<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_19_1922218</id>
	<title>FTL Currents May Power Pulsar Beams</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1263931080000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>thomst passes along news out of the recent AAAS meeting of a <a href="http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=29949">new explanation for pulsar beams</a> that involves faster-than-light currents. Here are <a href="http://www.universetoday.com/2010/01/06/faster-than-light-pulsar-phenomena/">Los Alamos's press release</a> and <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.0350">three</a> <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1349">related</a> <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.0399">papers</a> on the arXiv. <i>"The new model explains the beam emissions from pulsars as products of superluminal currents within the spinning neutron stars' atmospheres. According to the authors' model, the current generated is, itself, faster than light, although the particles that compose it never individually exceed the universal speed limit, thereby preventing Einsteinian post-mortem rotation. The new model is a general explanation of the phenomenon of pulsar beam emissions that explains emissions at all observed frequencies (and different pulsars emit everything from radio waves to x-rays), which no previous model has done."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>thomst passes along news out of the recent AAAS meeting of a new explanation for pulsar beams that involves faster-than-light currents .
Here are Los Alamos 's press release and three related papers on the arXiv .
" The new model explains the beam emissions from pulsars as products of superluminal currents within the spinning neutron stars ' atmospheres .
According to the authors ' model , the current generated is , itself , faster than light , although the particles that compose it never individually exceed the universal speed limit , thereby preventing Einsteinian post-mortem rotation .
The new model is a general explanation of the phenomenon of pulsar beam emissions that explains emissions at all observed frequencies ( and different pulsars emit everything from radio waves to x-rays ) , which no previous model has done .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thomst passes along news out of the recent AAAS meeting of a new explanation for pulsar beams that involves faster-than-light currents.
Here are Los Alamos's press release and three related papers on the arXiv.
"The new model explains the beam emissions from pulsars as products of superluminal currents within the spinning neutron stars' atmospheres.
According to the authors' model, the current generated is, itself, faster than light, although the particles that compose it never individually exceed the universal speed limit, thereby preventing Einsteinian post-mortem rotation.
The new model is a general explanation of the phenomenon of pulsar beam emissions that explains emissions at all observed frequencies (and different pulsars emit everything from radio waves to x-rays), which no previous model has done.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30825218</id>
	<title>Re:Rigid Carbon Nanotube!!!</title>
	<author>Khashishi</author>
	<datestamp>1263898800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anything solid thing 1LY long is very easy to break. If you try to rotate it, you will break it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anything solid thing 1LY long is very easy to break .
If you try to rotate it , you will break it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anything solid thing 1LY long is very easy to break.
If you try to rotate it, you will break it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30831580</id>
	<title>Re:You know what else creates FTL currents?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264001460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a common misconception. The first time I heard it (from my boss) was with a flashlight. I could not convince him that moving the flashlight did not push the spot, it only sent out light that made the spot. When you use a garden hose with a spray nozzle, it doesn't matter how fast you move the nozzle, the water at the end of the spray can't break the sound barrier.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a common misconception .
The first time I heard it ( from my boss ) was with a flashlight .
I could not convince him that moving the flashlight did not push the spot , it only sent out light that made the spot .
When you use a garden hose with a spray nozzle , it does n't matter how fast you move the nozzle , the water at the end of the spray ca n't break the sound barrier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a common misconception.
The first time I heard it (from my boss) was with a flashlight.
I could not convince him that moving the flashlight did not push the spot, it only sent out light that made the spot.
When you use a garden hose with a spray nozzle, it doesn't matter how fast you move the nozzle, the water at the end of the spray can't break the sound barrier.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30828042</id>
	<title>Wave splash?</title>
	<author>SEWilco</author>
	<datestamp>1263919020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It looks to me like there is something like ripples in a rotating magnetic field, basically an electromagnetic wake.  This magnetic wave hits a surrounding shell of material.  If the source is rotating rapidly, the wake can get smeared across a wide angular range while the outward propagation is much slower.  The wake can hit the surrounding shell almost simultaneously, with the location of the impact point changing at faster than light speed.  The splash of the wave is what we see rippling across the material.
<p>
So if you're waving a laser beam across the Moon, imagine the beam vaporizes that part of the Moon and emits a pulse at the point of impact.  You could see a line of energy being emitted from the Moon, with the location of the end of the line changing faster than the speed of light.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It looks to me like there is something like ripples in a rotating magnetic field , basically an electromagnetic wake .
This magnetic wave hits a surrounding shell of material .
If the source is rotating rapidly , the wake can get smeared across a wide angular range while the outward propagation is much slower .
The wake can hit the surrounding shell almost simultaneously , with the location of the impact point changing at faster than light speed .
The splash of the wave is what we see rippling across the material .
So if you 're waving a laser beam across the Moon , imagine the beam vaporizes that part of the Moon and emits a pulse at the point of impact .
You could see a line of energy being emitted from the Moon , with the location of the end of the line changing faster than the speed of light .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It looks to me like there is something like ripples in a rotating magnetic field, basically an electromagnetic wake.
This magnetic wave hits a surrounding shell of material.
If the source is rotating rapidly, the wake can get smeared across a wide angular range while the outward propagation is much slower.
The wake can hit the surrounding shell almost simultaneously, with the location of the impact point changing at faster than light speed.
The splash of the wave is what we see rippling across the material.
So if you're waving a laser beam across the Moon, imagine the beam vaporizes that part of the Moon and emits a pulse at the point of impact.
You could see a line of energy being emitted from the Moon, with the location of the end of the line changing faster than the speed of light.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30827424</id>
	<title>Re:Not the big deal people make out of it ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263912660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"My point is, it doesn't require some really strange neutron star situation to picture a situation where something might appear to be traveling faster than the speed of light."</p><p>Of course not, it requires a man standing in the middle of a 93 million mile radius sphere shining a laser outside of the sphere. There is no need for a really strange neutron star to picture that.</p><p>Oh, almost forgot, is the man left or right handed?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" My point is , it does n't require some really strange neutron star situation to picture a situation where something might appear to be traveling faster than the speed of light .
" Of course not , it requires a man standing in the middle of a 93 million mile radius sphere shining a laser outside of the sphere .
There is no need for a really strange neutron star to picture that.Oh , almost forgot , is the man left or right handed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"My point is, it doesn't require some really strange neutron star situation to picture a situation where something might appear to be traveling faster than the speed of light.
"Of course not, it requires a man standing in the middle of a 93 million mile radius sphere shining a laser outside of the sphere.
There is no need for a really strange neutron star to picture that.Oh, almost forgot, is the man left or right handed?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30830538</id>
	<title>Re:Here we go again</title>
	<author>Tim C</author>
	<datestamp>1263993480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>There is no reason why mass can't travel faster than light.</i></p><p>Yes there is; as the speed of a mass approaches light speed, the energy input required to further increase its speed tends to infinity.</p><p>If you really want to understand then you're going to have to look into special and general relativity, but be warned, some of the maths gets pretty hairy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no reason why mass ca n't travel faster than light.Yes there is ; as the speed of a mass approaches light speed , the energy input required to further increase its speed tends to infinity.If you really want to understand then you 're going to have to look into special and general relativity , but be warned , some of the maths gets pretty hairy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no reason why mass can't travel faster than light.Yes there is; as the speed of a mass approaches light speed, the energy input required to further increase its speed tends to infinity.If you really want to understand then you're going to have to look into special and general relativity, but be warned, some of the maths gets pretty hairy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30826038</id>
	<title>Let's go lighter than a nanotube.</title>
	<author>TheHawke</author>
	<datestamp>1263902460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A mono molecular carbon filament, held together by molecular attraction itself, a 1/2 LY long. Crack it, as long as it holds together, would something that light in weight, would it approach the FTL limit?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A mono molecular carbon filament , held together by molecular attraction itself , a 1/2 LY long .
Crack it , as long as it holds together , would something that light in weight , would it approach the FTL limit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A mono molecular carbon filament, held together by molecular attraction itself, a 1/2 LY long.
Crack it, as long as it holds together, would something that light in weight, would it approach the FTL limit?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30827222</id>
	<title>this is not informative, it's misleading.</title>
	<author>roman\_mir</author>
	<datestamp>1263910740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is described in the parent post is not how it would appear if this experiment was actually done.</p><p>Take a circle of 1 l.y. radius and turn a laser in the center pointing at the circumference. A year later a dot would appear on the circumference.   Now spin the light source 360 degrees in 1 second.</p><p>Why would the light at the circumference spin in 1 second if took 1 year for the original light source to appear?   Here is a prediction.  Once you spin the source of light, the light dot would disappear completely.</p><p>You have now divided the intensity of the light in the dot across the circumference to a point where it's not even meaningful.  Only a few photons would reach an odd point on the circle's edge a light year after that photon took off the light source.  There is no FTL movement of the dot even in this case!  Each photon leaving the light source would struck a point at the circle's edge a year later but there will not be enough photons striking any single point to be any different from noise.</p><p>The IMAGINARY light dot made it across the circumference at speedsd faster than light, but not a real one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is described in the parent post is not how it would appear if this experiment was actually done.Take a circle of 1 l.y .
radius and turn a laser in the center pointing at the circumference .
A year later a dot would appear on the circumference .
Now spin the light source 360 degrees in 1 second.Why would the light at the circumference spin in 1 second if took 1 year for the original light source to appear ?
Here is a prediction .
Once you spin the source of light , the light dot would disappear completely.You have now divided the intensity of the light in the dot across the circumference to a point where it 's not even meaningful .
Only a few photons would reach an odd point on the circle 's edge a light year after that photon took off the light source .
There is no FTL movement of the dot even in this case !
Each photon leaving the light source would struck a point at the circle 's edge a year later but there will not be enough photons striking any single point to be any different from noise.The IMAGINARY light dot made it across the circumference at speedsd faster than light , but not a real one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is described in the parent post is not how it would appear if this experiment was actually done.Take a circle of 1 l.y.
radius and turn a laser in the center pointing at the circumference.
