<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_11_0057234</id>
	<title>How Earth Avoided a Fiery Premature Death</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1263214740000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"Space.com has a piece about changing theories of planet migration. The classic picture suggests that planets like Earth should have plummeted into the sun while they were still <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetesimal">planetesimals, asteroid-sized building blocks</a> that eventually collide to form full-fledged planets. 'Well, this contradicts basic observational evidence, like We. Are. Here,' says astronomer Moredecai-Mark Mac Low. Researchers investigating this discrepancy came up with a new model that explains <a href="http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth-survive-birth-aas-100107.html">how planets can migrate as they're forming and still avoid a fiery premature death</a>. One problem with the classic view of planet formation and migration is that it assumes that the temperature of the protoplanetary disk around a star is constant across its whole span. It turns out that portions of the disk are opaque and so cannot cool quickly by radiating heat out to space. So in the new model, temperature differences in the space around the sun, 4.6 billion years ago, <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100107114433.htm">caused Earth to migrate outward as much as gravity was trying to pull it inward</a>, and so the fledgling world found equilibrium in its current, habitable, orbit. 'We are trying to understand how planets interact with the gas disks from which they form as the disk evolves over its lifetime,' adds Mac Low. 'We show that the planetoids from which the Earth formed can survive their immersion in the gas disk without falling into the Sun.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " Space.com has a piece about changing theories of planet migration .
The classic picture suggests that planets like Earth should have plummeted into the sun while they were still planetesimals , asteroid-sized building blocks that eventually collide to form full-fledged planets .
'Well , this contradicts basic observational evidence , like We .
Are. Here, ' says astronomer Moredecai-Mark Mac Low .
Researchers investigating this discrepancy came up with a new model that explains how planets can migrate as they 're forming and still avoid a fiery premature death .
One problem with the classic view of planet formation and migration is that it assumes that the temperature of the protoplanetary disk around a star is constant across its whole span .
It turns out that portions of the disk are opaque and so can not cool quickly by radiating heat out to space .
So in the new model , temperature differences in the space around the sun , 4.6 billion years ago , caused Earth to migrate outward as much as gravity was trying to pull it inward , and so the fledgling world found equilibrium in its current , habitable , orbit .
'We are trying to understand how planets interact with the gas disks from which they form as the disk evolves over its lifetime, ' adds Mac Low .
'We show that the planetoids from which the Earth formed can survive their immersion in the gas disk without falling into the Sun .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "Space.com has a piece about changing theories of planet migration.
The classic picture suggests that planets like Earth should have plummeted into the sun while they were still planetesimals, asteroid-sized building blocks that eventually collide to form full-fledged planets.
'Well, this contradicts basic observational evidence, like We.
Are. Here,' says astronomer Moredecai-Mark Mac Low.
Researchers investigating this discrepancy came up with a new model that explains how planets can migrate as they're forming and still avoid a fiery premature death.
One problem with the classic view of planet formation and migration is that it assumes that the temperature of the protoplanetary disk around a star is constant across its whole span.
It turns out that portions of the disk are opaque and so cannot cool quickly by radiating heat out to space.
So in the new model, temperature differences in the space around the sun, 4.6 billion years ago, caused Earth to migrate outward as much as gravity was trying to pull it inward, and so the fledgling world found equilibrium in its current, habitable, orbit.
'We are trying to understand how planets interact with the gas disks from which they form as the disk evolves over its lifetime,' adds Mac Low.
'We show that the planetoids from which the Earth formed can survive their immersion in the gas disk without falling into the Sun.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30725004</id>
	<title>Contradicts basic observational evidence</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1263233940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>'Well, this contradicts basic observational evidence, like We. Are. Here,' says astronomer Moredecai-Mark Mac Low.</p></div><p>Well, this didn&rsquo;t stop dark matter supporters, did it?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'Well , this contradicts basic observational evidence , like We .
Are. Here, ' says astronomer Moredecai-Mark Mac Low.Well , this didn    t stop dark matter supporters , did it ?
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Well, this contradicts basic observational evidence, like We.
Are. Here,' says astronomer Moredecai-Mark Mac Low.Well, this didn’t stop dark matter supporters, did it?
;)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30725918</id>
	<title>Best. Quote. Ever.</title>
	<author>sirwired</author>
	<datestamp>1263237840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no better way to sum up some of the gaps between theoretical and applied science other than: "This contradicts basic observational evidence, like We. Are. Here."  Did the proponents of the "classic" model not notice this minor flaw in their reasoning?</p><p>SirWired</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no better way to sum up some of the gaps between theoretical and applied science other than : " This contradicts basic observational evidence , like We .
Are. Here .
" Did the proponents of the " classic " model not notice this minor flaw in their reasoning ? SirWired</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no better way to sum up some of the gaps between theoretical and applied science other than: "This contradicts basic observational evidence, like We.
Are. Here.
