<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_05_1343226</id>
	<title>String Theory Predicts Behavior of Superfluids</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1244209680000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:only.online.spam@gmail.com" rel="nofollow">schrodingers\_rabbit</a> writes <i>"Despite formidable odds, condensed matter physicists have made a breakthrough most thought impossible &mdash; finding a practical use for string theory. The initial breakthrough was made by physicist and cosmologist Juan Maldacena. His theory states that the known universe is only a 2D construct in anti-de-Sitter space, projected into 3 dimensions. This theory manages to model black holes and quantum theory congruently, a feat that has eluded scientists for decades; but it fails to correspond to the shape of space-time in the known universe. However, it does predict thermodynamic properties of black holes, including higher-dimensional viscosity &mdash; the equations for which elegantly and <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227101.300-what-string-theory-is-really-good-for.html?page=2">almost exactly calculate the behavior of quark-gluon plasma</a> and other superfluids. According to Jan Zaanen at the University of Leiden, 'The theory is calculating precisely what we are seeing in experiments.' Unfortunately, the correspondence cannot prove or disprove string theory, although it is a positive step."</i> Not an easy path to follow: one condensed matter theorist said, "It took two years and two 1000-page books of dense mathematics, but I learned string theory and got kind of enchanted by it. [When the string-theory related] thing began to... make predictions about high-temperature superconductors, my traditional mainstay, I was one of the few condensed matter physicists with the preparation to take it up."</htmltext>
<tokenext>schrodingers \ _rabbit writes " Despite formidable odds , condensed matter physicists have made a breakthrough most thought impossible    finding a practical use for string theory .
The initial breakthrough was made by physicist and cosmologist Juan Maldacena .
His theory states that the known universe is only a 2D construct in anti-de-Sitter space , projected into 3 dimensions .
This theory manages to model black holes and quantum theory congruently , a feat that has eluded scientists for decades ; but it fails to correspond to the shape of space-time in the known universe .
However , it does predict thermodynamic properties of black holes , including higher-dimensional viscosity    the equations for which elegantly and almost exactly calculate the behavior of quark-gluon plasma and other superfluids .
According to Jan Zaanen at the University of Leiden , 'The theory is calculating precisely what we are seeing in experiments .
' Unfortunately , the correspondence can not prove or disprove string theory , although it is a positive step .
" Not an easy path to follow : one condensed matter theorist said , " It took two years and two 1000-page books of dense mathematics , but I learned string theory and got kind of enchanted by it .
[ When the string-theory related ] thing began to... make predictions about high-temperature superconductors , my traditional mainstay , I was one of the few condensed matter physicists with the preparation to take it up .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>schrodingers\_rabbit writes "Despite formidable odds, condensed matter physicists have made a breakthrough most thought impossible — finding a practical use for string theory.
The initial breakthrough was made by physicist and cosmologist Juan Maldacena.
His theory states that the known universe is only a 2D construct in anti-de-Sitter space, projected into 3 dimensions.
This theory manages to model black holes and quantum theory congruently, a feat that has eluded scientists for decades; but it fails to correspond to the shape of space-time in the known universe.
However, it does predict thermodynamic properties of black holes, including higher-dimensional viscosity — the equations for which elegantly and almost exactly calculate the behavior of quark-gluon plasma and other superfluids.
According to Jan Zaanen at the University of Leiden, 'The theory is calculating precisely what we are seeing in experiments.
' Unfortunately, the correspondence cannot prove or disprove string theory, although it is a positive step.
" Not an easy path to follow: one condensed matter theorist said, "It took two years and two 1000-page books of dense mathematics, but I learned string theory and got kind of enchanted by it.
[When the string-theory related] thing began to... make predictions about high-temperature superconductors, my traditional mainstay, I was one of the few condensed matter physicists with the preparation to take it up.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28230735</id>
	<title>Re:O.o</title>
	<author>realnrh</author>
	<datestamp>1244318520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, it's all about tuning violins. Any other outcomes from it are just grav(it)y.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it 's all about tuning violins .
