<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_03_1544220</id>
	<title>Gamma Ray Mystery Reestablished By Fermi Telescope</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1267633380000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>eldavojohn writes <i>"New observations from NASA's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope reveal that our assumptions about the 'fog' of gamma rays in our universe are <a href="http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/fermi-gamma-rays-100302.html">not entirely explained by black hole-powered jets</a> emanating from active galaxies &mdash; as we <a href="https://science.slashdot.org/story/07/03/06/1711239/Milky-Ways-Black-Hole-a-Gamma-Source">previously hypothesized</a>.  For now, the researchers are representing the source of unaccounted gamma rays with a dragon (as in 'here be') symbol.  A researcher explained that they are certain about this, given Fermi's observations: 'Active galaxies can explain less than 30 percent of the extragalactic gamma-ray background Fermi sees.  That leaves a lot of room for scientific discovery as we puzzle out what else may be responsible.'  And so we reopen the chapter on background gamma-rays in the science textbooks and hope this eventually sheds even more light on other mysteries of space &mdash; like star formation and dark matter."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>eldavojohn writes " New observations from NASA 's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope reveal that our assumptions about the 'fog ' of gamma rays in our universe are not entirely explained by black hole-powered jets emanating from active galaxies    as we previously hypothesized .
For now , the researchers are representing the source of unaccounted gamma rays with a dragon ( as in 'here be ' ) symbol .
A researcher explained that they are certain about this , given Fermi 's observations : 'Active galaxies can explain less than 30 percent of the extragalactic gamma-ray background Fermi sees .
That leaves a lot of room for scientific discovery as we puzzle out what else may be responsible .
' And so we reopen the chapter on background gamma-rays in the science textbooks and hope this eventually sheds even more light on other mysteries of space    like star formation and dark matter .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eldavojohn writes "New observations from NASA's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope reveal that our assumptions about the 'fog' of gamma rays in our universe are not entirely explained by black hole-powered jets emanating from active galaxies — as we previously hypothesized.
For now, the researchers are representing the source of unaccounted gamma rays with a dragon (as in 'here be') symbol.
A researcher explained that they are certain about this, given Fermi's observations: 'Active galaxies can explain less than 30 percent of the extragalactic gamma-ray background Fermi sees.
That leaves a lot of room for scientific discovery as we puzzle out what else may be responsible.
'  And so we reopen the chapter on background gamma-rays in the science textbooks and hope this eventually sheds even more light on other mysteries of space — like star formation and dark matter.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31353562</id>
	<title>Re:"Bubble" Universes</title>
	<author>Vitriol+Angst</author>
	<datestamp>1267629180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I merely inspired someone to waste the time to pull out THINGS IN CAPITAL LETTERS.</p><p>Meh.</p><p>I could try explaining something I see visually better -- but would anyone bother holding out that long? So I keep it brief hoping that there is enough interest to see more.</p><p>I really am NOT trying to push an idea of an "Electric Universe." Einstein was elegant and didn't pull ideas out of rabbit-holes. Relativity is sublime but it also stops at explaining how objects aren't constantly gaining mass as they accelerate in one vector or another.</p><p>Again, this sounds like nonsense until you really stop and think; from the background radiation -- we ASSUME what is our general motion relative to the Universe -- because there are no fixed points. Acceleration, is the same thing to mass "relatively" as is a large gravity field. However -- is it the NET motion in the system -- or only acceleration RELATIVE to other objects?</p><p>Einstein crushed the concept of the "Aether" but then again -- by NOT having particles exchanging relative velocities or two particle moving apart having more acceleration that two objects moving in parallel -- it kind of begs for an "Aether" or a substrate to be RELATIVE to. What is moving, in a gravity field, to ACT like acceleration? And why is there still MASS increase, if you accelerate INTO a Gravity Field?</p><p>There seems to be a clue in "critical velocity." In Earth's gravity field, it;s something like 9.8 M/S/S (long time since College physics I'm afraid). Above that speed -- an object does NOT increase it's speed. If you added rocket power to that object, it would have acceleration and increase mass. When I imagine the distortion the gravity makes on space/time it is NOT just in that two-dimensional sheet, it's better to imagine it as "water pressure." The trap of our well-known physics models is that we keep treading over the same ground.</p><p>So, the THEORY I propose, is that Acceleration is irrespective of the system the object is moving in -- it is intrinsically, a force created by the object being accelerated with it's own internal sub-space. Mass, in a gravity field, is the SYSTEM surrounding an object, causing PRESSURE, on the forces of sub-space emanating from the object it is acting upon. You can compute each separately, and then the vectors.</p><p>For instance, our galaxy is moving at something like 640,000 Miles per second -- something astronomical - I forget the exact rate, against the Background standard. Under General Relativity, it SHOULD mean, that a rocket heading from dead space (without a close gravity field) is going to use more fuel going a the same distance in one direction (with the galactic vector) as going the opposite direction due to the effects of relativity (approaching the SPEED LIMIT of light). Even though that influence is going to be small -- as the object approaches the speed of light, the very small difference between<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.99999 the speed of light and 1.0 the speed of light becomes increasingly larger.</p><p>My theory, also would support, Mass-less acceleration, if you could redirect the sub-space pressure or stop it from interacting with other masses. Anyway, that's a longer conversation and I have to get going.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I merely inspired someone to waste the time to pull out THINGS IN CAPITAL LETTERS.Meh.I could try explaining something I see visually better -- but would anyone bother holding out that long ?
So I keep it brief hoping that there is enough interest to see more.I really am NOT trying to push an idea of an " Electric Universe .
" Einstein was elegant and did n't pull ideas out of rabbit-holes .
Relativity is sublime but it also stops at explaining how objects are n't constantly gaining mass as they accelerate in one vector or another.Again , this sounds like nonsense until you really stop and think ; from the background radiation -- we ASSUME what is our general motion relative to the Universe -- because there are no fixed points .
Acceleration , is the same thing to mass " relatively " as is a large gravity field .
However -- is it the NET motion in the system -- or only acceleration RELATIVE to other objects ? Einstein crushed the concept of the " Aether " but then again -- by NOT having particles exchanging relative velocities or two particle moving apart having more acceleration that two objects moving in parallel -- it kind of begs for an " Aether " or a substrate to be RELATIVE to .
What is moving , in a gravity field , to ACT like acceleration ?
And why is there still MASS increase , if you accelerate INTO a Gravity Field ? There seems to be a clue in " critical velocity .
" In Earth 's gravity field , it ; s something like 9.8 M/S/S ( long time since College physics I 'm afraid ) .
Above that speed -- an object does NOT increase it 's speed .
If you added rocket power to that object , it would have acceleration and increase mass .
When I imagine the distortion the gravity makes on space/time it is NOT just in that two-dimensional sheet , it 's better to imagine it as " water pressure .
" The trap of our well-known physics models is that we keep treading over the same ground.So , the THEORY I propose , is that Acceleration is irrespective of the system the object is moving in -- it is intrinsically , a force created by the object being accelerated with it 's own internal sub-space .
Mass , in a gravity field , is the SYSTEM surrounding an object , causing PRESSURE , on the forces of sub-space emanating from the object it is acting upon .
You can compute each separately , and then the vectors.For instance , our galaxy is moving at something like 640,000 Miles per second -- something astronomical - I forget the exact rate , against the Background standard .
Under General Relativity , it SHOULD mean , that a rocket heading from dead space ( without a close gravity field ) is going to use more fuel going a the same distance in one direction ( with the galactic vector ) as going the opposite direction due to the effects of relativity ( approaching the SPEED LIMIT of light ) .
Even though that influence is going to be small -- as the object approaches the speed of light , the very small difference between .99999 the speed of light and 1.0 the speed of light becomes increasingly larger.My theory , also would support , Mass-less acceleration , if you could redirect the sub-space pressure or stop it from interacting with other masses .
Anyway , that 's a longer conversation and I have to get going .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I merely inspired someone to waste the time to pull out THINGS IN CAPITAL LETTERS.Meh.I could try explaining something I see visually better -- but would anyone bother holding out that long?
So I keep it brief hoping that there is enough interest to see more.I really am NOT trying to push an idea of an "Electric Universe.
" Einstein was elegant and didn't pull ideas out of rabbit-holes.
Relativity is sublime but it also stops at explaining how objects aren't constantly gaining mass as they accelerate in one vector or another.Again, this sounds like nonsense until you really stop and think; from the background radiation -- we ASSUME what is our general motion relative to the Universe -- because there are no fixed points.