"  Did the proponents of the "classic" model not notice this minor flaw in their reasoning?SirWired</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719106</id>
	<title>Re:If it didn't happen, it wouldn't have happened.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263135060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Much like 'if Chickens weren't meant to be eaten, they wouldn't taste so good.'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Much like 'if Chickens were n't meant to be eaten , they would n't taste so good .
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Much like 'if Chickens weren't meant to be eaten, they wouldn't taste so good.
'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30718940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30724922</id>
	<title>inference by nostalgia</title>
	<author>epine</author>
	<datestamp>1263233640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any statistic significantly skewed by adding or subtracting 1 to either your numerator or denominator is a statistic too fragile to support a conclusion.</p><p>The "we are here" argument is a functional celebration of innumeracy, which reminds me of Operation HUMBUG when Canada first introduced Metric: inference by nostalgia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any statistic significantly skewed by adding or subtracting 1 to either your numerator or denominator is a statistic too fragile to support a conclusion.The " we are here " argument is a functional celebration of innumeracy , which reminds me of Operation HUMBUG when Canada first introduced Metric : inference by nostalgia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any statistic significantly skewed by adding or subtracting 1 to either your numerator or denominator is a statistic too fragile to support a conclusion.The "we are here" argument is a functional celebration of innumeracy, which reminds me of Operation HUMBUG when Canada first introduced Metric: inference by nostalgia.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30718984</id>
	<title>not this shit again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263133560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>another ridiculous explanation that makes no sense.  Meanwhile, all the facts fit perfectly into the electric universe model.</htmltext>
<tokenext>another ridiculous explanation that makes no sense .
Meanwhile , all the facts fit perfectly into the electric universe model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>another ridiculous explanation that makes no sense.
Meanwhile, all the facts fit perfectly into the electric universe model.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30722326</id>
	<title>Very informative article</title>
	<author>ascari</author>
	<datestamp>1263221520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And here I was all along believing it had something to do with Bruce Willis!</htmltext>
<tokenext>And here I was all along believing it had something to do with Bruce Willis !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And here I was all along believing it had something to do with Bruce Willis!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719098</id>
	<title>Re:It wasn't like that!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263134940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's a simple haiku for you<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>In the Beginning<br>Sounds like a big bang to me<br>Yet we cannot agree</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a simple haiku for you ...In the BeginningSounds like a big bang to meYet we can not agree</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a simple haiku for you ...In the BeginningSounds like a big bang to meYet we cannot agree</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30718944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719060</id>
	<title>Soft on outside Crunchy on inside</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263134400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This would seem to suggest the inner planets formed first and swept the disk of hard derbies, leaving nothing but the gas, which was ultimately blown outward by the pressure of the sun as the disk was swept clear of big chunks.</p><p>The gas giants would accumulate at a much slower rate, and almost by definition must be far younger than the rocky planets.</p><p>Then there are the oddball moons of the outer planets.  Captured planetoids forming late, almost falling into the sun because the disk was pretty much cleared by that time, but being slung outward and captured by chance?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This would seem to suggest the inner planets formed first and swept the disk of hard derbies , leaving nothing but the gas , which was ultimately blown outward by the pressure of the sun as the disk was swept clear of big chunks.The gas giants would accumulate at a much slower rate , and almost by definition must be far younger than the rocky planets.Then there are the oddball moons of the outer planets .
Captured planetoids forming late , almost falling into the sun because the disk was pretty much cleared by that time , but being slung outward and captured by chance ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This would seem to suggest the inner planets formed first and swept the disk of hard derbies, leaving nothing but the gas, which was ultimately blown outward by the pressure of the sun as the disk was swept clear of big chunks.The gas giants would accumulate at a much slower rate, and almost by definition must be far younger than the rocky planets.Then there are the oddball moons of the outer planets.
Captured planetoids forming late, almost falling into the sun because the disk was pretty much cleared by that time, but being slung outward and captured by chance?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719624</id>
	<title>Re:Soft on outside Crunchy on inside</title>
	<author>nirriajaika</author>
	<datestamp>1263141660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>NICE topic this is and i like this , and he work really hard, about this,


<a href="http://ezinearticles.com/?Paraslim-Force-Reviews&amp;id=3538310" title="ezinearticles.com" rel="nofollow">Paraslime Force</a> [ezinearticles.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>NICE topic this is and i like this , and he work really hard , about this , Paraslime Force [ ezinearticles.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NICE topic this is and i like this , and he work really hard, about this,


Paraslime Force [ezinearticles.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719074</id>
	<title>Who knows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263134580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or maybe we ARE plummeting into sun, but at a rate that is too slow to be observable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or maybe we ARE plummeting into sun , but at a rate that is too slow to be observable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or maybe we ARE plummeting into sun, but at a rate that is too slow to be observable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719272</id>
	<title>Re:If it didn't happen, it wouldn't have happened.</title>
	<author>Hardtrance</author>
	<datestamp>1263137340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I first read that as "designed to exist." Was gonna mod you funny.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I first read that as " designed to exist .
