<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_04_1937225</id>
	<title>Astronomers Discover 33 Pairs of Waltzing Black Holes</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1262595540000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Astronomers from UC Berkeley have identified <a href="http://spacefellowship.com/news/art17624/astronomers-discover-waltzing-black-holes.html">33 pairs of waltzing black holes</a>, closing the gap somewhat between the observed population of super-massive black hole pairs and what had been predicted by theory. <i>"Astronomical observations have shown that 1) nearly every galaxy has a central super-massive black hole (with a mass of a million to a billion times the mass of the Sun), and 2) galaxies commonly collide and merge to form new, more massive galaxies. As a consequence of these two observations, a merger between two galaxies should bring two super-massive black holes to the new, more massive galaxy formed from the merger. The two black holes gradually in-spiral toward the center of this galaxy, engaging in a gravitational tug-of-war with the surrounding stars. The result is a black hole dance, choreographed by Newton himself. Such a dance is expected to occur in our own Milky Way Galaxy in about 3 billion years, <a href="//science.slashdot.org/story/09/01/06/0154221/Milky-Way-Heavier-Than-Thought-and-Spinning-Faster">when it collides with the Andromeda Galaxy</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Astronomers from UC Berkeley have identified 33 pairs of waltzing black holes , closing the gap somewhat between the observed population of super-massive black hole pairs and what had been predicted by theory .
" Astronomical observations have shown that 1 ) nearly every galaxy has a central super-massive black hole ( with a mass of a million to a billion times the mass of the Sun ) , and 2 ) galaxies commonly collide and merge to form new , more massive galaxies .
As a consequence of these two observations , a merger between two galaxies should bring two super-massive black holes to the new , more massive galaxy formed from the merger .
The two black holes gradually in-spiral toward the center of this galaxy , engaging in a gravitational tug-of-war with the surrounding stars .
The result is a black hole dance , choreographed by Newton himself .
Such a dance is expected to occur in our own Milky Way Galaxy in about 3 billion years , when it collides with the Andromeda Galaxy .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Astronomers from UC Berkeley have identified 33 pairs of waltzing black holes, closing the gap somewhat between the observed population of super-massive black hole pairs and what had been predicted by theory.
"Astronomical observations have shown that 1) nearly every galaxy has a central super-massive black hole (with a mass of a million to a billion times the mass of the Sun), and 2) galaxies commonly collide and merge to form new, more massive galaxies.
As a consequence of these two observations, a merger between two galaxies should bring two super-massive black holes to the new, more massive galaxy formed from the merger.
The two black holes gradually in-spiral toward the center of this galaxy, engaging in a gravitational tug-of-war with the surrounding stars.
The result is a black hole dance, choreographed by Newton himself.
Such a dance is expected to occur in our own Milky Way Galaxy in about 3 billion years, when it collides with the Andromeda Galaxy.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30651336</id>
	<title>Re:Wow!</title>
	<author>arminw</author>
	<datestamp>1262627640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>....Black Holes were still a mostly theoretical idea and we had no real empirical evidence to support their existence....<br>They still are nothing but a mathematical construct, because nobody has ever observed one actually exists. They are inferred to exist, the same as dark matter and energy, because we observe stars and galaxies to move in ways that our incomplete knowledge can't explain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>....Black Holes were still a mostly theoretical idea and we had no real empirical evidence to support their existence....They still are nothing but a mathematical construct , because nobody has ever observed one actually exists .
They are inferred to exist , the same as dark matter and energy , because we observe stars and galaxies to move in ways that our incomplete knowledge ca n't explain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....Black Holes were still a mostly theoretical idea and we had no real empirical evidence to support their existence....They still are nothing but a mathematical construct, because nobody has ever observed one actually exists.
They are inferred to exist, the same as dark matter and energy, because we observe stars and galaxies to move in ways that our incomplete knowledge can't explain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30647618</id>
	<title>Multiple black holes become one; the time factor.</title>
	<author>zentechno</author>
	<datestamp>1262605620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, as it's theorized the Milkyway has already swallowed others (reference missing), there should either be multiple black holes in our galaxy, or this provides a good estimation of how long it's been since that happened -- according to Einstein, of course.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , as it 's theorized the Milkyway has already swallowed others ( reference missing ) , there should either be multiple black holes in our galaxy , or this provides a good estimation of how long it 's been since that happened -- according to Einstein , of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, as it's theorized the Milkyway has already swallowed others (reference missing), there should either be multiple black holes in our galaxy, or this provides a good estimation of how long it's been since that happened -- according to Einstein, of course.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646696</id>
	<title>Re:The big question</title>
	<author>OakDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1262601720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm assuming it's black tie only?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm assuming it 's black tie only ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm assuming it's black tie only?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30647214</id>
	<title>Re:Einstein!</title>
	<author>migla</author>
	<datestamp>1262603820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah. Whomever. The real question is: What are we going to do about it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah .
Whomever. The real question is : What are we going to do about it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah.
Whomever. The real question is: What are we going to do about it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646918</id>
	<title>fi85t</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262602620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">for a living got base for FrreBSD propaganda and BSD's filesys7tem</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>for a living got base for FrreBSD propaganda and BSD 's filesys7tem [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for a living got base for FrreBSD propaganda and BSD's filesys7tem [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30650906</id>
	<title>Re:Wow!</title>
	<author>pnewhook</author>
	<datestamp>1262623860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Wow, when I was in university, Black Holes were still a mostly theoretical idea and we had no real empirical evidence to support their existence.</p></div><p>Was this a creationist university?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , when I was in university , Black Holes were still a mostly theoretical idea and we had no real empirical evidence to support their existence.Was this a creationist university ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, when I was in university, Black Holes were still a mostly theoretical idea and we had no real empirical evidence to support their existence.Was this a creationist university?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30649076</id>
	<title>Re:Waltzing?</title>
	<author>Suki I</author>
	<datestamp>1262612160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it's <i>romantic</i>.  Harrumph!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's romantic .
Harrumph !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's romantic.