Any other outcomes from it are just grav ( it ) y .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it's all about tuning violins.
Any other outcomes from it are just grav(it)y.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221723</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223219</id>
	<title>Re:Only a 2D construct in anti-de-Sitter space!</title>
	<author>KraftDinner</author>
	<datestamp>1244219760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree, which is why I put authors that can do this into such a high regard.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , which is why I put authors that can do this into such a high regard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, which is why I put authors that can do this into such a high regard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224383</id>
	<title>String theory is *KNOT* hard</title>
	<author>CrankinOut</author>
	<datestamp>1244224140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>it's just an abstraction.<p>
Think about it in comparison to "counting" which everyone does every day, and the *THEORY* of mathematical systems (rings, fields, etc.) which are abstractions of counting.</p><p>
The value of an abstraction is that it can eliminate bias in thinking; we all try to map our perception of reality onto a model. When we create an abstraction, it enables us to think about the model in the absence of reality.  Then, when one gets interesting results, one can then attempt to map them back to reality, and examine what that means in the real world.</p><p>
It was the development of number theory and the abstraction of counting that led to the understanding of number systems, base 10 and base 2 arithmetic, and binary arithmetic, the basis of today's computing engines.</p><p>
But you all knew that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's just an abstraction .
Think about it in comparison to " counting " which everyone does every day , and the * THEORY * of mathematical systems ( rings , fields , etc .
) which are abstractions of counting .
The value of an abstraction is that it can eliminate bias in thinking ; we all try to map our perception of reality onto a model .
When we create an abstraction , it enables us to think about the model in the absence of reality .
Then , when one gets interesting results , one can then attempt to map them back to reality , and examine what that means in the real world .
It was the development of number theory and the abstraction of counting that led to the understanding of number systems , base 10 and base 2 arithmetic , and binary arithmetic , the basis of today 's computing engines .
But you all knew that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's just an abstraction.
Think about it in comparison to "counting" which everyone does every day, and the *THEORY* of mathematical systems (rings, fields, etc.
) which are abstractions of counting.
The value of an abstraction is that it can eliminate bias in thinking; we all try to map our perception of reality onto a model.
When we create an abstraction, it enables us to think about the model in the absence of reality.
Then, when one gets interesting results, one can then attempt to map them back to reality, and examine what that means in the real world.
It was the development of number theory and the abstraction of counting that led to the understanding of number systems, base 10 and base 2 arithmetic, and binary arithmetic, the basis of today's computing engines.
But you all knew that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221757</id>
	<title>Re:Science Fiction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244213820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not just you. It's almost a cult thing within the scientific community, and isn't particularly well-regarded even as a theory...it's borderline unfalsifiable pseudoscience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not just you .
It 's almost a cult thing within the scientific community , and is n't particularly well-regarded even as a theory...it 's borderline unfalsifiable pseudoscience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not just you.
It's almost a cult thing within the scientific community, and isn't particularly well-regarded even as a theory...it's borderline unfalsifiable pseudoscience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222563</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244217360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>Unfortunately, the correspondence cannot prove or disprove string theory, although it is a positive step.</p></div></blockquote><p>That is to say, if you view that the proving of string theory to be true a <em>positive</em> step.</p></div><p>Pardon me for the semantics, but no science/scientific theory can be "proven" - even the theory of gravity can't be proven. If I take a rock and drop it on my desk a million times, that doesn't prove that it'll fall there again on the 1e6+1th time. The same goes with the theory of evolution: nothing can prove evolution, but we just have a lot of evidence (fossils, experiments, etc.) that support it. A theory is supposed to make robust predictions, not sense. You can't understand science, you can only apply it. Classical mechanics can't make sense of blackbody radiation or the photoelectric effect, but that doesn't mean that it's wrong, just that it's not useful on a quantum scale. String theory itself probably only has some realm of physics/dynamics that only it can explain that just doesn't make sense/isn't useful in the realm that we try to understand it in now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , the correspondence can not prove or disprove string theory , although it is a positive step.That is to say , if you view that the proving of string theory to be true a positive step.Pardon me for the semantics , but no science/scientific theory can be " proven " - even the theory of gravity ca n't be proven .
