<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_05_2115257</id>
	<title>Astronomers Detect the Earliest Galaxies</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1262685600000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:fireang3l.hotmail@com" rel="nofollow">FiReaNGeL</a> writes <i>"Astronomers, using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope, have uncovered <a href="http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/01/05/astronomers.detect.earliest.galaxies">a primordial population of compact and ultra-blue galaxies</a> that have never been seen before. They are from 13 billion years ago, <a href="http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/01/05/hubble.finds.most.distant.primeval.galaxies">just 600 to 800 million years after the Big Bang</a>. These newly found objects are crucial to understanding the evolutionary link between the birth of the first stars, the formation of the first galaxies, and the sequence of evolutionary events that resulted in the assembly of our Milky Way and the other 'mature' elliptical and majestic spiral galaxies in today's universe."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>FiReaNGeL writes " Astronomers , using NASA 's Hubble Space Telescope , have uncovered a primordial population of compact and ultra-blue galaxies that have never been seen before .
They are from 13 billion years ago , just 600 to 800 million years after the Big Bang .
These newly found objects are crucial to understanding the evolutionary link between the birth of the first stars , the formation of the first galaxies , and the sequence of evolutionary events that resulted in the assembly of our Milky Way and the other 'mature ' elliptical and majestic spiral galaxies in today 's universe .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FiReaNGeL writes "Astronomers, using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope, have uncovered a primordial population of compact and ultra-blue galaxies that have never been seen before.
They are from 13 billion years ago, just 600 to 800 million years after the Big Bang.
These newly found objects are crucial to understanding the evolutionary link between the birth of the first stars, the formation of the first galaxies, and the sequence of evolutionary events that resulted in the assembly of our Milky Way and the other 'mature' elliptical and majestic spiral galaxies in today's universe.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30662632</id>
	<title>Hubble NewsCenter link</title>
	<author>Suddenly\_Dead</author>
	<datestamp>1262695020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The corresponding <a href="http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2010/02/full/" title="hubblesite.org">Hubble NewsCenter article</a> [hubblesite.org] includes more details and more, larger images.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The corresponding Hubble NewsCenter article [ hubblesite.org ] includes more details and more , larger images .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The corresponding Hubble NewsCenter article [hubblesite.org] includes more details and more, larger images.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30664274</id>
	<title>How is this possible?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262703720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am NOT a physisist nor astronomer, but I am currious.</p><p>If the light was emmited from these galaxies when the univers was roughly 600 to 800 million years old. Assuming that the substance from the big bang could not move faster than the speed of light.  The universe could not have been more than 1.2 to 1.6 billion light years across.  I am fairly confused about why this radiant energy didn't pass our relative position in the universe a very long time ago.</p><p>So, my question is...</p><p>How is it possible that we can still recieve the light from these galaxies?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am NOT a physisist nor astronomer , but I am currious.If the light was emmited from these galaxies when the univers was roughly 600 to 800 million years old .
Assuming that the substance from the big bang could not move faster than the speed of light .
The universe could not have been more than 1.2 to 1.6 billion light years across .
I am fairly confused about why this radiant energy did n't pass our relative position in the universe a very long time ago.So , my question is...How is it possible that we can still recieve the light from these galaxies ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am NOT a physisist nor astronomer, but I am currious.If the light was emmited from these galaxies when the univers was roughly 600 to 800 million years old.
Assuming that the substance from the big bang could not move faster than the speed of light.
The universe could not have been more than 1.2 to 1.6 billion light years across.
I am fairly confused about why this radiant energy didn't pass our relative position in the universe a very long time ago.So, my question is...How is it possible that we can still recieve the light from these galaxies?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30667472</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid question</title>
	<author>Chapter80</author>
	<datestamp>1262777520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I like Carl Sagan's explanation of the fourth dimension best, but wikipedia [wikipedia.org] does a good job, if a bit on the technical side.</p></div><p>But the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_5th\_Dimension#Singles" title="wikipedia.org">wikipedia article on the fifth dimension</a> [wikipedia.org] can help clarify the issue much more.  Your balloon analogy doesn't hold up, when it goes up, up and away.  It's almost as if you are claiming that in three dimensions, we have a sweet blindness of the fourth.  When in fact, using the fifth dimension, you can go where you want to go.</p><p>Once you observe using the fifth dimension, everything's changed.  We're observing these distance galaxies in the constellation Aquarius, while trying to let the sun shine in.  But all this nonsense about wavelengths, without the fifth dimension, we fail to see that light sings.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like Carl Sagan 's explanation of the fourth dimension best , but wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ] does a good job , if a bit on the technical side.But the wikipedia article on the fifth dimension [ wikipedia.org ] can help clarify the issue much more .
Your balloon analogy does n't hold up , when it goes up , up and away .
It 's almost as if you are claiming that in three dimensions , we have a sweet blindness of the fourth .
When in fact , using the fifth dimension , you can go where you want to go.Once you observe using the fifth dimension , everything 's changed .
We 're observing these distance galaxies in the constellation Aquarius , while trying to let the sun shine in .
But all this nonsense about wavelengths , without the fifth dimension , we fail to see that light sings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like Carl Sagan's explanation of the fourth dimension best, but wikipedia [wikipedia.org] does a good job, if a bit on the technical side.But the wikipedia article on the fifth dimension [wikipedia.org] can help clarify the issue much more.
Your balloon analogy doesn't hold up, when it goes up, up and away.
It's almost as if you are claiming that in three dimensions, we have a sweet blindness of the fourth.
When in fact, using the fifth dimension, you can go where you want to go.Once you observe using the fifth dimension, everything's changed.
We're observing these distance galaxies in the constellation Aquarius, while trying to let the sun shine in.
But all this nonsense about wavelengths, without the fifth dimension, we fail to see that light sings.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30663724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30663158</id>
	<title>Re:Ultra-Blue?</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1262697420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually it's because the galaxy is almost entirely hydrogen, which emits blue light.</p><p>What they picked up was infra-red light.  By shining that through a prism, you get the elements the galaxy is composed of.  From the elements you can get the original color (all elements radiate a very specific set of frequencies that act like a fingerprint).  Compare the original color to the observed color, which has shifted so far it has gone from up near violet down into the infra-red, and you get distance and therefore age.</p><p>If we are able to find anything older than these we'll probably have to start looking at sub-infrared radiation. I don't know how you get a prism to split radio waves, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually it 's because the galaxy is almost entirely hydrogen , which emits blue light.What they picked up was infra-red light .
By shining that through a prism , you get the elements the galaxy is composed of .
From the elements you can get the original color ( all elements radiate a very specific set of frequencies that act like a fingerprint ) .