A year later a dot would appear on the circumference.
Now spin the light source 360 degrees in 1 second.Why would the light at the circumference spin in 1 second if took 1 year for the original light source to appear?
Here is a prediction.
Once you spin the source of light, the light dot would disappear completely.You have now divided the intensity of the light in the dot across the circumference to a point where it's not even meaningful.
Only a few photons would reach an odd point on the circle's edge a light year after that photon took off the light source.
There is no FTL movement of the dot even in this case!
Each photon leaving the light source would struck a point at the circle's edge a year later but there will not be enough photons striking any single point to be any different from noise.The IMAGINARY light dot made it across the circumference at speedsd faster than light, but not a real one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30826678</id>
	<title>Re:the thing that gets me</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1263906420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; That just strikes me as spooky.</p><p>Why?  You should expect "spooky" results from a thought experiment that cannot be performed without violating the laws of physics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; That just strikes me as spooky.Why ?
You should expect " spooky " results from a thought experiment that can not be performed without violating the laws of physics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; That just strikes me as spooky.Why?
You should expect "spooky" results from a thought experiment that cannot be performed without violating the laws of physics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30825738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824222</id>
	<title>It's the Medium</title>
	<author>rebmemeR</author>
	<datestamp>1263894180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>We know the speed of light in some mediums is less than c (see cherekov radiation). Is it possible the speed of light is greater than c in some mediums? You have to admit that a neutron star is pretty exotic stuff. What about negative-index metamaterials? Beyond that (and this may be non sequitur) maybe a concentration of "dark energy" has properties we don't understand.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We know the speed of light in some mediums is less than c ( see cherekov radiation ) .
Is it possible the speed of light is greater than c in some mediums ?
You have to admit that a neutron star is pretty exotic stuff .
What about negative-index metamaterials ?
Beyond that ( and this may be non sequitur ) maybe a concentration of " dark energy " has properties we do n't understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We know the speed of light in some mediums is less than c (see cherekov radiation).
Is it possible the speed of light is greater than c in some mediums?
You have to admit that a neutron star is pretty exotic stuff.
What about negative-index metamaterials?
Beyond that (and this may be non sequitur) maybe a concentration of "dark energy" has properties we don't understand.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823654</id>
	<title>FTL Information?</title>
	<author>ZeroSumHappiness</author>
	<datestamp>1263891660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can we replicate this and add information to the current to transport information faster than the speed of light? (The real problem.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we replicate this and add information to the current to transport information faster than the speed of light ?
( The real problem .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we replicate this and add information to the current to transport information faster than the speed of light?
(The real problem.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823752</id>
	<title>Area 51  Firing At Private Pilots</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263892020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>courtesy of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4ASP3aKVj4" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">Art Bell</a> [youtube.com].</p><p>Aliens MAY exist.</p><p>Yours In Perm,<br>K. Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>courtesy of Art Bell [ youtube.com ] .Aliens MAY exist.Yours In Perm,K .
Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>courtesy of Art Bell [youtube.com].Aliens MAY exist.Yours In Perm,K.
Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824092</id>
	<title>Re:FTL information</title>
	<author>derGoldstein</author>
	<datestamp>1263893580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh for heaven's sake, somebody post a car analogy!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh for heaven 's sake , somebody post a car analogy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh for heaven's sake, somebody post a car analogy!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30827558</id>
	<title>Re:FTL Information?</title>
	<author>JoeMerchant</author>
	<datestamp>1263914100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Take a laser, point it at the moon, sweep it across quickly, your laser dot can move faster than the speed of light, but the photons that create it do not.  This is a similar phenomenon, except cooler because it is the emission point that is moving FTL, just like a supersonic aircraft that emits sound while it travels at supersonic speed - the sound never travels faster than the speed of sound, only the emitter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Take a laser , point it at the moon , sweep it across quickly , your laser dot can move faster than the speed of light , but the photons that create it do not .
This is a similar phenomenon , except cooler because it is the emission point that is moving FTL , just like a supersonic aircraft that emits sound while it travels at supersonic speed - the sound never travels faster than the speed of sound , only the emitter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take a laser, point it at the moon, sweep it across quickly, your laser dot can move faster than the speed of light, but the photons that create it do not.
This is a similar phenomenon, except cooler because it is the emission point that is moving FTL, just like a supersonic aircraft that emits sound while it travels at supersonic speed - the sound never travels faster than the speed of sound, only the emitter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30829164</id>
	<title>Re:Here we go again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264019520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...the spacetimes found by Godel and Alcubierre are correct -- it's just not clear how to interpret them, or whether they could actually arise from realistic conditions in our universe.</p></div><p>I understand what you mean by 'correct' here - but using its conventional definition, if they can't actually arise under realistic conditions in our universe, that makes them not correct.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...the spacetimes found by Godel and Alcubierre are correct -- it 's just not clear how to interpret them , or whether they could actually arise from realistic conditions in our universe.I understand what you mean by 'correct ' here - but using its conventional definition , if they ca n't actually arise under realistic conditions in our universe , that makes them not correct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...the spacetimes found by Godel and Alcubierre are correct -- it's just not clear how to interpret them, or whether they could actually arise from realistic conditions in our universe.I understand what you mean by 'correct' here - but using its conventional definition, if they can't actually arise under realistic conditions in our universe, that makes them not correct.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30825848</id>
	<title>Re:Rigid Carbon Nanotube!!!</title>
	<author>iris-n</author>
	<datestamp>1263901500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You just proved that there isn't such a thing as a rigid body. There is this upper limit, imposed by relativity.</p><p>You can make some calculations, about the electric pulse propagating through the matter at light speed, but they're trivial and boring.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You just proved that there is n't such a thing as a rigid body .
There is this upper limit , imposed by relativity.You can make some calculations , about the electric pulse propagating through the matter at light speed , but they 're trivial and boring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You just proved that there isn't such a thing as a rigid body.
There is this upper limit, imposed by relativity.You can make some calculations, about the electric pulse propagating through the matter at light speed, but they're trivial and boring.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823916</id>
	<title>Not the big deal people make out of it ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263892740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
[ I'm referring to the concept of seeing something that moves faster than the speed of light, not anything else here, just so it's clear ]
</p><p>
Consider this situation --
</p><p>
You've got a big sphere.  Let's say it's 93 million miles in radius (the size of our radius around the sun -- it's a figure we're all familiar with anyways.)
</p><p>
In the middle of this sphere is a man.  He has a laser, and he's shining it on the sphere.  Since the man is still, the laser is not moving.
</p><p>
But, then the man starts spinning, once per second.  The laser takes about 8 minutes to reach the edge of the sphere, but once it does, the dot starts going around the outside of the sphere, once per second.  If you do the math, that means the dot is moving 584,000,000 miles per second -- which is about 3100 times the speed of light.
</p><p>
The light from the laser is still going at the speed of light, but the dot appears to be moving at over 3000 times the speed of light.  But it's just a location -- the spot that the laser is hitting right now -- it doesn't mean that something tangible is exceeding the speed of light, and therefore Einstein isn't proved wrong by it.
</p><p>
My point is, it doesn't require some really strange neutron star situation to picture a situation where something might appear to be traveling faster than the speed of light.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ I 'm referring to the concept of seeing something that moves faster than the speed of light , not anything else here , just so it 's clear ] Consider this situation -- You 've got a big sphere .
Let 's say it 's 93 million miles in radius ( the size of our radius around the sun -- it 's a figure we 're all familiar with anyways .
) In the middle of this sphere is a man .
He has a laser , and he 's shining it on the sphere .
Since the man is still , the laser is not moving .
But , then the man starts spinning , once per second .
The laser takes about 8 minutes to reach the edge of the sphere , but once it does , the dot starts going around the outside of the sphere , once per second .
If you do the math , that means the dot is moving 584,000,000 miles per second -- which is about 3100 times the speed of light .
The light from the laser is still going at the speed of light , but the dot appears to be moving at over 3000 times the speed of light .
But it 's just a location -- the spot that the laser is hitting right now -- it does n't mean that something tangible is exceeding the speed of light , and therefore Einstein is n't proved wrong by it .
My point is , it does n't require some really strange neutron star situation to picture a situation where something might appear to be traveling faster than the speed of light .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
[ I'm referring to the concept of seeing something that moves faster than the speed of light, not anything else here, just so it's clear ]

Consider this situation --

You've got a big sphere.
Let's say it's 93 million miles in radius (the size of our radius around the sun -- it's a figure we're all familiar with anyways.
)

In the middle of this sphere is a man.
He has a laser, and he's shining it on the sphere.
Since the man is still, the laser is not moving.
But, then the man starts spinning, once per second.
The laser takes about 8 minutes to reach the edge of the sphere, but once it does, the dot starts going around the outside of the sphere, once per second.
If you do the math, that means the dot is moving 584,000,000 miles per second -- which is about 3100 times the speed of light.
The light from the laser is still going at the speed of light, but the dot appears to be moving at over 3000 times the speed of light.
But it's just a location -- the spot that the laser is hitting right now -- it doesn't mean that something tangible is exceeding the speed of light, and therefore Einstein isn't proved wrong by it.
My point is, it doesn't require some really strange neutron star situation to picture a situation where something might appear to be traveling faster than the speed of light.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30830140</id>
	<title>Re:FTL Information?</title>
	<author>master\_p</author>
	<datestamp>1263988680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The conclusions of special relativity are wrong: we can't see things simultaneously, but that doesn't mean things don't happen simultaneously. For example, as we speak, a comet has fallen on a planet circling the star Alpha Centauri. In this case, if information was transferred instantaneously from Alpha Centauri to Earth, no causality would be violated; we just wouldn't see the collision of the comet with the planet at the time information was transmitted from Alpha Centauri to Earth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The conclusions of special relativity are wrong : we ca n't see things simultaneously , but that does n't mean things do n't happen simultaneously .
For example , as we speak , a comet has fallen on a planet circling the star Alpha Centauri .