Acceleration, is the same thing to mass "relatively" as is a large gravity field.
However -- is it the NET motion in the system -- or only acceleration RELATIVE to other objects?Einstein crushed the concept of the "Aether" but then again -- by NOT having particles exchanging relative velocities or two particle moving apart having more acceleration that two objects moving in parallel -- it kind of begs for an "Aether" or a substrate to be RELATIVE to.
What is moving, in a gravity field, to ACT like acceleration?
And why is there still MASS increase, if you accelerate INTO a Gravity Field?There seems to be a clue in "critical velocity.
" In Earth's gravity field, it;s something like 9.8 M/S/S (long time since College physics I'm afraid).
Above that speed -- an object does NOT increase it's speed.
If you added rocket power to that object, it would have acceleration and increase mass.
When I imagine the distortion the gravity makes on space/time it is NOT just in that two-dimensional sheet, it's better to imagine it as "water pressure.
" The trap of our well-known physics models is that we keep treading over the same ground.So, the THEORY I propose, is that Acceleration is irrespective of the system the object is moving in -- it is intrinsically, a force created by the object being accelerated with it's own internal sub-space.
Mass, in a gravity field, is the SYSTEM surrounding an object, causing PRESSURE, on the forces of sub-space emanating from the object it is acting upon.
You can compute each separately, and then the vectors.For instance, our galaxy is moving at something like 640,000 Miles per second -- something astronomical - I forget the exact rate, against the Background standard.
Under General Relativity, it SHOULD mean, that a rocket heading from dead space (without a close gravity field) is going to use more fuel going a the same distance in one direction (with the galactic vector) as going the opposite direction due to the effects of relativity (approaching the SPEED LIMIT of light).
Even though that influence is going to be small -- as the object approaches the speed of light, the very small difference between .99999 the speed of light and 1.0 the speed of light becomes increasingly larger.My theory, also would support, Mass-less acceleration, if you could redirect the sub-space pressure or stop it from interacting with other masses.
Anyway, that's a longer conversation and I have to get going.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31349474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31348406</id>
	<title>Re:Black</title>
	<author>OldSoldier</author>
	<datestamp>1267644420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So I'll say this: what's with all the black in outer space anyway. Black holes, black energy, black matter, even the nothing part is black. Black black black. It's depressing.</p></div><p>I know you meant this in jest, but it's a surprising <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'\_paradox" title="wikipedia.org">legitimate question</a> [wikipedia.org]. (or at least it was.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I 'll say this : what 's with all the black in outer space anyway .
Black holes , black energy , black matter , even the nothing part is black .
Black black black .
It 's depressing.I know you meant this in jest , but it 's a surprising legitimate question [ wikipedia.org ] .
( or at least it was .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I'll say this: what's with all the black in outer space anyway.
Black holes, black energy, black matter, even the nothing part is black.
Black black black.
It's depressing.I know you meant this in jest, but it's a surprising legitimate question [wikipedia.org].
(or at least it was.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347222</id>
	<title>Black</title>
	<author>florescent\_beige</author>
	<datestamp>1267638900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Caveat: I am not a cosmetologist. Not <i>even</i> a cosmologist although I dated one once. Cosmetologist I mean. So I think that my insights into outer space and whatnot, well, have a great deal of validity.</p><p>To wit, wherein TFS claims "we previously hypothesized" etc etc actually no we didn't I went and read TF old article and I distinctly notice it talks about the galaxy and not the universe which to my understanding are different classifications of entities altogether.</p><p>Having typed all that I have to concede that I forgot what I was going to say. So I'll say this: what's with all the black in outer space anyway. Black holes, black energy, black matter, even the nothing part is black. Black black black. It's depressing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Caveat : I am not a cosmetologist .
Not even a cosmologist although I dated one once .
Cosmetologist I mean .
So I think that my insights into outer space and whatnot , well , have a great deal of validity.To wit , wherein TFS claims " we previously hypothesized " etc etc actually no we did n't I went and read TF old article and I distinctly notice it talks about the galaxy and not the universe which to my understanding are different classifications of entities altogether.Having typed all that I have to concede that I forgot what I was going to say .
So I 'll say this : what 's with all the black in outer space anyway .
Black holes , black energy , black matter , even the nothing part is black .
Black black black .
It 's depressing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Caveat: I am not a cosmetologist.
Not even a cosmologist although I dated one once.
Cosmetologist I mean.
So I think that my insights into outer space and whatnot, well, have a great deal of validity.To wit, wherein TFS claims "we previously hypothesized" etc etc actually no we didn't I went and read TF old article and I distinctly notice it talks about the galaxy and not the universe which to my understanding are different classifications of entities altogether.Having typed all that I have to concede that I forgot what I was going to say.
So I'll say this: what's with all the black in outer space anyway.
Black holes, black energy, black matter, even the nothing part is black.
Black black black.
It's depressing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31349016</id>
	<title>Re:"Bubble" Universes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267647420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whoa, that's deep dude. Pass the bong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoa , that 's deep dude .
Pass the bong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoa, that's deep dude.
Pass the bong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31348778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31353678</id>
	<title>Re:A WHAT symbol?!</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1267629960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; Okay, maybe this is where I inadvertently let on that I'm<br>&gt; not a physicist, but what is a "dragon here be" symbol?!<br><br>Actually, what you just let on is that you're not a computer geek.  (You can turn in your card and Slashdot ID later.)<br><br>"Here be dragons", from the symbols on ancient maps, is what computer geeks say when they don't understand why a given section of source code is doing what it's doing.  Just as ancient peoples found it dangerous to stray beyond the edge of their maps, any programmer worth his salt knows that it's dangerous to change code when you don't understand why it is the way it is, and for much the same reason:  you're going beyond the edges of your knowledge, and you don't know what you'll find.  Making changes to such code can end up breaking things you had no idea your change would impact at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Okay , maybe this is where I inadvertently let on that I 'm &gt; not a physicist , but what is a " dragon here be " symbol ?
! Actually , what you just let on is that you 're not a computer geek .
( You can turn in your card and Slashdot ID later .
) " Here be dragons " , from the symbols on ancient maps , is what computer geeks say when they do n't understand why a given section of source code is doing what it 's doing .
Just as ancient peoples found it dangerous to stray beyond the edge of their maps , any programmer worth his salt knows that it 's dangerous to change code when you do n't understand why it is the way it is , and for much the same reason : you 're going beyond the edges of your knowledge , and you do n't know what you 'll find .
Making changes to such code can end up breaking things you had no idea your change would impact at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Okay, maybe this is where I inadvertently let on that I'm&gt; not a physicist, but what is a "dragon here be" symbol?
!Actually, what you just let on is that you're not a computer geek.
(You can turn in your card and Slashdot ID later.
)"Here be dragons", from the symbols on ancient maps, is what computer geeks say when they don't understand why a given section of source code is doing what it's doing.
Just as ancient peoples found it dangerous to stray beyond the edge of their maps, any programmer worth his salt knows that it's dangerous to change code when you don't understand why it is the way it is, and for much the same reason:  you're going beyond the edges of your knowledge, and you don't know what you'll find.
Making changes to such code can end up breaking things you had no idea your change would impact at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31350474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31348794</id>
	<title>Annihalating Dark Matter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267646340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If not black hole jets then the astrophysicists next bet
will be annilihating Dark matter. The symmetric LSP
light symmetric particle has been a dark matter candiate
for some twenty year. This gamma ray job could be
LSP's annilhating but only if the have the gamma rays
match with the galactic halos.
<p>
---
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/blogs/Dark\%20Matter/feed.html" title="feeddistiller.com">Dark Matter</a> [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ <a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/" title="feeddistiller.com">Feed Distiller</a> [feeddistiller.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If not black hole jets then the astrophysicists next bet will be annilihating Dark matter .
The symmetric LSP light symmetric particle has been a dark matter candiate for some twenty year .
This gamma ray job could be LSP 's annilhating but only if the have the gamma rays match with the galactic halos .
--- Dark Matter [ feeddistiller.com ] Feed @ Feed Distiller [ feeddistiller.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If not black hole jets then the astrophysicists next bet
will be annilihating Dark matter.
The symmetric LSP
light symmetric particle has been a dark matter candiate
for some twenty year.
This gamma ray job could be
LSP's annilhating but only if the have the gamma rays
match with the galactic halos.