Harrumph!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30647872</id>
	<title>Proof?</title>
	<author>FatdogHaiku</author>
	<datestamp>1262606760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Such a dance is expected to occur in our own Milky Way Galaxy in about 3 billion years, when it collides with the Andromeda Galaxy.</p></div><p>I'll believe that when I see it...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Such a dance is expected to occur in our own Milky Way Galaxy in about 3 billion years , when it collides with the Andromeda Galaxy.I 'll believe that when I see it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Such a dance is expected to occur in our own Milky Way Galaxy in about 3 billion years, when it collides with the Andromeda Galaxy.I'll believe that when I see it...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30652116</id>
	<title>Can Black Hole A eat Black Hole B?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262722740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get two very hungry black hole together, can one eat up another?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get two very hungry black hole together , can one eat up another ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get two very hungry black hole together, can one eat up another?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30647492</id>
	<title>Re:and this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262605020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Woz?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Woz ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Woz?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646442</id>
	<title>Re:Waltzing?</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1262600580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah I would've expected them to oscillate in a frequency that is a multiple of 3.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah I would 've expected them to oscillate in a frequency that is a multiple of 3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah I would've expected them to oscillate in a frequency that is a multiple of 3.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646662</id>
	<title>Good news for gravitational waves hunters</title>
	<author>photonic</author>
	<datestamp>1262601600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Great, the collision of these things is exactly the kind of event we need for detecting <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational\_waves" title="wikipedia.org">gravitational waves</a> [wikipedia.org]. These kind of 'inspirals' emit  very distinct pattern, which can be retrieved very efficiently from the noise with matched filter banks. The higher the mass, the lower the frequency of this 'chirped' signal, so it is probable that these colliding super-massive black-holes cannot be detected with the <a href="http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/" title="caltech.edu">ground</a> [caltech.edu]-<a href="http://www.virgo.infn.it/" title="virgo.infn.it">based</a> [virgo.infn.it] kilometer long observatories, which are measuring right now. This is probably more something for the space-based <a href="http://lisa.nasa.gov/" title="nasa.gov">LISA</a> [nasa.gov] mission, which can probe much lower frequencies since it has a base-line of millions of kilometers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Great , the collision of these things is exactly the kind of event we need for detecting gravitational waves [ wikipedia.org ] .
These kind of 'inspirals ' emit very distinct pattern , which can be retrieved very efficiently from the noise with matched filter banks .
The higher the mass , the lower the frequency of this 'chirped ' signal , so it is probable that these colliding super-massive black-holes can not be detected with the ground [ caltech.edu ] -based [ virgo.infn.it ] kilometer long observatories , which are measuring right now .
This is probably more something for the space-based LISA [ nasa.gov ] mission , which can probe much lower frequencies since it has a base-line of millions of kilometers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great, the collision of these things is exactly the kind of event we need for detecting gravitational waves [wikipedia.org].
These kind of 'inspirals' emit  very distinct pattern, which can be retrieved very efficiently from the noise with matched filter banks.
The higher the mass, the lower the frequency of this 'chirped' signal, so it is probable that these colliding super-massive black-holes cannot be detected with the ground [caltech.edu]-based [virgo.infn.it] kilometer long observatories, which are measuring right now.
This is probably more something for the space-based LISA [nasa.gov] mission, which can probe much lower frequencies since it has a base-line of millions of kilometers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30650418</id>
	<title>Re:So that gives us</title>
	<author>al.caughey</author>
	<datestamp>1262619960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>3 billion years for a species to not kill itself long enough to escape this galaxy, lest all life on it perish?</p></div><p>I expect that the cockroaches will be just fine where ever they end up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>3 billion years for a species to not kill itself long enough to escape this galaxy , lest all life on it perish ? I expect that the cockroaches will be just fine where ever they end up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3 billion years for a species to not kill itself long enough to escape this galaxy, lest all life on it perish?I expect that the cockroaches will be just fine where ever they end up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30649264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30648092</id>
	<title>Re:*golf clap*</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262607840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Think dark matter sounds quite plausible. Who said that all matter must reveal itself easily via other means than gravity under normal conditions ? We can't reach those conditions that existed right after the bigbang in our experiments, so well, if nature is that way that it produced an abundance of particles that fills the universe and doesn't interact much anymore with anything else, so that photons are produced somehow that interact with our detectors and shows us their existance, then we must accept that.</p><p>I'd say it's somehow arrogant of some people to believe that we must have easy access to everything that exists. Maybe it's only a fraction of the matter that we can easily detect and at some point we realise that there are things that are just beyond our scope of direct measurement for quite some time or maybe forever, because the majority of matter is just that way<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it's flying through space and does nothing except weakly interacting via gravity.</p><p>I just noticed that the argument is quite similar to the anthropic principle: We can only notice the matter that interacts a lot, which makes us think, the normal case is that everything there is must be easily detectable. But this is the wrong logic. Detecting something means it interacts. What we see are the things that interact via photons and our intuition tells us this is the standard form of matter in the universe. But in fact it tells us nothing about what's the standard case in the universe, because there could plainly be 1 mio times more matter that isn't easily detectable. Well, infact now, considering gravity, we come to the conclusion that it's not 2 times, 10 times, 100 times, 1 million times, but about 20 times more things that we can't easily detect via other means than gravity.<br>Not really a surprise then, if you ask me. It has to be some value, and if it turns out that the normal matter that we can see makes up about 5\% of all matter, then well, fine. Doesn't surbrise me more than if it was 1\% or 99.99\% now thinking about it.</p><p>It's still just theory that has to be proven and could be easily wrong. But imho a quite plausable theory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Think dark matter sounds quite plausible .
Who said that all matter must reveal itself easily via other means than gravity under normal conditions ?
We ca n't reach those conditions that existed right after the bigbang in our experiments , so well , if nature is that way that it produced an abundance of particles that fills the universe and does n't interact much anymore with anything else , so that photons are produced somehow that interact with our detectors and shows us their existance , then we must accept that.I 'd say it 's somehow arrogant of some people to believe that we must have easy access to everything that exists .
Maybe it 's only a fraction of the matter that we can easily detect and at some point we realise that there are things that are just beyond our scope of direct measurement for quite some time or maybe forever , because the majority of matter is just that way ... it 's flying through space and does nothing except weakly interacting via gravity.I just noticed that the argument is quite similar to the anthropic principle : We can only notice the matter that interacts a lot , which makes us think , the normal case is that everything there is must be easily detectable .
But this is the wrong logic .
Detecting something means it interacts .
What we see are the things that interact via photons and our intuition tells us this is the standard form of matter in the universe .
But in fact it tells us nothing about what 's the standard case in the universe , because there could plainly be 1 mio times more matter that is n't easily detectable .
Well , infact now , considering gravity , we come to the conclusion that it 's not 2 times , 10 times , 100 times , 1 million times , but about 20 times more things that we ca n't easily detect via other means than gravity.Not really a surprise then , if you ask me .
It has to be some value , and if it turns out that the normal matter that we can see makes up about 5 \ % of all matter , then well , fine .
Does n't surbrise me more than if it was 1 \ % or 99.99 \ % now thinking about it.It 's still just theory that has to be proven and could be easily wrong .
But imho a quite plausable theory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think dark matter sounds quite plausible.
Who said that all matter must reveal itself easily via other means than gravity under normal conditions ?
We can't reach those conditions that existed right after the bigbang in our experiments, so well, if nature is that way that it produced an abundance of particles that fills the universe and doesn't interact much anymore with anything else, so that photons are produced somehow that interact with our detectors and shows us their existance, then we must accept that.I'd say it's somehow arrogant of some people to believe that we must have easy access to everything that exists.
Maybe it's only a fraction of the matter that we can easily detect and at some point we realise that there are things that are just beyond our scope of direct measurement for quite some time or maybe forever, because the majority of matter is just that way ... it's flying through space and does nothing except weakly interacting via gravity.I just noticed that the argument is quite similar to the anthropic principle: We can only notice the matter that interacts a lot, which makes us think, the normal case is that everything there is must be easily detectable.
But this is the wrong logic.
Detecting something means it interacts.