Compare the original color to the observed color , which has shifted so far it has gone from up near violet down into the infra-red , and you get distance and therefore age.If we are able to find anything older than these we 'll probably have to start looking at sub-infrared radiation .
I do n't know how you get a prism to split radio waves , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually it's because the galaxy is almost entirely hydrogen, which emits blue light.What they picked up was infra-red light.
By shining that through a prism, you get the elements the galaxy is composed of.
From the elements you can get the original color (all elements radiate a very specific set of frequencies that act like a fingerprint).
Compare the original color to the observed color, which has shifted so far it has gone from up near violet down into the infra-red, and you get distance and therefore age.If we are able to find anything older than these we'll probably have to start looking at sub-infrared radiation.
I don't know how you get a prism to split radio waves, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661920</id>
	<title>Re:Ultra-Blue?</title>
	<author>mdsolar</author>
	<datestamp>1262691480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>These galaxies are intrinsically blue at their rest wavelength.  They have young stars and little dust.</htmltext>
<tokenext>These galaxies are intrinsically blue at their rest wavelength .
They have young stars and little dust .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These galaxies are intrinsically blue at their rest wavelength.
They have young stars and little dust.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661700</id>
	<title>Big Deal. I can draw this crap in Photoshop...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262690520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Big Deal. I can draw this crap in Photoshop for a lot less than the millions these jokers spend...  Write me a check NASA!</p><p>The Cake is a Lie!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Big Deal .
I can draw this crap in Photoshop for a lot less than the millions these jokers spend... Write me a check NASA ! The Cake is a Lie !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Big Deal.
I can draw this crap in Photoshop for a lot less than the millions these jokers spend...  Write me a check NASA!The Cake is a Lie!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30664352</id>
	<title>Oldest galaxies?</title>
	<author>Schnoogs</author>
	<datestamp>1262704200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So you mean like 4000 years old?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So you mean like 4000 years old ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you mean like 4000 years old?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30663304</id>
	<title>Re:What is evolutionary about this?</title>
	<author>Toonol</author>
	<datestamp>1262698080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Darwinian selection is the process by which animal species change over time.  That is one example of evolution, a specific example which happens to rely on hereditary characteristics, reproduction, and so forth.<br> <br>

But 'evolution' is a word that simply means change over time.  Evolution was used as a term long before Darwin; indeed, it was known that animals evolved before there was any good explanation for how they evolved.

The term 'evolution' isn't limited to living creatures any more than the term 'drive' is limited only to cars.  It's simply the most common usage of the word.  It's probably better to use the term 'natural selection' when you're referring to the evolution of species.  Natural selection requires reproduction, for instance, while evolution doesn't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Darwinian selection is the process by which animal species change over time .
That is one example of evolution , a specific example which happens to rely on hereditary characteristics , reproduction , and so forth .
But 'evolution ' is a word that simply means change over time .
Evolution was used as a term long before Darwin ; indeed , it was known that animals evolved before there was any good explanation for how they evolved .
The term 'evolution ' is n't limited to living creatures any more than the term 'drive ' is limited only to cars .
It 's simply the most common usage of the word .
It 's probably better to use the term 'natural selection ' when you 're referring to the evolution of species .
Natural selection requires reproduction , for instance , while evolution does n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Darwinian selection is the process by which animal species change over time.
That is one example of evolution, a specific example which happens to rely on hereditary characteristics, reproduction, and so forth.
But 'evolution' is a word that simply means change over time.
Evolution was used as a term long before Darwin; indeed, it was known that animals evolved before there was any good explanation for how they evolved.
The term 'evolution' isn't limited to living creatures any more than the term 'drive' is limited only to cars.
It's simply the most common usage of the word.
It's probably better to use the term 'natural selection' when you're referring to the evolution of species.
Natural selection requires reproduction, for instance, while evolution doesn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30662168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30662168</id>
	<title>What is evolutionary about this?</title>
	<author>Thoguth</author>
	<datestamp>1262692620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know a lot of people use the term "evolutionary" as a synonym for "gradual" or "slow" but when I think of evolution, I think of the specific process of mutations and reproduction by which a population changes over time.  Unless there's something new about galaxies I've never heard of, I don't understand why the term "evolutionary" is the best word to describe the development of the early universe. (Or anything at astronomical scales that I can think of.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know a lot of people use the term " evolutionary " as a synonym for " gradual " or " slow " but when I think of evolution , I think of the specific process of mutations and reproduction by which a population changes over time .
Unless there 's something new about galaxies I 've never heard of , I do n't understand why the term " evolutionary " is the best word to describe the development of the early universe .
( Or anything at astronomical scales that I can think of .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know a lot of people use the term "evolutionary" as a synonym for "gradual" or "slow" but when I think of evolution, I think of the specific process of mutations and reproduction by which a population changes over time.
Unless there's something new about galaxies I've never heard of, I don't understand why the term "evolutionary" is the best word to describe the development of the early universe.
(Or anything at astronomical scales that I can think of.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30662226</id>
	<title>Re:just a thought</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1262692860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to TFA, hydrogen re-ionization when most of the universe was still opaque, gassy hydrogen and was not burning in the form of stars, blocks almost all of the light from 400 million to 900 million years after the BB.  The only reason these galaxies were visible is because they believe they had extremely efficient hydrogen ionization, which is also why they were so blue.  Before 400 million years post BB you have stars and galaxies only just forming, so I don't think there would be much in the way of light at all to be seen.</p><p>Also remember that the Big Bang is not an explosion <i>in</i> space, it's an explosion <i>of</i> space, so there might not be any visible light emmitted at all from the very beginning.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to TFA , hydrogen re-ionization when most of the universe was still opaque , gassy hydrogen and was not burning in the form of stars , blocks almost all of the light from 400 million to 900 million years after the BB .
The only reason these galaxies were visible is because they believe they had extremely efficient hydrogen ionization , which is also why they were so blue .
Before 400 million years post BB you have stars and galaxies only just forming , so I do n't think there would be much in the way of light at all to be seen.Also remember that the Big Bang is not an explosion in space , it 's an explosion of space , so there might not be any visible light emmitted at all from the very beginning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to TFA, hydrogen re-ionization when most of the universe was still opaque, gassy hydrogen and was not burning in the form of stars, blocks almost all of the light from 400 million to 900 million years after the BB.
The only reason these galaxies were visible is because they believe they had extremely efficient hydrogen ionization, which is also why they were so blue.
Before 400 million years post BB you have stars and galaxies only just forming, so I don't think there would be much in the way of light at all to be seen.Also remember that the Big Bang is not an explosion in space, it's an explosion of space, so there might not be any visible light emmitted at all from the very beginning.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30666226</id>
	<title>So who lives there?</title>
	<author>Lorens</author>
	<datestamp>1262718780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those galaxies have had a lot of time to develop life. Maybe prioritize that direction for SETI...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those galaxies have had a lot of time to develop life .