In this case , if information was transferred instantaneously from Alpha Centauri to Earth , no causality would be violated ; we just would n't see the collision of the comet with the planet at the time information was transmitted from Alpha Centauri to Earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The conclusions of special relativity are wrong: we can't see things simultaneously, but that doesn't mean things don't happen simultaneously.
For example, as we speak, a comet has fallen on a planet circling the star Alpha Centauri.
In this case, if information was transferred instantaneously from Alpha Centauri to Earth, no causality would be violated; we just wouldn't see the collision of the comet with the planet at the time information was transmitted from Alpha Centauri to Earth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30828372</id>
	<title>Re:You know what else creates FTL currents?</title>
	<author>jmv</author>
	<datestamp>1263922080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's actually another way to go faster than light (it's not clear from TFA which they refer to). You can have an actual particle going faster than light in a certain medium, which leads to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov\_radiation" title="wikipedia.org">Cherenkov radiation</a> [wikipedia.org]. The fact that they mention the "sonic boom" makes me think it could be Cherenkov radiation, but "the small displacements of the charged particles that make it up means that their velocities remain slower than light" seems to imply "disco ball"-type faster-than-light.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's actually another way to go faster than light ( it 's not clear from TFA which they refer to ) .
You can have an actual particle going faster than light in a certain medium , which leads to Cherenkov radiation [ wikipedia.org ] .
The fact that they mention the " sonic boom " makes me think it could be Cherenkov radiation , but " the small displacements of the charged particles that make it up means that their velocities remain slower than light " seems to imply " disco ball " -type faster-than-light .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's actually another way to go faster than light (it's not clear from TFA which they refer to).
You can have an actual particle going faster than light in a certain medium, which leads to Cherenkov radiation [wikipedia.org].
The fact that they mention the "sonic boom" makes me think it could be Cherenkov radiation, but "the small displacements of the charged particles that make it up means that their velocities remain slower than light" seems to imply "disco ball"-type faster-than-light.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30825360</id>
	<title>Lights 1 mile apart, light second just after first</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1263899400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So if I have two lights one mile apart, turn the first on, then the second a split second later, the edge of the "object" has traveled faster than light? If you've got the perception of a stable object even though it's really just the flashes of light of billions of new photons each second, it's not an object in a physical sense. You could send one photon one direction, and another in the other, and if one hits a split second before the other, the object didn't suddenly move that great distance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So if I have two lights one mile apart , turn the first on , then the second a split second later , the edge of the " object " has traveled faster than light ?
If you 've got the perception of a stable object even though it 's really just the flashes of light of billions of new photons each second , it 's not an object in a physical sense .
You could send one photon one direction , and another in the other , and if one hits a split second before the other , the object did n't suddenly move that great distance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if I have two lights one mile apart, turn the first on, then the second a split second later, the edge of the "object" has traveled faster than light?
If you've got the perception of a stable object even though it's really just the flashes of light of billions of new photons each second, it's not an object in a physical sense.
You could send one photon one direction, and another in the other, and if one hits a split second before the other, the object didn't suddenly move that great distance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824414</id>
	<title>Re:Not the big deal people make out of it ...</title>
	<author>ArsonSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1263895140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bad poster!</p><p>No Car analogy.</p><p>Although I can't come up with much other than holding a gas pump and spinning in a circle.  (Don't try this at home)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bad poster ! No Car analogy.Although I ca n't come up with much other than holding a gas pump and spinning in a circle .
( Do n't try this at home )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bad poster!No Car analogy.Although I can't come up with much other than holding a gas pump and spinning in a circle.
(Don't try this at home)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824982</id>
	<title>Re:You know what else creates FTL currents?</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1263897840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The spots won't be moving faster than light, they will actually be a blur or line spread across the surfaces they hit.</p><p>You're confusing perception with reality, and they are two very different things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The spots wo n't be moving faster than light , they will actually be a blur or line spread across the surfaces they hit.You 're confusing perception with reality , and they are two very different things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The spots won't be moving faster than light, they will actually be a blur or line spread across the surfaces they hit.You're confusing perception with reality, and they are two very different things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30829000</id>
	<title>Re:FTL information</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263930840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1 year later, a dot of light will appear on the wall. The dot will then exceed the speed of light, traveling 1 light-year in 1 second.</p></div><p>Correction: The dot will then <i> <b>appear</b> </i> to exceed the speed of light. This is because you are trying to consider it as a single "dot" when in reality it is a sequence of dots. And before someone starts hollaring about waves vs. points, it's the same thing with a wave- you threw a wave which initially started out with a tiny length, and it took it a year to propagate to its full length of a light-year long. Since you didn't instantly emit the wave in all directions, one end of the wave meets the wall slightly before the other end. So while it might appear that the "dot" traveled nearly instantly, it still took it a full year to reach its length.</p><p>A simpler analogy is: You know how a series of lightbulbs which are turned on/off in succession (a Marquee) make it look like they are moving when they really aren't? Same idea.</p><p>Aren't illusions fun?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 year later , a dot of light will appear on the wall .
The dot will then exceed the speed of light , traveling 1 light-year in 1 second.Correction : The dot will then appear to exceed the speed of light .
This is because you are trying to consider it as a single " dot " when in reality it is a sequence of dots .
And before someone starts hollaring about waves vs. points , it 's the same thing with a wave- you threw a wave which initially started out with a tiny length , and it took it a year to propagate to its full length of a light-year long .
Since you did n't instantly emit the wave in all directions , one end of the wave meets the wall slightly before the other end .
So while it might appear that the " dot " traveled nearly instantly , it still took it a full year to reach its length.A simpler analogy is : You know how a series of lightbulbs which are turned on/off in succession ( a Marquee ) make it look like they are moving when they really are n't ?
Same idea.Are n't illusions fun ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1 year later, a dot of light will appear on the wall.
The dot will then exceed the speed of light, traveling 1 light-year in 1 second.Correction: The dot will then  appear  to exceed the speed of light.
This is because you are trying to consider it as a single "dot" when in reality it is a sequence of dots.
And before someone starts hollaring about waves vs. points, it's the same thing with a wave- you threw a wave which initially started out with a tiny length, and it took it a year to propagate to its full length of a light-year long.
Since you didn't instantly emit the wave in all directions, one end of the wave meets the wall slightly before the other end.
So while it might appear that the "dot" traveled nearly instantly, it still took it a full year to reach its length.A simpler analogy is: You know how a series of lightbulbs which are turned on/off in succession (a Marquee) make it look like they are moving when they really aren't?
Same idea.Aren't illusions fun?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824404</id>
	<title>AAS, not AAAS</title>
	<author>complex.confusion</author>
	<datestamp>1263895140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>FWIW, this is from the American Astronomical Society (AAS), not the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

One of my more frequent typos.</htmltext>
<tokenext>FWIW , this is from the American Astronomical Society ( AAS ) , not the American Association for the Advancement of Science ( AAAS ) .
One of my more frequent typos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FWIW, this is from the American Astronomical Society (AAS), not the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
One of my more frequent typos.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30826476</id>
	<title>Re:Here we go again</title>
	<author>chickenarise</author>
	<datestamp>1263904920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There are plenty of things that can go "fast than light", but repeat after me, you cannot transmit *information* faster than light.</p></div><p>Isn't the gravitational pull of one mass on another mass a form of information? Say you had some control over the momentum of the sun? The gravitational effect of the sun on the earth would change the instant the sun's momentum changed, not 8 minutes later.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are plenty of things that can go " fast than light " , but repeat after me , you can not transmit * information * faster than light.Is n't the gravitational pull of one mass on another mass a form of information ?
Say you had some control over the momentum of the sun ?
The gravitational effect of the sun on the earth would change the instant the sun 's momentum changed , not 8 minutes later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are plenty of things that can go "fast than light", but repeat after me, you cannot transmit *information* faster than light.Isn't the gravitational pull of one mass on another mass a form of information?
Say you had some control over the momentum of the sun?
The gravitational effect of the sun on the earth would change the instant the sun's momentum changed, not 8 minutes later.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30829698</id>
	<title>Re:Not the big deal people make out of it ...</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1263983580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can't blame people for making a big deal out of it, when TFA contains such glaringly misleading statements as "Note that, though the source of radiation exceeds the speed of light, the emitted radiation travels at the normal light speed once it leaves the source."
<br> <br>
If I were the average "man on the street", I would interpret this as saying that "something tangible" was moving faster than the speed of light (i.e., the "source"). It might be just an unfortunate choice of phrase, but it nevertheless gives that impression.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't blame people for making a big deal out of it , when TFA contains such glaringly misleading statements as " Note that , though the source of radiation exceeds the speed of light , the emitted radiation travels at the normal light speed once it leaves the source .
" If I were the average " man on the street " , I would interpret this as saying that " something tangible " was moving faster than the speed of light ( i.e. , the " source " ) .
It might be just an unfortunate choice of phrase , but it nevertheless gives that impression .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't blame people for making a big deal out of it, when TFA contains such glaringly misleading statements as "Note that, though the source of radiation exceeds the speed of light, the emitted radiation travels at the normal light speed once it leaves the source.
"
 
If I were the average "man on the street", I would interpret this as saying that "something tangible" was moving faster than the speed of light (i.e., the "source").
It might be just an unfortunate choice of phrase, but it nevertheless gives that impression.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823764</id>
	<title>Re:FTL Information?</title>
	<author>techhead79</author>
	<datestamp>1263892080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070905133621.htm" title="sciencedaily.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070905133621.htm</a> [sciencedaily.com] <br> <br>

Thought Quantum entanglement solved that for us already?</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070905133621.htm [ sciencedaily.com ] Thought Quantum entanglement solved that for us already ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070905133621.htm [sciencedaily.com]  

Thought Quantum entanglement solved that for us already?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30827752</id>
	<title>group velocity can exceed c</title>
	<author>div\_B</author>
	<datestamp>1263915900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, its even possible for the group velocity to exceed the speed of light, without violating relativity/causality.  See for e.g. <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0101068" title="arxiv.org">http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0101068</a> [arxiv.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , its even possible for the group velocity to exceed the speed of light , without violating relativity/causality .