What we see are the things that interact via photons and our intuition tells us this is the standard form of matter in the universe.
But in fact it tells us nothing about what's the standard case in the universe, because there could plainly be 1 mio times more matter that isn't easily detectable.
Well, infact now, considering gravity, we come to the conclusion that it's not 2 times, 10 times, 100 times, 1 million times, but about 20 times more things that we can't easily detect via other means than gravity.Not really a surprise then, if you ask me.
It has to be some value, and if it turns out that the normal matter that we can see makes up about 5\% of all matter, then well, fine.
Doesn't surbrise me more than if it was 1\% or 99.99\% now thinking about it.It's still just theory that has to be proven and could be easily wrong.
But imho a quite plausable theory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30652056</id>
	<title>Re:Collision is imminent</title>
	<author>FiloEleven</author>
	<datestamp>1262721840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Won't someone think of the children's children's children's children's children's [...] children's children's children's children???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wo n't someone think of the children 's children 's children 's children 's children 's [ ... ] children 's children 's children 's children ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Won't someone think of the children's children's children's children's children's [...] children's children's children's children??
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30647046</id>
	<title>Black holes don't exist (yet)</title>
	<author>michelcolman</author>
	<datestamp>1262603100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Funny how everybody is always talking about all those black holes in the universe while, in fact, none currently exist. Sure, there are objects that are very, very close to becoming a black hole, and for all practical intents and purposes they can be pretty much considered as such, but in our reference frame it will still take an infinite amount of time before that last bit of matter falling in makes it an actual black hole, with event horizon and all. That's because the intense field of gravity slows down time to an asymptotic halt, so the approaching last bit of matter required for the true black hole will pretty much stop before it gets far enough (from our point of view). The only person who will ever be able to say that black holes exist, is someone who is actually falling into one (which, from an outside observer's point of view, would take an infinite amount of time even though the person himself will experience the event in finite time).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny how everybody is always talking about all those black holes in the universe while , in fact , none currently exist .
Sure , there are objects that are very , very close to becoming a black hole , and for all practical intents and purposes they can be pretty much considered as such , but in our reference frame it will still take an infinite amount of time before that last bit of matter falling in makes it an actual black hole , with event horizon and all .
That 's because the intense field of gravity slows down time to an asymptotic halt , so the approaching last bit of matter required for the true black hole will pretty much stop before it gets far enough ( from our point of view ) .
The only person who will ever be able to say that black holes exist , is someone who is actually falling into one ( which , from an outside observer 's point of view , would take an infinite amount of time even though the person himself will experience the event in finite time ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny how everybody is always talking about all those black holes in the universe while, in fact, none currently exist.
Sure, there are objects that are very, very close to becoming a black hole, and for all practical intents and purposes they can be pretty much considered as such, but in our reference frame it will still take an infinite amount of time before that last bit of matter falling in makes it an actual black hole, with event horizon and all.
That's because the intense field of gravity slows down time to an asymptotic halt, so the approaching last bit of matter required for the true black hole will pretty much stop before it gets far enough (from our point of view).
The only person who will ever be able to say that black holes exist, is someone who is actually falling into one (which, from an outside observer's point of view, would take an infinite amount of time even though the person himself will experience the event in finite time).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646246</id>
	<title>Wake Me Up When</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1262599860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wake me up when they've found some doing the Foxtrot or the Lindy Hop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wake me up when they 've found some doing the Foxtrot or the Lindy Hop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wake me up when they've found some doing the Foxtrot or the Lindy Hop.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30647220</id>
	<title>Re:*golf clap*</title>
	<author>Beelzebud</author>
	<datestamp>1262603820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You do understand that science is a process right?   We're in the process of figuring all of that stuff out.  How else would you even know to ask those particular questions?
<br>
<br>
Your young children can be led to believe that Santa Claus and Easter Bunny exist, so I wouldn't exactly take their word for it on something like dark matter.   The reason it's called 'dark matter' is because we don't know WTF it is.  People are trying to figure that out.  It's not as if they moved on, and decided to just not research it...</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do understand that science is a process right ?
We 're in the process of figuring all of that stuff out .
How else would you even know to ask those particular questions ?
Your young children can be led to believe that Santa Claus and Easter Bunny exist , so I would n't exactly take their word for it on something like dark matter .
The reason it 's called 'dark matter ' is because we do n't know WTF it is .
People are trying to figure that out .
It 's not as if they moved on , and decided to just not research it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do understand that science is a process right?
We're in the process of figuring all of that stuff out.
How else would you even know to ask those particular questions?
Your young children can be led to believe that Santa Claus and Easter Bunny exist, so I wouldn't exactly take their word for it on something like dark matter.
The reason it's called 'dark matter' is because we don't know WTF it is.
People are trying to figure that out.
It's not as if they moved on, and decided to just not research it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30647144</id>
	<title>OT: today is Newton's birthday</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1262603520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The classical google portal has an interesting Newton animation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The classical google portal has an interesting Newton animation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The classical google portal has an interesting Newton animation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646670</id>
	<title>Is this really a discovery?</title>
	<author>Fluffeh</author>
	<datestamp>1262601600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Given that it's pretty common knowledge that a) galaxies have big black holes at their centers and b) that galaxies collide... is it really a discovery that black holes will orbit one another as their gravity catches hold of one another?<br> <br>

I mean okay, it's cool to actually have proof of it but I am pretty sure I read about orbiting black holes a while back already. Not to take the icing off the cake here, I am probably more annoyed with the slashdot heading.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that it 's pretty common knowledge that a ) galaxies have big black holes at their centers and b ) that galaxies collide... is it really a discovery that black holes will orbit one another as their gravity catches hold of one another ?
I mean okay , it 's cool to actually have proof of it but I am pretty sure I read about orbiting black holes a while back already .
Not to take the icing off the cake here , I am probably more annoyed with the slashdot heading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that it's pretty common knowledge that a) galaxies have big black holes at their centers and b) that galaxies collide... is it really a discovery that black holes will orbit one another as their gravity catches hold of one another?
I mean okay, it's cool to actually have proof of it but I am pretty sure I read about orbiting black holes a while back already.