Maybe prioritize that direction for SETI.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those galaxies have had a lot of time to develop life.
Maybe prioritize that direction for SETI...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30665968</id>
	<title>Re:Ultra-Blue?</title>
	<author>fremsley471</author>
	<datestamp>1262716560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>This would be expected, because no elements heavier than helium had yet been synthesized.</i> <p>
Poor lithium, you were at the ball but no-one remembers you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This would be expected , because no elements heavier than helium had yet been synthesized .
Poor lithium , you were at the ball but no-one remembers you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This would be expected, because no elements heavier than helium had yet been synthesized.
Poor lithium, you were at the ball but no-one remembers you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30667524</id>
	<title>Wow!</title>
	<author>hoover</author>
	<datestamp>1262778000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, just wow. Hubble is going stronger than ever, it's hard to believe there was talk of retiring it because the refurbishing costs would be "too high". Yay Hubble!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , just wow .
Hubble is going stronger than ever , it 's hard to believe there was talk of retiring it because the refurbishing costs would be " too high " .
Yay Hubble !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, just wow.
Hubble is going stronger than ever, it's hard to believe there was talk of retiring it because the refurbishing costs would be "too high".
Yay Hubble!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661992</id>
	<title>Re:Ultra-Blue?</title>
	<author>kclittle</author>
	<datestamp>1262691720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I *think* TFA is implying that they can determine the intrinsic color, even when highly red-shifted, and that this intrinsic color is extremely blue due to the lack of any elements other than hydrogen and helium. This would be expected, because no elements heavier than helium had yet been synthesized.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I * think * TFA is implying that they can determine the intrinsic color , even when highly red-shifted , and that this intrinsic color is extremely blue due to the lack of any elements other than hydrogen and helium .
This would be expected , because no elements heavier than helium had yet been synthesized .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I *think* TFA is implying that they can determine the intrinsic color, even when highly red-shifted, and that this intrinsic color is extremely blue due to the lack of any elements other than hydrogen and helium.
This would be expected, because no elements heavier than helium had yet been synthesized.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30684520</id>
	<title>Re:just a thought</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1262888280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But we ARE seeing the "beginning" - that's the microwave background radiation, oldest emitted light that we can see (just after the universe stopped being was opaque)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But we ARE seeing the " beginning " - that 's the microwave background radiation , oldest emitted light that we can see ( just after the universe stopped being was opaque )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But we ARE seeing the "beginning" - that's the microwave background radiation, oldest emitted light that we can see (just after the universe stopped being was opaque)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661736</id>
	<title>The predicted ID reaction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262690700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Stars cannot evolve! DNA proves it!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Stars can not evolve !
DNA proves it !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Stars cannot evolve!
DNA proves it!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661512</id>
	<title>"Mature" galaxies?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262689560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can anyone confirm the applicability of Rule 34 to "mature" galaxies?  Inquiring minds have noticed that it applies for almost anything else called mature!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone confirm the applicability of Rule 34 to " mature " galaxies ?
Inquiring minds have noticed that it applies for almost anything else called mature !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anyone confirm the applicability of Rule 34 to "mature" galaxies?
Inquiring minds have noticed that it applies for almost anything else called mature!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30662662</id>
	<title>Stupid question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262695200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, I admit I don't know a lot about this subject, but if they are seeing this far into the "past", they have to be looking in one direction right? I assume that the Big Bang started at one point. So therefore, there must be one spot in the sky that they are looking at, and thus the "spot" that the universe came into existence.</p><p>Is this spot in the sky widely known? Where is it? And assuming the explosion would be spherical, would we ever be able to see galaxies that shot off in the other directions?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , I admit I do n't know a lot about this subject , but if they are seeing this far into the " past " , they have to be looking in one direction right ?
I assume that the Big Bang started at one point .
So therefore , there must be one spot in the sky that they are looking at , and thus the " spot " that the universe came into existence.Is this spot in the sky widely known ?
Where is it ?
And assuming the explosion would be spherical , would we ever be able to see galaxies that shot off in the other directions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, I admit I don't know a lot about this subject, but if they are seeing this far into the "past", they have to be looking in one direction right?
I assume that the Big Bang started at one point.
So therefore, there must be one spot in the sky that they are looking at, and thus the "spot" that the universe came into existence.Is this spot in the sky widely known?
Where is it?
And assuming the explosion would be spherical, would we ever be able to see galaxies that shot off in the other directions?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30662120</id>
	<title>Star Wars</title>
	<author>jag7720</author>
	<datestamp>1262692380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A long time ago in a galaxy far far away...

<br> <br>

I wonder if Luke saw them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A long time ago in a galaxy far far away.. . I wonder if Luke saw them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A long time ago in a galaxy far far away...

 

I wonder if Luke saw them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30665476</id>
	<title>Why do astronomers...</title>
	<author>pongo000</author>
	<datestamp>1262711520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...speak of these galaxies as if they <i>currently exist</i>?  If these galaxies are 11-13 billion light years away, haven't they since morphed into mature galaxies (or even moved even further away from us)?</p><p>In any event, all of this is rather fascinating to a non-astronomer.  It's truly mind-boggling to be looking at images of an event that happened many billions of years ago...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...speak of these galaxies as if they currently exist ?
If these galaxies are 11-13 billion light years away , have n't they since morphed into mature galaxies ( or even moved even further away from us ) ? In any event , all of this is rather fascinating to a non-astronomer .
It 's truly mind-boggling to be looking at images of an event that happened many billions of years ago.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...speak of these galaxies as if they currently exist?
If these galaxies are 11-13 billion light years away, haven't they since morphed into mature galaxies (or even moved even further away from us)?In any event, all of this is rather fascinating to a non-astronomer.
It's truly mind-boggling to be looking at images of an event that happened many billions of years ago...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30664830</id>
	<title>Open the archive</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262707260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not certain how accurate the following information is, but I find the suggestion from the following quote on <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/space/01/05/hubble.new.galaxies/index.html" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">CNN</a> [cnn.com] to be a serious limitation to the project:</p><p>"According to Villard, the archive from Hubble contains more than 500,000 pictures that can be accessed by the world's 6,000 astronomers. The data from the Ultra Deep Field have been analyzed by at least five international teams of astronomers, he said."</p><p>Why isn't the archive open to everyone?  Aren't there more than 6,000 astronomers in the world?   Wouldn't it be advantageous to open the archive to fresh eyes and new analysis?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not certain how accurate the following information is , but I find the suggestion from the following quote on CNN [ cnn.com ] to be a serious limitation to the project : " According to Villard , the archive from Hubble contains more than 500,000 pictures that can be accessed by the world 's 6,000 astronomers .