" Was gon na mod you funny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I first read that as "designed to exist.
" Was gonna mod you funny.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30718940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30720234</id>
	<title>0.3 billion years old</title>
	<author>Hal\_Porter</author>
	<datestamp>1263149460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;  4.6 billion years ago</p><p>I like the way it's just a bit bigger than 2^32 to stop you using 32 bit variables for the year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; 4.6 billion years agoI like the way it 's just a bit bigger than 2 ^ 32 to stop you using 32 bit variables for the year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;  4.6 billion years agoI like the way it's just a bit bigger than 2^32 to stop you using 32 bit variables for the year.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30725904</id>
	<title>Re:If it didn't happen, it wouldn't have happened.</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1263237780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Destiny doesn't really factor into it. What we're learning is that essentially our planet is rare. Rocky planet of about the right size, at about the right distance, where our planet didn't fall into the sun, nor did a gas giant falling inwards destroy us, and with a very large moon serving to stabilize the planet's wobble.</i></p><p>Are we learning that?</p><p>I thought things were heading in the opposite direction.  Considering that we've been finding exoplanets basically as fast as our capability allows, and every time we enhance our ability to find smaller planets farther from their star, we almost immediately find such a planet.  We've found quite a few planets that are earth-like in mass already, closer to their parent star, not to mention tons of other things we didn't even think possible (like gas giants orbiting in earth-like orbits).  So the evidence seems to be pointing at a ubiquity of planets, and a wider variety than we imagined.</p><p>Even this story is covering an improved model that seems to make earth-like planets in earth-like orbits <i>more</i> likely, not less.  At least, if we figure that accretion disks of non-uniform temperature is more likely than uniform.</p><p>So I think the jury is still out on earth being a "perfect" scenario of extremely unlikely happenstance.  But it wasn't that long ago that it was possible that planetary systems of any kind were a rarity, so at least the current trend is clear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Destiny does n't really factor into it .
What we 're learning is that essentially our planet is rare .
Rocky planet of about the right size , at about the right distance , where our planet did n't fall into the sun , nor did a gas giant falling inwards destroy us , and with a very large moon serving to stabilize the planet 's wobble.Are we learning that ? I thought things were heading in the opposite direction .
Considering that we 've been finding exoplanets basically as fast as our capability allows , and every time we enhance our ability to find smaller planets farther from their star , we almost immediately find such a planet .
We 've found quite a few planets that are earth-like in mass already , closer to their parent star , not to mention tons of other things we did n't even think possible ( like gas giants orbiting in earth-like orbits ) .
So the evidence seems to be pointing at a ubiquity of planets , and a wider variety than we imagined.Even this story is covering an improved model that seems to make earth-like planets in earth-like orbits more likely , not less .
At least , if we figure that accretion disks of non-uniform temperature is more likely than uniform.So I think the jury is still out on earth being a " perfect " scenario of extremely unlikely happenstance .
But it was n't that long ago that it was possible that planetary systems of any kind were a rarity , so at least the current trend is clear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Destiny doesn't really factor into it.
What we're learning is that essentially our planet is rare.
Rocky planet of about the right size, at about the right distance, where our planet didn't fall into the sun, nor did a gas giant falling inwards destroy us, and with a very large moon serving to stabilize the planet's wobble.Are we learning that?I thought things were heading in the opposite direction.
Considering that we've been finding exoplanets basically as fast as our capability allows, and every time we enhance our ability to find smaller planets farther from their star, we almost immediately find such a planet.
We've found quite a few planets that are earth-like in mass already, closer to their parent star, not to mention tons of other things we didn't even think possible (like gas giants orbiting in earth-like orbits).
So the evidence seems to be pointing at a ubiquity of planets, and a wider variety than we imagined.Even this story is covering an improved model that seems to make earth-like planets in earth-like orbits more likely, not less.
At least, if we figure that accretion disks of non-uniform temperature is more likely than uniform.So I think the jury is still out on earth being a "perfect" scenario of extremely unlikely happenstance.
But it wasn't that long ago that it was possible that planetary systems of any kind were a rarity, so at least the current trend is clear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30720198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30718938</id>
	<title>Neptune - Uranus shuffle</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1263132960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For me the most amazing aspect of planetary migration is the probable exchange of order for Neptune and Uranus, with Neptune being thrown out to the position of outer planet; without it being ejected from the system, plunging into the Sun or colliding with other big body. Though who knows, perhaps some planet was doomed that way; certainly wild axial tilt of Uranus isn't a testament of calm times.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nice\_model" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nice\_model</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>PS. There's some joke here, with Uranus ending up closer to the Sun, about total asses always ending the race in better place...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For me the most amazing aspect of planetary migration is the probable exchange of order for Neptune and Uranus , with Neptune being thrown out to the position of outer planet ; without it being ejected from the system , plunging into the Sun or colliding with other big body .
Though who knows , perhaps some planet was doomed that way ; certainly wild axial tilt of Uranus is n't a testament of calm times.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nice \ _model [ wikipedia.org ] PS .