---

Dark Matter [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31353378</id>
	<title>I have a *hic* theory</title>
	<author>Nazlfrag</author>
	<datestamp>1267627920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My theory is that the matter:antimatter ratio in the universe is only violated on small solar-system sized scales and the interstellar medium is in a 1:1 ratio. The CMB and excess gamma rays are just remenants of matter:antimatter collisions at the bow shock of our solar system. We gain matter as fast as antimatter so there is no net loss, and we continue in our bubble of matter unmolested save for cosmic rays.</p><p>What kicked this off for me is a few things. Seeing that photons are their own antiparticle and all of our observations about the universe outside our system are photon based, how could we know if we are looking at matter or antimatter? Wouldn't an antimatter system isolated by the interstellar medium behave identically to a matter one? Why is the CMB so uneven? Do we really need symmetry violation at the big bang to explain the universe?</p><p>So guys, seeing as I came up with all this last night when I was rather drunk and am too hungover to work through it, how can I falsify this and sleep well again at night?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My theory is that the matter : antimatter ratio in the universe is only violated on small solar-system sized scales and the interstellar medium is in a 1 : 1 ratio .
The CMB and excess gamma rays are just remenants of matter : antimatter collisions at the bow shock of our solar system .
We gain matter as fast as antimatter so there is no net loss , and we continue in our bubble of matter unmolested save for cosmic rays.What kicked this off for me is a few things .
Seeing that photons are their own antiparticle and all of our observations about the universe outside our system are photon based , how could we know if we are looking at matter or antimatter ?
Would n't an antimatter system isolated by the interstellar medium behave identically to a matter one ?
Why is the CMB so uneven ?
Do we really need symmetry violation at the big bang to explain the universe ? So guys , seeing as I came up with all this last night when I was rather drunk and am too hungover to work through it , how can I falsify this and sleep well again at night ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My theory is that the matter:antimatter ratio in the universe is only violated on small solar-system sized scales and the interstellar medium is in a 1:1 ratio.
The CMB and excess gamma rays are just remenants of matter:antimatter collisions at the bow shock of our solar system.
We gain matter as fast as antimatter so there is no net loss, and we continue in our bubble of matter unmolested save for cosmic rays.What kicked this off for me is a few things.
Seeing that photons are their own antiparticle and all of our observations about the universe outside our system are photon based, how could we know if we are looking at matter or antimatter?
Wouldn't an antimatter system isolated by the interstellar medium behave identically to a matter one?
Why is the CMB so uneven?
Do we really need symmetry violation at the big bang to explain the universe?So guys, seeing as I came up with all this last night when I was rather drunk and am too hungover to work through it, how can I falsify this and sleep well again at night?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31350552</id>
	<title>It's the ether</title>
	<author>Tzinger</author>
	<datestamp>1267611540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>See, Maxwell was right. Space contains ether. We just never figured out how to measure it.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>See , Maxwell was right .
Space contains ether .
We just never figured out how to measure it .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See, Maxwell was right.
Space contains ether.
We just never figured out how to measure it.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31348370</id>
	<title>Re:Heliopause</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1267644180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe the universe is in menopause? No, that would only explain its heat and crabbiness. Maybe it's pregnant? That would explain its glow!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the universe is in menopause ?
No , that would only explain its heat and crabbiness .
Maybe it 's pregnant ?
That would explain its glow !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the universe is in menopause?
No, that would only explain its heat and crabbiness.
Maybe it's pregnant?
That would explain its glow!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31355158</id>
	<title>Re:The Cause of the Extra Gamma Radiation is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267645620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wat</p><p>That has absolutely nothing to do with my post. Cordwainer Smith's "dragons" are, as I said, vast telepathic cloud entities that exist in the black void between the stars, mindless yet malevolent.</p><p>I said nothing about froo-froo fantasy dragons, much less the dumbed-down world of MMORPGs.</p><p>Please to be gaining of reading comprehension for happy fun success in future of slashdot for the reading!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>watThat has absolutely nothing to do with my post .
Cordwainer Smith 's " dragons " are , as I said , vast telepathic cloud entities that exist in the black void between the stars , mindless yet malevolent.I said nothing about froo-froo fantasy dragons , much less the dumbed-down world of MMORPGs.Please to be gaining of reading comprehension for happy fun success in future of slashdot for the reading !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>watThat has absolutely nothing to do with my post.
Cordwainer Smith's "dragons" are, as I said, vast telepathic cloud entities that exist in the black void between the stars, mindless yet malevolent.I said nothing about froo-froo fantasy dragons, much less the dumbed-down world of MMORPGs.Please to be gaining of reading comprehension for happy fun success in future of slashdot for the reading!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31349218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31353714</id>
	<title>Re:"Bubble" Universes</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1267630260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; It's not testable, so it's not a theory. It's a hypothesis. &lt;/pedant&gt;<br><br>If you're going to be pedantic, at least get it right.<br><br>A theory is something that has already *been* tested, repeatedly.  A hypothesis still has to be testable.  An assertion that is neither is simply called "an idea".</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; It 's not testable , so it 's not a theory .
It 's a hypothesis .
If you 're going to be pedantic , at least get it right.A theory is something that has already * been * tested , repeatedly .
A hypothesis still has to be testable .
An assertion that is neither is simply called " an idea " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; It's not testable, so it's not a theory.
It's a hypothesis.
If you're going to be pedantic, at least get it right.A theory is something that has already *been* tested, repeatedly.
A hypothesis still has to be testable.
An assertion that is neither is simply called "an idea".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31349460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31346900</id>
	<title>first?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267637760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>first?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>first ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>first?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347478</id>
	<title>Re:Three words to explain it:</title>
	<author>ijakings</author>
	<datestamp>1267639860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think its clear that you win the internet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think its clear that you win the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think its clear that you win the internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31360738</id>
	<title>ITs SOOO simple I can NOT EXPLAIN it ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267731300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... pOOOOOf<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... so NASA observes UNEVEN expansion of the universe, AND its expanding MUCH faster than the speed of light, which is TOTALLY baffling !?!?!?!</p><p>Well, unless there is a shell of debris at the edge being pushed outwards which include many LARGE black holes as singularities, thus they actually feed on each other and accelerate the expansion, spew out massive amounts of Gama rays and generally carve up to dust any Starship Enterprises that try to enter that region of space !?!?!?!?!?<br>Time is the key once AGAIN </p><p>
&nbsp; TIME is NOT a constant, it runs FASTER at the center of the universe and slower at the edges thus our INSISTENCE that it is constant makes the expansion APPEAR to be accelerating, IT IS NOT !!!<br>It is the MEANING OF LIFE which confirms the GAME </p><p>
&nbsp; GOD is a cornucopia </p><p>
&nbsp; INTROSPECTION is the GAME, when the tail touches the brim ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE !!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... pOOOOOf ... ... so NASA observes UNEVEN expansion of the universe , AND its expanding MUCH faster than the speed of light , which is TOTALLY baffling ! ? ! ? ! ?
! Well , unless there is a shell of debris at the edge being pushed outwards which include many LARGE black holes as singularities , thus they actually feed on each other and accelerate the expansion , spew out massive amounts of Gama rays and generally carve up to dust any Starship Enterprises that try to enter that region of space ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? !
? Time is the key once AGAIN   TIME is NOT a constant , it runs FASTER at the center of the universe and slower at the edges thus our INSISTENCE that it is constant makes the expansion APPEAR to be accelerating , IT IS NOT ! !
! It is the MEANING OF LIFE which confirms the GAME   GOD is a cornucopia   INTROSPECTION is the GAME , when the tail touches the brim ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... pOOOOOf ... ... so NASA observes UNEVEN expansion of the universe, AND its expanding MUCH faster than the speed of light, which is TOTALLY baffling !?!?!?
!Well, unless there is a shell of debris at the edge being pushed outwards which include many LARGE black holes as singularities, thus they actually feed on each other and accelerate the expansion, spew out massive amounts of Gama rays and generally carve up to dust any Starship Enterprises that try to enter that region of space !?!?!?!?!
?Time is the key once AGAIN 
  TIME is NOT a constant, it runs FASTER at the center of the universe and slower at the edges thus our INSISTENCE that it is constant makes the expansion APPEAR to be accelerating, IT IS NOT !!
!It is the MEANING OF LIFE which confirms the GAME 
  GOD is a cornucopia 
  INTROSPECTION is the GAME, when the tail touches the brim ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE !!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31349244</id>
	<title>Re:The Cause of the Extra Gamma Radiation is...</title>
	<author>shadowbearer</author>
	<datestamp>1267648560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; The Heechee, of course. Duh<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>SB</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>  The Heechee , of course .