Not to take the icing off the cake here, I am probably more annoyed with the slashdot heading.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30648226</id>
	<title>Of course...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262608620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is all caused by global warming<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is all caused by global warming : P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is all caused by global warming :P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646924</id>
	<title>*golf clap*</title>
	<author>drDugan</author>
	<datestamp>1262602620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, great.  Exciting observations, but really, not that useful in the big scheme of where we are with physics today.</p><p>How about you physicists show us Higgs?  How do quantum mechanics and gravity mesh into a coherent theory?  Explain the disagreement of 107 orders of magnitude (yes, you read that right: 107 zeros) between the upper bound upon the vacuum energy density (from data obtained from Voyager, less than 10**14 GeV/m3) and the zero-point energy of 10**121 GeV/m3 - calculated using quantum field theory, or alternately: Why doesn't the zero-point energy of the vacuum cause a large cosmological constant?  Why is there far more matter than antimatter?  Are protons stable - if not, what's the half life?  Is SUSY real or just implied?  What governs the transition of quarks and gluons into pions (ie explain QCD)?  What's the mass of a Neutrino?  Explain why the fundamental physical constants have the exact and seemingly arbitrary yet interconnected values they have? Why did the universe have such low entropy in the past?  What causes gamma ray bursts?  and on and on and on...</p><p>But <b>most of all</b>, explain what causes the observed effects of hypothetical "dark matter" and "dark energy".  My young children are smart enough to know that the dark matter story sounds like total and utter bull.  The story goes like this: "We see something that looks like it causes things to move, but we don't know what it is, and we can't see it, or measure it, create it, or understand it at all.  These unobservable matter blobs (and energy) may be 95\% of everything we observe!  We see something we can't explain, so we're calling it 'dark matter' and moving on with the old story that has worked for a while and still gets us grant funding."  Why no one with a brain is calling out this story for its absurdity is astounding.</p><p>These issues are not subtle or small.  The theories science (specifically physics) now promotes and teaches about the physical world, while highly accurate and highly reproducible in different areas, are *impossibly inconsistent* and *abundantly incomplete*.  For science, inconsistency on this scale is a crisis requiring a revolution in thought.</p><p>The most dangerous hubris in science is the refusal to accept that we're far more ignorant about our physical environment than most would like to admit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , great .
Exciting observations , but really , not that useful in the big scheme of where we are with physics today.How about you physicists show us Higgs ?
How do quantum mechanics and gravity mesh into a coherent theory ?
Explain the disagreement of 107 orders of magnitude ( yes , you read that right : 107 zeros ) between the upper bound upon the vacuum energy density ( from data obtained from Voyager , less than 10 * * 14 GeV/m3 ) and the zero-point energy of 10 * * 121 GeV/m3 - calculated using quantum field theory , or alternately : Why does n't the zero-point energy of the vacuum cause a large cosmological constant ?
Why is there far more matter than antimatter ?
Are protons stable - if not , what 's the half life ?
Is SUSY real or just implied ?
What governs the transition of quarks and gluons into pions ( ie explain QCD ) ?
What 's the mass of a Neutrino ?
Explain why the fundamental physical constants have the exact and seemingly arbitrary yet interconnected values they have ?
Why did the universe have such low entropy in the past ?
What causes gamma ray bursts ?
and on and on and on...But most of all , explain what causes the observed effects of hypothetical " dark matter " and " dark energy " .
My young children are smart enough to know that the dark matter story sounds like total and utter bull .
The story goes like this : " We see something that looks like it causes things to move , but we do n't know what it is , and we ca n't see it , or measure it , create it , or understand it at all .
These unobservable matter blobs ( and energy ) may be 95 \ % of everything we observe !
We see something we ca n't explain , so we 're calling it 'dark matter ' and moving on with the old story that has worked for a while and still gets us grant funding .
" Why no one with a brain is calling out this story for its absurdity is astounding.These issues are not subtle or small .
The theories science ( specifically physics ) now promotes and teaches about the physical world , while highly accurate and highly reproducible in different areas , are * impossibly inconsistent * and * abundantly incomplete * .
For science , inconsistency on this scale is a crisis requiring a revolution in thought.The most dangerous hubris in science is the refusal to accept that we 're far more ignorant about our physical environment than most would like to admit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, great.
Exciting observations, but really, not that useful in the big scheme of where we are with physics today.How about you physicists show us Higgs?
How do quantum mechanics and gravity mesh into a coherent theory?
Explain the disagreement of 107 orders of magnitude (yes, you read that right: 107 zeros) between the upper bound upon the vacuum energy density (from data obtained from Voyager, less than 10**14 GeV/m3) and the zero-point energy of 10**121 GeV/m3 - calculated using quantum field theory, or alternately: Why doesn't the zero-point energy of the vacuum cause a large cosmological constant?
Why is there far more matter than antimatter?
Are protons stable - if not, what's the half life?
Is SUSY real or just implied?
What governs the transition of quarks and gluons into pions (ie explain QCD)?
What's the mass of a Neutrino?
Explain why the fundamental physical constants have the exact and seemingly arbitrary yet interconnected values they have?
Why did the universe have such low entropy in the past?
What causes gamma ray bursts?
and on and on and on...But most of all, explain what causes the observed effects of hypothetical "dark matter" and "dark energy".
My young children are smart enough to know that the dark matter story sounds like total and utter bull.
The story goes like this: "We see something that looks like it causes things to move, but we don't know what it is, and we can't see it, or measure it, create it, or understand it at all.
These unobservable matter blobs (and energy) may be 95\% of everything we observe!
We see something we can't explain, so we're calling it 'dark matter' and moving on with the old story that has worked for a while and still gets us grant funding.
"  Why no one with a brain is calling out this story for its absurdity is astounding.These issues are not subtle or small.
The theories science (specifically physics) now promotes and teaches about the physical world, while highly accurate and highly reproducible in different areas, are *impossibly inconsistent* and *abundantly incomplete*.
For science, inconsistency on this scale is a crisis requiring a revolution in thought.The most dangerous hubris in science is the refusal to accept that we're far more ignorant about our physical environment than most would like to admit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30656420</id>
	<title>Re:The big question</title>
	<author>MBGMorden</author>
	<datestamp>1262713320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They learn as they go.  Sometimes one leads, sometimes it follows.  They don't worry 'bout what they don't know.  Galactic collisions is a dance you learn as you go.</p><p>- JMM</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They learn as they go .
Sometimes one leads , sometimes it follows .
They do n't worry 'bout what they do n't know .
Galactic collisions is a dance you learn as you go.- JMM</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They learn as they go.
Sometimes one leads, sometimes it follows.
They don't worry 'bout what they don't know.