See for e.g .
http : //arxiv.org/abs/physics/0101068 [ arxiv.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, its even possible for the group velocity to exceed the speed of light, without violating relativity/causality.
See for e.g.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0101068 [arxiv.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30825716</id>
	<title>Re:Here we go again</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1263900900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; and those conservation laws always held.</p><p>Sort of.  Conservation of energy has only held by redefining what "energy" means to include mass (and the separate law of conservation of mass was summarily dumped).  Energy and momentum conservation is obviously only true as long as you work in a particular inertial frame (whereas the whole thing with the speed of light is that it seems to be invariant across all reference frames).</p><p>But more importantly, the reason you get things like conservation of momentum is that you make fundamental assumptions like the laws of physics being location-invariant; conservation of momentum follows.  It's a good assumption given lack of data otherwise, and has been tested pretty well on scales of hundreds of millions of kilometers or so (Earth's orbit).  But I wouldn't rule out theories that take place on much larger scales involving non-conservation of momentum.... of course said theories would need to make some testable predictions about exactly how momentum is non-conserved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; and those conservation laws always held.Sort of .
Conservation of energy has only held by redefining what " energy " means to include mass ( and the separate law of conservation of mass was summarily dumped ) .
Energy and momentum conservation is obviously only true as long as you work in a particular inertial frame ( whereas the whole thing with the speed of light is that it seems to be invariant across all reference frames ) .But more importantly , the reason you get things like conservation of momentum is that you make fundamental assumptions like the laws of physics being location-invariant ; conservation of momentum follows .
It 's a good assumption given lack of data otherwise , and has been tested pretty well on scales of hundreds of millions of kilometers or so ( Earth 's orbit ) .
But I would n't rule out theories that take place on much larger scales involving non-conservation of momentum.... of course said theories would need to make some testable predictions about exactly how momentum is non-conserved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; and those conservation laws always held.Sort of.
Conservation of energy has only held by redefining what "energy" means to include mass (and the separate law of conservation of mass was summarily dumped).
Energy and momentum conservation is obviously only true as long as you work in a particular inertial frame (whereas the whole thing with the speed of light is that it seems to be invariant across all reference frames).But more importantly, the reason you get things like conservation of momentum is that you make fundamental assumptions like the laws of physics being location-invariant; conservation of momentum follows.
It's a good assumption given lack of data otherwise, and has been tested pretty well on scales of hundreds of millions of kilometers or so (Earth's orbit).
But I wouldn't rule out theories that take place on much larger scales involving non-conservation of momentum.... of course said theories would need to make some testable predictions about exactly how momentum is non-conserved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30825654</id>
	<title>*laughs*</title>
	<author>Trebawa</author>
	<datestamp>1263900660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Einsteinian post-mortem rotation."  That is all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Einsteinian post-mortem rotation .
" That is all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Einsteinian post-mortem rotation.
"  That is all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824810</id>
	<title>Re:Here we go again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263897240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Your post is basically on the right track, but some thing you say are not quite right.
</p><blockquote><div><p>There are many concepts in our current understanding of physics that you just take to be inviolate like conservation of energy, momentum, speed of light.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Well, not quite.</p><p> In flat spacetime, velocities greater than c lead to violations of causality: observer 1 says that event A caused event B, but observer 2, in a different state of motion, says  that B caused A. Since violation of causality can produce   paradoxes, we suspect that cause and effect can't be propagated at velocities greater than c in flat spacetime.
</p><p>
In curved spacetime, this is far from being established. General relativity has spacetimes, such as the Godel solution, that are valid solutions of the field equations, and that violate causality. Hawking's chronology protection conjecture says that this kind of causality violation can't arise from realistic conditions in our universe -- but that's all it is, a conjecture. Nobody has proved it. In fact, there is a major current research program that consists of nothing more than trying to *define* rigorously what the chronology protection conjecture means.
</p><blockquote><div><p>Physics develops from what proceeded it, from Newton to Einstein to Quantum Mechanics to String Theory, and those conservation laws always held.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Okay, but the prohibition on transmission of cause and effect at velocities greater than c isn't a conservation law.
</p><blockquote><div><p>You don't need to know the details of how a proposed "perpetual motion machine" may work to know that if the crackpot building it says that it violates the law of conservation of energy then it doesn't work.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
I think the analogy here would be the following. Even the slashdot summary makes it clear that they aren't really claiming propagation of information at velocities greater than c. That's also reasonable, because although a neutron star is a relativistic object, it's not all that highly relativistic. Its structure is complicated from a nuclear physics point of view, but from the point of view of the relativistic description, it's a very plain vanilla solution of the Einstein field equations. If information was going to be transmitted at greater than c, then the chronology protection conjecture would also be violated, but that's not going to happen in such an ordinary, well studied spacetime.
</p><p>
It is not safe to use your criterion to rule out examples from general relativity without more attention to the details. Based on your criterion, the Godel spacetime has to be a crackpot idea, and so is the Alcubierre drive. In reality, there is a clear consensus among relativists that the spacetimes found by Godel and Alcubierre are correct -- it's just not clear how to interpret them, or whether they could actually arise from realistic conditions in our universe.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your post is basically on the right track , but some thing you say are not quite right .
There are many concepts in our current understanding of physics that you just take to be inviolate like conservation of energy , momentum , speed of light .
Well , not quite .
In flat spacetime , velocities greater than c lead to violations of causality : observer 1 says that event A caused event B , but observer 2 , in a different state of motion , says that B caused A. Since violation of causality can produce paradoxes , we suspect that cause and effect ca n't be propagated at velocities greater than c in flat spacetime .
In curved spacetime , this is far from being established .
General relativity has spacetimes , such as the Godel solution , that are valid solutions of the field equations , and that violate causality .
Hawking 's chronology protection conjecture says that this kind of causality violation ca n't arise from realistic conditions in our universe -- but that 's all it is , a conjecture .
Nobody has proved it .
In fact , there is a major current research program that consists of nothing more than trying to * define * rigorously what the chronology protection conjecture means .
Physics develops from what proceeded it , from Newton to Einstein to Quantum Mechanics to String Theory , and those conservation laws always held .
Okay , but the prohibition on transmission of cause and effect at velocities greater than c is n't a conservation law .
You do n't need to know the details of how a proposed " perpetual motion machine " may work to know that if the crackpot building it says that it violates the law of conservation of energy then it does n't work .
I think the analogy here would be the following .
Even the slashdot summary makes it clear that they are n't really claiming propagation of information at velocities greater than c. That 's also reasonable , because although a neutron star is a relativistic object , it 's not all that highly relativistic .
Its structure is complicated from a nuclear physics point of view , but from the point of view of the relativistic description , it 's a very plain vanilla solution of the Einstein field equations .
If information was going to be transmitted at greater than c , then the chronology protection conjecture would also be violated , but that 's not going to happen in such an ordinary , well studied spacetime .
It is not safe to use your criterion to rule out examples from general relativity without more attention to the details .
Based on your criterion , the Godel spacetime has to be a crackpot idea , and so is the Alcubierre drive .
In reality , there is a clear consensus among relativists that the spacetimes found by Godel and Alcubierre are correct -- it 's just not clear how to interpret them , or whether they could actually arise from realistic conditions in our universe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Your post is basically on the right track, but some thing you say are not quite right.
There are many concepts in our current understanding of physics that you just take to be inviolate like conservation of energy, momentum, speed of light.
Well, not quite.
In flat spacetime, velocities greater than c lead to violations of causality: observer 1 says that event A caused event B, but observer 2, in a different state of motion, says  that B caused A. Since violation of causality can produce   paradoxes, we suspect that cause and effect can't be propagated at velocities greater than c in flat spacetime.
In curved spacetime, this is far from being established.
General relativity has spacetimes, such as the Godel solution, that are valid solutions of the field equations, and that violate causality.
Hawking's chronology protection conjecture says that this kind of causality violation can't arise from realistic conditions in our universe -- but that's all it is, a conjecture.
Nobody has proved it.
In fact, there is a major current research program that consists of nothing more than trying to *define* rigorously what the chronology protection conjecture means.
Physics develops from what proceeded it, from Newton to Einstein to Quantum Mechanics to String Theory, and those conservation laws always held.
Okay, but the prohibition on transmission of cause and effect at velocities greater than c isn't a conservation law.
You don't need to know the details of how a proposed "perpetual motion machine" may work to know that if the crackpot building it says that it violates the law of conservation of energy then it doesn't work.
I think the analogy here would be the following.
Even the slashdot summary makes it clear that they aren't really claiming propagation of information at velocities greater than c. That's also reasonable, because although a neutron star is a relativistic object, it's not all that highly relativistic.
Its structure is complicated from a nuclear physics point of view, but from the point of view of the relativistic description, it's a very plain vanilla solution of the Einstein field equations.
If information was going to be transmitted at greater than c, then the chronology protection conjecture would also be violated, but that's not going to happen in such an ordinary, well studied spacetime.
It is not safe to use your criterion to rule out examples from general relativity without more attention to the details.
Based on your criterion, the Godel spacetime has to be a crackpot idea, and so is the Alcubierre drive.
In reality, there is a clear consensus among relativists that the spacetimes found by Godel and Alcubierre are correct -- it's just not clear how to interpret them, or whether they could actually arise from realistic conditions in our universe.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823872</id>
	<title>GJ slashdot...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263892620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GJ Slashdot for making me search for <a href="http://www.google.com/#hl=en&amp;q=\%22Einsteinian+post-mortem+rotation\%22&amp;aq=f&amp;aqi=&amp;oq=&amp;fp=e8d6ef47431c6a4a" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">"Einsteinian post-mortem rotation"</a> [google.com]. Well played.</p><p>Taking bets on how long it takes to come up on Google Trends.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GJ Slashdot for making me search for " Einsteinian post-mortem rotation " [ google.com ] .
