<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_11_1428252</id>
	<title>Big Dipper "Star" Actually a Sextuplet System</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1260553680000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Theosis sends word that an astronomer at the University of Rochester and his colleagues have made the surprise discovery that Alcor, one of the brightest stars in the Big Dipper, is actually two stars; and it is apparently gravitationally bound to the four-star Mizar system, <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091210092005.htm">making the whole group a sextuplet</a>. This would make the Mizar-Alcor sextuplet the second-nearest such system known. The discovery is especially surprising because Alcor is one of the most studied stars in the sky. The Mizar-Alcor system has been involved in many "firsts" in the history of astronomy: <i>"Benedetto Castelli, Galileo's protege and collaborator, first observed with a telescope that Mizar was not a single star in 1617, and Galileo observed it a week after hearing about this from Castelli, and noted it in his notebooks... Those two stars, called Mizar A and Mizar B, together with Alcor, in 1857 became the first binary stars ever photographed through a telescope. In 1890, Mizar A was discovered to itself be a binary, being the first binary to be discovered using spectroscopy. In 1908, spectroscopy revealed that Mizar B was also a pair of stars, making the group the first-known quintuple star system."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Theosis sends word that an astronomer at the University of Rochester and his colleagues have made the surprise discovery that Alcor , one of the brightest stars in the Big Dipper , is actually two stars ; and it is apparently gravitationally bound to the four-star Mizar system , making the whole group a sextuplet .
This would make the Mizar-Alcor sextuplet the second-nearest such system known .
The discovery is especially surprising because Alcor is one of the most studied stars in the sky .
The Mizar-Alcor system has been involved in many " firsts " in the history of astronomy : " Benedetto Castelli , Galileo 's protege and collaborator , first observed with a telescope that Mizar was not a single star in 1617 , and Galileo observed it a week after hearing about this from Castelli , and noted it in his notebooks... Those two stars , called Mizar A and Mizar B , together with Alcor , in 1857 became the first binary stars ever photographed through a telescope .
In 1890 , Mizar A was discovered to itself be a binary , being the first binary to be discovered using spectroscopy .
In 1908 , spectroscopy revealed that Mizar B was also a pair of stars , making the group the first-known quintuple star system .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Theosis sends word that an astronomer at the University of Rochester and his colleagues have made the surprise discovery that Alcor, one of the brightest stars in the Big Dipper, is actually two stars; and it is apparently gravitationally bound to the four-star Mizar system, making the whole group a sextuplet.
This would make the Mizar-Alcor sextuplet the second-nearest such system known.
The discovery is especially surprising because Alcor is one of the most studied stars in the sky.
The Mizar-Alcor system has been involved in many "firsts" in the history of astronomy: "Benedetto Castelli, Galileo's protege and collaborator, first observed with a telescope that Mizar was not a single star in 1617, and Galileo observed it a week after hearing about this from Castelli, and noted it in his notebooks... Those two stars, called Mizar A and Mizar B, together with Alcor, in 1857 became the first binary stars ever photographed through a telescope.
In 1890, Mizar A was discovered to itself be a binary, being the first binary to be discovered using spectroscopy.
In 1908, spectroscopy revealed that Mizar B was also a pair of stars, making the group the first-known quintuple star system.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30409828</id>
	<title>Re:Only 78 light years away</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260543480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm still trying to find intelligent life on Earth, if these Aliens can find some I'd appreciate them contacting me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm still trying to find intelligent life on Earth , if these Aliens can find some I 'd appreciate them contacting me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm still trying to find intelligent life on Earth, if these Aliens can find some I'd appreciate them contacting me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30405172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30406370</id>
	<title>WTF?</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1260523500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you are telling me that this system now has 6 suns instead of 4?<br>I think this calls for George Lucas to redo all the star wars movies YET AGAIN, with<br>a new backdrop featuring the 6 suns, as it could very well be a cooler movie with 6 instead of 2!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you are telling me that this system now has 6 suns instead of 4 ? I think this calls for George Lucas to redo all the star wars movies YET AGAIN , witha new backdrop featuring the 6 suns , as it could very well be a cooler movie with 6 instead of 2 ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you are telling me that this system now has 6 suns instead of 4?I think this calls for George Lucas to redo all the star wars movies YET AGAIN, witha new backdrop featuring the 6 suns, as it could very well be a cooler movie with 6 instead of 2!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30408496</id>
	<title>Re:Ancients needed glasses?</title>
	<author>coastwalker</author>
	<datestamp>1260534540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You havent reached whatever comes after middle age then. I have trouble splitting them in a city now, but cant tell whether its because of the city lights or because my eyes are shot. They look great through a 10" dobsonian in any case<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You havent reached whatever comes after middle age then .
I have trouble splitting them in a city now , but cant tell whether its because of the city lights or because my eyes are shot .