There 's some joke here , with Uranus ending up closer to the Sun , about total asses always ending the race in better place.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For me the most amazing aspect of planetary migration is the probable exchange of order for Neptune and Uranus, with Neptune being thrown out to the position of outer planet; without it being ejected from the system, plunging into the Sun or colliding with other big body.
Though who knows, perhaps some planet was doomed that way; certainly wild axial tilt of Uranus isn't a testament of calm times.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nice\_model [wikipedia.org]PS.
There's some joke here, with Uranus ending up closer to the Sun, about total asses always ending the race in better place...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30721798</id>
	<title>Model != reality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263218340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who knew?</p><p>Somebody better not tell global warming "scientists" lest the journal such "denial" is published in gets removed from the realm of "reputable".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who knew ? Somebody better not tell global warming " scientists " lest the journal such " denial " is published in gets removed from the realm of " reputable " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who knew?Somebody better not tell global warming "scientists" lest the journal such "denial" is published in gets removed from the realm of "reputable".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719336</id>
	<title>Re:Soft on outside Crunchy on inside</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1263138060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; This would seem to suggest the inner planets formed first and swept the disk<br>&gt; of hard *derbies*...</p><p>So the Earth's crust is old hat?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; This would seem to suggest the inner planets formed first and swept the disk &gt; of hard * derbies * ...So the Earth 's crust is old hat ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; This would seem to suggest the inner planets formed first and swept the disk&gt; of hard *derbies*...So the Earth's crust is old hat?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30720442</id>
	<title>Premature death</title>
	<author>dushkin</author>
	<datestamp>1263152580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Premature? More like "long overdue" amirite.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Premature ?
More like " long overdue " amirite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Premature?
More like "long overdue" amirite.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30721410</id>
	<title>gravity as a side effect</title>
	<author>gringer</author>
	<datestamp>1263211800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So in the new model, temperature differences in the space around the sun, 4.6 billion years ago, caused Earth to migrate outward as much as gravity was trying to pull it inward</p></div><p>Or, perhaps, gravity could be a consequence of <a href="http://www.scientificblogging.com/hammock\_physicist/it\_bit\_case\_gravity" title="scientificblogging.com">temperature differences</a> [scientificblogging.com], so the "pull" and the "push" don't really happen.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So in the new model , temperature differences in the space around the sun , 4.6 billion years ago , caused Earth to migrate outward as much as gravity was trying to pull it inwardOr , perhaps , gravity could be a consequence of temperature differences [ scientificblogging.com ] , so the " pull " and the " push " do n't really happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So in the new model, temperature differences in the space around the sun, 4.6 billion years ago, caused Earth to migrate outward as much as gravity was trying to pull it inwardOr, perhaps, gravity could be a consequence of temperature differences [scientificblogging.com], so the "pull" and the "push" don't really happen.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30718936</id>
	<title>First post!</title>
	<author>toastar</author>
	<datestamp>1263132960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wouldn't the drag of the gas slow it down?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't the drag of the gas slow it down ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't the drag of the gas slow it down?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30724392</id>
	<title>Epic Fail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263231720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Excluding Copernicus and that chap the pope arrested  etc. every one knows the earth stayed still and the sun moved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Excluding Copernicus and that chap the pope arrested etc .
every one knows the earth stayed still and the sun moved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excluding Copernicus and that chap the pope arrested  etc.
every one knows the earth stayed still and the sun moved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30722816</id>
	<title>Re:The article isn't great for the lay-person</title>
	<author>jstults</author>
	<datestamp>1263223680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I haven't the foggiest idea how a temperature gradient can cause matter to climb out of a gravity well.</p></div><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermophoresis" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Thermophoresis</a> [wikipedia.org] causes particles in a fluid to move because of a temperature gradient.  The similarity parameters (Reynolds / Mach / Knudsen) for a planetesimal in an accretion disk are probably similar to the aerosal particles in air that the wiki article talks about.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't the foggiest idea how a temperature gradient can cause matter to climb out of a gravity well .
Thermophoresis [ wikipedia.org ] causes particles in a fluid to move because of a temperature gradient .
The similarity parameters ( Reynolds / Mach / Knudsen ) for a planetesimal in an accretion disk are probably similar to the aerosal particles in air that the wiki article talks about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't the foggiest idea how a temperature gradient can cause matter to climb out of a gravity well.
Thermophoresis [wikipedia.org] causes particles in a fluid to move because of a temperature gradient.