Duh : ) SB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
  The Heechee, of course.
Duh :)SB</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31346914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31346914</id>
	<title>The Cause of the Extra Gamma Radiation is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267637760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Cylons<br>2. The Death Star<br>3. Doomsday Machines<br>4. Xeelee<br>5. The Blight<br>6. Lensmen<br>7. Ancient slaver technology<br>8. Jarts<br>9. Something even worse</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Cylons2. The Death Star3 .
Doomsday Machines4 .
Xeelee5. The Blight6 .
Lensmen7. Ancient slaver technology8 .
Jarts9. Something even worse</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Cylons2. The Death Star3.
Doomsday Machines4.
Xeelee5. The Blight6.
Lensmen7. Ancient slaver technology8.
Jarts9. Something even worse</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347430</id>
	<title>Heading for tomorrow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267639620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The interesting thing about space telescopes is that they allow you to look into the past. For example, here's what <a href="http://freemindrecords.com.br/lojaonline/images/gammaray\_heading.jpg" title="freemindrecords.com.br">gamma rays looked like 20 years ago</a> [freemindrecords.com.br] - they're near the bluish spectrum, heading towards our time, and they're wearing cheesy 80s style shades.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The interesting thing about space telescopes is that they allow you to look into the past .
For example , here 's what gamma rays looked like 20 years ago [ freemindrecords.com.br ] - they 're near the bluish spectrum , heading towards our time , and they 're wearing cheesy 80s style shades .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The interesting thing about space telescopes is that they allow you to look into the past.
For example, here's what gamma rays looked like 20 years ago [freemindrecords.com.br] - they're near the bluish spectrum, heading towards our time, and they're wearing cheesy 80s style shades.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31348252</id>
	<title>Re:Black</title>
	<author>RealErmine</author>
	<datestamp>1267643640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's like, how much more black could it be? And the answer is none.  None more black.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's like , how much more black could it be ?
And the answer is none .
None more black .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's like, how much more black could it be?
And the answer is none.
None more black.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31348956</id>
	<title>Obviously...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267647180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... farts from the FSM!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... farts from the FSM !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... farts from the FSM!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31350420</id>
	<title>Re:Black</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1267610880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>what's with all the black in outer space anyway. Black holes, black energy, black matter, even the nothing part is black. Black black black. It's depressing.</p></div></blockquote><p>"Dark" means we have no idea WTF it is.</p><p>Dark matter means our equations don't work, and the movements we can observer show there's additional matter out there, but we can't see it.</p><p>Dark energy means, notwithstanding the previous "dark" entity, our equations STILL DON'T WORK, so besides that extra mass, there's extra energy out there, too, which we also can't see.</p><p>Black holes are the original "dark matter" but instead of being spread uniformly across the universe, they're impossible objects at specific points in space...</p><p>Yes, how much we don't know is certainly depressing.  Even more so when people go on and on about what we think we're sure of, and ignoring all of the above.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>what 's with all the black in outer space anyway .
Black holes , black energy , black matter , even the nothing part is black .
Black black black .
It 's depressing .
" Dark " means we have no idea WTF it is.Dark matter means our equations do n't work , and the movements we can observer show there 's additional matter out there , but we ca n't see it.Dark energy means , notwithstanding the previous " dark " entity , our equations STILL DO N'T WORK , so besides that extra mass , there 's extra energy out there , too , which we also ca n't see.Black holes are the original " dark matter " but instead of being spread uniformly across the universe , they 're impossible objects at specific points in space...Yes , how much we do n't know is certainly depressing .
Even more so when people go on and on about what we think we 're sure of , and ignoring all of the above .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what's with all the black in outer space anyway.
Black holes, black energy, black matter, even the nothing part is black.
Black black black.
It's depressing.
"Dark" means we have no idea WTF it is.Dark matter means our equations don't work, and the movements we can observer show there's additional matter out there, but we can't see it.Dark energy means, notwithstanding the previous "dark" entity, our equations STILL DON'T WORK, so besides that extra mass, there's extra energy out there, too, which we also can't see.Black holes are the original "dark matter" but instead of being spread uniformly across the universe, they're impossible objects at specific points in space...Yes, how much we don't know is certainly depressing.
Even more so when people go on and on about what we think we're sure of, and ignoring all of the above.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347384</id>
	<title>Galactic Brownien Motion</title>
	<author>CTalkobt</author>
	<datestamp>1267639500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's simple - it's brownian motion on a galactic scale...
<br>
Mmmm<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. Brownies... Me hungry.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's simple - it 's brownian motion on a galactic scale.. . Mmmm .. Brownies... Me hungry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's simple - it's brownian motion on a galactic scale...

Mmmm .. Brownies... Me hungry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347210</id>
	<title>Three words to explain it:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267638840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Alien exhaust fumes.

<br> <br>BAM! I just proved the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life. What do I win?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Alien exhaust fumes .
BAM ! I just proved the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life .
What do I win ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alien exhaust fumes.
BAM! I just proved the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life.
What do I win?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31349218</id>
	<title>Re:The Cause of the Extra Gamma Radiation is...</title>
	<author>Impy the Impiuos Imp</author>
	<datestamp>1267648440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do realize dragons, in reality, are far more formidable than the lame, stupid bags of hitpoints in various online games, don't you?  A godlike genius combined with millenia to hone magical skills nobody this side of 22,000 year old Gandalf can dream of on top of a body that can rip a true ogre in half?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize dragons , in reality , are far more formidable than the lame , stupid bags of hitpoints in various online games , do n't you ?
A godlike genius combined with millenia to hone magical skills nobody this side of 22,000 year old Gandalf can dream of on top of a body that can rip a true ogre in half ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize dragons, in reality, are far more formidable than the lame, stupid bags of hitpoints in various online games, don't you?
A godlike genius combined with millenia to hone magical skills nobody this side of 22,000 year old Gandalf can dream of on top of a body that can rip a true ogre in half?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31348160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31353262</id>
	<title>Re:"Bubble" Universes</title>
	<author>Vitriol+Angst</author>
	<datestamp>1267626900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm only looking for ONE person to get what I'm saying -- because I realize that I'm out there on the edge, and people well versed in science are also afraid of looking like an idiot -- I am not however, because I've been right about more ideas than I care to count. Later, when I explain that I was in 6th grade trying to get someone to understand my idea of using fiber optics to do surgery in the body, or how right-angled inverse sound waves could muffle sound -- well, I was ignored then, and mentioning it now sounds like a person talking out of their ass. Laugh at the fool if you must - only, try to entertain another point of view you might not have come across.</p><p>"Universe creation resulting in Gamma Ray bursts is not testable." Sure it is -- you don't know how, nor the concepts, so you assume that it isn't. A UNIVERSE, is only a dimensional system where forces balance to create something that exists. There a Universes inside of ours -- but they don't interact directly. But we can manipulate forces that manipulate other forces -- and that's a long conversation.</p><p>"All particles in the Universe are shrinking and this will change physics." Well, that's what's going on with the Hubble Constant. There were very discrete changes in physics if you look at "A Timeline of the Big Bang." When the Universe was too hot to have light or electrons -- it also had different rules for physics. You can explain it by saying "it was too hot for atoms" or you an say the Universe did not yet support a state of matter. But you had periods of stability, where all this "stuff" that filled every point in this Universe, behaved one way, and then in an instant, everything behaves differently.</p><p>I have made a lot of predictions on why this is important, and what will happen as the Universe Ages. I'm sorry if my "vocabulary" seems to be stealing from String Theory. I've read a bit of that, but decided to stay away, because it was too dependent on gobbledy-gook words, and complicated math, that distracted me from JUST THINKING how things work. The problem is; if anyone spends 12 years breaking their brains on someone else's theories -- they might become pretty ossified as to what is and isn't possible.</p><p>I'd say for example, in my experience; Most Doctors, don't want to listen to their "stupid" patients -- but the GOOD ONES, know that everything they know could be wrong, and stick to the best way while searching for a better one.</p><p>&gt;&gt; My capitalizations, are to indicate "BOLD LETTERS" because I've gotten too used to blogs without any <b>HTML formatting.</b> </p><p>&gt;&gt; As String theory talks about "Branes" -- I just talk about a Top and Bottom group of 4 dimensions. The Universe is kind of binary -- like an Hourglass, and space/time is what powers it -- so as the sand flows DOWN in the hourglass, MORE SAND (space) fills up the lower chamber. Eventually, the sand is all used up, and its time to flip the hourglass -- it INVERTS, and all particles become "coherent" or at the same sub-space frequency.</p><p>I wrote a heck of a lot more than this, and paired it down -- a LOT. But, for most theories I'm proposing, I can construct simple pass-fail tests of them. I think I could BLOCK gravity, with the right setup with coherent light interfering with itself. And yeah, I think I've got a few tricks for getting to those sub-planck-length distances. The "final coherent state" of the Universe, has a lot to do with what I call "Coherent Matter" -- much as a laser is at the same frequency, you can create COLDER matter, not by removing all vibration (heat), but by "tuning" the matter to a coherent "dimensional frequency." Though, admittedly, current scientists ARE making things colder by damping them with Lasers -- however, I figured that out years before they did (probably they did as well -- it's TOUGH to make things actually work in the real world), but I know that there is another phase of matter, that has new properties. When I say "AFFINITY" I'm talking about matter that has the same sub-space frequency. You can teleport obje</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm only looking for ONE person to get what I 'm saying -- because I realize that I 'm out there on the edge , and people well versed in science are also afraid of looking like an idiot -- I am not however , because I 've been right about more ideas than I care to count .