They look great through a 10 " dobsonian in any case : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You havent reached whatever comes after middle age then.
I have trouble splitting them in a city now, but cant tell whether its because of the city lights or because my eyes are shot.
They look great through a 10" dobsonian in any case :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30405254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30409320</id>
	<title>Re:Astrobooboos</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1260540180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Resolving Mizar A and B (14 arcsecond separation) exceeds the theoretical resolving power of the human eye, and even with perfect vision your eye can't come close to that limit in the dark because your pupil dilates.</p><p>Sir Patrick Moore suggests that the reference is to splitting Mizar and a dim star that appears between Mizar and Alcor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Resolving Mizar A and B ( 14 arcsecond separation ) exceeds the theoretical resolving power of the human eye , and even with perfect vision your eye ca n't come close to that limit in the dark because your pupil dilates.Sir Patrick Moore suggests that the reference is to splitting Mizar and a dim star that appears between Mizar and Alcor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Resolving Mizar A and B (14 arcsecond separation) exceeds the theoretical resolving power of the human eye, and even with perfect vision your eye can't come close to that limit in the dark because your pupil dilates.Sir Patrick Moore suggests that the reference is to splitting Mizar and a dim star that appears between Mizar and Alcor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30407454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404538</id>
	<title>Re:Actually a quadruple...</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1260558180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"four-star Mizar system".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" four-star Mizar system " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"four-star Mizar system".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30405172</id>
	<title>Re:Only 78 light years away</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1260560760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The surprising thing is that this is only about 80 light years away. That's practically our next door neighbor.</i></p><p>And if that star has a planet that had a species that had a SETI fifty years ago, they would have to keep searching for another twenty to forty years to pick up evidence of Earth having an intelligent species. They'd be waiting until 2119 before they heard the first human voice.</p><p>I'm curious, does anyone know how many stars there are within a hundred light year radius of the sun? My googlefu is weak today...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The surprising thing is that this is only about 80 light years away .
That 's practically our next door neighbor.And if that star has a planet that had a species that had a SETI fifty years ago , they would have to keep searching for another twenty to forty years to pick up evidence of Earth having an intelligent species .
They 'd be waiting until 2119 before they heard the first human voice.I 'm curious , does anyone know how many stars there are within a hundred light year radius of the sun ?
My googlefu is weak today.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The surprising thing is that this is only about 80 light years away.
That's practically our next door neighbor.And if that star has a planet that had a species that had a SETI fifty years ago, they would have to keep searching for another twenty to forty years to pick up evidence of Earth having an intelligent species.
They'd be waiting until 2119 before they heard the first human voice.I'm curious, does anyone know how many stars there are within a hundred light year radius of the sun?
My googlefu is weak today...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404694</id>
	<title>I suggested this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260558840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I suggested to my wife we try the sextruplet system with my big dipper and the neighbors, but she would have none of it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I suggested to my wife we try the sextruplet system with my big dipper and the neighbors , but she would have none of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suggested to my wife we try the sextruplet system with my big dipper and the neighbors, but she would have none of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30405322</id>
	<title>Re:In case anyone was wondering...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260561420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, Ursa Major is a larger constellation representing a bear that happens to contain the big dipper.  Hence the name "Ursa Major", or "large bear".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , Ursa Major is a larger constellation representing a bear that happens to contain the big dipper .
Hence the name " Ursa Major " , or " large bear " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, Ursa Major is a larger constellation representing a bear that happens to contain the big dipper.
Hence the name "Ursa Major", or "large bear".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30405054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30408724</id>
	<title>Re:Ancients needed glasses?</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1260535920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In ancient times the atmosphere was cleaner than now, and had a lot less light pollution from towns. Yet it apparently took "exceptional vision" to see Alcor and Mizar as separate stars. I must have phenomenal eyesight then to be able see them any night it isn't cloudy.</p></div><p>By ancient standards, you probably do.  Especially if you have it without the use of corrective lenses that weren't available in ancient times.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In ancient times the atmosphere was cleaner than now , and had a lot less light pollution from towns .
Yet it apparently took " exceptional vision " to see Alcor and Mizar as separate stars .
I must have phenomenal eyesight then to be able see them any night it is n't cloudy.By ancient standards , you probably do .
Especially if you have it without the use of corrective lenses that were n't available in ancient times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In ancient times the atmosphere was cleaner than now, and had a lot less light pollution from towns.
Yet it apparently took "exceptional vision" to see Alcor and Mizar as separate stars.
I must have phenomenal eyesight then to be able see them any night it isn't cloudy.By ancient standards, you probably do.