Well played.Taking bets on how long it takes to come up on Google Trends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GJ Slashdot for making me search for "Einsteinian post-mortem rotation" [google.com].
Well played.Taking bets on how long it takes to come up on Google Trends.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30826510</id>
	<title>Re:FTL Information?</title>
	<author>Khyber</author>
	<datestamp>1263905220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Can we replicate this and add information to the current to transport information faster than the speed of light? (The real problem.)"</p><p>It is theorized that perhaps quantum entanglement is the answer to this, with some theories suggesting 10,000x FTL potential.</p><p>I've thought of quantum-entangled radios, use those for communication between planets. The easiest way to test would just be building a 1-bit pair of quantum-entangled devices, and then use the alteration of spin to represent a 1 or 0. Should be viable for voice transmission, and high-bandwidth data transmission should be not far behind that. Problem is it would likely be only for those two devices, I don't know the details of quantum physics and mechanics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Can we replicate this and add information to the current to transport information faster than the speed of light ?
( The real problem .
) " It is theorized that perhaps quantum entanglement is the answer to this , with some theories suggesting 10,000x FTL potential.I 've thought of quantum-entangled radios , use those for communication between planets .
The easiest way to test would just be building a 1-bit pair of quantum-entangled devices , and then use the alteration of spin to represent a 1 or 0 .
Should be viable for voice transmission , and high-bandwidth data transmission should be not far behind that .
Problem is it would likely be only for those two devices , I do n't know the details of quantum physics and mechanics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Can we replicate this and add information to the current to transport information faster than the speed of light?
(The real problem.
)"It is theorized that perhaps quantum entanglement is the answer to this, with some theories suggesting 10,000x FTL potential.I've thought of quantum-entangled radios, use those for communication between planets.
The easiest way to test would just be building a 1-bit pair of quantum-entangled devices, and then use the alteration of spin to represent a 1 or 0.
Should be viable for voice transmission, and high-bandwidth data transmission should be not far behind that.
Problem is it would likely be only for those two devices, I don't know the details of quantum physics and mechanics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30825238</id>
	<title>Re:Here we go again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263898920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if you created a pocket of space and propelled the pocket faster than light? Where everything in the pocket would be standing still.</p><p>Or better yet, the presence or non presence of the FTL stream could be encoded information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if you created a pocket of space and propelled the pocket faster than light ?
Where everything in the pocket would be standing still.Or better yet , the presence or non presence of the FTL stream could be encoded information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if you created a pocket of space and propelled the pocket faster than light?
Where everything in the pocket would be standing still.Or better yet, the presence or non presence of the FTL stream could be encoded information.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30829766</id>
	<title>Re:Not the big deal people make out of it ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263984240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, what if the man is holding a metal rod instead of a laser?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , what if the man is holding a metal rod instead of a laser ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, what if the man is holding a metal rod instead of a laser?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30828170</id>
	<title>Re:FTL Information?</title>
	<author>catmistake</author>
	<datestamp>1263920280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What everyone seems to gloss over is that this universal speed limit is only that nothing can travel (in a vacuum) <i>as fast as</i> light in a vacuum (everyone always says "faster than light," but that's not what Einstein's work said... it's "as fast as" not "faster than"--- i.e. Einstein's theories do not forbid hypothetical particles that are always traveling faster than light... even if tachyon's haven't been discovered... even if they don't exist, his theories don't forbid them). But light itself will travel faster than light in a vacuum through some other medium (idk what that is... read about it years ago). So... it is possible for particles to travel faster than light in a vacuum <i>through some other medium</i> that I don't know (sorry, not a physicist... but if you know, plz post... if you disagree... get bent).
<p>But I think you're right about the causality violation... pretty sure that won't break.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What everyone seems to gloss over is that this universal speed limit is only that nothing can travel ( in a vacuum ) as fast as light in a vacuum ( everyone always says " faster than light , " but that 's not what Einstein 's work said... it 's " as fast as " not " faster than " --- i.e .
Einstein 's theories do not forbid hypothetical particles that are always traveling faster than light... even if tachyon 's have n't been discovered... even if they do n't exist , his theories do n't forbid them ) .
But light itself will travel faster than light in a vacuum through some other medium ( idk what that is... read about it years ago ) .
So... it is possible for particles to travel faster than light in a vacuum through some other medium that I do n't know ( sorry , not a physicist... but if you know , plz post... if you disagree... get bent ) .
But I think you 're right about the causality violation... pretty sure that wo n't break .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What everyone seems to gloss over is that this universal speed limit is only that nothing can travel (in a vacuum) as fast as light in a vacuum (everyone always says "faster than light," but that's not what Einstein's work said... it's "as fast as" not "faster than"--- i.e.
Einstein's theories do not forbid hypothetical particles that are always traveling faster than light... even if tachyon's haven't been discovered... even if they don't exist, his theories don't forbid them).
But light itself will travel faster than light in a vacuum through some other medium (idk what that is... read about it years ago).
So... it is possible for particles to travel faster than light in a vacuum through some other medium that I don't know (sorry, not a physicist... but if you know, plz post... if you disagree... get bent).
But I think you're right about the causality violation... pretty sure that won't break.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824354</id>
	<title>Re:Here we go again</title>
	<author>NathanWoodruff</author>
	<datestamp>1263894840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is no reason why mass can't travel faster than light. The problem comes from what can we use to propel mass faster than the speed of light? To put this in perspective, if all you had was sound waves, could you use sound to make something go faster than the speed of sound? Kind of hard wouldn't it be?<br> <br>Chemical reactions happen faster than the speed of sound and therefore can propel mass faster than the speed of sound, gun powder, Jet A, Ammonium nitrate in rockets etc... Chemical reactions do not happen faster than the speed of light, so, no go. Nuclear reactions might occur near the speed of light, but that is still a no go.<br> <br>If there was some way of releasing energy faster than the speed of light, then there would be a way to propel mass faster than the speed of light. As of now, there is none.<br> <br>Transferring information faster than the speed of light isn't possible, period, because we use light or electrons that travel at the speed of light to encode that information. The speed of what we use to encode information right now will never change, therefore information will never ever be transmitted faster.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no reason why mass ca n't travel faster than light .
The problem comes from what can we use to propel mass faster than the speed of light ?
To put this in perspective , if all you had was sound waves , could you use sound to make something go faster than the speed of sound ?
Kind of hard would n't it be ?
Chemical reactions happen faster than the speed of sound and therefore can propel mass faster than the speed of sound , gun powder , Jet A , Ammonium nitrate in rockets etc... Chemical reactions do not happen faster than the speed of light , so , no go .
Nuclear reactions might occur near the speed of light , but that is still a no go .
If there was some way of releasing energy faster than the speed of light , then there would be a way to propel mass faster than the speed of light .
As of now , there is none .
Transferring information faster than the speed of light is n't possible , period , because we use light or electrons that travel at the speed of light to encode that information .
The speed of what we use to encode information right now will never change , therefore information will never ever be transmitted faster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no reason why mass can't travel faster than light.
The problem comes from what can we use to propel mass faster than the speed of light?
To put this in perspective, if all you had was sound waves, could you use sound to make something go faster than the speed of sound?
Kind of hard wouldn't it be?
Chemical reactions happen faster than the speed of sound and therefore can propel mass faster than the speed of sound, gun powder, Jet A, Ammonium nitrate in rockets etc... Chemical reactions do not happen faster than the speed of light, so, no go.
Nuclear reactions might occur near the speed of light, but that is still a no go.
If there was some way of releasing energy faster than the speed of light, then there would be a way to propel mass faster than the speed of light.
As of now, there is none.
Transferring information faster than the speed of light isn't possible, period, because we use light or electrons that travel at the speed of light to encode that information.
The speed of what we use to encode information right now will never change, therefore information will never ever be transmitted faster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30825738</id>
	<title>the thing that gets me</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1263901020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm promoted to the status of god-like observer. I'm looking down on the solar system perpendicular to the ecliptic, i.e. I'm watching earth circle the sun. Using my magic powers of awesome I wink the sun out of existence. With my magical omniscient eyes I will see the Earth continuing to orbit something that no longer exists for the eight or so minutes it takes for light to move from the sun to the earth. At the time the last ray from the sun hits Earth, the sun's gravity will be cutting out. That's because gravity waves are supposed to move speed of light. That just strikes me as spooky.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm promoted to the status of god-like observer .
I 'm looking down on the solar system perpendicular to the ecliptic , i.e .
I 'm watching earth circle the sun .
Using my magic powers of awesome I wink the sun out of existence .
With my magical omniscient eyes I will see the Earth continuing to orbit something that no longer exists for the eight or so minutes it takes for light to move from the sun to the earth .
At the time the last ray from the sun hits Earth , the sun 's gravity will be cutting out .
That 's because gravity waves are supposed to move speed of light .
That just strikes me as spooky .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm promoted to the status of god-like observer.
I'm looking down on the solar system perpendicular to the ecliptic, i.e.
I'm watching earth circle the sun.
Using my magic powers of awesome I wink the sun out of existence.
With my magical omniscient eyes I will see the Earth continuing to orbit something that no longer exists for the eight or so minutes it takes for light to move from the sun to the earth.
At the time the last ray from the sun hits Earth, the sun's gravity will be cutting out.
That's because gravity waves are supposed to move speed of light.
That just strikes me as spooky.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824238</id>
	<title>Perpetual motion machine theory</title>
	<author>jbeaupre</author>
	<datestamp>1263894240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The first law of thermodynamics is you do not talk about thermodynamics<br>
The second law of thermodynamics is you <b>do not</b> talk about thermodynamics</htmltext>
<tokenext>The first law of thermodynamics is you do not talk about thermodynamics The second law of thermodynamics is you do not talk about thermodynamics</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first law of thermodynamics is you do not talk about thermodynamics
The second law of thermodynamics is you do not talk about thermodynamics</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823810</id>
	<title>Re:FTL Information?</title>
	<author>derGoldstein</author>
	<datestamp>1263892320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whenever FTL communication is discussed, quantum entanglement is usually brought up as an option. For a long time the immediate answer was "no, it can't be done", but there have been cracks in the wall lately. Google will <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=quantum+entanglement+communication" title="google.com">tell you</a> [google.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whenever FTL communication is discussed , quantum entanglement is usually brought up as an option .