Later , when I explain that I was in 6th grade trying to get someone to understand my idea of using fiber optics to do surgery in the body , or how right-angled inverse sound waves could muffle sound -- well , I was ignored then , and mentioning it now sounds like a person talking out of their ass .
Laugh at the fool if you must - only , try to entertain another point of view you might not have come across .
" Universe creation resulting in Gamma Ray bursts is not testable .
" Sure it is -- you do n't know how , nor the concepts , so you assume that it is n't .
A UNIVERSE , is only a dimensional system where forces balance to create something that exists .
There a Universes inside of ours -- but they do n't interact directly .
But we can manipulate forces that manipulate other forces -- and that 's a long conversation .
" All particles in the Universe are shrinking and this will change physics .
" Well , that 's what 's going on with the Hubble Constant .
There were very discrete changes in physics if you look at " A Timeline of the Big Bang .
" When the Universe was too hot to have light or electrons -- it also had different rules for physics .
You can explain it by saying " it was too hot for atoms " or you an say the Universe did not yet support a state of matter .
But you had periods of stability , where all this " stuff " that filled every point in this Universe , behaved one way , and then in an instant , everything behaves differently.I have made a lot of predictions on why this is important , and what will happen as the Universe Ages .
I 'm sorry if my " vocabulary " seems to be stealing from String Theory .
I 've read a bit of that , but decided to stay away , because it was too dependent on gobbledy-gook words , and complicated math , that distracted me from JUST THINKING how things work .
The problem is ; if anyone spends 12 years breaking their brains on someone else 's theories -- they might become pretty ossified as to what is and is n't possible.I 'd say for example , in my experience ; Most Doctors , do n't want to listen to their " stupid " patients -- but the GOOD ONES , know that everything they know could be wrong , and stick to the best way while searching for a better one. &gt; &gt; My capitalizations , are to indicate " BOLD LETTERS " because I 've gotten too used to blogs without any HTML formatting .
&gt; &gt; As String theory talks about " Branes " -- I just talk about a Top and Bottom group of 4 dimensions .
The Universe is kind of binary -- like an Hourglass , and space/time is what powers it -- so as the sand flows DOWN in the hourglass , MORE SAND ( space ) fills up the lower chamber .
Eventually , the sand is all used up , and its time to flip the hourglass -- it INVERTS , and all particles become " coherent " or at the same sub-space frequency.I wrote a heck of a lot more than this , and paired it down -- a LOT .
But , for most theories I 'm proposing , I can construct simple pass-fail tests of them .
I think I could BLOCK gravity , with the right setup with coherent light interfering with itself .
And yeah , I think I 've got a few tricks for getting to those sub-planck-length distances .
The " final coherent state " of the Universe , has a lot to do with what I call " Coherent Matter " -- much as a laser is at the same frequency , you can create COLDER matter , not by removing all vibration ( heat ) , but by " tuning " the matter to a coherent " dimensional frequency .
" Though , admittedly , current scientists ARE making things colder by damping them with Lasers -- however , I figured that out years before they did ( probably they did as well -- it 's TOUGH to make things actually work in the real world ) , but I know that there is another phase of matter , that has new properties .
When I say " AFFINITY " I 'm talking about matter that has the same sub-space frequency .
You can teleport obje</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm only looking for ONE person to get what I'm saying -- because I realize that I'm out there on the edge, and people well versed in science are also afraid of looking like an idiot -- I am not however, because I've been right about more ideas than I care to count.
Later, when I explain that I was in 6th grade trying to get someone to understand my idea of using fiber optics to do surgery in the body, or how right-angled inverse sound waves could muffle sound -- well, I was ignored then, and mentioning it now sounds like a person talking out of their ass.
Laugh at the fool if you must - only, try to entertain another point of view you might not have come across.
"Universe creation resulting in Gamma Ray bursts is not testable.
" Sure it is -- you don't know how, nor the concepts, so you assume that it isn't.
A UNIVERSE, is only a dimensional system where forces balance to create something that exists.
There a Universes inside of ours -- but they don't interact directly.
But we can manipulate forces that manipulate other forces -- and that's a long conversation.
"All particles in the Universe are shrinking and this will change physics.
" Well, that's what's going on with the Hubble Constant.
There were very discrete changes in physics if you look at "A Timeline of the Big Bang.
" When the Universe was too hot to have light or electrons -- it also had different rules for physics.
You can explain it by saying "it was too hot for atoms" or you an say the Universe did not yet support a state of matter.
But you had periods of stability, where all this "stuff" that filled every point in this Universe, behaved one way, and then in an instant, everything behaves differently.I have made a lot of predictions on why this is important, and what will happen as the Universe Ages.
I'm sorry if my "vocabulary" seems to be stealing from String Theory.
I've read a bit of that, but decided to stay away, because it was too dependent on gobbledy-gook words, and complicated math, that distracted me from JUST THINKING how things work.
The problem is; if anyone spends 12 years breaking their brains on someone else's theories -- they might become pretty ossified as to what is and isn't possible.I'd say for example, in my experience; Most Doctors, don't want to listen to their "stupid" patients -- but the GOOD ONES, know that everything they know could be wrong, and stick to the best way while searching for a better one.&gt;&gt; My capitalizations, are to indicate "BOLD LETTERS" because I've gotten too used to blogs without any HTML formatting.
&gt;&gt; As String theory talks about "Branes" -- I just talk about a Top and Bottom group of 4 dimensions.
The Universe is kind of binary -- like an Hourglass, and space/time is what powers it -- so as the sand flows DOWN in the hourglass, MORE SAND (space) fills up the lower chamber.
Eventually, the sand is all used up, and its time to flip the hourglass -- it INVERTS, and all particles become "coherent" or at the same sub-space frequency.I wrote a heck of a lot more than this, and paired it down -- a LOT.
But, for most theories I'm proposing, I can construct simple pass-fail tests of them.
I think I could BLOCK gravity, with the right setup with coherent light interfering with itself.
And yeah, I think I've got a few tricks for getting to those sub-planck-length distances.
The "final coherent state" of the Universe, has a lot to do with what I call "Coherent Matter" -- much as a laser is at the same frequency, you can create COLDER matter, not by removing all vibration (heat), but by "tuning" the matter to a coherent "dimensional frequency.
" Though, admittedly, current scientists ARE making things colder by damping them with Lasers -- however, I figured that out years before they did (probably they did as well -- it's TOUGH to make things actually work in the real world), but I know that there is another phase of matter, that has new properties.
When I say "AFFINITY" I'm talking about matter that has the same sub-space frequency.
You can teleport obje</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31348778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31349460</id>
	<title>Re:"Bubble" Universes</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1267649640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I've always had a theory that the Extra Gamma ray bursts are the creation of Universes.</i></p><p>It's not testable, so it's not a theory. It's a hypothesis. &lt;/pedant&gt;</p><p><i>but ALSO, that Space/Time was growing itself, and this would change the laws of Physics over time.</i></p><p>If they are growing at the same rate, how aould that change the laws of physics?</p><p>At any rate, it was an interesting comment and should have been modded as such.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always had a theory that the Extra Gamma ray bursts are the creation of Universes.It 's not testable , so it 's not a theory .