Especially if you have it without the use of corrective lenses that weren't available in ancient times.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30405254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30412258</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260614940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder how many geeks are going to get laid using that one this Christmas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how many geeks are going to get laid using that one this Christmas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how many geeks are going to get laid using that one this Christmas.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30408434</id>
	<title>Re:Only 78 light years away</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1260534300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It may be the same reason why people go everywhere on the planet but don't even know their own home town: It's not that interesting to look at stuff that's "always been 'round" anyway. You wouldn't expect some new insight from something that has been studied for centuries, would you? It's far more likely to make that headline news discovery somewhere where nobody looked before.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It may be the same reason why people go everywhere on the planet but do n't even know their own home town : It 's not that interesting to look at stuff that 's " always been 'round " anyway .
You would n't expect some new insight from something that has been studied for centuries , would you ?
It 's far more likely to make that headline news discovery somewhere where nobody looked before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may be the same reason why people go everywhere on the planet but don't even know their own home town: It's not that interesting to look at stuff that's "always been 'round" anyway.
You wouldn't expect some new insight from something that has been studied for centuries, would you?
It's far more likely to make that headline news discovery somewhere where nobody looked before.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404478</id>
	<title>Actually a quadruple...</title>
	<author>yope</author>
	<datestamp>1260557880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>2*2=4, so that would be a quadruple, I guess.</htmltext>
<tokenext>2 * 2 = 4 , so that would be a quadruple , I guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2*2=4, so that would be a quadruple, I guess.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30407228</id>
	<title>So what you're saying...</title>
	<author>Valdrax</author>
	<datestamp>1260527220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what you're saying is that it's stars all the way down?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what you 're saying is that it 's stars all the way down ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what you're saying is that it's stars all the way down?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404430</id>
	<title>Only 78 light years away</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260557640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The surprising thing is that this is only about 80 light years away. That's practically our next door neighbor. The fact that there would be undiscovered stars that close is nothing short of amazing. The new star is  very small and dim which helps explain why it was not previously discovered. Still this is a good example of how much we have left to learn. We don't even have a good understanding of our nearby stellar neighbors.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The surprising thing is that this is only about 80 light years away .
That 's practically our next door neighbor .
The fact that there would be undiscovered stars that close is nothing short of amazing .
The new star is very small and dim which helps explain why it was not previously discovered .
Still this is a good example of how much we have left to learn .
We do n't even have a good understanding of our nearby stellar neighbors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The surprising thing is that this is only about 80 light years away.
That's practically our next door neighbor.
The fact that there would be undiscovered stars that close is nothing short of amazing.
The new star is  very small and dim which helps explain why it was not previously discovered.
Still this is a good example of how much we have left to learn.
We don't even have a good understanding of our nearby stellar neighbors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30406004</id>
	<title>Nightfall</title>
	<author>hazem</author>
	<datestamp>1260564840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I couldn't help but think of Asimov's story, Nightfall.  In it, a planet is in a 6-star system and is never dark.  Interesting things happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could n't help but think of Asimov 's story , Nightfall .
In it , a planet is in a 6-star system and is never dark .
Interesting things happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I couldn't help but think of Asimov's story, Nightfall.
In it, a planet is in a 6-star system and is never dark.
Interesting things happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404548</id>
	<title>obvious logical deduction:</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1260558180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in the year 2110, the mizar-alcor system will be discovered to actually be a septuple star system</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in the year 2110 , the mizar-alcor system will be discovered to actually be a septuple star system</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in the year 2110, the mizar-alcor system will be discovered to actually be a septuple star system</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30407930</id>
	<title>Re:Only 78 light years away</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260531360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Two more stars! Apparently the Vogons have been busy...</p><p>http://www.solstation.com/stars.htm is an excellent resource for those looking for timeshare asteroids, gas giant summer homes or travel to exotic lands within a few hyperspatial bypasses of this little galactic backwater. Now, if I could only find the email address where my password retrieval went, I'd be posting as myself instead of AC. Aaargh! (CrazyCanuck)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two more stars !
Apparently the Vogons have been busy...http : //www.solstation.com/stars.htm is an excellent resource for those looking for timeshare asteroids , gas giant summer homes or travel to exotic lands within a few hyperspatial bypasses of this little galactic backwater .
Now , if I could only find the email address where my password retrieval went , I 'd be posting as myself instead of AC .
Aaargh ! ( CrazyCanuck )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two more stars!
Apparently the Vogons have been busy...http://www.solstation.com/stars.htm is an excellent resource for those looking for timeshare asteroids, gas giant summer homes or travel to exotic lands within a few hyperspatial bypasses of this little galactic backwater.
Now, if I could only find the email address where my password retrieval went, I'd be posting as myself instead of AC.
