<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_15_1729253</id>
	<title>RHIC Finds Symmetry Transformations In Quark Soup</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1266256680000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>eldavojohn writes <i>"Today scientists at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) in Brookhaven National Laboratory <a href="http://www.bnl.gov/rhic/news2/news.asp?a=1074&amp;t=pr">revealed new observations</a> after creating a 'quark soup' that revealed hints of <a href="http://www.bnl.gov/rhic/news2/news.asp?a=1073&amp;t=pr">profound symmetry transformations</a> when collisions create conditions in which temperatures reach four trillion degrees Celsius.  A researcher explains the implications, 'RHIC's collisions of heavy nuclei at nearly light speed are designed to re-create, on a tiny scale, the conditions of the early universe. These new results thus suggest that RHIC may have a unique opportunity to test in the laboratory some crucial features of symmetry-altering bubbles speculated to have played important roles in the evolution of the infant universe.'  These new findings hint at violations of mirror symmetry or parity by witnessing asymmetric charge separation in these collisions."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>eldavojohn writes " Today scientists at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider ( RHIC ) in Brookhaven National Laboratory revealed new observations after creating a 'quark soup ' that revealed hints of profound symmetry transformations when collisions create conditions in which temperatures reach four trillion degrees Celsius .
A researcher explains the implications , 'RHIC 's collisions of heavy nuclei at nearly light speed are designed to re-create , on a tiny scale , the conditions of the early universe .
These new results thus suggest that RHIC may have a unique opportunity to test in the laboratory some crucial features of symmetry-altering bubbles speculated to have played important roles in the evolution of the infant universe .
' These new findings hint at violations of mirror symmetry or parity by witnessing asymmetric charge separation in these collisions .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eldavojohn writes "Today scientists at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) in Brookhaven National Laboratory revealed new observations after creating a 'quark soup' that revealed hints of profound symmetry transformations when collisions create conditions in which temperatures reach four trillion degrees Celsius.
A researcher explains the implications, 'RHIC's collisions of heavy nuclei at nearly light speed are designed to re-create, on a tiny scale, the conditions of the early universe.
These new results thus suggest that RHIC may have a unique opportunity to test in the laboratory some crucial features of symmetry-altering bubbles speculated to have played important roles in the evolution of the infant universe.
'  These new findings hint at violations of mirror symmetry or parity by witnessing asymmetric charge separation in these collisions.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146458</id>
	<title>Re:Well, duh</title>
	<author>hansraj</author>
	<datestamp>1266261180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clearly we should abandon all science and just go with whatever our common sense tells us.</p><p>Is symmetry breaking fundamental to the conditions in early universe, or is it just that we don't have big chunk of anti-matter nearby?</p><p>If it is indeed fundamental, what causes it? You have a bunch of theories predicting that it is fundamental but the mechanisms of each theory are ever so slightly different. How are we supposed to test which ones are wrong if we don't go about doing these experiments?</p><p>Those were just two questions off the top of my head. I am sure there are others.</p><p>Maybe you were just going for funny mods but every time there is a story about fundamental physics someone jumps in to say that it is pointless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly we should abandon all science and just go with whatever our common sense tells us.Is symmetry breaking fundamental to the conditions in early universe , or is it just that we do n't have big chunk of anti-matter nearby ? If it is indeed fundamental , what causes it ?
You have a bunch of theories predicting that it is fundamental but the mechanisms of each theory are ever so slightly different .
How are we supposed to test which ones are wrong if we do n't go about doing these experiments ? Those were just two questions off the top of my head .
I am sure there are others.Maybe you were just going for funny mods but every time there is a story about fundamental physics someone jumps in to say that it is pointless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly we should abandon all science and just go with whatever our common sense tells us.Is symmetry breaking fundamental to the conditions in early universe, or is it just that we don't have big chunk of anti-matter nearby?If it is indeed fundamental, what causes it?
You have a bunch of theories predicting that it is fundamental but the mechanisms of each theory are ever so slightly different.
How are we supposed to test which ones are wrong if we don't go about doing these experiments?Those were just two questions off the top of my head.
I am sure there are others.Maybe you were just going for funny mods but every time there is a story about fundamental physics someone jumps in to say that it is pointless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146840</id>
	<title>Re:Relativism</title>
	<author>algormortis</author>
	<datestamp>1266263280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That can never happen. Heat refers to basically motion. If there is a lot of motion (i.e. energy/heat), then it is obviously hotter. A particle can "not move" only so much, and there can't be conditions in which a particle cannot exist, yet still be in motion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That can never happen .
Heat refers to basically motion .
If there is a lot of motion ( i.e .
energy/heat ) , then it is obviously hotter .
A particle can " not move " only so much , and there ca n't be conditions in which a particle can not exist , yet still be in motion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That can never happen.
Heat refers to basically motion.
If there is a lot of motion (i.e.
energy/heat), then it is obviously hotter.
A particle can "not move" only so much, and there can't be conditions in which a particle cannot exist, yet still be in motion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146890</id>
	<title>Re:Well, duh</title>
	<author>History's Coming To</author>
	<datestamp>1266263460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because we found matter first, probably because there's more of it and we're made of it.  Semantics, linguistics, that's all...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because we found matter first , probably because there 's more of it and we 're made of it .
Semantics , linguistics , that 's all.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because we found matter first, probably because there's more of it and we're made of it.
Semantics, linguistics, that's all...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31151536</id>
	<title>too many too may kevins</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266248220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>thanks again sexconker, it was funny the first time<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>thanks again sexconker , it was funny the first time : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thanks again sexconker, it was funny the first time :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146732</id>
	<title>Re:Pedantic</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1266262680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As you point out, anyone who knows what a Kelvin is can easily do an accurate enough conversion.  If the article did use Kelvin then everybody who doesn't know what a Kelvin is would be lost.  Is that really hot?  Cold?  In the middle?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As you point out , anyone who knows what a Kelvin is can easily do an accurate enough conversion .
If the article did use Kelvin then everybody who does n't know what a Kelvin is would be lost .
Is that really hot ?
Cold ? In the middle ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As you point out, anyone who knows what a Kelvin is can easily do an accurate enough conversion.
If the article did use Kelvin then everybody who doesn't know what a Kelvin is would be lost.
Is that really hot?
Cold?  In the middle?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146546</id>
	<title>Pedantic</title>
	<author>Guppy06</author>
	<datestamp>1266261720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"four trillion degrees Celsius"</i></p><p>When you're talking "trillions," there's really not much difference between degrees Celsius and kelvins.  And all "four trillion degrees Celsius" means to the layman is "really fucking hot."</p><p>So... why not just "4 terakelvins?"  Or is it exakelvins?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" four trillion degrees Celsius " When you 're talking " trillions , " there 's really not much difference between degrees Celsius and kelvins .
And all " four trillion degrees Celsius " means to the layman is " really fucking hot. " So.. .
why not just " 4 terakelvins ?
" Or is it exakelvins ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"four trillion degrees Celsius"When you're talking "trillions," there's really not much difference between degrees Celsius and kelvins.
And all "four trillion degrees Celsius" means to the layman is "really fucking hot."So...
why not just "4 terakelvins?
"  Or is it exakelvins?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146456</id>
	<title>Can this thing make "strangelets"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266261180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any particle physicists out there who can tell (us) if this thing can make "strangelets"?  I mean, I kinda buy the explanations of how the LHC won't make mini-black holes or if it does they will instantly "evaporate" but: 4 trillion degrees?  Approximating the conditions not seen since the first billionth trillionth of a second (or something like that) of the big bang?  And don't tell me that Nature regularly collides gold nuclei together in this fashion; they're not cosmic rays!</p><p>While we're at it, are "strangelets" (or strange matter) real, I mean are they a proven particle?  (And if so, how did they prove their existence without supposedly creating any?)  Anyway, if this thing does make (one) and the planet gets converted into a glob of it, hopefully it'll happen at the speed of light so we won't feel anything.</p><p>Also the phrase "symmetry-altering bubbles" when used in conjunction with the phrase "evolution of the infant UNIVERSE" makes me wonder just a little if they really want to be playing around with this stuff.  At least I'm pretty sure that if a false vacuum bubble is created, it'll expand at the speed of light and we definitely won't feel a thing!</p><p>- I actually love science and physics and have full confidence in these guys.  It's fun to be paranoid every now and then though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any particle physicists out there who can tell ( us ) if this thing can make " strangelets " ?