It 's a hypothesis .
but ALSO , that Space/Time was growing itself , and this would change the laws of Physics over time.If they are growing at the same rate , how aould that change the laws of physics ? At any rate , it was an interesting comment and should have been modded as such .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always had a theory that the Extra Gamma ray bursts are the creation of Universes.It's not testable, so it's not a theory.
It's a hypothesis.
but ALSO, that Space/Time was growing itself, and this would change the laws of Physics over time.If they are growing at the same rate, how aould that change the laws of physics?At any rate, it was an interesting comment and should have been modded as such.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31348778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31349058</id>
	<title>Re:Black</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1267647660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Black black black. It's depressing.<br></i><br>Black* is beautiful, baby! Maybe that's whay all the white kids annoying attempt to emulate black people. Black is the absense of light, without light you can't see the ugliness.</p><p>Interestingly, in China white is the color of mourning.</p><p>*Disclaimer -- I'm white</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Black black black .
It 's depressing.Black * is beautiful , baby !
Maybe that 's whay all the white kids annoying attempt to emulate black people .
Black is the absense of light , without light you ca n't see the ugliness.Interestingly , in China white is the color of mourning .
* Disclaimer -- I 'm white</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Black black black.
It's depressing.Black* is beautiful, baby!
Maybe that's whay all the white kids annoying attempt to emulate black people.
Black is the absense of light, without light you can't see the ugliness.Interestingly, in China white is the color of mourning.
*Disclaimer -- I'm white</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31348118</id>
	<title>You PFail It..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267642980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you 5GAY</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you 5GAY</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you 5GAY</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347526</id>
	<title>Re:Black</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1267640100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So I'll say this: what's with all the black in outer space anyway. Black holes, black energy, black matter, even the nothing part is black. Black black black. It's depressing.</i></p><p>Thus the old astrophysicist saying: "Always bet on black".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So I 'll say this : what 's with all the black in outer space anyway .
Black holes , black energy , black matter , even the nothing part is black .
Black black black .
It 's depressing.Thus the old astrophysicist saying : " Always bet on black " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I'll say this: what's with all the black in outer space anyway.
Black holes, black energy, black matter, even the nothing part is black.
Black black black.
It's depressing.Thus the old astrophysicist saying: "Always bet on black".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347498</id>
	<title>Ferengi Telescope?</title>
	<author>nacturation</author>
	<datestamp>1267639920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought the title said "... By Ferengi Telescope", so I'll go with your alien story!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought the title said " ... By Ferengi Telescope " , so I 'll go with your alien story !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought the title said "... By Ferengi Telescope", so I'll go with your alien story!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31356326</id>
	<title>Dark Matter Annihilation</title>
	<author>MightyDrunken</author>
	<datestamp>1267703700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The favoured particle for dark matter is currently the neutralino as it is likely to be the lightest supersymetric particle. It is believed that interactions with other neutralinos would cause annihilation of itself and create gamma rays. Of course you would expect the gamma rays to originate where the dark matter is concentrated which is currently thought to be the Galatic halo around a galaxy.</p><p>

Hopefully the LHC will uncover evidence for/against supersymmetry and answer many outstanding questions in physics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The favoured particle for dark matter is currently the neutralino as it is likely to be the lightest supersymetric particle .
It is believed that interactions with other neutralinos would cause annihilation of itself and create gamma rays .
Of course you would expect the gamma rays to originate where the dark matter is concentrated which is currently thought to be the Galatic halo around a galaxy .
Hopefully the LHC will uncover evidence for/against supersymmetry and answer many outstanding questions in physics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The favoured particle for dark matter is currently the neutralino as it is likely to be the lightest supersymetric particle.
It is believed that interactions with other neutralinos would cause annihilation of itself and create gamma rays.
Of course you would expect the gamma rays to originate where the dark matter is concentrated which is currently thought to be the Galatic halo around a galaxy.
Hopefully the LHC will uncover evidence for/against supersymmetry and answer many outstanding questions in physics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347960</id>
	<title>The Nothing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267642320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Nothing, whilst dominated by sand and possibly beetles, is of course anything but black...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Nothing , whilst dominated by sand and possibly beetles , is of course anything but black.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Nothing, whilst dominated by sand and possibly beetles, is of course anything but black...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347274</id>
	<title>Oh No!</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1267639140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This unexplained Gamma Ray Cloud is maki n\_g\_\_\_ M\_ e\_\_\_\_A\_n\_\_G\_\_R\_\_\_Y\_\_\_\_\_!</p><p>Rarr!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This unexplained Gamma Ray Cloud is maki n \ _g \ _ \ _ \ _ M \ _ e \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _A \ _n \ _ \ _G \ _ \ _R \ _ \ _ \ _Y \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ ! Rarr ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This unexplained Gamma Ray Cloud is maki n\_g\_\_\_ M\_ e\_\_\_\_A\_n\_\_G\_\_R\_\_\_Y\_\_\_\_\_!Rarr!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31356690</id>
	<title>let's sing along...</title>
	<author>mauhiz</author>
	<datestamp>1267708680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm trapped in a castle of illusions out in space
- No more illusions!
Out in a journey, on a mission for the human race...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm trapped in a castle of illusions out in space - No more illusions !
Out in a journey , on a mission for the human race.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm trapped in a castle of illusions out in space
- No more illusions!
Out in a journey, on a mission for the human race...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31349474</id>
	<title>Re:"Bubble" Universes</title>
	<author>CTalkobt</author>
	<datestamp>1267649700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dude - I still don't understand what you just said. <br>
Since this might be in code I took all the capitalized words to mean something and got : <p>
<tt>
ALSO APPEARS AFFINITY.</tt></p><p><tt>
MOVE! </tt></p><p><tt>
VERY REAL CLUE!</tt></p><p><tt>
DO NOT RESOLVE!</tt></p><p><tt>
ONLY ONE NOT ANYTHING.</tt></p><p><tt>
ONE LOCATE OUTSIDE AFFINITY.</tt></p><p>
I added punctuation for my clarity<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... so other than telling me to move, get a clue and that there's 1 affinity I'm still not sure what you're saying...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude - I still do n't understand what you just said .
Since this might be in code I took all the capitalized words to mean something and got : ALSO APPEARS AFFINITY .
MOVE ! VERY REAL CLUE !
DO NOT RESOLVE !
ONLY ONE NOT ANYTHING .
ONE LOCATE OUTSIDE AFFINITY .
I added punctuation for my clarity ... so other than telling me to move , get a clue and that there 's 1 affinity I 'm still not sure what you 're saying.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude - I still don't understand what you just said.
Since this might be in code I took all the capitalized words to mean something and got : 

ALSO APPEARS AFFINITY.
MOVE! 
VERY REAL CLUE!
DO NOT RESOLVE!
ONLY ONE NOT ANYTHING.
ONE LOCATE OUTSIDE AFFINITY.
I added punctuation for my clarity ... so other than telling me to move, get a clue and that there's 1 affinity I'm still not sure what you're saying...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31348778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31357634</id>
	<title>Re:Three words to explain it:</title>
	<author>BraksDad</author>
	<datestamp>1267716180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought it was ALF all along ALien Fumes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought it was ALF all along ALien Fumes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought it was ALF all along ALien Fumes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31351084</id>
	<title>Re:A WHAT symbol?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267613940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here\_be\_dragons</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here \ _be \ _dragons</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here\_be\_dragons</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31350474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347774</id>
	<title>Heliopause</title>
	<author>saider</author>
	<datestamp>1267641420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps it is a faint glow from the heliopause?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps it is a faint glow from the heliopause ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps it is a faint glow from the heliopause?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347334</id>
	<title>Re:Black</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267639320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Racist?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Racist ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Racist?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31349680</id>
	<title>The Magic Candle III</title>
	<author>n1ckml007</author>
	<datestamp>1267607460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.gamefaqs.com/computer/doswin/home/565117.html" title="gamefaqs.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.gamefaqs.com/computer/doswin/home/565117.html</a> [gamefaqs.com]

Blight?</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.gamefaqs.com/computer/doswin/home/565117.html [ gamefaqs.com ] Blight ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.gamefaqs.com/computer/doswin/home/565117.html [gamefaqs.com]

Blight?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31346914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31348356</id>
	<title>Re:Heliopause</title>
	<author>matang</author>
	<datestamp>1267644120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the universe is awful old to be going through heliopause. it would explain the hot flashes though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the universe is awful old to be going through heliopause .