For a long time the immediate answer was " no , it ca n't be done " , but there have been cracks in the wall lately .
Google will tell you [ google.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whenever FTL communication is discussed, quantum entanglement is usually brought up as an option.
For a long time the immediate answer was "no, it can't be done", but there have been cracks in the wall lately.
Google will tell you [google.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30825022</id>
	<title>Re:Not the big deal people make out of it ...</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1263898020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What you get on that outside wall wouldn't be a spot generated by the laser, at that point the 'spot' would appear (if you were on the wall, and not at the sun) as a line due to the beam being spread out  by your turning around in circles.</p><p>This is all just a matter of perspective and is otherwise nothing new.  The laser beam isn't projecting a 'dot' when its moving, even though most of the time it is perceived as such.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What you get on that outside wall would n't be a spot generated by the laser , at that point the 'spot ' would appear ( if you were on the wall , and not at the sun ) as a line due to the beam being spread out by your turning around in circles.This is all just a matter of perspective and is otherwise nothing new .
The laser beam is n't projecting a 'dot ' when its moving , even though most of the time it is perceived as such .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you get on that outside wall wouldn't be a spot generated by the laser, at that point the 'spot' would appear (if you were on the wall, and not at the sun) as a line due to the beam being spread out  by your turning around in circles.This is all just a matter of perspective and is otherwise nothing new.
The laser beam isn't projecting a 'dot' when its moving, even though most of the time it is perceived as such.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823928</id>
	<title>Re:You know what else creates FTL currents?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263892800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spray a machine gun across the room. The time between impacts of the right-most bullet and the left-most will be very close, but no bullet moved laterally.</p><p>You don't need a disco ball, just a laser and the moon. You still don't get anything moving FTL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spray a machine gun across the room .
The time between impacts of the right-most bullet and the left-most will be very close , but no bullet moved laterally.You do n't need a disco ball , just a laser and the moon .
You still do n't get anything moving FTL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spray a machine gun across the room.
The time between impacts of the right-most bullet and the left-most will be very close, but no bullet moved laterally.You don't need a disco ball, just a laser and the moon.
You still don't get anything moving FTL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823646</id>
	<title>OHNOZ</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263891600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the lose!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the lose ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the lose!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30825358</id>
	<title>FTL anything and i show up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263899400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not talking travel here, on indoles I go to psychic internets only explicable by mass habitation of Sol system (unlikely) or FTL radio (probable given entanglement and non-locality)</p><p>Good luck</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not talking travel here , on indoles I go to psychic internets only explicable by mass habitation of Sol system ( unlikely ) or FTL radio ( probable given entanglement and non-locality ) Good luck</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not talking travel here, on indoles I go to psychic internets only explicable by mass habitation of Sol system (unlikely) or FTL radio (probable given entanglement and non-locality)Good luck</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30826158</id>
	<title>Re:Rigid Carbon Nanotube!!!</title>
	<author>pclminion</author>
	<datestamp>1263903180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When you move something and it appears that all of its parts move in unison, this is just an illusion. The displacement you create propagates at the speed of sound in that material. This speed is fast enough that for everyday objects of everyday scales, it looks like the entire object reacts to your disturbance immediately, but it just isn't true.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you move something and it appears that all of its parts move in unison , this is just an illusion .
The displacement you create propagates at the speed of sound in that material .
This speed is fast enough that for everyday objects of everyday scales , it looks like the entire object reacts to your disturbance immediately , but it just is n't true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you move something and it appears that all of its parts move in unison, this is just an illusion.
The displacement you create propagates at the speed of sound in that material.
This speed is fast enough that for everyday objects of everyday scales, it looks like the entire object reacts to your disturbance immediately, but it just isn't true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30827792</id>
	<title>Einsteinian post-mortem rotation</title>
	<author>immakiku</author>
	<datestamp>1263916320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can someone explain this to me? Google doesn't seem to help much. What does it refer to and what physical properties are involved in its occurrence? Thanks</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can someone explain this to me ?
Google does n't seem to help much .
What does it refer to and what physical properties are involved in its occurrence ?
Thanks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can someone explain this to me?
Google doesn't seem to help much.
What does it refer to and what physical properties are involved in its occurrence?
Thanks</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30825454</id>
	<title>Re:Rigid Carbon Nanotube!!!</title>
	<author>Spad</author>
	<datestamp>1263899760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, 1LY is 9.4605284 &#215; 10^15 metres and carbon nanotubes have, on average, a density of approx 1.4g/cm^-3. Assuming a 1cm radius tube, you're looking at a volume of 2971946650295cm^3 which gives you something like 4,160,725 tonnes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , 1LY is 9.4605284   10 ^ 15 metres and carbon nanotubes have , on average , a density of approx 1.4g/cm ^ -3 .
Assuming a 1cm radius tube , you 're looking at a volume of 2971946650295cm ^ 3 which gives you something like 4,160,725 tonnes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, 1LY is 9.4605284 × 10^15 metres and carbon nanotubes have, on average, a density of approx 1.4g/cm^-3.
Assuming a 1cm radius tube, you're looking at a volume of 2971946650295cm^3 which gives you something like 4,160,725 tonnes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824624</id>
	<title>Now if we could ....</title>
	<author>b12arr0</author>
	<datestamp>1263896280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>find a mass relay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>find a mass relay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>find a mass relay.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30828608</id>
	<title>Re:You know what else creates FTL currents?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263924480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A few light seconds (say, 5 or 6) is about a million miles.  I'm not sure my disco ball can do that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A few light seconds ( say , 5 or 6 ) is about a million miles .
I 'm not sure my disco ball can do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A few light seconds (say, 5 or 6) is about a million miles.
I'm not sure my disco ball can do that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30825114</id>
	<title>Re:Rigid Carbon Nanotube!!!</title>
	<author>srollyson</author>
	<datestamp>1263898380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's three possibilities:</p><ul>
<li>It will be too thick and you won't be able to swing the other end 'round.</li><li>It will be too thin and it'll snap where you're holding it.</li><li>It will be just the right thickness to cut your hand in half.</li></ul><p>You don't want Goldilocks to be an amputee, do you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's three possibilities : It will be too thick and you wo n't be able to swing the other end 'round.It will be too thin and it 'll snap where you 're holding it.It will be just the right thickness to cut your hand in half.You do n't want Goldilocks to be an amputee , do you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's three possibilities:
It will be too thick and you won't be able to swing the other end 'round.It will be too thin and it'll snap where you're holding it.It will be just the right thickness to cut your hand in half.You don't want Goldilocks to be an amputee, do you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30834308</id>
	<title>Not again...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264011900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't people tire of this?  Its always "FTL" this and "FTL" that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... And by the way pay no attention to the huge honkin asterisk clarifying what is really meant by FTL.</p><p>This is the same group vs phase velocity nonsense that is always used successfully to attention whore the media.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't people tire of this ?
Its always " FTL " this and " FTL " that ... And by the way pay no attention to the huge honkin asterisk clarifying what is really meant by FTL.This is the same group vs phase velocity nonsense that is always used successfully to attention whore the media .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't people tire of this?
Its always "FTL" this and "FTL" that ... And by the way pay no attention to the huge honkin asterisk clarifying what is really meant by FTL.This is the same group vs phase velocity nonsense that is always used successfully to attention whore the media.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30833472</id>
	<title>Cosmic Distances</title>
	<author>Muad'Dave</author>
	<datestamp>1264008840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Another prediction of the superluminal model for pulsars is that there should be a component of the pulsar's flux that decays as 1/distance, rather than as the conventional inverse-square law.</i></p><p>Does this mean that the pulsars are quite a bit closer than first supposed, given that the norm is 1/x^2, or are they less luminous that first thought?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another prediction of the superluminal model for pulsars is that there should be a component of the pulsar 's flux that decays as 1/distance , rather than as the conventional inverse-square law.Does this mean that the pulsars are quite a bit closer than first supposed , given that the norm is 1/x ^ 2 , or are they less luminous that first thought ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another prediction of the superluminal model for pulsars is that there should be a component of the pulsar's flux that decays as 1/distance, rather than as the conventional inverse-square law.Does this mean that the pulsars are quite a bit closer than first supposed, given that the norm is 1/x^2, or are they less luminous that first thought?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823706</id>
	<title>Short answer</title>
	<author>jbeaupre</author>
	<datestamp>1263891840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No.</p><p>For a detailed explanation, see the next guy's post.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No.For a detailed explanation , see the next guy 's post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.For a detailed explanation, see the next guy's post.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823856</id>
	<title>Re:FTL Information?</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1263892500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Can we replicate this and add information to the current to transport information faster than the speed of light? (The real problem.)</i></p><p>Well I'm going to say no simply based on the fact that they are claiming no physical laws are being broken and that Special Relativity is not violated, since super-luminal information transfer = time travel = causality violation = impossible in SR.  This not the first time this effect has been proposed and it has apparently been studied in labs, so if it was a possible way to transmit information, it seems they would have probably figured that out by now and at least some aspect of SR (perhaps causality!) would have to be scrapped.</p><p>I don't fully understand what they're talking about, but it sounds like a similar phenomenon to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group\_velocity" title="wikipedia.org">group velocity</a> [wikipedia.org], in which some aspect of the wavefront can be said to be traveling faster than light, but nevertheless real photons and information cannot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we replicate this and add information to the current to transport information faster than the speed of light ?
( The real problem .
) Well I 'm going to say no simply based on the fact that they are claiming no physical laws are being broken and that Special Relativity is not violated , since super-luminal information transfer = time travel = causality violation = impossible in SR. This not the first time this effect has been proposed and it has apparently been studied in labs , so if it was a possible way to transmit information , it seems they would have probably figured that out by now and at least some aspect of SR ( perhaps causality !