I mean , I kinda buy the explanations of how the LHC wo n't make mini-black holes or if it does they will instantly " evaporate " but : 4 trillion degrees ?
Approximating the conditions not seen since the first billionth trillionth of a second ( or something like that ) of the big bang ?
And do n't tell me that Nature regularly collides gold nuclei together in this fashion ; they 're not cosmic rays ! While we 're at it , are " strangelets " ( or strange matter ) real , I mean are they a proven particle ?
( And if so , how did they prove their existence without supposedly creating any ?
) Anyway , if this thing does make ( one ) and the planet gets converted into a glob of it , hopefully it 'll happen at the speed of light so we wo n't feel anything.Also the phrase " symmetry-altering bubbles " when used in conjunction with the phrase " evolution of the infant UNIVERSE " makes me wonder just a little if they really want to be playing around with this stuff .
At least I 'm pretty sure that if a false vacuum bubble is created , it 'll expand at the speed of light and we definitely wo n't feel a thing ! - I actually love science and physics and have full confidence in these guys .
It 's fun to be paranoid every now and then though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any particle physicists out there who can tell (us) if this thing can make "strangelets"?
I mean, I kinda buy the explanations of how the LHC won't make mini-black holes or if it does they will instantly "evaporate" but: 4 trillion degrees?
Approximating the conditions not seen since the first billionth trillionth of a second (or something like that) of the big bang?
And don't tell me that Nature regularly collides gold nuclei together in this fashion; they're not cosmic rays!While we're at it, are "strangelets" (or strange matter) real, I mean are they a proven particle?
(And if so, how did they prove their existence without supposedly creating any?
)  Anyway, if this thing does make (one) and the planet gets converted into a glob of it, hopefully it'll happen at the speed of light so we won't feel anything.Also the phrase "symmetry-altering bubbles" when used in conjunction with the phrase "evolution of the infant UNIVERSE" makes me wonder just a little if they really want to be playing around with this stuff.
At least I'm pretty sure that if a false vacuum bubble is created, it'll expand at the speed of light and we definitely won't feel a thing!- I actually love science and physics and have full confidence in these guys.
It's fun to be paranoid every now and then though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31149096</id>
	<title>Re:Devil's advocate</title>
	<author>pwfffff</author>
	<datestamp>1266231180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah I mean what the hell are we gonna do if we end up with two universes? This one sucks enough as it is. If you're creating new universes clean this one up first plzkthx.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah I mean what the hell are we gon na do if we end up with two universes ?
This one sucks enough as it is .
If you 're creating new universes clean this one up first plzkthx .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah I mean what the hell are we gonna do if we end up with two universes?
This one sucks enough as it is.
If you're creating new universes clean this one up first plzkthx.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147982</id>
	<title>Re:Well, duh (For sure No Anti-matter)</title>
	<author>Script Cat</author>
	<datestamp>1266225540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How do we know other galaxies and stars are not anti-matter. It's not like we can touch them and find out.<br>
Would it not be likely that thermal explosions could have sorted the two into far flung clumps in the early days of the universe.<br>
Interactions might not be observed if all of the clumps are already flying away from each other.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do we know other galaxies and stars are not anti-matter .
It 's not like we can touch them and find out .
Would it not be likely that thermal explosions could have sorted the two into far flung clumps in the early days of the universe .
Interactions might not be observed if all of the clumps are already flying away from each other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do we know other galaxies and stars are not anti-matter.
It's not like we can touch them and find out.
Would it not be likely that thermal explosions could have sorted the two into far flung clumps in the early days of the universe.
Interactions might not be observed if all of the clumps are already flying away from each other.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31153364</id>
	<title>Re:Quark-gluon plasma</title>
	<author>ShakaUVM</author>
	<datestamp>1266313560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;The Higgs mechanism is often talked about as the source of mass, but what's less well publicised is that it's the dynamics of QCD (the strong interaction) that are responsible for the majority of the mass of ordinary matter, by a similar mechanism.</p><p>If mass really exists, which it may or may not.</p><p>In general relativity, the concept of mass is kind of a vague one. Momentum is a lot easier to work with. Photons have momentum but no mass. What most people think of as "mass" means something along the lines of "solid" or "can't move through each other", but atoms have solidity due to the Pauli Exclusion Principle preventing electron waves from nearby atoms from interpenetrating with each other, not mass. Photons have the opposite effect, and try to enter similar states, hence stimulated emission and lasers.</p><p>I'm actually curious about what the ultimate nature of mass really is. As well as the ultimate nature of spacetime, dark energy and matter (if they exist), the Pioneer effect, and a lot of other things. But without enough background in math (I only had two years of Calculus in college), I'm too frustratingly ignorant to calculate my ideas about these sorts of things. It's kind of frustrating.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; The Higgs mechanism is often talked about as the source of mass , but what 's less well publicised is that it 's the dynamics of QCD ( the strong interaction ) that are responsible for the majority of the mass of ordinary matter , by a similar mechanism.If mass really exists , which it may or may not.In general relativity , the concept of mass is kind of a vague one .
Momentum is a lot easier to work with .
Photons have momentum but no mass .
What most people think of as " mass " means something along the lines of " solid " or " ca n't move through each other " , but atoms have solidity due to the Pauli Exclusion Principle preventing electron waves from nearby atoms from interpenetrating with each other , not mass .
Photons have the opposite effect , and try to enter similar states , hence stimulated emission and lasers.I 'm actually curious about what the ultimate nature of mass really is .
As well as the ultimate nature of spacetime , dark energy and matter ( if they exist ) , the Pioneer effect , and a lot of other things .
But without enough background in math ( I only had two years of Calculus in college ) , I 'm too frustratingly ignorant to calculate my ideas about these sorts of things .
It 's kind of frustrating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;The Higgs mechanism is often talked about as the source of mass, but what's less well publicised is that it's the dynamics of QCD (the strong interaction) that are responsible for the majority of the mass of ordinary matter, by a similar mechanism.If mass really exists, which it may or may not.In general relativity, the concept of mass is kind of a vague one.
Momentum is a lot easier to work with.
Photons have momentum but no mass.
What most people think of as "mass" means something along the lines of "solid" or "can't move through each other", but atoms have solidity due to the Pauli Exclusion Principle preventing electron waves from nearby atoms from interpenetrating with each other, not mass.
Photons have the opposite effect, and try to enter similar states, hence stimulated emission and lasers.I'm actually curious about what the ultimate nature of mass really is.
As well as the ultimate nature of spacetime, dark energy and matter (if they exist), the Pioneer effect, and a lot of other things.
But without enough background in math (I only had two years of Calculus in college), I'm too frustratingly ignorant to calculate my ideas about these sorts of things.
It's kind of frustrating.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31148656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147160</id>
	<title>Re:Can this thing make "strangelets"?</title>
	<author>mhajicek</author>
	<datestamp>1266264720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> And don't tell me that Nature regularly collides gold nuclei together in this fashion; they're not cosmic rays!</p></div><p>Consider the particle collisions near the event horizon of a black hole; they're likely to occur at much higher energies.</p><p>
 "Energies at the Large Hadron Collider are likely to peak at 14 teraelectronvolts. In contrast, the energies around a black hole would theoretically be limitless, says West. However, you needn't go beyond the so-called "Planck energy" - the point at which our mathematical understanding of particle interactions, in particular gravity, breaks down at the quantum level. This energy is in the order of 1018 gigaelectronvolts - 100 trillion times more energetic than the LHC." - <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327253.800-black-holes-are-the-ultimate-particle-smashers.html" title="newscientist.com">http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327253.800-black-holes-are-the-ultimate-particle-smashers.html</a> [newscientist.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And do n't tell me that Nature regularly collides gold nuclei together in this fashion ; they 're not cosmic rays ! Consider the particle collisions near the event horizon of a black hole ; they 're likely to occur at much higher energies .