Aaargh! (CrazyCanuck)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30405172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404608</id>
	<title>My big dipper</title>
	<author>bsharp8256</author>
	<datestamp>1260558540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>My big dipper is a sextuplet system too...</htmltext>
<tokenext>My big dipper is a sextuplet system too.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My big dipper is a sextuplet system too...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30405548</id>
	<title>Queue the sex jokes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260562560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1... 2... 3...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1... 2... 3.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1... 2... 3...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30407454</id>
	<title>Astrobooboos</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1260528780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Alcor is not one of the brightest stars in the Big Dipper. It is a dim double with Mizar. We usually consider the dipper to have 7 stars: 4 in the 'pot' and three in the handle. Mizar is the center of the handle. Alcor is so close to Mizar and relatively dim that it's not even considered a point in the constellation.</p><p>Not incorrect but misleading, Castelli was the first to see it as a double 'with a telescope'. The names themselves being Arabic, should be a tip off. Would Alcor have an Arabic name if they didn't see it? They are a visual double, not requiring a telescope to see if one has good vision (as opposed to an optical double, being line of sight but not necessarily naked eye). Such as noted by the Arabic chroniclers of astronomy, as well as the Native Americans who saw the bowl of the dipper as the bear, and the three stars in the handle as three bear cubs or some as three hunters (or sever, per the Mikmac) following the bear. All knew of the two stars. Sir Patrick Moore suggests the early writings refer to Mizar A and B instead, and gives good logical thinking, though I know of pre-tlescope maps of Mizar and Alcor, but not Mizar A and B,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Alcor is not one of the brightest stars in the Big Dipper .
It is a dim double with Mizar .
We usually consider the dipper to have 7 stars : 4 in the 'pot ' and three in the handle .
Mizar is the center of the handle .
Alcor is so close to Mizar and relatively dim that it 's not even considered a point in the constellation.Not incorrect but misleading , Castelli was the first to see it as a double 'with a telescope' .
The names themselves being Arabic , should be a tip off .
Would Alcor have an Arabic name if they did n't see it ?
They are a visual double , not requiring a telescope to see if one has good vision ( as opposed to an optical double , being line of sight but not necessarily naked eye ) .
Such as noted by the Arabic chroniclers of astronomy , as well as the Native Americans who saw the bowl of the dipper as the bear , and the three stars in the handle as three bear cubs or some as three hunters ( or sever , per the Mikmac ) following the bear .
All knew of the two stars .
Sir Patrick Moore suggests the early writings refer to Mizar A and B instead , and gives good logical thinking , though I know of pre-tlescope maps of Mizar and Alcor , but not Mizar A and B,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alcor is not one of the brightest stars in the Big Dipper.
It is a dim double with Mizar.
We usually consider the dipper to have 7 stars: 4 in the 'pot' and three in the handle.
Mizar is the center of the handle.
Alcor is so close to Mizar and relatively dim that it's not even considered a point in the constellation.Not incorrect but misleading, Castelli was the first to see it as a double 'with a telescope'.
The names themselves being Arabic, should be a tip off.
Would Alcor have an Arabic name if they didn't see it?
They are a visual double, not requiring a telescope to see if one has good vision (as opposed to an optical double, being line of sight but not necessarily naked eye).
Such as noted by the Arabic chroniclers of astronomy, as well as the Native Americans who saw the bowl of the dipper as the bear, and the three stars in the handle as three bear cubs or some as three hunters (or sever, per the Mikmac) following the bear.
All knew of the two stars.
Sir Patrick Moore suggests the early writings refer to Mizar A and B instead, and gives good logical thinking, though I know of pre-tlescope maps of Mizar and Alcor, but not Mizar A and B,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404996</id>
	<title>FTA</title>
	<author>Fry-kun</author>
	<datestamp>1260560100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That group has also recorded a rough spectrum of the star, which Mamajek says confirms his prediction that the companion is a cool and dim M-class dwarf star.</p></div><p>...so it should at least have Roddenberries</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That group has also recorded a rough spectrum of the star , which Mamajek says confirms his prediction that the companion is a cool and dim M-class dwarf star....so it should at least have Roddenberries</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That group has also recorded a rough spectrum of the star, which Mamajek says confirms his prediction that the companion is a cool and dim M-class dwarf star....so it should at least have Roddenberries
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404960</id>
	<title>Re:In case anyone was wondering...</title>
	<author>wjsteele</author>
	<datestamp>1260559980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wait a minute... I thought Mizar was the middle star!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)  (It is, afterall, the brightest of the cluster.)<br> <br>

Bill</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait a minute... I thought Mizar was the middle star !
: ) ( It is , afterall , the brightest of the cluster .
) Bill</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait a minute... I thought Mizar was the middle star!
:)  (It is, afterall, the brightest of the cluster.
) 

Bill</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30406146</id>
	<title>Re:In case anyone was wondering...</title>
	<author>thirty-seven</author>
	<datestamp>1260522420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm from outside the US (Canada), and we know it as the <i>big dipper</i>, too.  Of course, the latin name <i>Ursa Major</i> is known to those of us here who have a particular interest in constellations.  But the name "the plough" is mostly unknown here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm from outside the US ( Canada ) , and we know it as the big dipper , too .