The data from the Ultra Deep Field have been analyzed by at least five international teams of astronomers , he said .
" Why is n't the archive open to everyone ?
Are n't there more than 6,000 astronomers in the world ?
Would n't it be advantageous to open the archive to fresh eyes and new analysis ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not certain how accurate the following information is, but I find the suggestion from the following quote on CNN [cnn.com] to be a serious limitation to the project:"According to Villard, the archive from Hubble contains more than 500,000 pictures that can be accessed by the world's 6,000 astronomers.
The data from the Ultra Deep Field have been analyzed by at least five international teams of astronomers, he said.
"Why isn't the archive open to everyone?
Aren't there more than 6,000 astronomers in the world?
Wouldn't it be advantageous to open the archive to fresh eyes and new analysis?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661778</id>
	<title>Ultra-Blue?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262690880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My understanding of cosmology is at best limited, but shouldn't these galaxies appear red-shifted to the extreme? They are furthest and hence should be moving the away from us at an extremely fast pace. Is the name Ultra-blue restricted to element analysis based on spectrum? I'm just confused about the blue light.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My understanding of cosmology is at best limited , but should n't these galaxies appear red-shifted to the extreme ?
They are furthest and hence should be moving the away from us at an extremely fast pace .
Is the name Ultra-blue restricted to element analysis based on spectrum ?
I 'm just confused about the blue light .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My understanding of cosmology is at best limited, but shouldn't these galaxies appear red-shifted to the extreme?
They are furthest and hence should be moving the away from us at an extremely fast pace.
Is the name Ultra-blue restricted to element analysis based on spectrum?
I'm just confused about the blue light.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30663090</id>
	<title>Re:13 Billion years ago?nike jordan shoes,handbags</title>
	<author>PUGH1986</author>
	<datestamp>1262697060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.allbyer.com/" title="allbyer.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.allbyer.com/</a> [allbyer.com] Hi,Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,2010 New Year's gift you ready?Here are the most popular, most stylish and avantgarde shoes,handbags,Tshirts,jacket,Tracksuitw ect...NIKE SHOX,JORDAN SHOES 1-24,AF,DUNK,SB,PUMA<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,R4,NZ,OZ,T1-TL3) $35HANDBGAS(COACH,L V, DG, ED HARDY) $35TSHIRTS (POLO<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,ED HARDY, LACOSTE) $16 thanks... Company launched New Year carnival as long as the purchase of up to 200, both exquisite gift, surprise here, do not miss, welcome friends from all circles to come to order..,For details, please consult <a href="http://www.allbyer.com/" title="allbyer.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.allbyer.com/</a> [allbyer.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.allbyer.com/ [ allbyer.com ] Hi,Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,2010 New Year 's gift you ready ? Here are the most popular , most stylish and avantgarde shoes,handbags,Tshirts,jacket,Tracksuitw ect...NIKE SHOX,JORDAN SHOES 1-24,AF,DUNK,SB,PUMA ,R4,NZ,OZ,T1-TL3 ) $ 35HANDBGAS ( COACH,L V , DG , ED HARDY ) $ 35TSHIRTS ( POLO ,ED HARDY , LACOSTE ) $ 16 thanks... Company launched New Year carnival as long as the purchase of up to 200 , both exquisite gift , surprise here , do not miss , welcome friends from all circles to come to order..,For details , please consult http : //www.allbyer.com/ [ allbyer.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.allbyer.com/ [allbyer.com] Hi,Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,2010 New Year's gift you ready?Here are the most popular, most stylish and avantgarde shoes,handbags,Tshirts,jacket,Tracksuitw ect...NIKE SHOX,JORDAN SHOES 1-24,AF,DUNK,SB,PUMA ,R4,NZ,OZ,T1-TL3) $35HANDBGAS(COACH,L V, DG, ED HARDY) $35TSHIRTS (POLO ,ED HARDY, LACOSTE) $16 thanks... Company launched New Year carnival as long as the purchase of up to 200, both exquisite gift, surprise here, do not miss, welcome friends from all circles to come to order..,For details, please consult http://www.allbyer.com/ [allbyer.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661940</id>
	<title>Horse pussy!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262691600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Earth is only 6000 years old as scientifically proven by The Bible.  The Bible says the Earth is 6000 years old.  The Bible says it is the word of God.  Ipso facto - the Earth is 6000 years old.  Case closed.  Next!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Earth is only 6000 years old as scientifically proven by The Bible .
The Bible says the Earth is 6000 years old .
The Bible says it is the word of God .
Ipso facto - the Earth is 6000 years old .
Case closed .
Next !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Earth is only 6000 years old as scientifically proven by The Bible.
The Bible says the Earth is 6000 years old.
The Bible says it is the word of God.
Ipso facto - the Earth is 6000 years old.
Case closed.
Next!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661990</id>
	<title>Re:Ultra-Blue?</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1262691720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>mdsolar said why they're called blue -- cus that's the color of light they're emitting.</p><p>They are extremely red-shifted (in fact astronomers typically talk about such distances/timescales in terms of degree of red-shift).  It's not like if you were to peer at these galaxies in a telescope they'd look blue.  In fact you probably wouldn't see anything at all; Hubble is almost certainly (huh? rtfa?) using it's near-infrared cameras for this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>mdsolar said why they 're called blue -- cus that 's the color of light they 're emitting.They are extremely red-shifted ( in fact astronomers typically talk about such distances/timescales in terms of degree of red-shift ) .
It 's not like if you were to peer at these galaxies in a telescope they 'd look blue .
In fact you probably would n't see anything at all ; Hubble is almost certainly ( huh ?
rtfa ? ) using it 's near-infrared cameras for this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mdsolar said why they're called blue -- cus that's the color of light they're emitting.They are extremely red-shifted (in fact astronomers typically talk about such distances/timescales in terms of degree of red-shift).
It's not like if you were to peer at these galaxies in a telescope they'd look blue.
In fact you probably wouldn't see anything at all; Hubble is almost certainly (huh?
rtfa?) using it's near-infrared cameras for this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30662628</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262695020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since the average temperate of the Universe would have been much greater back then, all that heat could have sped up the process quite a bit compared to the current day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since the average temperate of the Universe would have been much greater back then , all that heat could have sped up the process quite a bit compared to the current day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since the average temperate of the Universe would have been much greater back then, all that heat could have sped up the process quite a bit compared to the current day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30662404</id>
	<title>If they are so old, why do they look so distant?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262693760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shouldn't they be just as close (looking) as other galaxies, if the universe was so much smaller early in its life?  I've never understood how this works.  Does it have to do with the rate of universal expansion being "faster" than the speed of light?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't they be just as close ( looking ) as other galaxies , if the universe was so much smaller early in its life ?