" Energies at the Large Hadron Collider are likely to peak at 14 teraelectronvolts .
In contrast , the energies around a black hole would theoretically be limitless , says West .
However , you need n't go beyond the so-called " Planck energy " - the point at which our mathematical understanding of particle interactions , in particular gravity , breaks down at the quantum level .
This energy is in the order of 1018 gigaelectronvolts - 100 trillion times more energetic than the LHC .
" - http : //www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327253.800-black-holes-are-the-ultimate-particle-smashers.html [ newscientist.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> And don't tell me that Nature regularly collides gold nuclei together in this fashion; they're not cosmic rays!Consider the particle collisions near the event horizon of a black hole; they're likely to occur at much higher energies.
"Energies at the Large Hadron Collider are likely to peak at 14 teraelectronvolts.
In contrast, the energies around a black hole would theoretically be limitless, says West.
However, you needn't go beyond the so-called "Planck energy" - the point at which our mathematical understanding of particle interactions, in particular gravity, breaks down at the quantum level.
This energy is in the order of 1018 gigaelectronvolts - 100 trillion times more energetic than the LHC.
" - http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327253.800-black-holes-are-the-ultimate-particle-smashers.html [newscientist.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31148656</id>
	<title>Quark-gluon plasma</title>
	<author>Rising Ape</author>
	<datestamp>1266228780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Higgs mechanism is often talked about as the source of mass, but what's less well publicised is that it's the dynamics of QCD (the strong interaction) that are responsible for the majority of the mass of ordinary matter, by a similar mechanism. Essentially, the vacuum isn't empty because the empty state isn't the lowest energy state - that requires a non-zero Higgs field and a non-zero quark condensate (from QCD).</p><p>The consequences of this are that particles behave as though they have mass when fundamentally they don't - they just behave that way because of their interactions with the background fields. If you excite the system to a high enough temperature though, there's a phase transition to the "free" state in a manner crudely analogous to boiling of a liquid releasing the confinement of adjacent molecules so they behave freely. In the QCD case, this temperature is low enough to be probed by experiments (not so much the electroweak/Higgs case), so we get free, low-mass quarks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Higgs mechanism is often talked about as the source of mass , but what 's less well publicised is that it 's the dynamics of QCD ( the strong interaction ) that are responsible for the majority of the mass of ordinary matter , by a similar mechanism .
Essentially , the vacuum is n't empty because the empty state is n't the lowest energy state - that requires a non-zero Higgs field and a non-zero quark condensate ( from QCD ) .The consequences of this are that particles behave as though they have mass when fundamentally they do n't - they just behave that way because of their interactions with the background fields .
If you excite the system to a high enough temperature though , there 's a phase transition to the " free " state in a manner crudely analogous to boiling of a liquid releasing the confinement of adjacent molecules so they behave freely .
In the QCD case , this temperature is low enough to be probed by experiments ( not so much the electroweak/Higgs case ) , so we get free , low-mass quarks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Higgs mechanism is often talked about as the source of mass, but what's less well publicised is that it's the dynamics of QCD (the strong interaction) that are responsible for the majority of the mass of ordinary matter, by a similar mechanism.
Essentially, the vacuum isn't empty because the empty state isn't the lowest energy state - that requires a non-zero Higgs field and a non-zero quark condensate (from QCD).The consequences of this are that particles behave as though they have mass when fundamentally they don't - they just behave that way because of their interactions with the background fields.
If you excite the system to a high enough temperature though, there's a phase transition to the "free" state in a manner crudely analogous to boiling of a liquid releasing the confinement of adjacent molecules so they behave freely.
In the QCD case, this temperature is low enough to be probed by experiments (not so much the electroweak/Higgs case), so we get free, low-mass quarks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31148156</id>
	<title>Re:Well, duh</title>
	<author>Warbothong</author>
	<datestamp>1266226440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How do we know that we aren't the anti-matter and that what we think is anti-matter is really matter?  Not so common sense, is it?</p></div><p>Erm... Because we invented the arbitrary labels "matter" and "anti-matter", and they have little to do with the Universe and much more to do with our internal thinking apparatus and the ways we interface them with each other (talking, writing, etc.)...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do we know that we are n't the anti-matter and that what we think is anti-matter is really matter ?
Not so common sense , is it ? Erm... Because we invented the arbitrary labels " matter " and " anti-matter " , and they have little to do with the Universe and much more to do with our internal thinking apparatus and the ways we interface them with each other ( talking , writing , etc .
) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do we know that we aren't the anti-matter and that what we think is anti-matter is really matter?
Not so common sense, is it?Erm... Because we invented the arbitrary labels "matter" and "anti-matter", and they have little to do with the Universe and much more to do with our internal thinking apparatus and the ways we interface them with each other (talking, writing, etc.
)...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146632</id>
	<title>Old news</title>
	<author>algormortis</author>
	<datestamp>1266262140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Einstein already suggested something like this, however he never did any research since the soup wasn't kosher.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Einstein already suggested something like this , however he never did any research since the soup was n't kosher .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Einstein already suggested something like this, however he never did any research since the soup wasn't kosher.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31149058</id>
	<title>Re:Pedantic</title>
	<author>Apple1415</author>
	<datestamp>1266231000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Also known as the Kari Byron temperature.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also known as the Kari Byron temperature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also known as the Kari Byron temperature.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146382</id>
	<title>Laymen terms?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266260760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can I get a car analogy please?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can I get a car analogy please ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can I get a car analogy please?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146454</id>
	<title>Re:Laymen terms?</title>
	<author>Boronx</author>
	<datestamp>1266261180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine if two cars crashed together and their symmetry suddenly changed from bilateral to radial.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine if two cars crashed together and their symmetry suddenly changed from bilateral to radial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine if two cars crashed together and their symmetry suddenly changed from bilateral to radial.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146710</id>
	<title>And religious conservatives</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1266262560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>thought biomedical researchers were "playing God".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>thought biomedical researchers were " playing God " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thought biomedical researchers were "playing God".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146430</id>
	<title>New Daily Special at Quarks Bar: DS9</title>
	<author>Orga</author>
	<datestamp>1266261000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That wily ferengi finally found some way to cook up Odo and serve him as a soup.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That wily ferengi finally found some way to cook up Odo and serve him as a soup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That wily ferengi finally found some way to cook up Odo and serve him as a soup.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146294</id>
	<title>Delicious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266260340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Delicious first post soup</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Delicious first post soup</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Delicious first post soup</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147232</id>
	<title>Re:Well, duh</title>
	<author>Ragzouken</author>
	<datestamp>1266265020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the universe existed as antimatter that would indicate the same asymmetry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the universe existed as antimatter that would indicate the same asymmetry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the universe existed as antimatter that would indicate the same asymmetry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31150984</id>
	<title>Re:Devil's advocate</title>
	<author>budgenator</author>
	<datestamp>1266242400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"recreating conditions at the beginning of the universe"<br>We've been doing that for quite a while now, 50 years ago we were playing around with the conditions that occurred a few seconds after creation, now we've turned to clock back to a few microseconds after creation, so they been asking the question for a while; but when they build one around the equator, I'm going to start worrying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" recreating conditions at the beginning of the universe " We 've been doing that for quite a while now , 50 years ago we were playing around with the conditions that occurred a few seconds after creation , now we 've turned to clock back to a few microseconds after creation , so they been asking the question for a while ; but when they build one around the equator , I 'm going to start worrying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"recreating conditions at the beginning of the universe"We've been doing that for quite a while now, 50 years ago we were playing around with the conditions that occurred a few seconds after creation, now we've turned to clock back to a few microseconds after creation, so they been asking the question for a while; but when they build one around the equator, I'm going to start worrying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31155094</id>
	<title>Re:Can this thing make "strangelets"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266335700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pedantic.</p><p>&gt;&gt;1018 gigaelectronvolts</p><p>is actually 10^18 gigaelectronvolts.  Big difference there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pedantic. &gt; &gt; 1018 gigaelectronvoltsis actually 10 ^ 18 gigaelectronvolts .