Of course , the latin name Ursa Major is known to those of us here who have a particular interest in constellations .
But the name " the plough " is mostly unknown here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm from outside the US (Canada), and we know it as the big dipper, too.
Of course, the latin name Ursa Major is known to those of us here who have a particular interest in constellations.
But the name "the plough" is mostly unknown here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30405054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404900</id>
	<title>Re:Only 78 light years away</title>
	<author>ral</author>
	<datestamp>1260559800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Surprising indeed.  There are only <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Count\_of\_stars\_by\_distance\_from\_sun.jpg" title="wikimedia.org" rel="nofollow">about 70 stars within 80 light years of us</a> [wikimedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Surprising indeed .
There are only about 70 stars within 80 light years of us [ wikimedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surprising indeed.
There are only about 70 stars within 80 light years of us [wikimedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30406432</id>
	<title>mod 0p</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260523740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">thing for the the projenct to</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>thing for the the projenct to [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thing for the the projenct to [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30414316</id>
	<title>Re:Only 78 light years away</title>
	<author>lousyd</author>
	<datestamp>1260636180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>googlefu... Wolfram Alpha?</htmltext>
<tokenext>googlefu... Wolfram Alpha ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>googlefu... Wolfram Alpha?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30405172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404994</id>
	<title>Use extrapolation instead</title>
	<author>McKeegan</author>
	<datestamp>1260560100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>By using <a href="http://xkcd.com/605/" title="xkcd.com" rel="nofollow">extrapolation</a> [xkcd.com], I conclude that by 2020 we'll have discovered dozens of stars in the Mizar-Alcor system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>By using extrapolation [ xkcd.com ] , I conclude that by 2020 we 'll have discovered dozens of stars in the Mizar-Alcor system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By using extrapolation [xkcd.com], I conclude that by 2020 we'll have discovered dozens of stars in the Mizar-Alcor system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30405130</id>
	<title>Re:Only 78 light years away</title>
	<author>rve</author>
	<datestamp>1260560640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Surprising indeed.  There are only <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Count\_of\_stars\_by\_distance\_from\_sun.jpg" title="wikimedia.org">about 70 stars within 80 light years of us</a> [wikimedia.org]</p> </div><p>That is possibly correct, I don't know an awful lot about it, but that's not what that graph you linked to says. It says there are about 70 stars at a distance of 80 light years. If you want to know the number of stars within 80 light years, then you need to look at the area below the curve. Looks like about (80 * 65) / 2, about 2600 stars.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Surprising indeed .
There are only about 70 stars within 80 light years of us [ wikimedia.org ] That is possibly correct , I do n't know an awful lot about it , but that 's not what that graph you linked to says .
It says there are about 70 stars at a distance of 80 light years .
If you want to know the number of stars within 80 light years , then you need to look at the area below the curve .
Looks like about ( 80 * 65 ) / 2 , about 2600 stars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surprising indeed.
There are only about 70 stars within 80 light years of us [wikimedia.org] That is possibly correct, I don't know an awful lot about it, but that's not what that graph you linked to says.
It says there are about 70 stars at a distance of 80 light years.
If you want to know the number of stars within 80 light years, then you need to look at the area below the curve.
Looks like about (80 * 65) / 2, about 2600 stars.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30406832</id>
	<title>Re:Actually a quadruple...</title>
	<author>IorDMUX</author>
	<datestamp>1260525600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Obviously, this star system is the setting for Asimov's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightfall\_(Asimov)" title="wikipedia.org">Nightfall</a> [wikipedia.org].<br> <br>(Technically not, as--if you read carefully--it is mentioned that Kalgash is near the galactic core... but it's an interesting thought regardless.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously , this star system is the setting for Asimov 's Nightfall [ wikipedia.org ] .
( Technically not , as--if you read carefully--it is mentioned that Kalgash is near the galactic core... but it 's an interesting thought regardless .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously, this star system is the setting for Asimov's Nightfall [wikipedia.org].
(Technically not, as--if you read carefully--it is mentioned that Kalgash is near the galactic core... but it's an interesting thought regardless.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30405128</id>
	<title>Re:I suggested this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260560640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, I think it's more like the lil' dipper, actually.</p><p>We're having a talk when you get home.
<br>
-The Wife</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , I think it 's more like the lil ' dipper , actually.We 're having a talk when you get home .
-The Wife</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, I think it's more like the lil' dipper, actually.We're having a talk when you get home.
-The Wife</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404596</id>
	<title>Re:Actually a quadruple...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260558420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>You don't even need to RTFA - it is in the summary. Miza is a binary of binaries and Alcor is a binary. (2+2)+2=6. So you would not guess correctly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't even need to RTFA - it is in the summary .
