photons of different energies that they compared in arrival time, come from the same ray, and from the same moment in that ray's wave.
And the proof for the assumption is some pretty complex statistical analysis?Sorry, but I'm still far away from sold.
Please enlighten me, how statistical analysis can determine the exact same starting time, and cope with the time-warping (that can happen near any object with a big mass) that most likely also happened?
I simply can't imagine that.
(This is a honest question.
Not a rhetorical one.
*)I think that it's very likely, that the photons they measured, were just the set of those that arrived at roughly the same moment, because the either started at the same time, OR were time-warped, had different speeds, or whatever, which made them end up in the same time, despite having started at different ones.
And without being there at the time of start, or knowing the state of all of space that the photons passed through, there is no way to ever know which of those things happened.It would be cool though, if you could *prove* me wrong with one (logically consistent and sound) paragraph.
:)\_\_\_* From your comment I assume you're the exception here at /., and don't take everything you read as a personal attack on your beliefs.
^^
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29913425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29913821</id>
	<title>Planck length</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1256844120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I heard a good analogy once explaining just how small the Planck length really is--and why it's so out of reach of any conceivable measurement we can even dream of:</p><p>If the nucleus of a single atom were expanded to the size of the known universe (15 billion light years across--itself an almost unimaginable distance), the Planck length would be about as long as a tall cedar tree.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I heard a good analogy once explaining just how small the Planck length really is--and why it 's so out of reach of any conceivable measurement we can even dream of : If the nucleus of a single atom were expanded to the size of the known universe ( 15 billion light years across--itself an almost unimaginable distance ) , the Planck length would be about as long as a tall cedar tree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I heard a good analogy once explaining just how small the Planck length really is--and why it's so out of reach of any conceivable measurement we can even dream of:If the nucleus of a single atom were expanded to the size of the known universe (15 billion light years across--itself an almost unimaginable distance), the Planck length would be about as long as a tall cedar tree.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29919703</id>
	<title>Re:i'm confused</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1256828520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"This is a gamma ray burst (GRB), which originate from neutron stars, not a super-nova (which is the only reasonable meaning one can give "exploding star".) Neutron stars are small, resulting in much finer burst timescales."</p><p>You should be more specific.  <i>Short</i> gamma ray bursts (which this seems to be) are <i>most likely</i> produced by compact objects like neutron stars.  <i>Long</i> gamma ray bursts look like they probably originate in certain kinds of supernovae.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" This is a gamma ray burst ( GRB ) , which originate from neutron stars , not a super-nova ( which is the only reasonable meaning one can give " exploding star " .
) Neutron stars are small , resulting in much finer burst timescales .
" You should be more specific .
Short gamma ray bursts ( which this seems to be ) are most likely produced by compact objects like neutron stars .
Long gamma ray bursts look like they probably originate in certain kinds of supernovae .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"This is a gamma ray burst (GRB), which originate from neutron stars, not a super-nova (which is the only reasonable meaning one can give "exploding star".
) Neutron stars are small, resulting in much finer burst timescales.
"You should be more specific.
Short gamma ray bursts (which this seems to be) are most likely produced by compact objects like neutron stars.
Long gamma ray bursts look like they probably originate in certain kinds of supernovae.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29913425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29931117</id>
	<title>Re:Planck length</title>
	<author>Cantus</author>
	<datestamp>1256912100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uhm, the size of the universe is 93 billion light years, while the <i>age</i> of the universe is about 14 billion years. Not the same thing.</p><p>A better analogy would be:</p><p>If a single <i>atom</i> were expanded to the size of the observable universe, the Planck length would be about as long as a football field. (<a href="http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=planck+length++\%2F+diameter+of+atom+*+diameter+of+the+universe+in+m" title="wolframalpha.com" rel="nofollow">Thank you WolframAlpha.)</a> [wolframalpha.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhm , the size of the universe is 93 billion light years , while the age of the universe is about 14 billion years .
Not the same thing.A better analogy would be : If a single atom were expanded to the size of the observable universe , the Planck length would be about as long as a football field .
( Thank you WolframAlpha .