Big difference there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pedantic.&gt;&gt;1018 gigaelectronvoltsis actually 10^18 gigaelectronvolts.
Big difference there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147796</id>
	<title>"quark-gluon soup?"</title>
	<author>Khashishi</author>
	<datestamp>1266224580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Better to search for "quark-gluon plasma" if you are looking for more info on this subject.<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark\%E2\%80\%93gluon\_plasma" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark\%E2\%80\%93gluon\_plasma</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Better to search for " quark-gluon plasma " if you are looking for more info on this subject.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark \ % E2 \ % 80 \ % 93gluon \ _plasma [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better to search for "quark-gluon plasma" if you are looking for more info on this subject.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark\%E2\%80\%93gluon\_plasma [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147586</id>
	<title>Re:Pedantic</title>
	<author>Khashishi</author>
	<datestamp>1266266640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Usually, in high energy physics, temperature is given in units of electron volts. One electron volt ~= 11600 Kelvin.<br>So this would be written, 0.4 GeV. Which is still extremely hot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Usually , in high energy physics , temperature is given in units of electron volts .
One electron volt ~ = 11600 Kelvin.So this would be written , 0.4 GeV .
Which is still extremely hot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Usually, in high energy physics, temperature is given in units of electron volts.
One electron volt ~= 11600 Kelvin.So this would be written, 0.4 GeV.
Which is still extremely hot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147718</id>
	<title>Re:Well, duh</title>
	<author>Americium</author>
	<datestamp>1266267360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's irrelevant if you call us matter or anti-matter. We have defined matter as the stuff we are made out of, and anti-matter, it's opposite that we don't find any of.</p><p>We look all around the universe and only see matter, i.e. all the stars, planets, gas, and blackholes that we see are made out of matter. If there was even a little bit of anti-matter it would annihilate with interstellar or intergalactic gas immediately. It's incredibly hard to create lasting quantities of anti-matter, since you have to keep it suspended in a vacuum, making sure that no matter touches it.</p><p> According to the standard model, when the big bang occurred equal amounts of matter and anti-matter should have been created. This would lead to all the matter and anti-matter annihilating and no matter existing in the universe at all. Obviously this didn't happen, so the model is incomplete. To explain the dominance of matter requires symmetry breaking, either in the creation or annihilation of matter/anti-matter. But there are lots of possibilities, it could be a major break in symmetry that hasn't been discovered but can be found out using CERN or this acceleator, or something very much harder to discover - perhaps the symmetry only breaks in a single possibility of certain particle interactions at extremely high energies, so high you need the energy of an entire galaxy to power your particle accelerator.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's irrelevant if you call us matter or anti-matter .
We have defined matter as the stuff we are made out of , and anti-matter , it 's opposite that we do n't find any of.We look all around the universe and only see matter , i.e .
all the stars , planets , gas , and blackholes that we see are made out of matter .
If there was even a little bit of anti-matter it would annihilate with interstellar or intergalactic gas immediately .
It 's incredibly hard to create lasting quantities of anti-matter , since you have to keep it suspended in a vacuum , making sure that no matter touches it .
According to the standard model , when the big bang occurred equal amounts of matter and anti-matter should have been created .
This would lead to all the matter and anti-matter annihilating and no matter existing in the universe at all .
Obviously this did n't happen , so the model is incomplete .
To explain the dominance of matter requires symmetry breaking , either in the creation or annihilation of matter/anti-matter .
But there are lots of possibilities , it could be a major break in symmetry that has n't been discovered but can be found out using CERN or this acceleator , or something very much harder to discover - perhaps the symmetry only breaks in a single possibility of certain particle interactions at extremely high energies , so high you need the energy of an entire galaxy to power your particle accelerator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's irrelevant if you call us matter or anti-matter.
We have defined matter as the stuff we are made out of, and anti-matter, it's opposite that we don't find any of.We look all around the universe and only see matter, i.e.
all the stars, planets, gas, and blackholes that we see are made out of matter.
If there was even a little bit of anti-matter it would annihilate with interstellar or intergalactic gas immediately.
It's incredibly hard to create lasting quantities of anti-matter, since you have to keep it suspended in a vacuum, making sure that no matter touches it.
According to the standard model, when the big bang occurred equal amounts of matter and anti-matter should have been created.
This would lead to all the matter and anti-matter annihilating and no matter existing in the universe at all.
Obviously this didn't happen, so the model is incomplete.
To explain the dominance of matter requires symmetry breaking, either in the creation or annihilation of matter/anti-matter.
But there are lots of possibilities, it could be a major break in symmetry that hasn't been discovered but can be found out using CERN or this acceleator, or something very much harder to discover - perhaps the symmetry only breaks in a single possibility of certain particle interactions at extremely high energies, so high you need the energy of an entire galaxy to power your particle accelerator.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31151322</id>
	<title>Re:Well, duh (For sure No Anti-matter)</title>
	<author>Pictish Prince</author>
	<datestamp>1266246060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How do we know other galaxies and stars are not anti-matter. It's not like we can touch them and find out.

Would it not be likely that thermal explosions could have sorted the two into far flung clumps in the early days of the universe.

Interactions might not be observed if all of the clumps are already flying away from each other.</p></div><p>The only way to tell matter from anti-matter at a distance is to observe their neutrino emissions.  Anti-matter objects will preferentially emit neutrinos in the direction of spin of the baryons (the majority of which spin in the same direction as the containing object assuming a magnetic field.) while matter objects will emit them preferentially in the opposite direction.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do we know other galaxies and stars are not anti-matter .
It 's not like we can touch them and find out .
Would it not be likely that thermal explosions could have sorted the two into far flung clumps in the early days of the universe .
Interactions might not be observed if all of the clumps are already flying away from each other.The only way to tell matter from anti-matter at a distance is to observe their neutrino emissions .
Anti-matter objects will preferentially emit neutrinos in the direction of spin of the baryons ( the majority of which spin in the same direction as the containing object assuming a magnetic field .
) while matter objects will emit them preferentially in the opposite direction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do we know other galaxies and stars are not anti-matter.
It's not like we can touch them and find out.
Would it not be likely that thermal explosions could have sorted the two into far flung clumps in the early days of the universe.
Interactions might not be observed if all of the clumps are already flying away from each other.The only way to tell matter from anti-matter at a distance is to observe their neutrino emissions.
Anti-matter objects will preferentially emit neutrinos in the direction of spin of the baryons (the majority of which spin in the same direction as the containing object assuming a magnetic field.
) while matter objects will emit them preferentially in the opposite direction.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31150138</id>
	<title>Re:Well, duh</title>
	<author>damburger</author>
	<datestamp>1266236040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Common sense? You can't apply your meatbrain savanna instincts to cosmic scale problems such as the composition of the universe. To quote Terry Pratchett's grim reaper, "YOU ARE NOTHING MORE THAN A LUCKY SPECIES OF APE THAT IS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE COMPLEXITIES OF CREATION VIA A LANGUAGE THAT EVOLVED IN ORDER TO TELL ONE ANOTHER WHERE THE RIPE FRUIT WAS"</p><p>You've not strayed from current physics knowledge here, but your reason for supporting sounds kind of flimsy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Common sense ?
You ca n't apply your meatbrain savanna instincts to cosmic scale problems such as the composition of the universe .
To quote Terry Pratchett 's grim reaper , " YOU ARE NOTHING MORE THAN A LUCKY SPECIES OF APE THAT IS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE COMPLEXITIES OF CREATION VIA A LANGUAGE THAT EVOLVED IN ORDER TO TELL ONE ANOTHER WHERE THE RIPE FRUIT WAS " You 've not strayed from current physics knowledge here , but your reason for supporting sounds kind of flimsy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Common sense?
You can't apply your meatbrain savanna instincts to cosmic scale problems such as the composition of the universe.