Miza is a binary of binaries and Alcor is a binary .
( 2 + 2 ) + 2 = 6. So you would not guess correctly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't even need to RTFA - it is in the summary.
Miza is a binary of binaries and Alcor is a binary.
(2+2)+2=6. So you would not guess correctly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30405354</id>
	<title>FEuck a homo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260561600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">Fortunately, Linux anything 3an for election, I suffering *BSD</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fortunately , Linux anything 3an for election , I suffering * BSD [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fortunately, Linux anything 3an for election, I suffering *BSD [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30408788</id>
	<title>Re:This raises a question</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1260536400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Isn't every star in the galaxy ultimately rotating around every other star in the galaxy?</p></div><p>No.  Every star in the universe is gravitationally affected by every other star in the universe, but none are known to actually <i>revolve</i> around all the others (and none <i>rotate</i> around anything but their own axis).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't every star in the galaxy ultimately rotating around every other star in the galaxy ? No .
Every star in the universe is gravitationally affected by every other star in the universe , but none are known to actually revolve around all the others ( and none rotate around anything but their own axis ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't every star in the galaxy ultimately rotating around every other star in the galaxy?No.
Every star in the universe is gravitationally affected by every other star in the universe, but none are known to actually revolve around all the others (and none rotate around anything but their own axis).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30407978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30405256</id>
	<title>Re:In case anyone was wondering...</title>
	<author>klui</author>
	<datestamp>1260561120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A picture...<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dipper.jpg" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dipper.jpg</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>A picture...http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File : Dipper.jpg [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A picture...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dipper.jpg [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30405176</id>
	<title>Re:Only 78 light years away</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260560760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think what happens is that people get interested in the latest thing and we don't fill in all the gaps of knowledge in between. Its kinda like that whole<br>thing with water being spun really fast. It seems like its something simple, but its just one of the gaps in knowledge that occur when people jump ahead to the<br>latest thing. Its also probably why the U.S. has such large areas of nothing in between Illinois and California. Sure there are cities and such, but its not nearly as developed as say PA or OH are. Once gold was discovered in California, people stopped settling the middle states and jumped ahead to the end.</p><p>Everybody likes to think that its all been done, its all been said, but they haven't even tried.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think what happens is that people get interested in the latest thing and we do n't fill in all the gaps of knowledge in between .
Its kinda like that wholething with water being spun really fast .
It seems like its something simple , but its just one of the gaps in knowledge that occur when people jump ahead to thelatest thing .
Its also probably why the U.S. has such large areas of nothing in between Illinois and California .
Sure there are cities and such , but its not nearly as developed as say PA or OH are .
Once gold was discovered in California , people stopped settling the middle states and jumped ahead to the end.Everybody likes to think that its all been done , its all been said , but they have n't even tried .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think what happens is that people get interested in the latest thing and we don't fill in all the gaps of knowledge in between.
Its kinda like that wholething with water being spun really fast.
It seems like its something simple, but its just one of the gaps in knowledge that occur when people jump ahead to thelatest thing.
Its also probably why the U.S. has such large areas of nothing in between Illinois and California.
Sure there are cities and such, but its not nearly as developed as say PA or OH are.
Once gold was discovered in California, people stopped settling the middle states and jumped ahead to the end.Everybody likes to think that its all been done, its all been said, but they haven't even tried.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30413450</id>
	<title>Nightfall Azimov</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260628980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nightfall from Azimov took place there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nightfall from Azimov took place there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nightfall from Azimov took place there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30405596</id>
	<title>Nearest sextuplet</title>
	<author>sidyan</author>
	<datestamp>1260562740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In case anyone was wondering (and since TFA doesn't mention it), the nearest sextuplet star, is, of course, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castor\_(star)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Alpha Geminorum</a> [wikipedia.org], a.k.a. <b>Castor</b>, the second-brightest star in the zodiac sign of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini\_(constellation)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Gemini</a> [wikipedia.org], a.k.a. the Twins. It's some 50-odd lightyears away.</p><p>Note that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollux\_(star)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Beta Geminorum</a> [wikipedia.org], a.k.a. Pollux, is actually the brightest star in Gemini (whether <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann\_Bayer" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Johann Bayer</a> [wikipedia.org] labelled Castor as the alpha star because it rises first in the night's sky, or because mythologically, the twins are always labelled "Castor and Pollux", is unknown). Pollux is a single star, with one confirmed exoplanet, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollux\_b" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Polydeuces</a> [wikipedia.org] orbitting it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In case anyone was wondering ( and since TFA does n't mention it ) , the nearest sextuplet star , is , of course , Alpha Geminorum [ wikipedia.org ] , a.k.a .