) [ wolframalpha.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhm, the size of the universe is 93 billion light years, while the age of the universe is about 14 billion years.
Not the same thing.A better analogy would be:If a single atom were expanded to the size of the observable universe, the Planck length would be about as long as a football field.
(Thank you WolframAlpha.
) [wolframalpha.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29913821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29918013</id>
	<title>how far?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256817540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How could ANYTHING get here from 7.3 billion light years without hitting something and being blocked along the way.....?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How could ANYTHING get here from 7.3 billion light years without hitting something and being blocked along the way..... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How could ANYTHING get here from 7.3 billion light years without hitting something and being blocked along the way.....?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29913425</id>
	<title>Re:i'm confused</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256842620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I don't know for sure but I think that's a rather small difference and could be accounted for just by the size of the star that exploded.</i></p><p>You're confused because the summary, and the press release on which it is based, are misleading and wrong.</p><p>This is a gamma ray burst (GRB), which originate from neutron stars, not a super-nova (which is the only reasonable meaning one can give "exploding star".)  Neutron stars are small, resulting in much finer burst timescales.</p><p>The paper discusses the time-structure of GRB's, which has been extensively studied.  The fundamental result they get is from a single high-energy gamma ray at the end of the last spike in the burst, which comes 0.9 s after the onset of that spike (seen in the lower-energy photon flux).  They do a lot of analysis to argue that the most plausible explanation of that single photon is that it is a member of that spike rather than a random cosmic ray.  Anyone familiar with modern statistical techniques will see that this is straightforward, albeit non-trivial.</p><p>This is the way science works:  we squeeze limited and imperfect experimental evidence as hard as we can using established theory and other, supporting, observations.  All the "yeah, well, it could be something else" kind of commentary we see so much of on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. is irrelevant to the scientific process, because it is doing nothing but repeating what everyone already knows:  sometimes the most plausible explanation turns out to be wrong.</p><p>The exciting thing about this measurement is that they have shown it is possible to put quantum gravity to a rather good test using entirely conventional gamma-ray spectroscopy techniques, and repeating this kind of measurement over the next few years or decades on different bursts will rapidly push down the limits on potential planck-scale effects, because eventually we'll see bursts where there are a few high-energy photons closer to the onset, or we will see bursts from objects at larger (known) distances.</p><p>The present authors argue, rightly, that their observation makes theories that have a linear dependence of light velocity on wavelength less plausible.  At some point in the next few years it is likely that those theories will be dead, and there's really nothing so beautiful as a theory killed by a fact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know for sure but I think that 's a rather small difference and could be accounted for just by the size of the star that exploded.You 're confused because the summary , and the press release on which it is based , are misleading and wrong.This is a gamma ray burst ( GRB ) , which originate from neutron stars , not a super-nova ( which is the only reasonable meaning one can give " exploding star " .
) Neutron stars are small , resulting in much finer burst timescales.The paper discusses the time-structure of GRB 's , which has been extensively studied .
The fundamental result they get is from a single high-energy gamma ray at the end of the last spike in the burst , which comes 0.9 s after the onset of that spike ( seen in the lower-energy photon flux ) .
They do a lot of analysis to argue that the most plausible explanation of that single photon is that it is a member of that spike rather than a random cosmic ray .
Anyone familiar with modern statistical techniques will see that this is straightforward , albeit non-trivial.This is the way science works : we squeeze limited and imperfect experimental evidence as hard as we can using established theory and other , supporting , observations .
All the " yeah , well , it could be something else " kind of commentary we see so much of on / .
is irrelevant to the scientific process , because it is doing nothing but repeating what everyone already knows : sometimes the most plausible explanation turns out to be wrong.The exciting thing about this measurement is that they have shown it is possible to put quantum gravity to a rather good test using entirely conventional gamma-ray spectroscopy techniques , and repeating this kind of measurement over the next few years or decades on different bursts will rapidly push down the limits on potential planck-scale effects , because eventually we 'll see bursts where there are a few high-energy photons closer to the onset , or we will see bursts from objects at larger ( known ) distances.The present authors argue , rightly , that their observation makes theories that have a linear dependence of light velocity on wavelength less plausible .