Galactic collisions is a dance you learn as you go.- JMM</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646528</id>
	<title>Re:Collision is imminent</title>
	<author>Talderas</author>
	<datestamp>1262600880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The dire threat of colliding galaxies in 3 billion years demands that we act now to save our planet!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The dire threat of colliding galaxies in 3 billion years demands that we act now to save our planet !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The dire threat of colliding galaxies in 3 billion years demands that we act now to save our planet!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646878</id>
	<title>What happens when the holes merge?</title>
	<author>MMORG</author>
	<datestamp>1262602500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if a single magnestar can produce a truly massive gamma ray blast just by displacing its crust by a couple of centimeters <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/12/27/1639207/Fifth-Anniversary-of-a-Cosmic-Onslaught" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/12/27/1639207/Fifth-Anniversary-of-a-Cosmic-Onslaught</a> [slashdot.org], what happens when two super-massive black holes finally merge?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if a single magnestar can produce a truly massive gamma ray blast just by displacing its crust by a couple of centimeters http : //science.slashdot.org/story/09/12/27/1639207/Fifth-Anniversary-of-a-Cosmic-Onslaught [ slashdot.org ] , what happens when two super-massive black holes finally merge ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if a single magnestar can produce a truly massive gamma ray blast just by displacing its crust by a couple of centimeters http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/12/27/1639207/Fifth-Anniversary-of-a-Cosmic-Onslaught [slashdot.org], what happens when two super-massive black holes finally merge?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30648578</id>
	<title>Re:*golf clap*</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262610060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You sound like exactly the sort of person who ought to read <a href="http://milesmathis.com/" title="milesmathis.com" rel="nofollow">this guy</a> [milesmathis.com]
</p><p>Whether you believe he's on to something or completely nuts, at least he's <i>thinking</i> about the paradoxes instead of ignoring them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You sound like exactly the sort of person who ought to read this guy [ milesmathis.com ] Whether you believe he 's on to something or completely nuts , at least he 's thinking about the paradoxes instead of ignoring them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You sound like exactly the sort of person who ought to read this guy [milesmathis.com]
Whether you believe he's on to something or completely nuts, at least he's thinking about the paradoxes instead of ignoring them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30651246</id>
	<title>Nihil novi sub sole</title>
	<author>dragmyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1262626740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1) nearly every galaxy has a central super-massive black hole 2) galaxies commonly collide and merge to form new, more massive galaxies. [...] The two black holes gradually in-spiral toward the center of this galaxy, engaging in a gravitational tug-of-war with the surrounding stars.</p></div><p>If this was a comment on the life of corporations, I would mod it "Insightful" (just substitue "galaxy" with "corporation" and "back hole" with "CEO").</p><p>Just goes to show you, micro and macro-scale ecology is eeringly similar. I think we need a lecture on fractals and how they apply to this situation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) nearly every galaxy has a central super-massive black hole 2 ) galaxies commonly collide and merge to form new , more massive galaxies .
[ ... ] The two black holes gradually in-spiral toward the center of this galaxy , engaging in a gravitational tug-of-war with the surrounding stars.If this was a comment on the life of corporations , I would mod it " Insightful " ( just substitue " galaxy " with " corporation " and " back hole " with " CEO " ) .Just goes to show you , micro and macro-scale ecology is eeringly similar .
I think we need a lecture on fractals and how they apply to this situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) nearly every galaxy has a central super-massive black hole 2) galaxies commonly collide and merge to form new, more massive galaxies.
[...] The two black holes gradually in-spiral toward the center of this galaxy, engaging in a gravitational tug-of-war with the surrounding stars.If this was a comment on the life of corporations, I would mod it "Insightful" (just substitue "galaxy" with "corporation" and "back hole" with "CEO").Just goes to show you, micro and macro-scale ecology is eeringly similar.
I think we need a lecture on fractals and how they apply to this situation.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30647700</id>
	<title>Re:Black holes don't exist (yet)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262605920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hawking actually addressed this very problem in his most famous book.  The one everyone has.  To an outside, at rest, observer there's a "condensation" moment when the event horizon becomes larger than the observable object.</p><p>Just like in fluid physics, the condensation takes a finite amount of energy (in this case, mass and time) to occur... because it is a true phase change phenomenon.</p><p>What you say is true, we'll never be able to observe the matter infall to become a singularity, due to time dilation.  But, we pass a point LONG BEFORE THAT where we are no longer able to observe, because the event horizon has formed.</p><p>Unlike so much else in mathematics and science, the event horizon isn't just some line we draw, saying "this is where this force equals that force and blah blah blah"... It's a real thing that is the black hole's ONLY remaining link to the universe around it.  The horizon can move and shift, it can have irregularities, holds an electric charge, rotates, and exerts gravity (as well as being affected by gravity)</p><p>The electric charge is an important prediction.  Unlike gravity, we know what carries electric charge; it's photons.  And that means that any charge the black hole DOES have, has to exist on or outside the event horizon in order to escape, it's not electricity from inside the hole "leaking" out; it's actually ON the event horizon.</p><p>Hawking was interested in how the actual growing works, so he asked the question, if you drop something small and heavy into a black hole, when and how does the event horizon grow?  He envisioned, as you probably do, that the size of the event horizon grew linearly as mass is added, but that's not how the field equations turned out.  If you're the object, that's exactly what appears to happen, as the outside world gets dilated to nothing as you continue your infall.  If you're outside though, the event horizon discretely increases in size as the object passes the NEW event horizon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hawking actually addressed this very problem in his most famous book .
The one everyone has .
To an outside , at rest , observer there 's a " condensation " moment when the event horizon becomes larger than the observable object.Just like in fluid physics , the condensation takes a finite amount of energy ( in this case , mass and time ) to occur... because it is a true phase change phenomenon.What you say is true , we 'll never be able to observe the matter infall to become a singularity , due to time dilation .
But , we pass a point LONG BEFORE THAT where we are no longer able to observe , because the event horizon has formed.Unlike so much else in mathematics and science , the event horizon is n't just some line we draw , saying " this is where this force equals that force and blah blah blah " ... It 's a real thing that is the black hole 's ONLY remaining link to the universe around it .
The horizon can move and shift , it can have irregularities , holds an electric charge , rotates , and exerts gravity ( as well as being affected by gravity ) The electric charge is an important prediction .
Unlike gravity , we know what carries electric charge ; it 's photons .
And that means that any charge the black hole DOES have , has to exist on or outside the event horizon in order to escape , it 's not electricity from inside the hole " leaking " out ; it 's actually ON the event horizon.Hawking was interested in how the actual growing works , so he asked the question , if you drop something small and heavy into a black hole , when and how does the event horizon grow ?
He envisioned , as you probably do , that the size of the event horizon grew linearly as mass is added , but that 's not how the field equations turned out .
If you 're the object , that 's exactly what appears to happen , as the outside world gets dilated to nothing as you continue your infall .
If you 're outside though , the event horizon discretely increases in size as the object passes the NEW event horizon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hawking actually addressed this very problem in his most famous book.
The one everyone has.
To an outside, at rest, observer there's a "condensation" moment when the event horizon becomes larger than the observable object.Just like in fluid physics, the condensation takes a finite amount of energy (in this case, mass and time) to occur... because it is a true phase change phenomenon.What you say is true, we'll never be able to observe the matter infall to become a singularity, due to time dilation.
But, we pass a point LONG BEFORE THAT where we are no longer able to observe, because the event horizon has formed.Unlike so much else in mathematics and science, the event horizon isn't just some line we draw, saying "this is where this force equals that force and blah blah blah"... It's a real thing that is the black hole's ONLY remaining link to the universe around it.
The horizon can move and shift, it can have irregularities, holds an electric charge, rotates, and exerts gravity (as well as being affected by gravity)The electric charge is an important prediction.
Unlike gravity, we know what carries electric charge; it's photons.
And that means that any charge the black hole DOES have, has to exist on or outside the event horizon in order to escape, it's not electricity from inside the hole "leaking" out; it's actually ON the event horizon.Hawking was interested in how the actual growing works, so he asked the question, if you drop something small and heavy into a black hole, when and how does the event horizon grow?
He envisioned, as you probably do, that the size of the event horizon grew linearly as mass is added, but that's not how the field equations turned out.
If you're the object, that's exactly what appears to happen, as the outside world gets dilated to nothing as you continue your infall.