I 've never understood how this works .
Does it have to do with the rate of universal expansion being " faster " than the speed of light ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't they be just as close (looking) as other galaxies, if the universe was so much smaller early in its life?
I've never understood how this works.
Does it have to do with the rate of universal expansion being "faster" than the speed of light?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30663724</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262700000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another way to look at it, is that at the instant before the big bang there was no universe, or you could say the universe was infinitely small.  After the BB the universe was expanding, but there was still no space outside the universe.  Everything we consider "space" is all packed inside the universe, and the universe was a lot smaller then than it is.</p><p>The classic analogy is the balloon analogy.  Imagine three dimensional space is the two dimensional surface of a balloon with tiny points all over it representing matter.  As the balloon expands, all points on the surface move away from each other, and the balloon has gotten larger.  However, the center of the balloon is not on the 2d surface, the center of the balloon is in the 3rd dimension.  Therefore, relative to the surface there is no center.</p><p>Now, bump everything up one dimension and you have our universe.  The "surface" is three dimensional space, and it is expanding along the fourth dimension.  We have no way of seeing the fourth dimension, just like a 2d creature on the surface of the balloon could do nothing but look forward, backward, left and right we can only do that plus up and down.  We would need to add another dimension to our repertoir to view the fourth dimension, but we can't conceptualise beyond the abstract about what that might be.  However, we can definitely see that everything in the third dimension is moving away from everything else.  Therefore space is expanding, and no matter which way we look everything is moving away.  In fact, no matter what vantage point you take in the universe it will always look the same, because the "surface" of the universe is what is expanding.</p><p>It's a bit mind numbing to think about, but there is no direction you can look at and figure out "where" the big bang was.  There is no "where" in the third dimension, the where is in a dimension that we are not equipped to experience.  All we can do is measure its effects in our own dimension.</p><p>I like Carl Sagan's explanation of the fourth dimension best, but <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth\_dimension" title="wikipedia.org">wikipedia</a> [wikipedia.org] does a good job, if a bit on the technical side.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another way to look at it , is that at the instant before the big bang there was no universe , or you could say the universe was infinitely small .
After the BB the universe was expanding , but there was still no space outside the universe .
Everything we consider " space " is all packed inside the universe , and the universe was a lot smaller then than it is.The classic analogy is the balloon analogy .
Imagine three dimensional space is the two dimensional surface of a balloon with tiny points all over it representing matter .
As the balloon expands , all points on the surface move away from each other , and the balloon has gotten larger .
However , the center of the balloon is not on the 2d surface , the center of the balloon is in the 3rd dimension .
Therefore , relative to the surface there is no center.Now , bump everything up one dimension and you have our universe .
The " surface " is three dimensional space , and it is expanding along the fourth dimension .
We have no way of seeing the fourth dimension , just like a 2d creature on the surface of the balloon could do nothing but look forward , backward , left and right we can only do that plus up and down .
We would need to add another dimension to our repertoir to view the fourth dimension , but we ca n't conceptualise beyond the abstract about what that might be .
However , we can definitely see that everything in the third dimension is moving away from everything else .
Therefore space is expanding , and no matter which way we look everything is moving away .
In fact , no matter what vantage point you take in the universe it will always look the same , because the " surface " of the universe is what is expanding.It 's a bit mind numbing to think about , but there is no direction you can look at and figure out " where " the big bang was .
There is no " where " in the third dimension , the where is in a dimension that we are not equipped to experience .
All we can do is measure its effects in our own dimension.I like Carl Sagan 's explanation of the fourth dimension best , but wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ] does a good job , if a bit on the technical side .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another way to look at it, is that at the instant before the big bang there was no universe, or you could say the universe was infinitely small.
After the BB the universe was expanding, but there was still no space outside the universe.
Everything we consider "space" is all packed inside the universe, and the universe was a lot smaller then than it is.The classic analogy is the balloon analogy.
Imagine three dimensional space is the two dimensional surface of a balloon with tiny points all over it representing matter.
As the balloon expands, all points on the surface move away from each other, and the balloon has gotten larger.
However, the center of the balloon is not on the 2d surface, the center of the balloon is in the 3rd dimension.
Therefore, relative to the surface there is no center.Now, bump everything up one dimension and you have our universe.
The "surface" is three dimensional space, and it is expanding along the fourth dimension.
We have no way of seeing the fourth dimension, just like a 2d creature on the surface of the balloon could do nothing but look forward, backward, left and right we can only do that plus up and down.
We would need to add another dimension to our repertoir to view the fourth dimension, but we can't conceptualise beyond the abstract about what that might be.
However, we can definitely see that everything in the third dimension is moving away from everything else.
Therefore space is expanding, and no matter which way we look everything is moving away.
In fact, no matter what vantage point you take in the universe it will always look the same, because the "surface" of the universe is what is expanding.It's a bit mind numbing to think about, but there is no direction you can look at and figure out "where" the big bang was.
There is no "where" in the third dimension, the where is in a dimension that we are not equipped to experience.
All we can do is measure its effects in our own dimension.I like Carl Sagan's explanation of the fourth dimension best, but wikipedia [wikipedia.org] does a good job, if a bit on the technical side.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30662662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30662070</id>
	<title>Re:just a thought</title>
	<author>hrimhari</author>
	<datestamp>1262692200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you asking about the edge as it was when the light we might detect now was emitted billions of years ago or the edge as it is now? I find it kind of difficult to speculate about the later since we're always billions of years behind of any sight we may get from it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you asking about the edge as it was when the light we might detect now was emitted billions of years ago or the edge as it is now ?
I find it kind of difficult to speculate about the later since we 're always billions of years behind of any sight we may get from it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you asking about the edge as it was when the light we might detect now was emitted billions of years ago or the edge as it is now?
I find it kind of difficult to speculate about the later since we're always billions of years behind of any sight we may get from it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30671196</id>
	<title>Re:just a thought</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1262799900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...at the very edge of universe...</p><p>The universe has no edge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; ...at the very edge of universe...The universe has no edge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; ...at the very edge of universe...The universe has no edge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661892</id>
	<title>Re:Ultra-Blue?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262691420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The light we're seeing comes from a long long time ago, from when the galaxies were actually getting closer. Either that or it's because it's from such a long time ago that stars had only managed to produce the smaller elements and so were bluer because of the lack of oxygen. At least, that's the colour I go when I'm lacking oxygen, I assume galaxies are the same.</p><p>I think I need my bed...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The light we 're seeing comes from a long long time ago , from when the galaxies were actually getting closer .