The similarity parameters (Reynolds / Mach / Knudsen) for a planetesimal in an accretion disk are probably similar to the aerosal particles in air that the wiki article talks about.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719764</id>
	<title>And they said religion has no part in science</title>
	<author>Zxeses</author>
	<datestamp>1263143220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, thank you for that faith inspiring rhetoric; I can't think of how I could further prove that modern day theory is not much better then religion for the people who can't yet invent a new "God" or Genesis story.</p><p>I could come up with a much better theory, about how the sun's rotation speed caused all the slower particles to form planets much faster as a result of the suns unequal gravitational balance, however I fear that would be lost in the argument about why such circumstance would come to be when no evidence of such things suggest a theory even close to mine, much less this one...</p><p>The next time I pick a random thought out of my head, I'll be sure to post it on slashdot however...  oh wait..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , thank you for that faith inspiring rhetoric ; I ca n't think of how I could further prove that modern day theory is not much better then religion for the people who ca n't yet invent a new " God " or Genesis story.I could come up with a much better theory , about how the sun 's rotation speed caused all the slower particles to form planets much faster as a result of the suns unequal gravitational balance , however I fear that would be lost in the argument about why such circumstance would come to be when no evidence of such things suggest a theory even close to mine , much less this one...The next time I pick a random thought out of my head , I 'll be sure to post it on slashdot however... oh wait. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, thank you for that faith inspiring rhetoric; I can't think of how I could further prove that modern day theory is not much better then religion for the people who can't yet invent a new "God" or Genesis story.I could come up with a much better theory, about how the sun's rotation speed caused all the slower particles to form planets much faster as a result of the suns unequal gravitational balance, however I fear that would be lost in the argument about why such circumstance would come to be when no evidence of such things suggest a theory even close to mine, much less this one...The next time I pick a random thought out of my head, I'll be sure to post it on slashdot however...  oh wait..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30718944</id>
	<title>It wasn't like that!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263133080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Read the Holy Bible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Read the Holy Bible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read the Holy Bible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30721478</id>
	<title>Re:Worst. Semantic. Structure. Ever.</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1263212700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't it meant to emulate the delivery of one W. Shatner esquire, who pronounces each word as if it's a separate sentence?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't it meant to emulate the delivery of one W. Shatner esquire , who pronounces each word as if it 's a separate sentence ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't it meant to emulate the delivery of one W. Shatner esquire, who pronounces each word as if it's a separate sentence?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719656</id>
	<title>Re:It wasn't like that!</title>
	<author>postmortem</author>
	<datestamp>1263141960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wonderful mods on Slashdot, can't recognize humor unless it explicit says so. My post was meant to be funny. Thanks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wonderful mods on Slashdot , ca n't recognize humor unless it explicit says so .
My post was meant to be funny .
Thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wonderful mods on Slashdot, can't recognize humor unless it explicit says so.
My post was meant to be funny.
Thanks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30718944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30721038</id>
	<title>Lottery analogy</title>
	<author>Rhaban</author>
	<datestamp>1263205560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the viewpoint of the lottery winner, it always look like destiny: "if my birthdate is the winning numbers, I must be special in some way".</p><p>From an outside viewpoint, some random guy won lottery because when millions of tickets are bought, there's a high probability that someone checked the winning numbers.</p><p>Difference is, in the case of a planet not forming, there's no exterior viewpoint: losers and non-players simply don't exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the viewpoint of the lottery winner , it always look like destiny : " if my birthdate is the winning numbers , I must be special in some way " .From an outside viewpoint , some random guy won lottery because when millions of tickets are bought , there 's a high probability that someone checked the winning numbers.Difference is , in the case of a planet not forming , there 's no exterior viewpoint : losers and non-players simply do n't exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the viewpoint of the lottery winner, it always look like destiny: "if my birthdate is the winning numbers, I must be special in some way".From an outside viewpoint, some random guy won lottery because when millions of tickets are bought, there's a high probability that someone checked the winning numbers.Difference is, in the case of a planet not forming, there's no exterior viewpoint: losers and non-players simply don't exist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30718940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719468</id>
	<title>Worst. Semantic. Structure. Ever.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263139920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The incorrect use of periods to indicate emphasis is not linguistic evolution.  It is just semantic stupidity.  I wish it didn't catch on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The incorrect use of periods to indicate emphasis is not linguistic evolution .
It is just semantic stupidity .
I wish it did n't catch on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The incorrect use of periods to indicate emphasis is not linguistic evolution.
It is just semantic stupidity.
I wish it didn't catch on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719346</id>
	<title>Re:Who knows</title>
	<author>gyrogeerloose</author>
	<datestamp>1263138180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Or maybe we ARE plummeting into sun, but at a rate that is too slow to be observable.</p></div><p>Except for the fact that if something is falling slowly, it ain't a plummet. From the Oxford American Dictionary:</p><blockquote><div><p>plummet [verb]</p><p>1 fall or drop straight down at high speed<br>
2 decrease rapidly in value or amount</p><p>[noun]</p><p>1 a steep and rapid fall or drop.</p></div> </blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or maybe we ARE plummeting into sun , but at a rate that is too slow to be observable.Except for the fact that if something is falling slowly , it ai n't a plummet .
From the Oxford American Dictionary : plummet [ verb ] 1 fall or drop straight down at high speed 2 decrease rapidly in value or amount [ noun ] 1 a steep and rapid fall or drop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or maybe we ARE plummeting into sun, but at a rate that is too slow to be observable.Except for the fact that if something is falling slowly, it ain't a plummet.