) would have to be scrapped.I do n't fully understand what they 're talking about , but it sounds like a similar phenomenon to group velocity [ wikipedia.org ] , in which some aspect of the wavefront can be said to be traveling faster than light , but nevertheless real photons and information can not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we replicate this and add information to the current to transport information faster than the speed of light?
(The real problem.
)Well I'm going to say no simply based on the fact that they are claiming no physical laws are being broken and that Special Relativity is not violated, since super-luminal information transfer = time travel = causality violation = impossible in SR.  This not the first time this effect has been proposed and it has apparently been studied in labs, so if it was a possible way to transmit information, it seems they would have probably figured that out by now and at least some aspect of SR (perhaps causality!
) would have to be scrapped.I don't fully understand what they're talking about, but it sounds like a similar phenomenon to group velocity [wikipedia.org], in which some aspect of the wavefront can be said to be traveling faster than light, but nevertheless real photons and information cannot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30827472</id>
	<title>Re:Here we go again</title>
	<author>ShakaUVM</author>
	<datestamp>1263913080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;but repeat after me, you cannot transmit *information* faster than light</p><p>Sure you can. If you have a block of plastic that "slows down" (it doesn't, really) light passing through it to 1MPH, you can certainly walk a message past the block of plastic faster than the light. If you mean you can't transmit information faster than C, there's actually a small chance that you can. It's just an insignificantly small chance. Light doesn't always move at C - sometimes it moves faster or slower, which is generally only noticeable across very small scales.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; but repeat after me , you can not transmit * information * faster than lightSure you can .
If you have a block of plastic that " slows down " ( it does n't , really ) light passing through it to 1MPH , you can certainly walk a message past the block of plastic faster than the light .
If you mean you ca n't transmit information faster than C , there 's actually a small chance that you can .
It 's just an insignificantly small chance .
Light does n't always move at C - sometimes it moves faster or slower , which is generally only noticeable across very small scales .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;but repeat after me, you cannot transmit *information* faster than lightSure you can.
If you have a block of plastic that "slows down" (it doesn't, really) light passing through it to 1MPH, you can certainly walk a message past the block of plastic faster than the light.
If you mean you can't transmit information faster than C, there's actually a small chance that you can.
It's just an insignificantly small chance.
Light doesn't always move at C - sometimes it moves faster or slower, which is generally only noticeable across very small scales.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30825736</id>
	<title>Re:Replies to the thread vs. Time</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1263900960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You insensitive clod! I've got my sort order set to 'Newest First'. So all the smarmy comments are at the top of the page.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You insensitive clod !
I 've got my sort order set to 'Newest First' .
So all the smarmy comments are at the top of the page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You insensitive clod!
I've got my sort order set to 'Newest First'.
So all the smarmy comments are at the top of the page.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30825254</id>
	<title>Re:FTL Information?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263898980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cables made from neutron star material, finally a business for Monster Cables...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cables made from neutron star material , finally a business for Monster Cables.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cables made from neutron star material, finally a business for Monster Cables...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824512</id>
	<title>More like...</title>
	<author>SirTicksAlot</author>
	<datestamp>1263895620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>FTW!</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTW !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTW!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823926</id>
	<title>Re:FTL information</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263892800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sort of.</p><p>Try this for an analogy: imagine a circular wall around us located one light-year radius away.  Point your laser pointer at the wall, then sweep it so that it points to another spot 1 light year away on the same wall.  Do that in 1 second.</p><p>1 year later, a dot of light will appear on the wall.  The dot will then exceed the speed of light, traveling 1 light-year in 1 second.  If that dot also induced an electric charge, it will look like some sort of current pulse just traveled along the wall millions of times the speed of light.</p><p>So, you've created a current, faster than the speed of light, that appears to carry information FTL, but not in a meaningful way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sort of.Try this for an analogy : imagine a circular wall around us located one light-year radius away .
Point your laser pointer at the wall , then sweep it so that it points to another spot 1 light year away on the same wall .
Do that in 1 second.1 year later , a dot of light will appear on the wall .
The dot will then exceed the speed of light , traveling 1 light-year in 1 second .
If that dot also induced an electric charge , it will look like some sort of current pulse just traveled along the wall millions of times the speed of light.So , you 've created a current , faster than the speed of light , that appears to carry information FTL , but not in a meaningful way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sort of.Try this for an analogy: imagine a circular wall around us located one light-year radius away.
Point your laser pointer at the wall, then sweep it so that it points to another spot 1 light year away on the same wall.
Do that in 1 second.1 year later, a dot of light will appear on the wall.
The dot will then exceed the speed of light, traveling 1 light-year in 1 second.
If that dot also induced an electric charge, it will look like some sort of current pulse just traveled along the wall millions of times the speed of light.So, you've created a current, faster than the speed of light, that appears to carry information FTL, but not in a meaningful way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30826320</id>
	<title>Re:GJ slashdot...</title>
	<author>kill-1</author>
	<datestamp>1263904080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AFAIK, we already have to assume Einsteinian post-mortem rotation because of certain results of quantum theory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AFAIK , we already have to assume Einsteinian post-mortem rotation because of certain results of quantum theory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AFAIK, we already have to assume Einsteinian post-mortem rotation because of certain results of quantum theory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823658</id>
	<title>FTL information</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1263891660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was my understanding that information in general cannot exceed the speed of light.  Is this not the case, or do FTL currents somehow not transmit data FTL?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was my understanding that information in general can not exceed the speed of light .
Is this not the case , or do FTL currents somehow not transmit data FTL ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was my understanding that information in general cannot exceed the speed of light.
Is this not the case, or do FTL currents somehow not transmit data FTL?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823748</id>
	<title>You know what else creates FTL currents?</title>
	<author>jeffb (2.718)</author>
	<datestamp>1263892020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A disco ball.  Shine a light on a disco ball, and project those cool reflections onto a surface more than a few light-seconds away.  You'll see that the spots move <i>much</i> faster than light.</p><p>Still no FTL movement or information transfer.  Still no violation of GR or causality.  Just another nice, attention-grabbing headline.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A disco ball .
Shine a light on a disco ball , and project those cool reflections onto a surface more than a few light-seconds away .
You 'll see that the spots move much faster than light.Still no FTL movement or information transfer .
Still no violation of GR or causality .
Just another nice , attention-grabbing headline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A disco ball.
Shine a light on a disco ball, and project those cool reflections onto a surface more than a few light-seconds away.
You'll see that the spots move much faster than light.Still no FTL movement or information transfer.
Still no violation of GR or causality.
Just another nice, attention-grabbing headline.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30826310</id>
	<title>Re:You know what else creates FTL currents?</title>
	<author>Trogre</author>
	<datestamp>1263903960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or just wave a torch/laser pointer into the sky.  I have made a laser beam travel from Rigel Kentaurus ro Betelgeuse in less than one second.</p><p>Of course, no actual information was transmitted from point A to B so it means nothing.  And the "beam" is just a stream of photons, a construct we made up for convenience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or just wave a torch/laser pointer into the sky .
I have made a laser beam travel from Rigel Kentaurus ro Betelgeuse in less than one second.Of course , no actual information was transmitted from point A to B so it means nothing .
And the " beam " is just a stream of photons , a construct we made up for convenience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or just wave a torch/laser pointer into the sky.
I have made a laser beam travel from Rigel Kentaurus ro Betelgeuse in less than one second.Of course, no actual information was transmitted from point A to B so it means nothing.
And the "beam" is just a stream of photons, a construct we made up for convenience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823670</id>
	<title>information faster than light?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263891660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the current generated is faster than light, does it imply that information carried by the current could potentially be faster than light?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the current generated is faster than light , does it imply that information carried by the current could potentially be faster than light ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the current generated is faster than light, does it imply that information carried by the current could potentially be faster than light?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824468</id>
	<title>Re:Here we go again</title>
	<author>Fantastic Lad</author>
	<datestamp>1263895500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am not a physicist, but you hear things, you know. . ?</p><p>I'm not altogether clear about all this talk regarding so-called, Quantum Entanglement.  It doesn't sound as though there is anything being transmitted at all.</p><p>Or, just blowing smoke off the top of my head. . , what if two points on, say, a 10 dimensional object appear in our space to occupy two distant locations, but which are in fact part of the same object.  If you move one point, the other moves instantaneously.  Information could be transmitted like this, and it would appear to us as though it were traveling a great distance.</p><p>Or something like that.</p><p>Like I said.  I am not a physicist, but you hear stuff, you know?  And one of the things I've heard is that Einstein's theories were furthered but kept very quiet.  There have been some very weird deaths among physicists.</p><p>-FL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not a physicist , but you hear things , you know .
. ? I 'm not altogether clear about all this talk regarding so-called , Quantum Entanglement .
It does n't sound as though there is anything being transmitted at all.Or , just blowing smoke off the top of my head .
. , what if two points on , say , a 10 dimensional object appear in our space to occupy two distant locations , but which are in fact part of the same object .
If you move one point , the other moves instantaneously .
Information could be transmitted like this , and it would appear to us as though it were traveling a great distance.Or something like that.Like I said .
I am not a physicist , but you hear stuff , you know ?
And one of the things I 've heard is that Einstein 's theories were furthered but kept very quiet .
There have been some very weird deaths among physicists.-FL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not a physicist, but you hear things, you know.
. ?I'm not altogether clear about all this talk regarding so-called, Quantum Entanglement.
It doesn't sound as though there is anything being transmitted at all.Or, just blowing smoke off the top of my head.
. , what if two points on, say, a 10 dimensional object appear in our space to occupy two distant locations, but which are in fact part of the same object.
If you move one point, the other moves instantaneously.
Information could be transmitted like this, and it would appear to us as though it were traveling a great distance.Or something like that.Like I said.
I am not a physicist, but you hear stuff, you know?
And one of the things I've heard is that Einstein's theories were furthered but kept very quiet.