To quote Terry Pratchett's grim reaper, "YOU ARE NOTHING MORE THAN A LUCKY SPECIES OF APE THAT IS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE COMPLEXITIES OF CREATION VIA A LANGUAGE THAT EVOLVED IN ORDER TO TELL ONE ANOTHER WHERE THE RIPE FRUIT WAS"You've not strayed from current physics knowledge here, but your reason for supporting sounds kind of flimsy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147562</id>
	<title>Re:Relativism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266266520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, so the guy above me here says that heat is motion.......ok, so the fastest that a particle can go is the speed of light and only photons go the speed of light....so whats the temperature of a photon?</p><p>I wonder how wrong I am.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , so the guy above me here says that heat is motion.......ok , so the fastest that a particle can go is the speed of light and only photons go the speed of light....so whats the temperature of a photon ? I wonder how wrong I am .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, so the guy above me here says that heat is motion.......ok, so the fastest that a particle can go is the speed of light and only photons go the speed of light....so whats the temperature of a photon?I wonder how wrong I am.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146608</id>
	<title>Re:On the other side of the Universe....</title>
	<author>EdZ</author>
	<datestamp>1266262020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I read that as 'Soup Quark'. Undiscovered partner to the Crouton Quark?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read that as 'Soup Quark' .
Undiscovered partner to the Crouton Quark ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read that as 'Soup Quark'.
Undiscovered partner to the Crouton Quark?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147508</id>
	<title>Re:Relativism</title>
	<author>mrsquid0</author>
	<datestamp>1266266220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Planck temperature is the highest temperature that our current physics can work at.  Temperatures higher than the Planck temperature require a theory of quantum gravity to understand.  The Planck temperature is about 1.4e+32 kelvin.  One day, when we have a working theory of quantum gravity, perhaps the maximum possible temperature will be higher, but until then this is the highest temperature that is possible assuming the laws of physics that we know about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Planck temperature is the highest temperature that our current physics can work at .
Temperatures higher than the Planck temperature require a theory of quantum gravity to understand .
The Planck temperature is about 1.4e + 32 kelvin .
One day , when we have a working theory of quantum gravity , perhaps the maximum possible temperature will be higher , but until then this is the highest temperature that is possible assuming the laws of physics that we know about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Planck temperature is the highest temperature that our current physics can work at.
Temperatures higher than the Planck temperature require a theory of quantum gravity to understand.
The Planck temperature is about 1.4e+32 kelvin.
One day, when we have a working theory of quantum gravity, perhaps the maximum possible temperature will be higher, but until then this is the highest temperature that is possible assuming the laws of physics that we know about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147278</id>
	<title>Waiter!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266265200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is or there isn't a hair in my quantum soup!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is or there is n't a hair in my quantum soup !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is or there isn't a hair in my quantum soup!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31150052</id>
	<title>Re:Delicious</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1266235500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Next thing you know, they'll be telling us it was made by the world's most powerful soup nazi.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Next thing you know , they 'll be telling us it was made by the world 's most powerful soup nazi .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Next thing you know, they'll be telling us it was made by the world's most powerful soup nazi.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31149236</id>
	<title>Re:Well, duh</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1266231720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So everyone speaks about LHC possibly creating earth-eating black holes, and then the people at RHIC break a fundamental symmetry, and nobody warned us. Surely they'll soon turn every matter in the surrounding into antimatter, ultimately annihilating the earth in a giant matter-antimatter explosion! STOP THEM!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So everyone speaks about LHC possibly creating earth-eating black holes , and then the people at RHIC break a fundamental symmetry , and nobody warned us .
Surely they 'll soon turn every matter in the surrounding into antimatter , ultimately annihilating the earth in a giant matter-antimatter explosion !
STOP THEM !
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So everyone speaks about LHC possibly creating earth-eating black holes, and then the people at RHIC break a fundamental symmetry, and nobody warned us.
Surely they'll soon turn every matter in the surrounding into antimatter, ultimately annihilating the earth in a giant matter-antimatter explosion!
STOP THEM!
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146696</id>
	<title>Obligatory...</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1266262500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And which one of you wanted the clean glass?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And which one of you wanted the clean glass ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And which one of you wanted the clean glass?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146318</id>
	<title>Well, duh</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1266260460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone knows that there is a slight asymmetry tending towards particles rather than anti-particles. It's common sense. It's the reason why the universe exists as matter rather thant antimatter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone knows that there is a slight asymmetry tending towards particles rather than anti-particles .
It 's common sense .
It 's the reason why the universe exists as matter rather thant antimatter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone knows that there is a slight asymmetry tending towards particles rather than anti-particles.
It's common sense.
It's the reason why the universe exists as matter rather thant antimatter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146784</id>
	<title>Re:Laymen terms?</title>
	<author>suomynonAyletamitlU</author>
	<datestamp>1266262980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You see, cars are actually made up of smaller pieces (I know, right?  Science has advanced so far).  But the funny thing is that you can take these "car parts" apart and get even more, smaller parts, especially when you use force.  But the smaller the pieces get, the more we begin to wonder how it all ended up making a car in the first place.</p><p>That's why they're throwing really tiny minced-up bits of car at each other at really high speeds to see what happens.</p><p>Yeah, no, that analogy breaks down pretty quickly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You see , cars are actually made up of smaller pieces ( I know , right ?
Science has advanced so far ) .
But the funny thing is that you can take these " car parts " apart and get even more , smaller parts , especially when you use force .
But the smaller the pieces get , the more we begin to wonder how it all ended up making a car in the first place.That 's why they 're throwing really tiny minced-up bits of car at each other at really high speeds to see what happens.Yeah , no , that analogy breaks down pretty quickly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You see, cars are actually made up of smaller pieces (I know, right?
Science has advanced so far).
But the funny thing is that you can take these "car parts" apart and get even more, smaller parts, especially when you use force.
But the smaller the pieces get, the more we begin to wonder how it all ended up making a car in the first place.That's why they're throwing really tiny minced-up bits of car at each other at really high speeds to see what happens.Yeah, no, that analogy breaks down pretty quickly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147328</id>
	<title>Re:Devil's advocate</title>
	<author>MightyMartian</author>
	<datestamp>1266265380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fear is the enemy of innovation and knowledge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fear is the enemy of innovation and knowledge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fear is the enemy of innovation and knowledge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146816</id>
	<title>Devil's advocate</title>
	<author>religious freak</author>
	<datestamp>1266263160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I really enjoy and believe in science.  However... we're really playing with shit that we don't understand here; yeah, that's the nature of science, but this is different.  Is "recreating conditions at the beginning of the universe" (yeah, I know it's somewhat of an analogy) on the only planet we have really the best idea?  <br> <br>
I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, but have rational scientists even asked the question?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really enjoy and believe in science .
However... we 're really playing with shit that we do n't understand here ; yeah , that 's the nature of science , but this is different .
Is " recreating conditions at the beginning of the universe " ( yeah , I know it 's somewhat of an analogy ) on the only planet we have really the best idea ?
I 'm not saying it should n't be done , but have rational scientists even asked the question ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really enjoy and believe in science.
However... we're really playing with shit that we don't understand here; yeah, that's the nature of science, but this is different.
Is "recreating conditions at the beginning of the universe" (yeah, I know it's somewhat of an analogy) on the only planet we have really the best idea?
I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, but have rational scientists even asked the question?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146448</id>
	<title>DS9</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266261120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The owner of the bar that was selling the soup denied there was anything wrong with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The owner of the bar that was selling the soup denied there was anything wrong with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The owner of the bar that was selling the soup denied there was anything wrong with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147678</id>
	<title>Re:Relativism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266267120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We can have absolute cold because that's when the particles are completely at rest i.e. they are not moving anymore. At this point it has no longer any kinetic energy. On the other hand there is no maximum to the kinetic energy a particle can have and thus no limit on the hotness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We can have absolute cold because that 's when the particles are completely at rest i.e .
they are not moving anymore .
At this point it has no longer any kinetic energy .
On the other hand there is no maximum to the kinetic energy a particle can have and thus no limit on the hotness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We can have absolute cold because that's when the particles are completely at rest i.e.
they are not moving anymore.
At this point it has no longer any kinetic energy.