Castor , the second-brightest star in the zodiac sign of Gemini [ wikipedia.org ] , a.k.a .
the Twins .
It 's some 50-odd lightyears away.Note that Beta Geminorum [ wikipedia.org ] , a.k.a .
Pollux , is actually the brightest star in Gemini ( whether Johann Bayer [ wikipedia.org ] labelled Castor as the alpha star because it rises first in the night 's sky , or because mythologically , the twins are always labelled " Castor and Pollux " , is unknown ) .
Pollux is a single star , with one confirmed exoplanet , Polydeuces [ wikipedia.org ] orbitting it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In case anyone was wondering (and since TFA doesn't mention it), the nearest sextuplet star, is, of course, Alpha Geminorum [wikipedia.org], a.k.a.
Castor, the second-brightest star in the zodiac sign of Gemini [wikipedia.org], a.k.a.
the Twins.
It's some 50-odd lightyears away.Note that Beta Geminorum [wikipedia.org], a.k.a.
Pollux, is actually the brightest star in Gemini (whether Johann Bayer [wikipedia.org] labelled Castor as the alpha star because it rises first in the night's sky, or because mythologically, the twins are always labelled "Castor and Pollux", is unknown).
Pollux is a single star, with one confirmed exoplanet, Polydeuces [wikipedia.org] orbitting it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30405054</id>
	<title>Re:In case anyone was wondering...</title>
	<author>BeardedChimp</author>
	<datestamp>1260560340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And in case anyone outside the US is wondering, the big dipper is Ursa Major otherwise known as the plough.
<br>
I'm also not from the states and am at a loss as to why it's called the bigger dipper. Could anyone inform me?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And in case anyone outside the US is wondering , the big dipper is Ursa Major otherwise known as the plough .
I 'm also not from the states and am at a loss as to why it 's called the bigger dipper .
Could anyone inform me ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And in case anyone outside the US is wondering, the big dipper is Ursa Major otherwise known as the plough.
I'm also not from the states and am at a loss as to why it's called the bigger dipper.
Could anyone inform me?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404440</id>
	<title>In case anyone was wondering...</title>
	<author>Painted</author>
	<datestamp>1260557640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Alcor, the star in question, is the middle star on the "handle" of the dipper.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Alcor , the star in question , is the middle star on the " handle " of the dipper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alcor, the star in question, is the middle star on the "handle" of the dipper.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30406116</id>
	<title>Re:In case anyone was wondering...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260522240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, the big dipper is a *part* of Ursa Major, or the Great Bear.  A plow/dipper whatever you want to call it, it is not Ursa Major.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the big dipper is a * part * of Ursa Major , or the Great Bear .
A plow/dipper whatever you want to call it , it is not Ursa Major .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the big dipper is a *part* of Ursa Major, or the Great Bear.
A plow/dipper whatever you want to call it, it is not Ursa Major.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30405054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404468</id>
	<title>More to come</title>
	<author>z4ns4stu</author>
	<datestamp>1260557820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>From TFA:<blockquote><div><p>Mamajek is continuing his efforts to find planets around nearby stars, but his attention is not completely off Alcor and Mizar. "You see how the disk of Alcor B doesn't seem perfectly round?" says Mamajek, pointing toward an image of Alcor and its new companion. "Some of us have a feeling that Alcor might actually have another surprise in store for us.</p></div></blockquote><p>

It just goes to show you that there's always something more to learn.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : Mamajek is continuing his efforts to find planets around nearby stars , but his attention is not completely off Alcor and Mizar .
" You see how the disk of Alcor B does n't seem perfectly round ?
" says Mamajek , pointing toward an image of Alcor and its new companion .
" Some of us have a feeling that Alcor might actually have another surprise in store for us .
It just goes to show you that there 's always something more to learn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:Mamajek is continuing his efforts to find planets around nearby stars, but his attention is not completely off Alcor and Mizar.
"You see how the disk of Alcor B doesn't seem perfectly round?
" says Mamajek, pointing toward an image of Alcor and its new companion.
"Some of us have a feeling that Alcor might actually have another surprise in store for us.
It just goes to show you that there's always something more to learn.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30406008</id>
	<title>Re:Ancients needed glasses?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260564900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Alcor is faint and small enough that if you're near or farsighted or have artifacts like astigmatism or cataracts, you won't be able to see it with the naked eye. "Perfect eyesight" in this context means "normal eyesight". 20/20 vision is not exceptional, but it is still "perfect".</p><p>Btw, in the ancient times the atmosphere in a populated area (e.g. Greek cities) was filled with smoky haze from burning firewood. This was the case everywhere until oil/gas and electric heat were introduced. I experienced this situation firsthand a couple of winters ago when my neighborhood in a Seattle suburb was without electricity for a week and the people who couldn't afford to evacuate but had wood burning fireplaces had to resort to burning wood to stay warm. Even though this population was small, the stars were barely visible through the smoke and every building was covered in black soot after a week.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Alcor is faint and small enough that if you 're near or farsighted or have artifacts like astigmatism or cataracts , you wo n't be able to see it with the naked eye .