it would explain the hot flashes though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the universe is awful old to be going through heliopause.
it would explain the hot flashes though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31348778</id>
	<title>"Bubble" Universes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267646220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've always had a theory that the Extra Gamma ray bursts are the creation of Universes. This is a continuous processes.</p><p>About 30 years ago, I figured the "Hubble Constant" would be found to be increasing, because the Universe, would be attracted to these "outer Universes" through Gravity (but it doesn't work at all how it is presented in Physics) -- but ALSO, that Space/Time was growing itself, and this would change the laws of Physics over time. The extra gravity of galaxies, that APPEARS to be explained by Dark Matter, is really a bleed-through of gravity from these other Universes. It is non-localized and cannot be explained by counting particles, but the existence of so many particles, creates a zone where the Gravity is more likely to bleed through. Thus, more cumulative mass than the actual mass in the system.</p><p>There are cases where you can get a "shadow" a blank area of space, that has gravity, but no particles. It has to do with a "superposition" of other Galaxies with ours. They don't exist in the same space, but they would have an AFFINITY, for a position in space. Such loosely bound but massive forces of gravity, might be used to MOVE massive objects like stars. I've got a lot of VERY simple theories that are only difficult to understand because they are completely alien to anything I've heard.  The Multiverse Theory of Quantum Mechanics where all states are possible -- is the REAL CLUE to how General Relativity is not a contradiction. We DO NOT have spontaneously spawned Multiverses, because they all RESOLVE to only one, that satisfies equal and opposite forces. Existence, is merely the convergence of all possible states with the ONLY ONE, that satisfies the conditions. Physics itself -- is NOT a law that controls ANYTHING, it's the byproduct. There is only ONE thing -- space/time, and it's interference with itself creates discrete and opposite 4 Dimensional ripples. This interference with each other and we see as the 4 dimensions we exist in -- but they are a "matrix of oscillations." The in-and out flow of Space/Time into this Universe is through discrete "holes" in the oscillating boundaries that we call particles and all the forces in physics can easily be explained by this one interaction.</p><p>So when there is a "big bang" for a created Universe or an "inverting one" -- we get a Gamma Ray burst. You can't LOCATE the new Universe, because distance and location OUTSIDE of a Universe is meaningless -- thus, they have no relative location with each other, but they do have AFFINITY, with influences on Light and Gravity, since Space/Time are a property "in-between" all Universes and what we call Particles the movement of this space/time is what creates the phenomena that we think of as light and gravity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always had a theory that the Extra Gamma ray bursts are the creation of Universes .
This is a continuous processes.About 30 years ago , I figured the " Hubble Constant " would be found to be increasing , because the Universe , would be attracted to these " outer Universes " through Gravity ( but it does n't work at all how it is presented in Physics ) -- but ALSO , that Space/Time was growing itself , and this would change the laws of Physics over time .
The extra gravity of galaxies , that APPEARS to be explained by Dark Matter , is really a bleed-through of gravity from these other Universes .
It is non-localized and can not be explained by counting particles , but the existence of so many particles , creates a zone where the Gravity is more likely to bleed through .
Thus , more cumulative mass than the actual mass in the system.There are cases where you can get a " shadow " a blank area of space , that has gravity , but no particles .
It has to do with a " superposition " of other Galaxies with ours .
They do n't exist in the same space , but they would have an AFFINITY , for a position in space .
Such loosely bound but massive forces of gravity , might be used to MOVE massive objects like stars .
I 've got a lot of VERY simple theories that are only difficult to understand because they are completely alien to anything I 've heard .
The Multiverse Theory of Quantum Mechanics where all states are possible -- is the REAL CLUE to how General Relativity is not a contradiction .
We DO NOT have spontaneously spawned Multiverses , because they all RESOLVE to only one , that satisfies equal and opposite forces .
Existence , is merely the convergence of all possible states with the ONLY ONE , that satisfies the conditions .
Physics itself -- is NOT a law that controls ANYTHING , it 's the byproduct .
There is only ONE thing -- space/time , and it 's interference with itself creates discrete and opposite 4 Dimensional ripples .
This interference with each other and we see as the 4 dimensions we exist in -- but they are a " matrix of oscillations .
" The in-and out flow of Space/Time into this Universe is through discrete " holes " in the oscillating boundaries that we call particles and all the forces in physics can easily be explained by this one interaction.So when there is a " big bang " for a created Universe or an " inverting one " -- we get a Gamma Ray burst .
You ca n't LOCATE the new Universe , because distance and location OUTSIDE of a Universe is meaningless -- thus , they have no relative location with each other , but they do have AFFINITY , with influences on Light and Gravity , since Space/Time are a property " in-between " all Universes and what we call Particles the movement of this space/time is what creates the phenomena that we think of as light and gravity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always had a theory that the Extra Gamma ray bursts are the creation of Universes.
This is a continuous processes.About 30 years ago, I figured the "Hubble Constant" would be found to be increasing, because the Universe, would be attracted to these "outer Universes" through Gravity (but it doesn't work at all how it is presented in Physics) -- but ALSO, that Space/Time was growing itself, and this would change the laws of Physics over time.
The extra gravity of galaxies, that APPEARS to be explained by Dark Matter, is really a bleed-through of gravity from these other Universes.
It is non-localized and cannot be explained by counting particles, but the existence of so many particles, creates a zone where the Gravity is more likely to bleed through.
Thus, more cumulative mass than the actual mass in the system.There are cases where you can get a "shadow" a blank area of space, that has gravity, but no particles.
It has to do with a "superposition" of other Galaxies with ours.
They don't exist in the same space, but they would have an AFFINITY, for a position in space.
Such loosely bound but massive forces of gravity, might be used to MOVE massive objects like stars.
I've got a lot of VERY simple theories that are only difficult to understand because they are completely alien to anything I've heard.
The Multiverse Theory of Quantum Mechanics where all states are possible -- is the REAL CLUE to how General Relativity is not a contradiction.
We DO NOT have spontaneously spawned Multiverses, because they all RESOLVE to only one, that satisfies equal and opposite forces.
Existence, is merely the convergence of all possible states with the ONLY ONE, that satisfies the conditions.
Physics itself -- is NOT a law that controls ANYTHING, it's the byproduct.
There is only ONE thing -- space/time, and it's interference with itself creates discrete and opposite 4 Dimensional ripples.
This interference with each other and we see as the 4 dimensions we exist in -- but they are a "matrix of oscillations.
" The in-and out flow of Space/Time into this Universe is through discrete "holes" in the oscillating boundaries that we call particles and all the forces in physics can easily be explained by this one interaction.So when there is a "big bang" for a created Universe or an "inverting one" -- we get a Gamma Ray burst.
You can't LOCATE the new Universe, because distance and location OUTSIDE of a Universe is meaningless -- thus, they have no relative location with each other, but they do have AFFINITY, with influences on Light and Gravity, since Space/Time are a property "in-between" all Universes and what we call Particles the movement of this space/time is what creates the phenomena that we think of as light and gravity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31353984</id>
	<title>Re:"Bubble" Universes</title>
	<author>w0mprat</author>
	<datestamp>1267632240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's not testable, so it's not a theory. It's a hypothesis.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>A hypothesis is testable or it's not really a valid hypothesis.
<br> <br>
A theory is an explaination that best fits the observed facts.
<br> <br>
Conjecture is anything plausible given known facts, but not necessarily testable.
<br> <br>
Meh, definitions vary, but thats how I like it.</p></div></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not testable , so it 's not a theory .
It 's a hypothesis.A hypothesis is testable or it 's not really a valid hypothesis .
A theory is an explaination that best fits the observed facts .
Conjecture is anything plausible given known facts , but not necessarily testable .
Meh , definitions vary , but thats how I like it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not testable, so it's not a theory.
It's a hypothesis.A hypothesis is testable or it's not really a valid hypothesis.
A theory is an explaination that best fits the observed facts.
Conjecture is anything plausible given known facts, but not necessarily testable.
Meh, definitions vary, but thats how I like it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31349460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31348444</id>
	<title>Re:Why is it a mystery?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267644540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Dark Sky Mystery to which OP refers is the question that why, if the Universe is infinite, is the night sky dark, since everywhere that one looks one should eventually run into a star, given a random distribution.  It ignores the effect of dust absorbing light, that the Universe THAT WE CAN SEE is rather less than infinite (even if one assumes an infinite Universe), and that stars are not distributed randomly since most are in galaxies and galactic clusters (and thus end to clump together, instead of spread apart).</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Dark Sky Mystery to which OP refers is the question that why , if the Universe is infinite , is the night sky dark , since everywhere that one looks one should eventually run into a star , given a random distribution .