On the other hand there is no maximum to the kinetic energy a particle can have and thus no limit on the hotness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146414</id>
	<title>On the other side of the Universe....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266260940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some left-handed scientist just discovered that when  puoS krauQ is cut through, it turns out symmetrical.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some left-handed scientist just discovered that when puoS krauQ is cut through , it turns out symmetrical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some left-handed scientist just discovered that when  puoS krauQ is cut through, it turns out symmetrical.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31149544</id>
	<title>Re:Well, duh</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1266233040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>How do we know that we aren't the anti-matter and that what we think is anti-matter is really matter?</p></div><p>We know because most of us are <i>not</i> wearing goatees.</p></div><p>Speak for yourself. *I* come from the planet which worked out how to kill millions of people in a neat airdroppable package.</p><p>Isn't that what the Apollo plaque says? "Here men from the planet Earth first set foot on the Moon... we came to bring terror to all the galaxy. Muhahahaha!"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do we know that we are n't the anti-matter and that what we think is anti-matter is really matter ? We know because most of us are not wearing goatees.Speak for yourself .
* I * come from the planet which worked out how to kill millions of people in a neat airdroppable package.Is n't that what the Apollo plaque says ?
" Here men from the planet Earth first set foot on the Moon... we came to bring terror to all the galaxy .
Muhahahaha ! "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do we know that we aren't the anti-matter and that what we think is anti-matter is really matter?We know because most of us are not wearing goatees.Speak for yourself.
*I* come from the planet which worked out how to kill millions of people in a neat airdroppable package.Isn't that what the Apollo plaque says?
"Here men from the planet Earth first set foot on the Moon... we came to bring terror to all the galaxy.
Muhahahaha!"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31150028</id>
	<title>Re:Can this thing make "strangelets"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266235380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Anyway, if this thing does make (one) and the planet gets converted into a glob of it, hopefully it'll happen at the speed of light so we won't feel anything.</p></div><p>There is another theory which states that this has already happened...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyway , if this thing does make ( one ) and the planet gets converted into a glob of it , hopefully it 'll happen at the speed of light so we wo n't feel anything.There is another theory which states that this has already happened.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyway, if this thing does make (one) and the planet gets converted into a glob of it, hopefully it'll happen at the speed of light so we won't feel anything.There is another theory which states that this has already happened...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31179478</id>
	<title>the paper</title>
	<author>bcrowell</author>
	<datestamp>1265037600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It took a lot of asking around, but someone finally pointed me the <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.1739" title="arxiv.org">paper</a> [arxiv.org], which actually dates back to September.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It took a lot of asking around , but someone finally pointed me the paper [ arxiv.org ] , which actually dates back to September .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It took a lot of asking around, but someone finally pointed me the paper [arxiv.org], which actually dates back to September.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146472</id>
	<title>Big Deal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266261240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I did that yesterday in my basement using a toaster, a bathtub, some aluminum foil, and a microwave.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did that yesterday in my basement using a toaster , a bathtub , some aluminum foil , and a microwave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did that yesterday in my basement using a toaster, a bathtub, some aluminum foil, and a microwave.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147424</id>
	<title>Re:Devil's advocate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266265920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>have rational scientists even asked the question?</p></div><p>Yes. And "rational scientists" should be considered a tautology. And there is no definitive answer to the question, because we have not done enough experiments to know.</p><p>But if this eases your mind: we're talking about colliding particles that are at most a femtometer in diameter (which is a millionth of a millionth of 1/25th inch). Even if there would be adverse effects from the collision, it is not very likely that the effects will be noticable at an arm's length distance.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>have rational scientists even asked the question ? Yes .
And " rational scientists " should be considered a tautology .
And there is no definitive answer to the question , because we have not done enough experiments to know.But if this eases your mind : we 're talking about colliding particles that are at most a femtometer in diameter ( which is a millionth of a millionth of 1/25th inch ) .
Even if there would be adverse effects from the collision , it is not very likely that the effects will be noticable at an arm 's length distance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>have rational scientists even asked the question?Yes.
And "rational scientists" should be considered a tautology.
And there is no definitive answer to the question, because we have not done enough experiments to know.But if this eases your mind: we're talking about colliding particles that are at most a femtometer in diameter (which is a millionth of a millionth of 1/25th inch).
Even if there would be adverse effects from the collision, it is not very likely that the effects will be noticable at an arm's length distance.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146600</id>
	<title>Relativism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266262020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How come we can have an absolute cold, but not hot? 250,000 times hotter than the center of the sun doesn't sound too impressive considering that the sun isn't particularly hot as far as suns go. So what's the hottest where absolutely nothing can exist?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How come we can have an absolute cold , but not hot ?
250,000 times hotter than the center of the sun does n't sound too impressive considering that the sun is n't particularly hot as far as suns go .
So what 's the hottest where absolutely nothing can exist ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How come we can have an absolute cold, but not hot?
250,000 times hotter than the center of the sun doesn't sound too impressive considering that the sun isn't particularly hot as far as suns go.
So what's the hottest where absolutely nothing can exist?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31149912</id>
	<title>Re:Relativism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266234660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you're saying that temperature is internally coded as a 32 (or 64) bits signed integer which can overflow at exactly half , and wraparound ?<br>I suppose it's not just a nerd joke but this is actually how this works, if energy state = 1 bit. Would there be more direct relation between physics system and information theory ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you 're saying that temperature is internally coded as a 32 ( or 64 ) bits signed integer which can overflow at exactly half , and wraparound ? I suppose it 's not just a nerd joke but this is actually how this works , if energy state = 1 bit .
Would there be more direct relation between physics system and information theory ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you're saying that temperature is internally coded as a 32 (or 64) bits signed integer which can overflow at exactly half , and wraparound ?I suppose it's not just a nerd joke but this is actually how this works, if energy state = 1 bit.
Would there be more direct relation between physics system and information theory ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146604</id>
	<title>Re:Well, duh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266262020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>How do we know that we aren't the anti-matter and that what we think is anti-matter is really matter?  Not so common sense, is it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do we know that we are n't the anti-matter and that what we think is anti-matter is really matter ?
Not so common sense , is it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do we know that we aren't the anti-matter and that what we think is anti-matter is really matter?
Not so common sense, is it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147054</id>
	<title>what a surprise, we need more money</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266264120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>fcall me cynical, but it looks like a thin excuse for continued emploment</p><p>rom the article<br>"The discoveries at RHIC have led to compelling new questions in the field of quantum chromodynamics (QCD), the theory that describes the interactions of the smallest known components of the atomic nucleus. To probe these and other questions and conduct detailed studies of the plasma, Brookhaven physicists are planning to upgrade RHIC over the next few years to increase its collision rate and detector capabilities."</p><p>in other words, based on these prelimminary, not exactly repeated byothers, to be published (but they didn't say if it passed peer review) results,<br>GIVE US MORE MONEY<br>after all, its really important to know what happens at 4 trillion degrees.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>fcall me cynical , but it looks like a thin excuse for continued emplomentrom the article " The discoveries at RHIC have led to compelling new questions in the field of quantum chromodynamics ( QCD ) , the theory that describes the interactions of the smallest known components of the atomic nucleus .
To probe these and other questions and conduct detailed studies of the plasma , Brookhaven physicists are planning to upgrade RHIC over the next few years to increase its collision rate and detector capabilities .
" in other words , based on these prelimminary , not exactly repeated byothers , to be published ( but they did n't say if it passed peer review ) results,GIVE US MORE MONEYafter all , its really important to know what happens at 4 trillion degrees.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fcall me cynical, but it looks like a thin excuse for continued emplomentrom the article"The discoveries at RHIC have led to compelling new questions in the field of quantum chromodynamics (QCD), the theory that describes the interactions of the smallest known components of the atomic nucleus.
To probe these and other questions and conduct detailed studies of the plasma, Brookhaven physicists are planning to upgrade RHIC over the next few years to increase its collision rate and detector capabilities.