From the Oxford American Dictionary:plummet [verb]1 fall or drop straight down at high speed
2 decrease rapidly in value or amount[noun]1 a steep and rapid fall or drop. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30720252</id>
	<title>Re:How did we avoid firey, premature death?</title>
	<author>Atriqus</author>
	<datestamp>1263149760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They solved their energy crisis and are now in process of cleaning up our <a href="http://xkcd.com/292/" title="xkcd.com">goto problem</a> [xkcd.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>They solved their energy crisis and are now in process of cleaning up our goto problem [ xkcd.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They solved their energy crisis and are now in process of cleaning up our goto problem [xkcd.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30720118</id>
	<title>I probably *am* the only one.</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1263147900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I probably <b>am</b> the only one who misread the title as "How to avoid a fiery premature death."</htmltext>
<tokenext>I probably am the only one who misread the title as " How to avoid a fiery premature death .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I probably am the only one who misread the title as "How to avoid a fiery premature death.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719598</id>
	<title>Re:Who knows</title>
	<author>turbidostato</author>
	<datestamp>1263141420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Or maybe we ARE plummeting into sun, but at a rate that is too slow to be observable."</p><p>Well, we ARE plummeting into Sun at a very observable rate.  It's only that such rate is exactly the same we move to the side to avoid the mark.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Or maybe we ARE plummeting into sun , but at a rate that is too slow to be observable .
" Well , we ARE plummeting into Sun at a very observable rate .
It 's only that such rate is exactly the same we move to the side to avoid the mark .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Or maybe we ARE plummeting into sun, but at a rate that is too slow to be observable.
"Well, we ARE plummeting into Sun at a very observable rate.
It's only that such rate is exactly the same we move to the side to avoid the mark.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30723794</id>
	<title>half the stars may have planets</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1263228600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Astronomers have announced over 500 extra-solar planets and they have barely begun looking. So there are a lot of processes out there creating planets in spite of hypothetical process which may destroy them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Astronomers have announced over 500 extra-solar planets and they have barely begun looking .
So there are a lot of processes out there creating planets in spite of hypothetical process which may destroy them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Astronomers have announced over 500 extra-solar planets and they have barely begun looking.
So there are a lot of processes out there creating planets in spite of hypothetical process which may destroy them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719286</id>
	<title>The article isn't great for the lay-person</title>
	<author>Cedric Tsui</author>
	<datestamp>1263137460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I'm reading the article right, it says that the gravity of a gas/rock disk around a star will cause the whole thing to migrate inward until it is consumed by the sun. However, account for temperature differences due to varying cooling rates across the disk, then this causes a different force which can be shown to balance out the inward migration.<br> <br>

My question is. Why does the gravitational effects of a gas disk around a star cause inward migration? The only thing I would expect to cause inward migration would be friction resulting in the loss of kinetic energy. I haven't the foggiest idea how a temperature gradient can cause matter to climb out of a gravity well. Maybe I should go looking for the original paper.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I 'm reading the article right , it says that the gravity of a gas/rock disk around a star will cause the whole thing to migrate inward until it is consumed by the sun .
However , account for temperature differences due to varying cooling rates across the disk , then this causes a different force which can be shown to balance out the inward migration .
My question is .
Why does the gravitational effects of a gas disk around a star cause inward migration ?
The only thing I would expect to cause inward migration would be friction resulting in the loss of kinetic energy .
I have n't the foggiest idea how a temperature gradient can cause matter to climb out of a gravity well .
Maybe I should go looking for the original paper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I'm reading the article right, it says that the gravity of a gas/rock disk around a star will cause the whole thing to migrate inward until it is consumed by the sun.
However, account for temperature differences due to varying cooling rates across the disk, then this causes a different force which can be shown to balance out the inward migration.
My question is.
Why does the gravitational effects of a gas disk around a star cause inward migration?
The only thing I would expect to cause inward migration would be friction resulting in the loss of kinetic energy.
I haven't the foggiest idea how a temperature gradient can cause matter to climb out of a gravity well.
Maybe I should go looking for the original paper.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30725052</id>
	<title>Didn't read</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263234180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't read the article but I can only assume if Earth avoided a fiery premature death that Chuck Norris was certainly involved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't read the article but I can only assume if Earth avoided a fiery premature death that Chuck Norris was certainly involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't read the article but I can only assume if Earth avoided a fiery premature death that Chuck Norris was certainly involved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30721792</id>
	<title>Re:Who knows</title>
	<author>M8e</author>
	<datestamp>1263218280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>We are plummeting at a speed of 107,218 km/h, it's just that we are falling toward a diffrent 'down'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We are plummeting at a speed of 107,218 km/h , it 's just that we are falling toward a diffrent 'down' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are plummeting at a speed of 107,218 km/h, it's just that we are falling toward a diffrent 'down'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30720224</id>
	<title>Premature?</title>
	<author>KharmaWidow</author>
	<datestamp>1263149340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do we know if the death of Earth is premature? We have absolutely no relative data to compare an M-class planet's typical life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do we know if the death of Earth is premature ?