At some point in the next few years it is likely that those theories will be dead , and there 's really nothing so beautiful as a theory killed by a fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know for sure but I think that's a rather small difference and could be accounted for just by the size of the star that exploded.You're confused because the summary, and the press release on which it is based, are misleading and wrong.This is a gamma ray burst (GRB), which originate from neutron stars, not a super-nova (which is the only reasonable meaning one can give "exploding star".
)  Neutron stars are small, resulting in much finer burst timescales.The paper discusses the time-structure of GRB's, which has been extensively studied.
The fundamental result they get is from a single high-energy gamma ray at the end of the last spike in the burst, which comes 0.9 s after the onset of that spike (seen in the lower-energy photon flux).
They do a lot of analysis to argue that the most plausible explanation of that single photon is that it is a member of that spike rather than a random cosmic ray.
Anyone familiar with modern statistical techniques will see that this is straightforward, albeit non-trivial.This is the way science works:  we squeeze limited and imperfect experimental evidence as hard as we can using established theory and other, supporting, observations.
All the "yeah, well, it could be something else" kind of commentary we see so much of on /.
is irrelevant to the scientific process, because it is doing nothing but repeating what everyone already knows:  sometimes the most plausible explanation turns out to be wrong.The exciting thing about this measurement is that they have shown it is possible to put quantum gravity to a rather good test using entirely conventional gamma-ray spectroscopy techniques, and repeating this kind of measurement over the next few years or decades on different bursts will rapidly push down the limits on potential planck-scale effects, because eventually we'll see bursts where there are a few high-energy photons closer to the onset, or we will see bursts from objects at larger (known) distances.The present authors argue, rightly, that their observation makes theories that have a linear dependence of light velocity on wavelength less plausible.
At some point in the next few years it is likely that those theories will be dead, and there's really nothing so beautiful as a theory killed by a fact.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29915573</id>
	<title>Re:Planck length</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256807760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The size of the universe a lot more than simply its age, so it's not just ~15 10^9 light years but around 100 to 150 billion light years (yes, a difference of about an order of magnitude)...</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The size of the universe a lot more than simply its age , so it 's not just ~ 15 10 ^ 9 light years but around 100 to 150 billion light years ( yes , a difference of about an order of magnitude ) ...http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The size of the universe a lot more than simply its age, so it's not just ~15 10^9 light years but around 100 to 150 billion light years (yes, a difference of about an order of magnitude)...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29913821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29915833</id>
	<title>Re:Planck length</title>
	<author>Bob-taro</author>
	<datestamp>1256808960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the nucleus of a single atom were expanded to the size of the known universe (15 billion light years across--itself an almost unimaginable distance), the Planck length would be about as long as a tall cedar tree.</p></div><p>The height of a cedar tree?  You must be thinking of "plank" length.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the nucleus of a single atom were expanded to the size of the known universe ( 15 billion light years across--itself an almost unimaginable distance ) , the Planck length would be about as long as a tall cedar tree.The height of a cedar tree ?
You must be thinking of " plank " length .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the nucleus of a single atom were expanded to the size of the known universe (15 billion light years across--itself an almost unimaginable distance), the Planck length would be about as long as a tall cedar tree.The height of a cedar tree?
You must be thinking of "plank" length.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29913821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29920071</id>
	<title>Re:i'm confused</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256831580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm guessing that the error bounds on the readings were great enough that 0.9 seconds over 7.3billion years, was within them....</p></div><p>No it isn't. There is a single point of collection from Nasa, the 7.3 billion years of travel is completely irrelevant at the point of measurement, it may as well have been<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.0000001 of a second of travel, if there equiqment is so shitty that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.9 of a second is an acceptable error for the times of when 2 events occur then I doubt anything else coming out of there could EVER be trusted.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm guessing that the error bounds on the readings were great enough that 0.9 seconds over 7.3billion years , was within them....No it is n't .
There is a single point of collection from Nasa , the 7.3 billion years of travel is completely irrelevant at the point of measurement , it may as well have been .0000001 of a second of travel , if there equiqment is so shitty that .9 of a second is an acceptable error for the times of when 2 events occur then I doubt anything else coming out of there could EVER be trusted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm guessing that the error bounds on the readings were great enough that 0.9 seconds over 7.3billion years, was within them....No it isn't.