If you're outside though, the event horizon discretely increases in size as the object passes the NEW event horizon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30647046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30654084</id>
	<title>What about the planets...</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1262703060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When the galaxies collide , what effect does it have on the inhabiting planets inside that galaxy, or is it something you would not feel, just all of a sudden (like in a crowded gym...) you look up to see twice as many people (or in this case planets and stars) then before?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When the galaxies collide , what effect does it have on the inhabiting planets inside that galaxy , or is it something you would not feel , just all of a sudden ( like in a crowded gym... ) you look up to see twice as many people ( or in this case planets and stars ) then before ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the galaxies collide , what effect does it have on the inhabiting planets inside that galaxy, or is it something you would not feel, just all of a sudden (like in a crowded gym...) you look up to see twice as many people (or in this case planets and stars) then before?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30649770</id>
	<title>Re:So, would a pair of coupled black hole pairs...</title>
	<author>Megahard</author>
	<datestamp>1262615940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>33 pairs is enough for 8 squares, with one pair sitting out.  They could do a <a href="http://tamtwirlers.org/tamination/c1/galaxy\_circulate.html" title="tamtwirlers.org" rel="nofollow">Galaxy Circulate</a> [tamtwirlers.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>33 pairs is enough for 8 squares , with one pair sitting out .
They could do a Galaxy Circulate [ tamtwirlers.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>33 pairs is enough for 8 squares, with one pair sitting out.
They could do a Galaxy Circulate [tamtwirlers.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646092</id>
	<title>Waltzing?</title>
	<author>CannonballHead</author>
	<datestamp>1262599260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently, the definition "waltzing"/a waltz has been diminished to the extent that now it just refers to two objects moving together.  Hum.</p><p>I guess I'm just a cranky music theory lover though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently , the definition " waltzing " /a waltz has been diminished to the extent that now it just refers to two objects moving together .
Hum.I guess I 'm just a cranky music theory lover though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently, the definition "waltzing"/a waltz has been diminished to the extent that now it just refers to two objects moving together.
Hum.I guess I'm just a cranky music theory lover though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646514</id>
	<title>So, would a pair of coupled black hole pairs...</title>
	<author>Biff Stu</author>
	<datestamp>1262600820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>be square dancing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>be square dancing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>be square dancing?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30647582</id>
	<title>Re:*golf clap*</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262605440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't have a degree in physics, but I have spotted the impudent jerk particle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't have a degree in physics , but I have spotted the impudent jerk particle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't have a degree in physics, but I have spotted the impudent jerk particle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646154</id>
	<title>OH NO!</title>
	<author>madddddddddd</author>
	<datestamp>1262599440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the Y3B bug already being dismissed as irrelevant</htmltext>
<tokenext>the Y3B bug already being dismissed as irrelevant</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the Y3B bug already being dismissed as irrelevant</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30649264</id>
	<title>So that gives us</title>
	<author>mushroom blue</author>
	<datestamp>1262613120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>3 billion years for a species to not kill itself long enough to escape this galaxy, lest all life on it perish?</htmltext>
<tokenext>3 billion years for a species to not kill itself long enough to escape this galaxy , lest all life on it perish ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3 billion years for a species to not kill itself long enough to escape this galaxy, lest all life on it perish?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30647228</id>
	<title>A bit late</title>
	<author>ca111a</author>
	<datestamp>1262603880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For the holidays, isn't it. If they only did it before Christmas...</htmltext>
<tokenext>For the holidays , is n't it .
If they only did it before Christmas.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the holidays, isn't it.
If they only did it before Christmas...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30647300</id>
	<title>Re:What happens when the holes merge?</title>
	<author>michelcolman</author>
	<datestamp>1262604180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From our point of view, they take an infinite amount of time to actually merge, since time around them slows down to pretty much a standstill due to the huge gravitational time dilation. So I guess there's nothing to worry about. In fact, even the black holes themselves don't really exist yet, they will forever be "almost" black holes (though admittedly very, very close). Unless you fall into one. But that would take an infinite amount of time from an outside observer's point of view, too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From our point of view , they take an infinite amount of time to actually merge , since time around them slows down to pretty much a standstill due to the huge gravitational time dilation .
So I guess there 's nothing to worry about .
In fact , even the black holes themselves do n't really exist yet , they will forever be " almost " black holes ( though admittedly very , very close ) .
Unless you fall into one .
But that would take an infinite amount of time from an outside observer 's point of view , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From our point of view, they take an infinite amount of time to actually merge, since time around them slows down to pretty much a standstill due to the huge gravitational time dilation.
So I guess there's nothing to worry about.
In fact, even the black holes themselves don't really exist yet, they will forever be "almost" black holes (though admittedly very, very close).
Unless you fall into one.
But that would take an infinite amount of time from an outside observer's point of view, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646214</id>
	<title>Newton?</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1262599620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At those masses, the choreographer is most likely Einstein (nvm that dark matter might be not the underlying cause of some discrepancy between how we think gravity works and what we are observing at galactic scales; we might as well have a different choreographer yet)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At those masses , the choreographer is most likely Einstein ( nvm that dark matter might be not the underlying cause of some discrepancy between how we think gravity works and what we are observing at galactic scales ; we might as well have a different choreographer yet )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At those masses, the choreographer is most likely Einstein (nvm that dark matter might be not the underlying cause of some discrepancy between how we think gravity works and what we are observing at galactic scales; we might as well have a different choreographer yet)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30647786</id>
	<title>Re:*golf clap*</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1262606340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They shouldn't shows us a Higgs Boson particle as it would seal our fate as a "Type 13" civilization when our planet collapses into something the size of a pea due to experiments designed to find the mass of t6he Higg Boson Particle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They should n't shows us a Higgs Boson particle as it would seal our fate as a " Type 13 " civilization when our planet collapses into something the size of a pea due to experiments designed to find the mass of t6he Higg Boson Particle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They shouldn't shows us a Higgs Boson particle as it would seal our fate as a "Type 13" civilization when our planet collapses into something the size of a pea due to experiments designed to find the mass of t6he Higg Boson Particle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646758</id>
	<title>How long does the pair last before merger?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262601960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Given that the pair of orbiting supermassive black holes will be (presumably) spewing out gravitational waves at a prodigious rate, two questions come to mind:
<p>
1) How long does it take two such objects to coalesce?  Are we talking millions, billions, or trillions of years?
</p><p>
2) My memory is foggy, but ISTR that a black hole merger results in a significant fraction (10-20\%) of the black holes' masses being released as energy.
</p><p>
That sort of energy release is in gamma-ray-burst territory when you're talking about stellar-mass black holes, but  downright awesome when you're talking about the potential for a merger between two supermassive black holes.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that the pair of orbiting supermassive black holes will be ( presumably ) spewing out gravitational waves at a prodigious rate , two questions come to mind : 1 ) How long does it take two such objects to coalesce ?
Are we talking millions , billions , or trillions of years ?
2 ) My memory is foggy , but ISTR that a black hole merger results in a significant fraction ( 10-20 \ % ) of the black holes ' masses being released as energy .