We have absolutely no relative data to compare an M-class planet 's typical life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do we know if the death of Earth is premature?
We have absolutely no relative data to compare an M-class planet's typical life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30722040</id>
	<title>Something about this seems wrong to me...</title>
	<author>Dinatius</author>
	<datestamp>1263219900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"It turns out that portions of the disk are opaque "

Maybe I'm off my rocker but the way this is stated, it sounds like a fact they observed rather than a model that they created. While this "fact" makes logical sense it is far too often that I see the statement "It turns out..."</htmltext>
<tokenext>" It turns out that portions of the disk are opaque " Maybe I 'm off my rocker but the way this is stated , it sounds like a fact they observed rather than a model that they created .
While this " fact " makes logical sense it is far too often that I see the statement " It turns out... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It turns out that portions of the disk are opaque "

Maybe I'm off my rocker but the way this is stated, it sounds like a fact they observed rather than a model that they created.
While this "fact" makes logical sense it is far too often that I see the statement "It turns out..."</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30731262</id>
	<title>Another great slashdot effect...</title>
	<author>bdabautcb</author>
	<datestamp>1263215580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did anybody else notice the story about the prevalence of bad citations a few days ago on slashdot, and then notice the fact that the bottom of this article includes a "Need to cite this story in your essay, paper, or report? Use one of the following formats:" section at the bottom of this article?

Not that Science Daily doesn't have their citation ducks in a row, but reading a "Science News" story is not a substitute for reading, understanding, and then elaborating or building upon research.

"If any of my slashdot posts are read, it is because I stood on the shoulders of journalists, and became a scientist"

-bda</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did anybody else notice the story about the prevalence of bad citations a few days ago on slashdot , and then notice the fact that the bottom of this article includes a " Need to cite this story in your essay , paper , or report ?
Use one of the following formats : " section at the bottom of this article ?
Not that Science Daily does n't have their citation ducks in a row , but reading a " Science News " story is not a substitute for reading , understanding , and then elaborating or building upon research .
" If any of my slashdot posts are read , it is because I stood on the shoulders of journalists , and became a scientist " -bda</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did anybody else notice the story about the prevalence of bad citations a few days ago on slashdot, and then notice the fact that the bottom of this article includes a "Need to cite this story in your essay, paper, or report?
Use one of the following formats:" section at the bottom of this article?
Not that Science Daily doesn't have their citation ducks in a row, but reading a "Science News" story is not a substitute for reading, understanding, and then elaborating or building upon research.
"If any of my slashdot posts are read, it is because I stood on the shoulders of journalists, and became a scientist"

-bda</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30723374</id>
	<title>Re:Neptune - Uranus shuffle</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263226560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this all mean Velikovsky was right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this all mean Velikovsky was right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this all mean Velikovsky was right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30718938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30720198</id>
	<title>Re:If it didn't happen, it wouldn't have happened.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263149100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Destiny doesn't really factor into it.  What we're learning is that essentially our planet is rare.  Rocky planet of about the right size, at about the right distance, where our planet didn't fall into the sun, nor did a gas giant falling inwards destroy us, and with a very large moon serving to stabilize the planet's wobble.</p><p>All those things coming together for our perfect scenario seem like being very, very against the odds, but the reality is that there's an effing huge number of stars in the universe, and repeat their formation process enough times and you're bound to get our scenario play out from time to time (it obviously happened here or we wouldn't be here).</p><p>Only downside is that with all these specific things we're learning that make Earth like planets so rare, it may just be the case that such planets are rare enough that we might as well be the only one.  The reality is that if they were rare enough that there were only say, 1 such planet per galaxy, then while the universe itself would be pretty much swimming in Earth-like planets (billions of them), but we'd never be able to detect them, much less contact any possible civilizations on them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Destiny does n't really factor into it .
What we 're learning is that essentially our planet is rare .
Rocky planet of about the right size , at about the right distance , where our planet did n't fall into the sun , nor did a gas giant falling inwards destroy us , and with a very large moon serving to stabilize the planet 's wobble.All those things coming together for our perfect scenario seem like being very , very against the odds , but the reality is that there 's an effing huge number of stars in the universe , and repeat their formation process enough times and you 're bound to get our scenario play out from time to time ( it obviously happened here or we would n't be here ) .Only downside is that with all these specific things we 're learning that make Earth like planets so rare , it may just be the case that such planets are rare enough that we might as well be the only one .
The reality is that if they were rare enough that there were only say , 1 such planet per galaxy , then while the universe itself would be pretty much swimming in Earth-like planets ( billions of them ) , but we 'd never be able to detect them , much less contact any possible civilizations on them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Destiny doesn't really factor into it.
What we're learning is that essentially our planet is rare.