Either that or it 's because it 's from such a long time ago that stars had only managed to produce the smaller elements and so were bluer because of the lack of oxygen .
At least , that 's the colour I go when I 'm lacking oxygen , I assume galaxies are the same.I think I need my bed.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The light we're seeing comes from a long long time ago, from when the galaxies were actually getting closer.
Either that or it's because it's from such a long time ago that stars had only managed to produce the smaller elements and so were bluer because of the lack of oxygen.
At least, that's the colour I go when I'm lacking oxygen, I assume galaxies are the same.I think I need my bed...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661946</id>
	<title>Re:Ultra-Blue?</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1262691600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe the only reason they can see these galaxies is because they were blue to begin with.</p><p>They are using Hubble's infra-red telescope to see them, so that should tell you how far they have shifted.  Obviously the pretty picture has been adjusted back to the original color.  If you'll notice, the older galaxies (from 600 mil years post Big Bang) are a darker blue than the younger (700 mil years post BB).</p><p>The next ones they find will probably have to be pushing violet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe the only reason they can see these galaxies is because they were blue to begin with.They are using Hubble 's infra-red telescope to see them , so that should tell you how far they have shifted .
Obviously the pretty picture has been adjusted back to the original color .
If you 'll notice , the older galaxies ( from 600 mil years post Big Bang ) are a darker blue than the younger ( 700 mil years post BB ) .The next ones they find will probably have to be pushing violet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe the only reason they can see these galaxies is because they were blue to begin with.They are using Hubble's infra-red telescope to see them, so that should tell you how far they have shifted.
Obviously the pretty picture has been adjusted back to the original color.
If you'll notice, the older galaxies (from 600 mil years post Big Bang) are a darker blue than the younger (700 mil years post BB).The next ones they find will probably have to be pushing violet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661662</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1262690340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is 600 million years long enough to develop a complete galaxy? I'd think that might be too short for even a solor system to develop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is 600 million years long enough to develop a complete galaxy ?
I 'd think that might be too short for even a solor system to develop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is 600 million years long enough to develop a complete galaxy?
I'd think that might be too short for even a solor system to develop.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661798</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>mdsolar</author>
	<datestamp>1262691000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It may be.  That is about a dynamical timescale for a galaxy merger.  Star formation takes much less time than 600 million years.  You would not be forming a lot of earth-like planets at that time because there was very little in the way of dust early on.  Most solid phase material may have been ice rather than dust owing to the early relatively high abundance of oxygen produced in pair-instability supernovae.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It may be .
That is about a dynamical timescale for a galaxy merger .
Star formation takes much less time than 600 million years .
You would not be forming a lot of earth-like planets at that time because there was very little in the way of dust early on .
Most solid phase material may have been ice rather than dust owing to the early relatively high abundance of oxygen produced in pair-instability supernovae .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may be.
That is about a dynamical timescale for a galaxy merger.
Star formation takes much less time than 600 million years.
You would not be forming a lot of earth-like planets at that time because there was very little in the way of dust early on.
Most solid phase material may have been ice rather than dust owing to the early relatively high abundance of oxygen produced in pair-instability supernovae.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30663488</id>
	<title>mod 3own</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262698860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">chosen, whatever getting together to againstg vigorous FrreBSD's</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>chosen , whatever getting together to againstg vigorous FrreBSD 's [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>chosen, whatever getting together to againstg vigorous FrreBSD's [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30664376</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid question</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1262704440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The BB is still happening, the "expansion" of the observable universe (small 'u') is just another way of saying space is still exploding into existance, in otherwords the universe IS the big bang. The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is a shell of expanding "light" that came from very early in the long bang. The CMB encloses <i>our</i> universe.
<br> <br>
It's claimed that the CMB shell is a universal frame of reference until recently it had been assumed no such universal frame of reference existed, however it's existance does not violate general releativity as some might claim. It's also claimed the geometry of the observable universe is very close to flat (ie: euclidian). <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iff" title="wikipedia.org">Iff</a> [wikipedia.org] those two claims are true then the BB's blue touch paper (geometric center of the universe) is located at the geometric centere of the CMB light shell. However given general relativity you probably need a "god's eye" view of the universe to find it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The BB is still happening , the " expansion " of the observable universe ( small 'u ' ) is just another way of saying space is still exploding into existance , in otherwords the universe IS the big bang .
The cosmic microwave background ( CMB ) is a shell of expanding " light " that came from very early in the long bang .
The CMB encloses our universe .
It 's claimed that the CMB shell is a universal frame of reference until recently it had been assumed no such universal frame of reference existed , however it 's existance does not violate general releativity as some might claim .
It 's also claimed the geometry of the observable universe is very close to flat ( ie : euclidian ) .
Iff [ wikipedia.org ] those two claims are true then the BB 's blue touch paper ( geometric center of the universe ) is located at the geometric centere of the CMB light shell .
However given general relativity you probably need a " god 's eye " view of the universe to find it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BB is still happening, the "expansion" of the observable universe (small 'u') is just another way of saying space is still exploding into existance, in otherwords the universe IS the big bang.
The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is a shell of expanding "light" that came from very early in the long bang.
The CMB encloses our universe.
It's claimed that the CMB shell is a universal frame of reference until recently it had been assumed no such universal frame of reference existed, however it's existance does not violate general releativity as some might claim.
It's also claimed the geometry of the observable universe is very close to flat (ie: euclidian).
Iff [wikipedia.org] those two claims are true then the BB's blue touch paper (geometric center of the universe) is located at the geometric centere of the CMB light shell.
However given general relativity you probably need a "god's eye" view of the universe to find it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30662662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30662046</id>
	<title>Re:just a thought</title>
	<author>Shotgun</author>
	<datestamp>1262692080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes.  They'd just need to travel faster than the speed of light, and then have a very strong telescope.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
They 'd just need to travel faster than the speed of light , and then have a very strong telescope .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
They'd just need to travel faster than the speed of light, and then have a very strong telescope.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30667798</id>
	<title>Re:Basic question</title>
	<author>nschubach</author>
	<datestamp>1262781180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>- We know that the universe started expanding from a single point.</p></div><p>Know is such a strong word...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>- We know that the universe started expanding from a single point.Know is such a strong word.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- We know that the universe started expanding from a single point.Know is such a strong word...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30664336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30662036</id>
	<title>This just a galaxy cluster</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262692020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm waiting for the next sets of clusters before dating The Universe.  It will be tragic news to only find this one cluster - that's going to mean we are the furthest flung cluster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm waiting for the next sets of clusters before dating The Universe .
It will be tragic news to only find this one cluster - that 's going to mean we are the furthest flung cluster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm waiting for the next sets of clusters before dating The Universe.