That sort of energy release is in gamma-ray-burst territory when you 're talking about stellar-mass black holes , but downright awesome when you 're talking about the potential for a merger between two supermassive black holes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that the pair of orbiting supermassive black holes will be (presumably) spewing out gravitational waves at a prodigious rate, two questions come to mind:

1) How long does it take two such objects to coalesce?
Are we talking millions, billions, or trillions of years?
2) My memory is foggy, but ISTR that a black hole merger results in a significant fraction (10-20\%) of the black holes' masses being released as energy.
That sort of energy release is in gamma-ray-burst territory when you're talking about stellar-mass black holes, but  downright awesome when you're talking about the potential for a merger between two supermassive black holes.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646634</id>
	<title>Re:Waltzing?</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1262601300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you saying that you don't feel closer whenever you waltz with a member of the opposite sex?</p><p>They are merely using waltz to describe the effects of said motion, not the actual motion itself, which is confusing since waltzing (the dance) implies motion.</p><p>However, if you were expecting some similarity between the black holes and music, I have a My Chemical Romance CD I could send to you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you saying that you do n't feel closer whenever you waltz with a member of the opposite sex ? They are merely using waltz to describe the effects of said motion , not the actual motion itself , which is confusing since waltzing ( the dance ) implies motion.However , if you were expecting some similarity between the black holes and music , I have a My Chemical Romance CD I could send to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you saying that you don't feel closer whenever you waltz with a member of the opposite sex?They are merely using waltz to describe the effects of said motion, not the actual motion itself, which is confusing since waltzing (the dance) implies motion.However, if you were expecting some similarity between the black holes and music, I have a My Chemical Romance CD I could send to you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646372</id>
	<title>Collision is imminent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262600280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"[...] a merger between two galaxies should bring two super-massive black holes to the new, more massive galaxy formed from the merger. The two black holes gradually in-spiral toward the center of this galaxy, engaging in a gravitational tug-of-war with the surrounding stars. The result is a black hole dance, choreographed by Newton himself. Such a dance is expected to occur <b>in our own Milky Way Galaxy in about 3 billion years, when it collides with the Andromeda Galaxy.</b>"</p></div><p>Don't worry - I'm sure Russia will have an ill-defined plan to divert this somehow. By then.</p><p>(Sorry, couldn't resist.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" [ ... ] a merger between two galaxies should bring two super-massive black holes to the new , more massive galaxy formed from the merger .
The two black holes gradually in-spiral toward the center of this galaxy , engaging in a gravitational tug-of-war with the surrounding stars .
The result is a black hole dance , choreographed by Newton himself .
Such a dance is expected to occur in our own Milky Way Galaxy in about 3 billion years , when it collides with the Andromeda Galaxy .
" Do n't worry - I 'm sure Russia will have an ill-defined plan to divert this somehow .
By then .
( Sorry , could n't resist .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"[...] a merger between two galaxies should bring two super-massive black holes to the new, more massive galaxy formed from the merger.
The two black holes gradually in-spiral toward the center of this galaxy, engaging in a gravitational tug-of-war with the surrounding stars.
The result is a black hole dance, choreographed by Newton himself.
Such a dance is expected to occur in our own Milky Way Galaxy in about 3 billion years, when it collides with the Andromeda Galaxy.
"Don't worry - I'm sure Russia will have an ill-defined plan to divert this somehow.
By then.
(Sorry, couldn't resist.
)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646610</id>
	<title>Wow!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262601180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, when I was in university, Black Holes were still a mostly theoretical idea and we had no real empirical evidence to support their existence.</p><p>Now we've got 33 pairs of them entwined in death spirals, and we're pretty sure every galaxy has one.</p><p>There's still a lot out there that we can't even conceive of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I can't wait to see what the next 15-20 years brings us.  I like the fact that the universe is vastly more complicated than we've ever really been able to guess at.</p><p>Cheers</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , when I was in university , Black Holes were still a mostly theoretical idea and we had no real empirical evidence to support their existence.Now we 've got 33 pairs of them entwined in death spirals , and we 're pretty sure every galaxy has one.There 's still a lot out there that we ca n't even conceive of ... I ca n't wait to see what the next 15-20 years brings us .
I like the fact that the universe is vastly more complicated than we 've ever really been able to guess at.Cheers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, when I was in university, Black Holes were still a mostly theoretical idea and we had no real empirical evidence to support their existence.Now we've got 33 pairs of them entwined in death spirals, and we're pretty sure every galaxy has one.There's still a lot out there that we can't even conceive of ... I can't wait to see what the next 15-20 years brings us.
I like the fact that the universe is vastly more complicated than we've ever really been able to guess at.Cheers</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30647114</id>
	<title>Confirmation of a theory is important</title>
	<author>jfengel</author>
	<datestamp>1262603400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As with so much of science: if you went out there and didn't find it, that would be much bigger news, because it would cast doubt on your present theory.</p><p>Confirmation is never as exciting as falsification, but it's good that science isn't all that exciting, or nothing would ever get done.  The more confirmations you get, the further you can speculate, with the chance of getting something that can be falsified.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As with so much of science : if you went out there and did n't find it , that would be much bigger news , because it would cast doubt on your present theory.Confirmation is never as exciting as falsification , but it 's good that science is n't all that exciting , or nothing would ever get done .
The more confirmations you get , the further you can speculate , with the chance of getting something that can be falsified .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As with so much of science: if you went out there and didn't find it, that would be much bigger news, because it would cast doubt on your present theory.Confirmation is never as exciting as falsification, but it's good that science isn't all that exciting, or nothing would ever get done.
The more confirmations you get, the further you can speculate, with the chance of getting something that can be falsified.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646538</id>
	<title>Hmmm....</title>
	<author>Daimanta</author>
	<datestamp>1262600940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Finally I can post this link and not be offtopic:</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg1dMpu4v7M" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg1dMpu4v7M</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally I can post this link and not be offtopic : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = Cg1dMpu4v7M [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally I can post this link and not be offtopic:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg1dMpu4v7M [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646100</id>
	<title>The big question</title>
	<author>Drummergeek0</author>
	<datestamp>1262599260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who leads and who follows?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who leads and who follows ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who leads and who follows?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646530</id>
	<title>and this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262600880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>... is the only "Dancing with the Stars" I'd ever want to see.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... is the only " Dancing with the Stars " I 'd ever want to see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... is the only "Dancing with the Stars" I'd ever want to see.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646552</id>
	<title>Einstein!</title>
	<author>mbone</author>
	<datestamp>1262601000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>choreographed by Newton himself.</i></p><p>He might try, but the accurate calculation of black hole orbits requires the complete infrastructure of General Relativity, so Einstein is calling this tune.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>choreographed by Newton himself.He might try , but the accurate calculation of black hole orbits requires the complete infrastructure of General Relativity , so Einstein is calling this tune .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>choreographed by Newton himself.He might try, but the accurate calculation of black hole orbits requires the complete infrastructure of General Relativity, so Einstein is calling this tune.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30656648</id>
	<title>Re:Is this really a discovery?</title>
	<author>MBGMorden</author>
	<datestamp>1262714220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's the "common sense" idea, and it's simply not a good way to do things.</p><p>To the average man a scientist trying to figure out why things fall, or measuring the speed at which they fall for example is wasting time.  It's "common sense" that things just fall.</p><p>However, many, many things over the centuries that were "common sense" have been proven wrong when subjected to scientific analysis (after all, it was once common sense that the Sun went around the Earth).</p><p>Just dismissing every study as invaluable because you think you intrinsically know the results already is a recipe for a society full of misconceptions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the " common sense " idea , and it 's simply not a good way to do things.To the average man a scientist trying to figure out why things fall , or measuring the speed at which they fall for example is wasting time .