There is a single point of collection from Nasa, the 7.3 billion years of travel is completely irrelevant at the point of measurement, it may as well have been .0000001 of a second of travel, if there equiqment is so shitty that .9 of a second is an acceptable error for the times of when 2 events occur then I doubt anything else coming out of there could EVER be trusted.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912137</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29922563</id>
	<title>Leafy green</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256910720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All right, break out the lettuce!</p><p>Oops, wrong Einstein</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All right , break out the lettuce ! Oops , wrong Einstein</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All right, break out the lettuce!Oops, wrong Einstein</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912137</id>
	<title>Re:i'm confused</title>
	<author>Nevynxxx</author>
	<datestamp>1256837760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm guessing that the error bounds on the readings were great enough that 0.9 seconds over 7.3billion years, was within them....</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm guessing that the error bounds on the readings were great enough that 0.9 seconds over 7.3billion years , was within them... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm guessing that the error bounds on the readings were great enough that 0.9 seconds over 7.3billion years, was within them....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29923327</id>
	<title>Re:Planck length</title>
	<author>Man Eating Duck</author>
	<datestamp>1256915460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>size of the known universe (15 billion light years across--itself an almost unimaginable distance)</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>Nitpicking: It's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable\_universe#Size\_of\_the\_observable\_universe" title="wikipedia.org">93 billion light-years (radius 46.5 billion)</a> [wikipedia.org], see Misconceptions.<br>It doesn't really matter, as the distances involved are so mindbogglingly large that in most cases the only explanation you need will be: "So large that your mind can't cope with it". The same thing goes for the infinitesimal size of an atomic nucleus. An error of an order of magnitude still gets the point across<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>size of the known universe ( 15 billion light years across--itself an almost unimaginable distance ) Nitpicking : It 's 93 billion light-years ( radius 46.5 billion ) [ wikipedia.org ] , see Misconceptions.It does n't really matter , as the distances involved are so mindbogglingly large that in most cases the only explanation you need will be : " So large that your mind ca n't cope with it " .
The same thing goes for the infinitesimal size of an atomic nucleus .
An error of an order of magnitude still gets the point across : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext> size of the known universe (15 billion light years across--itself an almost unimaginable distance) Nitpicking: It's 93 billion light-years (radius 46.5 billion) [wikipedia.org], see Misconceptions.It doesn't really matter, as the distances involved are so mindbogglingly large that in most cases the only explanation you need will be: "So large that your mind can't cope with it".
The same thing goes for the infinitesimal size of an atomic nucleus.
An error of an order of magnitude still gets the point across :)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29913821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912023</id>
	<title>i'm confused</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1256837460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they arrived within 9/10th of a second of each other</p><p>which indicates the opposite of the story's summary</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they arrived within 9/10th of a second of each otherwhich indicates the opposite of the story 's summary</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they arrived within 9/10th of a second of each otherwhich indicates the opposite of the story's summary</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1541227_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29920901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1541227_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29914091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1541227_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29919173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29913425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1541227_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29921025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29913425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1541227_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29919703
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29913425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1541227_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29923327
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29913821
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1541227_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29915041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29913821
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1541227_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29931117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29913821
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1541227_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1541227_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29915247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29913821
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1541227_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29917583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1541227_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29920897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29913425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1541227_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29924431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29913821
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1541227_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29920717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1541227_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29913073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1541227_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29915833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29913821
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1541227_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1541227_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29920071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1541227_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29915573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29913821
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_29_1541227_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_1541227.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912023
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912137
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29920071
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912247
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912279
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29913425
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29921025
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29919703
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29919173
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29920897
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29920717
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29913073
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912185
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29914091
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29920901
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29917583
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29912123
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_1541227.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29918013
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_1541227.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29913821
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29915833
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29915573
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29924431
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29931117
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29915041
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29923327
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29915247
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_1541227.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29915819
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_29_1541227.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_29_1541227.29913799
</commentlist>
</conversation>