It will be tragic news to only find this one cluster - that's going to mean we are the furthest flung cluster.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30665578</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1262712420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time was so much faster then<br>It's slower then that now</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time was so much faster thenIt 's slower then that now</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time was so much faster thenIt's slower then that now</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661834</id>
	<title>just a thought</title>
	<author>houbou</author>
	<datestamp>1262691120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In theory, at the very edge of universe, is it possible that the primordial light has yet made itself visible? if someone could<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. in theory.. travel there, would they be able to see the very creation itself?</htmltext>
<tokenext>In theory , at the very edge of universe , is it possible that the primordial light has yet made itself visible ?
if someone could .. in theory.. travel there , would they be able to see the very creation itself ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In theory, at the very edge of universe, is it possible that the primordial light has yet made itself visible?
if someone could .. in theory.. travel there, would they be able to see the very creation itself?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30664336</id>
	<title>Basic question</title>
	<author>vivek7006</author>
	<datestamp>1262704140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>- We know that the universe started expanding from a single point.<br>- We also know that there are galaxies which are billions of light-years away from us.<br>- This implies that the universe must have<br>expanded faster than the speed of light after the big-bang explosion.</p><p>I cant wrap my head around that. How is faster than light expansion possible?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>- We know that the universe started expanding from a single point.- We also know that there are galaxies which are billions of light-years away from us.- This implies that the universe must haveexpanded faster than the speed of light after the big-bang explosion.I cant wrap my head around that .
How is faster than light expansion possible ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- We know that the universe started expanding from a single point.- We also know that there are galaxies which are billions of light-years away from us.- This implies that the universe must haveexpanded faster than the speed of light after the big-bang explosion.I cant wrap my head around that.
How is faster than light expansion possible?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661670</id>
	<title>Oh God</title>
	<author>cromar</author>
	<datestamp>1262690400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So now the "scientists" are even saying that the galaxies come from from monkeys?!  Blasphemers!</htmltext>
<tokenext>So now the " scientists " are even saying that the galaxies come from from monkeys ? !
Blasphemers !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So now the "scientists" are even saying that the galaxies come from from monkeys?!
Blasphemers!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661610</id>
	<title>Very cool</title>
	<author>mdsolar</author>
	<datestamp>1262690040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I suspect I have identified such objects from submillimeter observations <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.1666" title="arxiv.org">http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.1666</a> [arxiv.org] but it is very good to see a more robust population identified here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect I have identified such objects from submillimeter observations http : //arxiv.org/abs/0802.1666 [ arxiv.org ] but it is very good to see a more robust population identified here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect I have identified such objects from submillimeter observations http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.1666 [arxiv.org] but it is very good to see a more robust population identified here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30663450</id>
	<title>Re:If they are so old, why do they look so distant</title>
	<author>pclminion</author>
	<datestamp>1262698800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It has to do with the expanding universe, period. Take a balloon and draw a bunch of regularly spaced dots on it with a marker. Now inflate the balloon. The dots all get farther away from each other. Moreover, there is no "center" to the expansion that lies on the surface of the balloon -- no one point can be said to be the center from which all other points move away. In this analogy, the speed of light would be the maximum speed at which the dots could move about on the surface of the balloon -- this is totally unrelated to the expansion of the balloon itself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It has to do with the expanding universe , period .
Take a balloon and draw a bunch of regularly spaced dots on it with a marker .
Now inflate the balloon .
The dots all get farther away from each other .
Moreover , there is no " center " to the expansion that lies on the surface of the balloon -- no one point can be said to be the center from which all other points move away .
In this analogy , the speed of light would be the maximum speed at which the dots could move about on the surface of the balloon -- this is totally unrelated to the expansion of the balloon itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has to do with the expanding universe, period.
Take a balloon and draw a bunch of regularly spaced dots on it with a marker.
Now inflate the balloon.
The dots all get farther away from each other.
Moreover, there is no "center" to the expansion that lies on the surface of the balloon -- no one point can be said to be the center from which all other points move away.
In this analogy, the speed of light would be the maximum speed at which the dots could move about on the surface of the balloon -- this is totally unrelated to the expansion of the balloon itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30662404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30666294</id>
	<title>Young Universe Physicists</title>
	<author>hallux.sinister</author>
	<datestamp>1262719500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When they manage to spot a body in space that, by the very best methods they can use to attain the age of very distant objects, which seems to be, oh... say, about 22 billion years old, they're going to scratch their heads and mutter, "well... that's odd".
<p>
As we observe objects at greater and greater distances, they have to keep revising their age-estimate of the universe.  In the end, I think that they will eventually conclude the universe is infinitely vast, and infinitely old.  This of course implies that either the all mass in the universe has infinitesimal density, or there is <i>infinite</i> mass, distributed more or less evenly in infinite space, of which we can only observe a small portion.
</p><p>
Difficult as this may be to contemplate, I believe that since, mathematically, n*INFINITY=INFINITY, for all positive real 'n', it is possible for x to equal infinity, y to equal infinity, and because infinity is an EXCLUDED endpoint of the real number system, and therefore NOT a real number, x can be UNEQUAL to y.  So we can have infinite mass, distributed in an infinite volume, in a universe with neither beginning nor end.
</p><p>
What amazes me is how physicists, looking down their noses at the literal interpretation of the various creation myths, (such as the Young Earth crowd,) while embracing a theory (which is no more than a belief, really, with a different authority appealed to) that the universe was manufactured by a supreme particle.  They've changed the details of the story, but for some reason, it seems people just cannot manage to wrap their heads around the idea of there being something without a "before there was".
</p><p>
So if they are allowed and able, in the end to do their experiments, I think they're going to get some truly baffling results.
</p><p>
~Hal
</p><p>
Don't confuse the VISIBLE universe and the ENTIRE universe.<br>
They're not necessarily the same thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When they manage to spot a body in space that , by the very best methods they can use to attain the age of very distant objects , which seems to be , oh... say , about 22 billion years old , they 're going to scratch their heads and mutter , " well... that 's odd " .
As we observe objects at greater and greater distances , they have to keep revising their age-estimate of the universe .
In the end , I think that they will eventually conclude the universe is infinitely vast , and infinitely old .
This of course implies that either the all mass in the universe has infinitesimal density , or there is infinite mass , distributed more or less evenly in infinite space , of which we can only observe a small portion .
Difficult as this may be to contemplate , I believe that since , mathematically , n * INFINITY = INFINITY , for all positive real 'n ' , it is possible for x to equal infinity , y to equal infinity , and because infinity is an EXCLUDED endpoint of the real number system , and therefore NOT a real number , x can be UNEQUAL to y. So we can have infinite mass , distributed in an infinite volume , in a universe with neither beginning nor end .