It 's " common sense " that things just fall.However , many , many things over the centuries that were " common sense " have been proven wrong when subjected to scientific analysis ( after all , it was once common sense that the Sun went around the Earth ) .Just dismissing every study as invaluable because you think you intrinsically know the results already is a recipe for a society full of misconceptions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the "common sense" idea, and it's simply not a good way to do things.To the average man a scientist trying to figure out why things fall, or measuring the speed at which they fall for example is wasting time.
It's "common sense" that things just fall.However, many, many things over the centuries that were "common sense" have been proven wrong when subjected to scientific analysis (after all, it was once common sense that the Sun went around the Earth).Just dismissing every study as invaluable because you think you intrinsically know the results already is a recipe for a society full of misconceptions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30650176</id>
	<title>3 mergers per billion years, really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262618400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA:</p><p>&gt;The dual supermassive black hole pairs can in turn<br>&gt;be used to estimate how often galaxies merge, and<br>&gt;the team concludes that red galaxies from between 4<br>&gt;and 7 billions years ago underwent 3 mergers every<br>&gt;billion years.</p><p>Unless I'm not understanding something, that would mean that in the 3 billion year period (between 4 and 7 bya), the subject galaxies experienced an average of 9 mergers.  If each merger results in two galaxies merging into one, then that means there were more than 500 times fewer galaxies (2^9) 4bya than 7bya</p><p>That's pretty dramatic, is there anything wrong with my math?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : &gt; The dual supermassive black hole pairs can in turn &gt; be used to estimate how often galaxies merge , and &gt; the team concludes that red galaxies from between 4 &gt; and 7 billions years ago underwent 3 mergers every &gt; billion years.Unless I 'm not understanding something , that would mean that in the 3 billion year period ( between 4 and 7 bya ) , the subject galaxies experienced an average of 9 mergers .
If each merger results in two galaxies merging into one , then that means there were more than 500 times fewer galaxies ( 2 ^ 9 ) 4bya than 7byaThat 's pretty dramatic , is there anything wrong with my math ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:&gt;The dual supermassive black hole pairs can in turn&gt;be used to estimate how often galaxies merge, and&gt;the team concludes that red galaxies from between 4&gt;and 7 billions years ago underwent 3 mergers every&gt;billion years.Unless I'm not understanding something, that would mean that in the 3 billion year period (between 4 and 7 bya), the subject galaxies experienced an average of 9 mergers.
If each merger results in two galaxies merging into one, then that means there were more than 500 times fewer galaxies (2^9) 4bya than 7byaThat's pretty dramatic, is there anything wrong with my math?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30647928</id>
	<title>Re:Good news for gravitational waves hunters</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262606940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I remember correctly, LISA is sensitive to gravitational waves with a period of minutes, which we would expect from a neutron star binary system.  A supermassive black hole binary system will emit gravitational waves with a much longer period - years, at least.  These are more likely to be detected through pulsar timing projects like <a href="http://www.atnf.csiro.au/research/pulsar/ppta/" title="csiro.au" rel="nofollow">PPTA</a> [csiro.au] - essentially, these work similarly to observatories like LIGO or LISA, but instead of using an artificial laser as their input signal, they use radio pulses from pulsars.  If the pulsars in one part of the sky seem to pulse a little earlier, and those in an orthogonal part of the sky pulse a little later, that would be an indication of a gravitational wave.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I remember correctly , LISA is sensitive to gravitational waves with a period of minutes , which we would expect from a neutron star binary system .
A supermassive black hole binary system will emit gravitational waves with a much longer period - years , at least .
These are more likely to be detected through pulsar timing projects like PPTA [ csiro.au ] - essentially , these work similarly to observatories like LIGO or LISA , but instead of using an artificial laser as their input signal , they use radio pulses from pulsars .
If the pulsars in one part of the sky seem to pulse a little earlier , and those in an orthogonal part of the sky pulse a little later , that would be an indication of a gravitational wave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I remember correctly, LISA is sensitive to gravitational waves with a period of minutes, which we would expect from a neutron star binary system.
A supermassive black hole binary system will emit gravitational waves with a much longer period - years, at least.
These are more likely to be detected through pulsar timing projects like PPTA [csiro.au] - essentially, these work similarly to observatories like LIGO or LISA, but instead of using an artificial laser as their input signal, they use radio pulses from pulsars.
If the pulsars in one part of the sky seem to pulse a little earlier, and those in an orthogonal part of the sky pulse a little later, that would be an indication of a gravitational wave.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30652022</id>
	<title>Re:Waltzing?</title>
	<author>mykos</author>
	<datestamp>1262635140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a cranky literature lover, I'll have you know that utilizing "waltzing" for personification diminishes the term in no way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a cranky literature lover , I 'll have you know that utilizing " waltzing " for personification diminishes the term in no way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a cranky literature lover, I'll have you know that utilizing "waltzing" for personification diminishes the term in no way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646622</id>
	<title>Re:Waltzing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262601240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or, in effect the galaxies, us included, have already collided.  We, being on the temporal edge of the black hole's event-horizon are as of yet incapable of truly appreciating our doomed status.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , in effect the galaxies , us included , have already collided .
We , being on the temporal edge of the black hole 's event-horizon are as of yet incapable of truly appreciating our doomed status .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or, in effect the galaxies, us included, have already collided.
We, being on the temporal edge of the black hole's event-horizon are as of yet incapable of truly appreciating our doomed status.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646092</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1937225_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30647220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1937225_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30647582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1937225_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1937225_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30648092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1937225_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30649076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1937225_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30647786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1937225_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30649770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1937225_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30652116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1937225_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30648578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1937225_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30650906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1937225_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30652056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1937225_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30647492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1937225_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1937225_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30647300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1937225_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30650418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30649264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1937225_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1937225_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30651336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1937225_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1937225_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30647114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1937225_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30647700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30647046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1937225_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30652022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1937225_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30647928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1937225_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30647214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1937225_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30656420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1937225_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30656648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1937225.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646246
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1937225.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30650906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30651336
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1937225.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30649264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30650418
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1937225.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30647300
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1937225.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646528
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30652056
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1937225.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646214
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1937225.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30647214
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1937225.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30647928
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1937225.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646538
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1937225.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30647492
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1937225.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30647046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30647700
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1937225.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30647582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30648092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30648578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30647220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30647786
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1937225.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30649770
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1937225.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30652022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30649076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30652116
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1937225.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30647114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30656648
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1937225.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30646696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1937225.30656420
</commentlist>
</conversation>