"in other words, based on these prelimminary, not exactly repeated byothers, to be published (but they didn't say if it passed peer review) results,GIVE US MORE MONEYafter all, its really important to know what happens at 4 trillion degrees.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147068</id>
	<title>Re:Can this thing make "strangelets"?</title>
	<author>chrylis</author>
	<datestamp>1266264240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not currently a research physicist, but I'm a (prior) collaborator on the experiment in question.</p><p>No "strangelet" has ever been observed, and their behavior depends on certain parameters that are unknown... because they've never been observed.  It's reasonable to guess at this point that the strangelet-eats-the-world scenario is probably bogus just due to the anthropic principle.</p><p>The concern over the eating-the-world scenario was allayed to physicists' satisfaction based on calculations about cosmic rays.  The kinds of collisions that would produce strangelets happen constantly to the moon because of the lack of an atmosphere or magnetic field to shield it, and the moon's still there.  Statistics suggest, therefore, that these particular concerns are unlikely to be realized.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not currently a research physicist , but I 'm a ( prior ) collaborator on the experiment in question.No " strangelet " has ever been observed , and their behavior depends on certain parameters that are unknown... because they 've never been observed .
It 's reasonable to guess at this point that the strangelet-eats-the-world scenario is probably bogus just due to the anthropic principle.The concern over the eating-the-world scenario was allayed to physicists ' satisfaction based on calculations about cosmic rays .
The kinds of collisions that would produce strangelets happen constantly to the moon because of the lack of an atmosphere or magnetic field to shield it , and the moon 's still there .
Statistics suggest , therefore , that these particular concerns are unlikely to be realized .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not currently a research physicist, but I'm a (prior) collaborator on the experiment in question.No "strangelet" has ever been observed, and their behavior depends on certain parameters that are unknown... because they've never been observed.
It's reasonable to guess at this point that the strangelet-eats-the-world scenario is probably bogus just due to the anthropic principle.The concern over the eating-the-world scenario was allayed to physicists' satisfaction based on calculations about cosmic rays.
The kinds of collisions that would produce strangelets happen constantly to the moon because of the lack of an atmosphere or magnetic field to shield it, and the moon's still there.
Statistics suggest, therefore, that these particular concerns are unlikely to be realized.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147110</id>
	<title>Re:Well, duh</title>
	<author>Waffle Iron</author>
	<datestamp>1266264480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How do we know that we aren't the anti-matter and that what we think is anti-matter is really matter?</p></div><p>We know because most of us are <i>not</i> wearing goatees.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do we know that we are n't the anti-matter and that what we think is anti-matter is really matter ? We know because most of us are not wearing goatees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do we know that we aren't the anti-matter and that what we think is anti-matter is really matter?We know because most of us are not wearing goatees.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146990</id>
	<title>Re:Well, duh</title>
	<author>mhajicek</author>
	<datestamp>1266263880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unless they got it backwards and what we call matter is really antimatter... (sarcasm)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless they got it backwards and what we call matter is really antimatter... ( sarcasm )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless they got it backwards and what we call matter is really antimatter... (sarcasm)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147732</id>
	<title>Re:Relativism</title>
	<author>Khashishi</author>
	<datestamp>1266267420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That depends on which definition of temperature you use. In thermodynamics, absolute hot would be negative 0 Kelvin. Absolute hot only exists for systems with limited number of energy states. When you add more energy, eventually you start to fill up the energy states and you can't add more energy. In this case, the temperature scale is pretty weird. Negative values of temperature are hotter (contain higher energy) than positive temperatures. When the system is at minimum energy, you are near absolute 0, then as you add energy, the temperature increases. When you pass 1/2 energy capacity or so, the temperature reading shoots off to infinity, wraps around to negative infinity, and rises towards 0. When you reach full energy capacity, you return almost to 0.</p><p>This is only for the case of a system with finite energy states. As far as we know, the universe has infinite energy states, so there is no maximum energy capacity and there are no negative temperatures. It just goes up, up, up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That depends on which definition of temperature you use .
In thermodynamics , absolute hot would be negative 0 Kelvin .
Absolute hot only exists for systems with limited number of energy states .
When you add more energy , eventually you start to fill up the energy states and you ca n't add more energy .
In this case , the temperature scale is pretty weird .
Negative values of temperature are hotter ( contain higher energy ) than positive temperatures .
When the system is at minimum energy , you are near absolute 0 , then as you add energy , the temperature increases .
When you pass 1/2 energy capacity or so , the temperature reading shoots off to infinity , wraps around to negative infinity , and rises towards 0 .
When you reach full energy capacity , you return almost to 0.This is only for the case of a system with finite energy states .
As far as we know , the universe has infinite energy states , so there is no maximum energy capacity and there are no negative temperatures .
It just goes up , up , up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That depends on which definition of temperature you use.
In thermodynamics, absolute hot would be negative 0 Kelvin.
Absolute hot only exists for systems with limited number of energy states.
When you add more energy, eventually you start to fill up the energy states and you can't add more energy.
In this case, the temperature scale is pretty weird.
Negative values of temperature are hotter (contain higher energy) than positive temperatures.
When the system is at minimum energy, you are near absolute 0, then as you add energy, the temperature increases.
When you pass 1/2 energy capacity or so, the temperature reading shoots off to infinity, wraps around to negative infinity, and rises towards 0.
When you reach full energy capacity, you return almost to 0.This is only for the case of a system with finite energy states.
As far as we know, the universe has infinite energy states, so there is no maximum energy capacity and there are no negative temperatures.
It just goes up, up, up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31148712</id>
	<title>Re:Pedantic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266229080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it baffling that you'd pick up on the (microscopic) difference between Celsius and Kelvin - but ignore the utterly meaningless term "trillion". Nobody in the sciences uses that word since it may or may not imply 9 or 12 or 15 (or whatever) zeros, depending on which part of the globe you happen you stand on.</p><p>Oh, and 0.4GeV is nothing - the cosmic-ray spectrum peaks around 1GeV and cosmic-ray events have been observed another 11 orders of magnitude beyond that. Google term: "Fly's Eye".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it baffling that you 'd pick up on the ( microscopic ) difference between Celsius and Kelvin - but ignore the utterly meaningless term " trillion " .
Nobody in the sciences uses that word since it may or may not imply 9 or 12 or 15 ( or whatever ) zeros , depending on which part of the globe you happen you stand on.Oh , and 0.4GeV is nothing - the cosmic-ray spectrum peaks around 1GeV and cosmic-ray events have been observed another 11 orders of magnitude beyond that .
Google term : " Fly 's Eye " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it baffling that you'd pick up on the (microscopic) difference between Celsius and Kelvin - but ignore the utterly meaningless term "trillion".
Nobody in the sciences uses that word since it may or may not imply 9 or 12 or 15 (or whatever) zeros, depending on which part of the globe you happen you stand on.Oh, and 0.4GeV is nothing - the cosmic-ray spectrum peaks around 1GeV and cosmic-ray events have been observed another 11 orders of magnitude beyond that.
Google term: "Fly's Eye".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31148464</id>
	<title>Re:Well, duh</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1266227880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Everyone knows that there is a slight asymmetry tending towards particles rather than anti-particles. It's common sense. It's the reason why the universe exists as matter rather thant antimatter.</p></div><p>Do we? I thought maybe they were exactly equal, and there'd been a huge bang when matter and antimatter annihilated themselves and we were a tiny local cluster of matter bits which got missed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone knows that there is a slight asymmetry tending towards particles rather than anti-particles .
It 's common sense .
It 's the reason why the universe exists as matter rather thant antimatter.Do we ?
I thought maybe they were exactly equal , and there 'd been a huge bang when matter and antimatter annihilated themselves and we were a tiny local cluster of matter bits which got missed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone knows that there is a slight asymmetry tending towards particles rather than anti-particles.
It's common sense.
It's the reason why the universe exists as matter rather thant antimatter.Do we?