There have been some very weird deaths among physicists.-FL</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823700</id>
	<title>Google</title>
	<author>MillionthMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1263891780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Has Google filed its patent yet on "Method and Materials to Power a Pulsar Beam Using a Faster-Than-Light Current"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has Google filed its patent yet on " Method and Materials to Power a Pulsar Beam Using a Faster-Than-Light Current " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has Google filed its patent yet on "Method and Materials to Power a Pulsar Beam Using a Faster-Than-Light Current"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824520</id>
	<title>Rigid Carbon Nanotube!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263895680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Take a Rigid Caron nano-tube that is one LY long and firmly grasp one end and wave it around wildly, the far end of it will be travelling FTL!!!!</p><p>Of course how heavy is a 1LY long rigid carbon nanotube?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take a Rigid Caron nano-tube that is one LY long and firmly grasp one end and wave it around wildly , the far end of it will be travelling FTL ! ! !
! Of course how heavy is a 1LY long rigid carbon nanotube ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take a Rigid Caron nano-tube that is one LY long and firmly grasp one end and wave it around wildly, the far end of it will be travelling FTL!!!
!Of course how heavy is a 1LY long rigid carbon nanotube?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824118</id>
	<title>Preventing Einsteinian post-mortem rotation, eh?</title>
	<author>rebelscience</author>
	<datestamp>1263893700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a falsifiable hypothesis. Does anybody know where Einstein's grave is? I would like to conduct a skeleton rotation experiment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a falsifiable hypothesis .
Does anybody know where Einstein 's grave is ?
I would like to conduct a skeleton rotation experiment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a falsifiable hypothesis.
Does anybody know where Einstein's grave is?
I would like to conduct a skeleton rotation experiment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823704</id>
	<title>Re:FTL Information?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263891840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can we replicate this and add information to the current to transport information faster than the speed of light? (The real problem.)</p></div><p>no</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we replicate this and add information to the current to transport information faster than the speed of light ?
( The real problem .
) no</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we replicate this and add information to the current to transport information faster than the speed of light?
(The real problem.
)no
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823934</id>
	<title>Here we go again</title>
	<author>tylersoze</author>
	<datestamp>1263892860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah yes it's time again to break out the old phase vs group velocity explanation again. There are plenty of things that can go "fast than light", but repeat after me, you cannot transmit *information* faster than light. There are many concepts in our current understanding of physics that you just take to be inviolate like conservation of energy, momentum, speed of light. That's not to say we those concepts might eventually be superseded but as a general rule of them any theory that doesn't follow them is probably pseudoscience and wrong. Physics develops from what proceeded it, from Newton to Einstein to Quantum Mechanics to String Theory, and those conservation laws always held. Perhaps reformulated in a different manner to stand for different things but they still held. You don't need to know the details of how a proposed "perpetual motion machine" may work to know that if the crackpot building it says that it violates the law of conservation of energy then it doesn't work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah yes it 's time again to break out the old phase vs group velocity explanation again .
There are plenty of things that can go " fast than light " , but repeat after me , you can not transmit * information * faster than light .
There are many concepts in our current understanding of physics that you just take to be inviolate like conservation of energy , momentum , speed of light .
That 's not to say we those concepts might eventually be superseded but as a general rule of them any theory that does n't follow them is probably pseudoscience and wrong .
Physics develops from what proceeded it , from Newton to Einstein to Quantum Mechanics to String Theory , and those conservation laws always held .
Perhaps reformulated in a different manner to stand for different things but they still held .
You do n't need to know the details of how a proposed " perpetual motion machine " may work to know that if the crackpot building it says that it violates the law of conservation of energy then it does n't work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah yes it's time again to break out the old phase vs group velocity explanation again.
There are plenty of things that can go "fast than light", but repeat after me, you cannot transmit *information* faster than light.
There are many concepts in our current understanding of physics that you just take to be inviolate like conservation of energy, momentum, speed of light.
That's not to say we those concepts might eventually be superseded but as a general rule of them any theory that doesn't follow them is probably pseudoscience and wrong.
Physics develops from what proceeded it, from Newton to Einstein to Quantum Mechanics to String Theory, and those conservation laws always held.
Perhaps reformulated in a different manner to stand for different things but they still held.
You don't need to know the details of how a proposed "perpetual motion machine" may work to know that if the crackpot building it says that it violates the law of conservation of energy then it doesn't work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824258</id>
	<title>Re:Not the big deal people make out of it ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263894360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You've got a big sphere.  Let's say it's 93 million miles in radius (the size of our radius around the sun -- <b>it's a figure we're all familiar with anyways.</b>)</p></div><p>I'm not an american you insensitive clod!</p><p>-gorsh</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've got a big sphere .
Let 's say it 's 93 million miles in radius ( the size of our radius around the sun -- it 's a figure we 're all familiar with anyways .
) I 'm not an american you insensitive clod ! -gorsh</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've got a big sphere.
Let's say it's 93 million miles in radius (the size of our radius around the sun -- it's a figure we're all familiar with anyways.
)I'm not an american you insensitive clod!-gorsh
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824184</id>
	<title>Re:Here we go again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263894000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ahh - be we could compute stuff faster than the speed of light.  Say a particular computer problem takes x years to compute.  We take a laptop start it on the problem.  We then put the earth (leaving the laptop behind) in close proximty to a black hole.  Since the earch will be travelling closer to the speed of light, time will slow down for us, leaving the laptop to finish the problem and email us the result in less than x time.  Idea patent pending.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahh - be we could compute stuff faster than the speed of light .
Say a particular computer problem takes x years to compute .
We take a laptop start it on the problem .
We then put the earth ( leaving the laptop behind ) in close proximty to a black hole .
Since the earch will be travelling closer to the speed of light , time will slow down for us , leaving the laptop to finish the problem and email us the result in less than x time .
Idea patent pending .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahh - be we could compute stuff faster than the speed of light.
Say a particular computer problem takes x years to compute.
We take a laptop start it on the problem.
We then put the earth (leaving the laptop behind) in close proximty to a black hole.
Since the earch will be travelling closer to the speed of light, time will slow down for us, leaving the laptop to finish the problem and email us the result in less than x time.
Idea patent pending.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30825924</id>
	<title>Re:Not the big deal people make out of it ...</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1263901920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no spot.
</p><p>If you are standing at a fixed point on the surface of this sphere, what you are very short photon pulses with a period of one second. The individual photons all move at c. If you attempted to transmit some information from the laser to the sphere's periphery by modulating it somehow, it would still take about 8 minutes for a 'bit' to travel that distance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no spot .
If you are standing at a fixed point on the surface of this sphere , what you are very short photon pulses with a period of one second .
The individual photons all move at c. If you attempted to transmit some information from the laser to the sphere 's periphery by modulating it somehow , it would still take about 8 minutes for a 'bit ' to travel that distance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no spot.
If you are standing at a fixed point on the surface of this sphere, what you are very short photon pulses with a period of one second.
The individual photons all move at c. If you attempted to transmit some information from the laser to the sphere's periphery by modulating it somehow, it would still take about 8 minutes for a 'bit' to travel that distance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824248</id>
	<title>Replies to the thread vs. Time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263894300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's interesting to watch as the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. crowd's replies to the technical question in the post become both less succinct and more smarmy as you get further down the comments. I have not yet attempted to correlate this phenomenon to user id number.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's interesting to watch as the / .
crowd 's replies to the technical question in the post become both less succinct and more smarmy as you get further down the comments .
I have not yet attempted to correlate this phenomenon to user id number .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's interesting to watch as the /.
crowd's replies to the technical question in the post become both less succinct and more smarmy as you get further down the comments.
I have not yet attempted to correlate this phenomenon to user id number.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30827218</id>
	<title>Re:Here we go again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263910680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the light were modulated, why wouldn't an observer on the wall receive useful information from the modulation of the dot moving at FTL?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the light were modulated , why would n't an observer on the wall receive useful information from the modulation of the dot moving at FTL ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the light were modulated, why wouldn't an observer on the wall receive useful information from the modulation of the dot moving at FTL?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30825438</id>
	<title>Re:Rigid Carbon Nanotube!!!</title>
	<author>Anti\_Climax</author>
	<datestamp>1263899700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wouldn't a rigid carbon nanotube be a very thin and low mass inanimate carbon rod?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't a rigid carbon nanotube be a very thin and low mass inanimate carbon rod ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't a rigid carbon nanotube be a very thin and low mass inanimate carbon rod?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824520</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1922218_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30830538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1922218_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30827424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1922218_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30827558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1922218_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30826310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1922218_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1922218_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30825114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1922218_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30830140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1922218_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30831580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1922218_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30826038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1922218_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30826320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1922218_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30825254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1922218_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30825454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1922218_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1922218_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30829000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1922218_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30829766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1922218_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1922218_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30826476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1922218_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1922218_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30825238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1922218_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30827218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1922218_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30825848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1922218_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30827752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1922218_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30825022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1922218_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30825218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1922218_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30829698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1922218_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30825736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1922218_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30827222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1922218_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1922218_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30825438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1922218_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30826510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1922218_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30826678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30825738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1922218_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30828608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1922218_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30827472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1922218_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30828372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1922218_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1922218_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1922218_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30829164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1922218_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30825924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1922218_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1922218_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1922218_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30828170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1922218_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1922218_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1922218_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1922218_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30826158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1922218_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30825716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1922218.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824118
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1922218.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30825736
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1922218.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823700
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1922218.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823856
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30827558
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30830140
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30828170
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30827752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30826510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30825254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823810
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1922218.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30826320
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1922218.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824404
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1922218.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30825924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30829698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30825022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30827424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30829766
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1922218.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824222
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1922218.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30825238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824810
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30829164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30827472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824354
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30830538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30826476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30827218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30825716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824184
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1922218.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30826310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30828608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30831580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30828372
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1922218.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823670
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1922218.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30823926
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30829000
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30827222
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1922218.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30825738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30826678
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1922218.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30824520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30825438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30825218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30825848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30826158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30825114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30826038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1922218.30825454
</commentlist>
</conversation>