What amazes me is how physicists , looking down their noses at the literal interpretation of the various creation myths , ( such as the Young Earth crowd , ) while embracing a theory ( which is no more than a belief , really , with a different authority appealed to ) that the universe was manufactured by a supreme particle .
They 've changed the details of the story , but for some reason , it seems people just can not manage to wrap their heads around the idea of there being something without a " before there was " .
So if they are allowed and able , in the end to do their experiments , I think they 're going to get some truly baffling results .
~ Hal Do n't confuse the VISIBLE universe and the ENTIRE universe .
They 're not necessarily the same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When they manage to spot a body in space that, by the very best methods they can use to attain the age of very distant objects, which seems to be, oh... say, about 22 billion years old, they're going to scratch their heads and mutter, "well... that's odd".
As we observe objects at greater and greater distances, they have to keep revising their age-estimate of the universe.
In the end, I think that they will eventually conclude the universe is infinitely vast, and infinitely old.
This of course implies that either the all mass in the universe has infinitesimal density, or there is infinite mass, distributed more or less evenly in infinite space, of which we can only observe a small portion.
Difficult as this may be to contemplate, I believe that since, mathematically, n*INFINITY=INFINITY, for all positive real 'n', it is possible for x to equal infinity, y to equal infinity, and because infinity is an EXCLUDED endpoint of the real number system, and therefore NOT a real number, x can be UNEQUAL to y.  So we can have infinite mass, distributed in an infinite volume, in a universe with neither beginning nor end.
What amazes me is how physicists, looking down their noses at the literal interpretation of the various creation myths, (such as the Young Earth crowd,) while embracing a theory (which is no more than a belief, really, with a different authority appealed to) that the universe was manufactured by a supreme particle.
They've changed the details of the story, but for some reason, it seems people just cannot manage to wrap their heads around the idea of there being something without a "before there was".
So if they are allowed and able, in the end to do their experiments, I think they're going to get some truly baffling results.
~Hal

Don't confuse the VISIBLE universe and the ENTIRE universe.
They're not necessarily the same thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661428</id>
	<title>13 Billion years ago?</title>
	<author>Chapter80</author>
	<datestamp>1262689320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Old news!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Old news !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Old news!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661702</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, that's astounding</title>
	<author>mdsolar</author>
	<datestamp>1262690520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>How soon they form depend on your cosmological simulation.  Something had to be forming to reionize the universe, but it did not have to be galaxies of a sufficient size that you would notice them.  But, the further the existence of quasars was pushed back, the more you needed somewhat organized bodied in which they could form even earlier so there were indications that some massive galaxies form early.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How soon they form depend on your cosmological simulation .
Something had to be forming to reionize the universe , but it did not have to be galaxies of a sufficient size that you would notice them .
But , the further the existence of quasars was pushed back , the more you needed somewhat organized bodied in which they could form even earlier so there were indications that some massive galaxies form early .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How soon they form depend on your cosmological simulation.
Something had to be forming to reionize the universe, but it did not have to be galaxies of a sufficient size that you would notice them.
But, the further the existence of quasars was pushed back, the more you needed somewhat organized bodied in which they could form even earlier so there were indications that some massive galaxies form early.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30671134</id>
	<title>Re:Basic question</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1262799660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; We know that the universe started expanding from a single point.</p><p>Not "from".  That implies a center.  There is no center.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; We know that the universe started expanding from a single point.Not " from " .
That implies a center .
There is no center .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; We know that the universe started expanding from a single point.Not "from".
That implies a center.
There is no center.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30664336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661462</id>
	<title>Wow, that's astounding</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262689440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder when we'll find the earliest possible ones now.  I always thought it took longer for them to form stars, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder when we 'll find the earliest possible ones now .
I always thought it took longer for them to form stars , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder when we'll find the earliest possible ones now.
I always thought it took longer for them to form stars, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30663216</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid question</title>
	<author>Petrushka</author>
	<datestamp>1262697660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>if they are seeing this far into the "past", they have to be looking in one direction right? I assume that the Big Bang started at one point.</p></div><p>The sibling post gives a perfectly good analogy to explain this, but you probably already knew it. Another way of putting it that I sometimes find helpful: the Big Bang didn't happen at such-and-such a location, which can be plotted as X, Y, Z coordinates. The Big Bang happened <i>everywhere</i>. It's just that Everywhere was really really really tiny back then.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if they are seeing this far into the " past " , they have to be looking in one direction right ?
I assume that the Big Bang started at one point.The sibling post gives a perfectly good analogy to explain this , but you probably already knew it .
Another way of putting it that I sometimes find helpful : the Big Bang did n't happen at such-and-such a location , which can be plotted as X , Y , Z coordinates .
The Big Bang happened everywhere .
It 's just that Everywhere was really really really tiny back then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if they are seeing this far into the "past", they have to be looking in one direction right?
I assume that the Big Bang started at one point.The sibling post gives a perfectly good analogy to explain this, but you probably already knew it.
Another way of putting it that I sometimes find helpful: the Big Bang didn't happen at such-and-such a location, which can be plotted as X, Y, Z coordinates.
The Big Bang happened everywhere.
It's just that Everywhere was really really really tiny back then.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30662662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30662642</id>
	<title>Re:Big Deal. I can draw this crap in Photoshop...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262695080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I fail to see how that works... though I guess it was a joke. I'm not sure I get it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I fail to see how that works... though I guess it was a joke .
I 'm not sure I get it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fail to see how that works... though I guess it was a joke.
I'm not sure I get it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661700</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2115257_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30664376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30662662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2115257_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30663216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30662662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2115257_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2115257_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30662070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2115257_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30665578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2115257_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30663450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30662404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2115257_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30671196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2115257_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30671134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30664336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2115257_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2115257_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30665968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2115257_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30684520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2115257_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2115257_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30662226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2115257_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2115257_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30663158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2115257_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30667798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30664336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2115257_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30662046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2115257_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30663304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30662168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2115257_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30663090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2115257_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30662642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2115257_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30667472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30663724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30662662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2115257_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30662628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2115257_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2115257.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30664830
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2115257.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30662168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30663304
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2115257.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30666226
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2115257.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661702
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2115257.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30662628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30665578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661798
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2115257.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661992
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30665968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661892
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30663158
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2115257.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30662662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30663216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30663724
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30667472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30664376
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2115257.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30663090
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2115257.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30666294
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2115257.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30662226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30662046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30671196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30662070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30684520
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2115257.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30662642
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2115257.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30662404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30663450
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2115257.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30664336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30671134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30667798
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2115257.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30664274
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2115257.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2115257.30661512
</commentlist>
</conversation>