I thought maybe they were exactly equal, and there'd been a huge bang when matter and antimatter annihilated themselves and we were a tiny local cluster of matter bits which got missed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31148990</id>
	<title>Re:Can this thing make "strangelets"?</title>
	<author>Progman3K</author>
	<datestamp>1266230640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>if this thing does make (one) and the planet gets converted into a glob of it, hopefully it'll happen at the speed of light so we won't feel anything.</p></div></blockquote><p>There are those who believe that if these accelerators ever do create the exotic matter we are looking for the universe will instantly be replaced by something strange and inexplicable.</p><p>There are those who believe this has already happened.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if this thing does make ( one ) and the planet gets converted into a glob of it , hopefully it 'll happen at the speed of light so we wo n't feel anything.There are those who believe that if these accelerators ever do create the exotic matter we are looking for the universe will instantly be replaced by something strange and inexplicable.There are those who believe this has already happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if this thing does make (one) and the planet gets converted into a glob of it, hopefully it'll happen at the speed of light so we won't feel anything.There are those who believe that if these accelerators ever do create the exotic matter we are looking for the universe will instantly be replaced by something strange and inexplicable.There are those who believe this has already happened.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147086</id>
	<title>Symmetry violations?</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1266264360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No soup for you!</htmltext>
<tokenext>No soup for you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No soup for you!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147558</id>
	<title>Re:what a surprise, we need more money</title>
	<author>mrsquid0</author>
	<datestamp>1266266520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't it cute when idiots try to act all clever?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't it cute when idiots try to act all clever ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't it cute when idiots try to act all clever?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147352</id>
	<title>Re:Pedantic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266265560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because to the layman, the SI prefixes are probably more confusing, and in the end, it's not really that temperature anyway.  They're measuring energy, and expressing it as a temperature, because it's convenient for their use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because to the layman , the SI prefixes are probably more confusing , and in the end , it 's not really that temperature anyway .
They 're measuring energy , and expressing it as a temperature , because it 's convenient for their use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because to the layman, the SI prefixes are probably more confusing, and in the end, it's not really that temperature anyway.
They're measuring energy, and expressing it as a temperature, because it's convenient for their use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147202</id>
	<title>Too Many Kevins</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266264840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's way too many Kevins!<br>But I guess it's better than having none at all.</p><p>My home town nearly went to zero Kevins back in 1978.</p><p>It was a particularly cold winter, and we were already down to 3 Kevins (due to their low popularity at the time).</p><p>Kevin Thomas had flown out to be with his son's family for a wedding and got stuck in Boston for a whole week due to the weather. 2 Kevins left.</p><p>Kevin Lemmer was rushed to the hospital during my shift. I still remember the call from the EMTs as the ambulance was rushing toward us. "It's Lemmer. He's in bad shape. Drove right into the fucking ditch." We called the time of death at 6:15 PM.</p><p>At 6:16, all eyes turned to room 2217. Kevin Spencer was 82 and on his death bed with leukemia. His family being Catholic, he had already been given his last writes. If he couldn't hold out until Kevin Thomas returned, we would be at zero Kevins. Sure, we had 4 perfectly healthy Calvins, but they're just not the same.</p><p>It was 7:15 when Carla Brooks and her husband James burst through the main entrance. "She's not due for 2 weeks!", James exclaimed. As the staff bustled around getting the Brookses settled, they exchanged darting glances with each other. This was their first child, and they wanted to keep the baby's sex a secret. Of course, in a small town, secrets don't get kept. Nearly all of the hospital staff new that the child about to rip open Mrs. Brooks was indeed a boy.</p><p>The delivery was routine, and Kevin Brooks was born healthy, if a tad underweight, at 10:52 PM. Kevin Spencer was pronounced dead at 10:54.</p><p>It was, as they say, a close one. Kevin Thomas arrived two days later, the weather having finally cleared up. To this day, we still rib him about it.</p><p>Cedar Falls is currently at 5 Kevins.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's way too many Kevins ! But I guess it 's better than having none at all.My home town nearly went to zero Kevins back in 1978.It was a particularly cold winter , and we were already down to 3 Kevins ( due to their low popularity at the time ) .Kevin Thomas had flown out to be with his son 's family for a wedding and got stuck in Boston for a whole week due to the weather .
2 Kevins left.Kevin Lemmer was rushed to the hospital during my shift .
I still remember the call from the EMTs as the ambulance was rushing toward us .
" It 's Lemmer .
He 's in bad shape .
Drove right into the fucking ditch .
" We called the time of death at 6 : 15 PM.At 6 : 16 , all eyes turned to room 2217 .
Kevin Spencer was 82 and on his death bed with leukemia .
His family being Catholic , he had already been given his last writes .
If he could n't hold out until Kevin Thomas returned , we would be at zero Kevins .
Sure , we had 4 perfectly healthy Calvins , but they 're just not the same.It was 7 : 15 when Carla Brooks and her husband James burst through the main entrance .
" She 's not due for 2 weeks !
" , James exclaimed .
As the staff bustled around getting the Brookses settled , they exchanged darting glances with each other .
This was their first child , and they wanted to keep the baby 's sex a secret .
Of course , in a small town , secrets do n't get kept .
Nearly all of the hospital staff new that the child about to rip open Mrs. Brooks was indeed a boy.The delivery was routine , and Kevin Brooks was born healthy , if a tad underweight , at 10 : 52 PM .
Kevin Spencer was pronounced dead at 10 : 54.It was , as they say , a close one .
Kevin Thomas arrived two days later , the weather having finally cleared up .
To this day , we still rib him about it.Cedar Falls is currently at 5 Kevins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's way too many Kevins!But I guess it's better than having none at all.My home town nearly went to zero Kevins back in 1978.It was a particularly cold winter, and we were already down to 3 Kevins (due to their low popularity at the time).Kevin Thomas had flown out to be with his son's family for a wedding and got stuck in Boston for a whole week due to the weather.
2 Kevins left.Kevin Lemmer was rushed to the hospital during my shift.
I still remember the call from the EMTs as the ambulance was rushing toward us.
"It's Lemmer.
He's in bad shape.
Drove right into the fucking ditch.
" We called the time of death at 6:15 PM.At 6:16, all eyes turned to room 2217.
Kevin Spencer was 82 and on his death bed with leukemia.
His family being Catholic, he had already been given his last writes.
If he couldn't hold out until Kevin Thomas returned, we would be at zero Kevins.
Sure, we had 4 perfectly healthy Calvins, but they're just not the same.It was 7:15 when Carla Brooks and her husband James burst through the main entrance.
"She's not due for 2 weeks!
", James exclaimed.
As the staff bustled around getting the Brookses settled, they exchanged darting glances with each other.
This was their first child, and they wanted to keep the baby's sex a secret.
Of course, in a small town, secrets don't get kept.
Nearly all of the hospital staff new that the child about to rip open Mrs. Brooks was indeed a boy.The delivery was routine, and Kevin Brooks was born healthy, if a tad underweight, at 10:52 PM.
Kevin Spencer was pronounced dead at 10:54.It was, as they say, a close one.
Kevin Thomas arrived two days later, the weather having finally cleared up.
To this day, we still rib him about it.Cedar Falls is currently at 5 Kevins.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146546</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1729253_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31151322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1729253_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1729253_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1729253_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31149544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1729253_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1729253_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31150984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1729253_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1729253_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1729253_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31148156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1729253_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31151536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1729253_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1729253_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31148990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1729253_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1729253_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1729253_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1729253_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31149912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1729253_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31149058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1729253_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1729253_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1729253_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1729253_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1729253_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1729253_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31153364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31148656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1729253_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1729253_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31155094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1729253_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31148464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1729253_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31149236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1729253_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1729253_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31150052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1729253_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1729253_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31150028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1729253_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1729253_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1729253_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31148712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1729253_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31149096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1729253_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31150138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_15_1729253_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_1729253.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31149096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31150984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147328
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_1729253.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146608
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_1729253.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147558
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_1729253.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146784
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_1729253.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146448
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_1729253.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31148656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31153364
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_1729253.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31150052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147278
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_1729253.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31148464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146604
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147718
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146890
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147110
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31149544
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31148156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31149236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147982
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31151322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31150138
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_1729253.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147732
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31149912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147678
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_1729253.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147586
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31149058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147202
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31151536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31148712
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_15_1729253.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31146456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31150028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31147160
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31155094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_15_1729253.31148990
</commentlist>
</conversation>