It ignores the effect of dust absorbing light , that the Universe THAT WE CAN SEE is rather less than infinite ( even if one assumes an infinite Universe ) , and that stars are not distributed randomly since most are in galaxies and galactic clusters ( and thus end to clump together , instead of spread apart ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Dark Sky Mystery to which OP refers is the question that why, if the Universe is infinite, is the night sky dark, since everywhere that one looks one should eventually run into a star, given a random distribution.
It ignores the effect of dust absorbing light, that the Universe THAT WE CAN SEE is rather less than infinite (even if one assumes an infinite Universe), and that stars are not distributed randomly since most are in galaxies and galactic clusters (and thus end to clump together, instead of spread apart).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31348120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347910</id>
	<title>Re:Black</title>
	<author>thomst</author>
	<datestamp>1267642080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The "new black" is gamma.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The " new black " is gamma .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "new black" is gamma.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347578</id>
	<title>Re:Three words to explain it:</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1267640400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Alien exhaust fumes. </i></p><p>You're blaming the <a href="http://slashdot.org/~mcgrew/journal/223965" title="slashdot.org">Peruvians?</a> [slashdot.org] I've heard that their environmental laws are a bit lax, but come on now!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Alien exhaust fumes .
You 're blaming the Peruvians ?
[ slashdot.org ] I 've heard that their environmental laws are a bit lax , but come on now !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alien exhaust fumes.
You're blaming the Peruvians?
[slashdot.org] I've heard that their environmental laws are a bit lax, but come on now!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31350474</id>
	<title>A WHAT symbol?!</title>
	<author>aussersterne</author>
	<datestamp>1267611240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, maybe this is where I inadvertently let on that I'm not a physicist, but what is a "dragon here be" symbol?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , maybe this is where I inadvertently let on that I 'm not a physicist , but what is a " dragon here be " symbol ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, maybe this is where I inadvertently let on that I'm not a physicist, but what is a "dragon here be" symbol?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31346996</id>
	<title>Why is it a mystery?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267638060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's the same explanation to the paradox why is the sky dark at night.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the same explanation to the paradox why is the sky dark at night .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the same explanation to the paradox why is the sky dark at night.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31350732</id>
	<title>Re:The Cause of the Extra Gamma Radiation is...</title>
	<author>AshtangiMan</author>
	<datestamp>1267612320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's Xenu's intergalactic war on volcanoes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's Xenu 's intergalactic war on volcanoes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's Xenu's intergalactic war on volcanoes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31346914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31348120</id>
	<title>Re:Why is it a mystery?</title>
	<author>meerling</author>
	<datestamp>1267642980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know you are just trying to make a joke, but please try to hit above 2nd grade science.<br><br>The sky is dark everywhere that doesn't have sufficient atmosphere and light to create the light scattering effect (don't remember proper name) that makes our daytime sky look blue. It's a similar effect to a prism splitting light into it's separate spectrum, but a little more complicate with nitrogen absorption and a few other things. You ever wonder why the daytime sky seems to change color when the sun gets to an extreme relative angle? (i.e. sunset)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know you are just trying to make a joke , but please try to hit above 2nd grade science.The sky is dark everywhere that does n't have sufficient atmosphere and light to create the light scattering effect ( do n't remember proper name ) that makes our daytime sky look blue .
It 's a similar effect to a prism splitting light into it 's separate spectrum , but a little more complicate with nitrogen absorption and a few other things .
You ever wonder why the daytime sky seems to change color when the sun gets to an extreme relative angle ?
( i.e. sunset )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know you are just trying to make a joke, but please try to hit above 2nd grade science.The sky is dark everywhere that doesn't have sufficient atmosphere and light to create the light scattering effect (don't remember proper name) that makes our daytime sky look blue.
It's a similar effect to a prism splitting light into it's separate spectrum, but a little more complicate with nitrogen absorption and a few other things.
You ever wonder why the daytime sky seems to change color when the sun gets to an extreme relative angle?
(i.e. sunset)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31346996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347542</id>
	<title>Re:Oh No!</title>
	<author>ozbird</author>
	<datestamp>1267640160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gamma Ray Fog of War?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gamma Ray Fog of War ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gamma Ray Fog of War?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347224</id>
	<title>Re:The Cause of the Extra Gamma Radiation is...</title>
	<author>damien\_kane</author>
	<datestamp>1267638900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>9. Something even worse</p></div><p>Daleks<br>
Nasty creatures, they are...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>9 .
Something even worseDaleks Nasty creatures , they are.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>9.
Something even worseDaleks
Nasty creatures, they are...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31346914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31346804</id>
	<title>It's Jesus!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267637340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My prayer cloth proves it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My prayer cloth proves it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My prayer cloth proves it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31348160</id>
	<title>Re:The Cause of the Extra Gamma Radiation is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267643280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those are all wrong. Judging by the fact that they named it "dragons", we can safely predict that the source really is from Dragons, as in the vast, malevolent, cosmic telepathic entities that exist in the dark gulf between the stars in Cordwainer Smith's Instrumentality of Mankind universe.</p><p>
&nbsp; In which case we need to start training teams of telepathic people and cats to send out in Pinlighter ships to blast those nasty things with bright lights, destroying them, and thus protecting our skip vessels' passengers from being psychically blasted to death by these vast, mindless evils.</p><p>
&nbsp; (As in Smith's classic short story, \_A Game of Rat and Dragon\_.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those are all wrong .
Judging by the fact that they named it " dragons " , we can safely predict that the source really is from Dragons , as in the vast , malevolent , cosmic telepathic entities that exist in the dark gulf between the stars in Cordwainer Smith 's Instrumentality of Mankind universe .
  In which case we need to start training teams of telepathic people and cats to send out in Pinlighter ships to blast those nasty things with bright lights , destroying them , and thus protecting our skip vessels ' passengers from being psychically blasted to death by these vast , mindless evils .
  ( As in Smith 's classic short story , \ _A Game of Rat and Dragon \ _ .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those are all wrong.
Judging by the fact that they named it "dragons", we can safely predict that the source really is from Dragons, as in the vast, malevolent, cosmic telepathic entities that exist in the dark gulf between the stars in Cordwainer Smith's Instrumentality of Mankind universe.
  In which case we need to start training teams of telepathic people and cats to send out in Pinlighter ships to blast those nasty things with bright lights, destroying them, and thus protecting our skip vessels' passengers from being psychically blasted to death by these vast, mindless evils.
  (As in Smith's classic short story, \_A Game of Rat and Dragon\_.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31346914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31348024</id>
	<title>Re:Heliopause</title>
	<author>Remus Shepherd</author>
	<datestamp>1267642680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would probably be non-isotropic then, with a seasonal variation as the Earth orbits.  I'm sure that would have been noticed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would probably be non-isotropic then , with a seasonal variation as the Earth orbits .
I 'm sure that would have been noticed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would probably be non-isotropic then, with a seasonal variation as the Earth orbits.
I'm sure that would have been noticed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347774</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1544220_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31349016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31348778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1544220_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1544220_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31348252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1544220_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31351084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31350474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1544220_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31353262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31348778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1544220_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31349244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31346914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1544220_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31355158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31349218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31348160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31346914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1544220_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31350420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1544220_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31348406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1544220_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1544220_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1544220_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1544220_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1544220_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1544220_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1544220_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31349680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31346914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1544220_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31348444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31348120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31346996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1544220_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31353984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31349460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31348778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1544220_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31353714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31349460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31348778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1544220_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1544220_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31346914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1544220_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31348024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1544220_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31348356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1544220_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31349058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1544220_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31353678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31350474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1544220_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31348370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1544220_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31357634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1544220_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31350732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31346914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1544220_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31353562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31349474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31348778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_1544220.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31357634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347498
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_1544220.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31348794
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_1544220.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31346996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31348120
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31348444
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_1544220.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347384
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_1544220.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347542
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_1544220.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31348778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31353262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31349016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31349460
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31353714
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31353984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31349474
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31353562
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_1544220.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31346914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31349244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31349680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31348160
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31349218
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31355158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31350732
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_1544220.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31348252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31348406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31350420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31349058
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_1544220.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31348024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31348356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31348370
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_1544220.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31347430
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_1544220.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31350474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31351084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1544220.31353678
</commentlist>
</conversation>