Rocky planet of about the right size, at about the right distance, where our planet didn't fall into the sun, nor did a gas giant falling inwards destroy us, and with a very large moon serving to stabilize the planet's wobble.All those things coming together for our perfect scenario seem like being very, very against the odds, but the reality is that there's an effing huge number of stars in the universe, and repeat their formation process enough times and you're bound to get our scenario play out from time to time (it obviously happened here or we wouldn't be here).Only downside is that with all these specific things we're learning that make Earth like planets so rare, it may just be the case that such planets are rare enough that we might as well be the only one.
The reality is that if they were rare enough that there were only say, 1 such planet per galaxy, then while the universe itself would be pretty much swimming in Earth-like planets (billions of them), but we'd never be able to detect them, much less contact any possible civilizations on them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30718940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30718940</id>
	<title>If it didn't happen, it wouldn't have happened.</title>
	<author>LostCluster</author>
	<datestamp>1263133020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this is just another case of if the Earth wasn't destined to exist, it wouldn't exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is just another case of if the Earth was n't destined to exist , it would n't exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is just another case of if the Earth wasn't destined to exist, it wouldn't exist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30722364</id>
	<title>Re:Neptune - Uranus shuffle</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1263221820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Though who knows, perhaps some planet was doomed that way</i></p><p>One was -- Earth. They think the moon formed when a Mars-sized object collided with Earth, and the molten rock that splashed condensed and coalesced into what is now our moon.</p><p>What I wonder is how the collision affected its orbit?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Though who knows , perhaps some planet was doomed that wayOne was -- Earth .
They think the moon formed when a Mars-sized object collided with Earth , and the molten rock that splashed condensed and coalesced into what is now our moon.What I wonder is how the collision affected its orbit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though who knows, perhaps some planet was doomed that wayOne was -- Earth.
They think the moon formed when a Mars-sized object collided with Earth, and the molten rock that splashed condensed and coalesced into what is now our moon.What I wonder is how the collision affected its orbit?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30718938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719498</id>
	<title>Here's some more info</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263140220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>According to <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100107114433.htm" title="sciencedaily.com">Science Daily</a> [sciencedaily.com] this was the result of a computer simulation which was designed based on a paper, published last year <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.4552" title="arxiv.org">http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.4552</a> [arxiv.org] .  The simulation was "one-dimensional," which seems curious, and they could only afford to simulate 1,000 years out of the estimated 1,000,000 such a disk is expected to last.
<p>
So look for more reports of this sort over the next few years. Still, it looks like a big jump forward for our early-solar-system models.
</p><p>
--Greg</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to Science Daily [ sciencedaily.com ] this was the result of a computer simulation which was designed based on a paper , published last year http : //arxiv.org/abs/0909.4552 [ arxiv.org ] .
The simulation was " one-dimensional , " which seems curious , and they could only afford to simulate 1,000 years out of the estimated 1,000,000 such a disk is expected to last .
So look for more reports of this sort over the next few years .
Still , it looks like a big jump forward for our early-solar-system models .
--Greg</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to Science Daily [sciencedaily.com] this was the result of a computer simulation which was designed based on a paper, published last year http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.4552 [arxiv.org] .
The simulation was "one-dimensional," which seems curious, and they could only afford to simulate 1,000 years out of the estimated 1,000,000 such a disk is expected to last.
So look for more reports of this sort over the next few years.
Still, it looks like a big jump forward for our early-solar-system models.
--Greg</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719184</id>
	<title>How did we avoid firey, premature death?</title>
	<author>darkpixel2k</author>
	<datestamp>1263136200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How Earth Avoided a Fiery Premature Death</p></div><p>
The dinosaurs were smart (especially the Velociraptors).  They stopped driving SUVs.  That's why we're here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How Earth Avoided a Fiery Premature Death The dinosaurs were smart ( especially the Velociraptors ) .
They stopped driving SUVs .
That 's why we 're here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How Earth Avoided a Fiery Premature Death
The dinosaurs were smart (especially the Velociraptors).
They stopped driving SUVs.
That's why we're here.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0057234_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30721792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0057234_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0057234_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30718944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0057234_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30718940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0057234_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30718944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0057234_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30725904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30720198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30718940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0057234_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0057234_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30723374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30718938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0057234_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0057234_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30720252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0057234_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30722816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0057234_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30721478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0057234_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30721038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30718940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0057234_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30722364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30718938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0057234_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30718940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_0057234.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30720252
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_0057234.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30722816
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_0057234.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30723794
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_0057234.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30720118
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_0057234.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30718944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719656
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_0057234.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30718984
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_0057234.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30718938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30722364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30723374
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_0057234.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719764
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_0057234.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30721478
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_0057234.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719346
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30721792
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_0057234.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30720234
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_0057234.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30720442
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_0057234.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719624
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_0057234.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30718940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30721038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30720198
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30725904
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_0057234.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30718936
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_0057234.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0057234.30719498
</commentlist>
</conversation>