" Perfect eyesight " in this context means " normal eyesight " .
20/20 vision is not exceptional , but it is still " perfect " .Btw , in the ancient times the atmosphere in a populated area ( e.g .
Greek cities ) was filled with smoky haze from burning firewood .
This was the case everywhere until oil/gas and electric heat were introduced .
I experienced this situation firsthand a couple of winters ago when my neighborhood in a Seattle suburb was without electricity for a week and the people who could n't afford to evacuate but had wood burning fireplaces had to resort to burning wood to stay warm .
Even though this population was small , the stars were barely visible through the smoke and every building was covered in black soot after a week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alcor is faint and small enough that if you're near or farsighted or have artifacts like astigmatism or cataracts, you won't be able to see it with the naked eye.
"Perfect eyesight" in this context means "normal eyesight".
20/20 vision is not exceptional, but it is still "perfect".Btw, in the ancient times the atmosphere in a populated area (e.g.
Greek cities) was filled with smoky haze from burning firewood.
This was the case everywhere until oil/gas and electric heat were introduced.
I experienced this situation firsthand a couple of winters ago when my neighborhood in a Seattle suburb was without electricity for a week and the people who couldn't afford to evacuate but had wood burning fireplaces had to resort to burning wood to stay warm.
Even though this population was small, the stars were barely visible through the smoke and every building was covered in black soot after a week.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30405254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30405254</id>
	<title>Ancients needed glasses?</title>
	<author>mrbester</author>
	<datestamp>1260561120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTFA: "In ancient times, people with exceptional vision discovered that one of the brightest stars in the Big Dipper was, in fact, two stars so close together that most people cannot distinguish them."</p><p>In ancient times the atmosphere was cleaner than now, and had a lot less light pollution from towns. Yet it apparently took "exceptional vision" to see Alcor and Mizar as separate stars. I must have phenomenal eyesight then to be able see them any night it isn't cloudy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FTFA : " In ancient times , people with exceptional vision discovered that one of the brightest stars in the Big Dipper was , in fact , two stars so close together that most people can not distinguish them .
" In ancient times the atmosphere was cleaner than now , and had a lot less light pollution from towns .
Yet it apparently took " exceptional vision " to see Alcor and Mizar as separate stars .
I must have phenomenal eyesight then to be able see them any night it is n't cloudy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTFA: "In ancient times, people with exceptional vision discovered that one of the brightest stars in the Big Dipper was, in fact, two stars so close together that most people cannot distinguish them.
"In ancient times the atmosphere was cleaner than now, and had a lot less light pollution from towns.
Yet it apparently took "exceptional vision" to see Alcor and Mizar as separate stars.
I must have phenomenal eyesight then to be able see them any night it isn't cloudy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30407978</id>
	<title>This raises a question</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1260531600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How close do the stars have to be to be considered a binary (or n-ary) system? Isn't every star in the galaxy ultimately rotating around every other star in the galaxy?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How close do the stars have to be to be considered a binary ( or n-ary ) system ?
Is n't every star in the galaxy ultimately rotating around every other star in the galaxy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How close do the stars have to be to be considered a binary (or n-ary) system?
Isn't every star in the galaxy ultimately rotating around every other star in the galaxy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404410</id>
	<title>Sextuplet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260557520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dang, there must be some Sexy aliens over there!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dang , there must be some Sexy aliens over there !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dang, there must be some Sexy aliens over there!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1428252_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30408434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1428252_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30406832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1428252_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30405176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1428252_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30405130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1428252_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1428252_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30409828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30405172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1428252_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30406008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30405254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1428252_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30407228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1428252_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1428252_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30408724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30405254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1428252_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30414316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30405172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1428252_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1428252_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30406116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30405054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1428252_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30408788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30407978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1428252_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30405322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30405054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1428252_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30409320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30407454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1428252_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30407930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30405172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1428252_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30405256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1428252_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30408496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30405254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1428252_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30406146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30405054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_11_1428252_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30405128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1428252.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30405254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30406008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30408496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30408724
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1428252.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30407978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30408788
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1428252.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30405128
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1428252.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404608
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1428252.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30406004
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1428252.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30407228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404994
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1428252.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30407454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30409320
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1428252.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404596
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30406832
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1428252.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30405256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30405054
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30405322
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30406146
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30406116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404960
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1428252.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30406370
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1428252.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30408434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30405172
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30407930
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30414316
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30409828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30405176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30404900
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30405130
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_11_1428252.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_11_1428252.30413450
</commentlist>
</conversation>