If I take a rock and drop it on my desk a million times , that does n't prove that it 'll fall there again on the 1e6 + 1th time .
The same goes with the theory of evolution : nothing can prove evolution , but we just have a lot of evidence ( fossils , experiments , etc .
) that support it .
A theory is supposed to make robust predictions , not sense .
You ca n't understand science , you can only apply it .
Classical mechanics ca n't make sense of blackbody radiation or the photoelectric effect , but that does n't mean that it 's wrong , just that it 's not useful on a quantum scale .
String theory itself probably only has some realm of physics/dynamics that only it can explain that just does n't make sense/is n't useful in the realm that we try to understand it in now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, the correspondence cannot prove or disprove string theory, although it is a positive step.That is to say, if you view that the proving of string theory to be true a positive step.Pardon me for the semantics, but no science/scientific theory can be "proven" - even the theory of gravity can't be proven.
If I take a rock and drop it on my desk a million times, that doesn't prove that it'll fall there again on the 1e6+1th time.
The same goes with the theory of evolution: nothing can prove evolution, but we just have a lot of evidence (fossils, experiments, etc.
) that support it.
A theory is supposed to make robust predictions, not sense.
You can't understand science, you can only apply it.
Classical mechanics can't make sense of blackbody radiation or the photoelectric effect, but that doesn't mean that it's wrong, just that it's not useful on a quantum scale.
String theory itself probably only has some realm of physics/dynamics that only it can explain that just doesn't make sense/isn't useful in the realm that we try to understand it in now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221675</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221941</id>
	<title>Poster doesn't understand TFA</title>
	<author>disputationist</author>
	<datestamp>1244214660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Maldacena duality can't be used to 'make predictions' with a string theory, its just a correspondence between a string theory and a conformal field theory. It's useful because sometimes calculations which are hard in a CFT can be made in the corresponding string theory which is sometimes easier (or vice versa). It cannot be used to support the physical validity of some string theory.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Maldacena duality ca n't be used to 'make predictions ' with a string theory , its just a correspondence between a string theory and a conformal field theory .
It 's useful because sometimes calculations which are hard in a CFT can be made in the corresponding string theory which is sometimes easier ( or vice versa ) .
It can not be used to support the physical validity of some string theory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Maldacena duality can't be used to 'make predictions' with a string theory, its just a correspondence between a string theory and a conformal field theory.
It's useful because sometimes calculations which are hard in a CFT can be made in the corresponding string theory which is sometimes easier (or vice versa).
It cannot be used to support the physical validity of some string theory.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224221</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah...</title>
	<author>SleepingWaterBear</author>
	<datestamp>1244223480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is what makes evolution a bad theory and creationism a much worse one, neither makes concrete testable predictions.</p></div><p>Where do you get the idea that evolution doesn't make concrete testable predictions?  The theory of evolution is based on a few concrete premises each of which is very concrete and testable, and implies countless predictions.</p><p>Properly, the theory of evolution might be better called the theory of descent with modification, evolution was never Darwin's choice name, he used the word once in his book, and the newspapers ran with it.  The theory of descent with modification is very concrete.
Offspring tend to share properties of their parents, but also have random variations.  This is easily tested.  Breed a bunch of fruit flies, kill all the ones that don't have a desired trait each generation.  After a while you will find that the trait is much more strongly represented in the population.  You will also find that some of the offspring will have traits neither parent had, and some may even have traits none of their ancestors had.  This is just one test I came up with off the top of my head.  There are millions.  You can further more do tests to verify specific models of inheritance, but it's important to keep in mind that the general theory of evolution doesn't say anything about the specific mechanism for descent with modification.</p><p>The rest of what we think of as the theory of evolution follows pretty quickly.  If a selection pressure acts on a population over enough time, it becomes a statistical inevitability that the trait which leads to greater reproductive success will become more represented in the population.  As a condensed matter physicist, this sort of statistical argument should be very familiar to you, and while the numbers involved aren't at the 10^24 order of magnitude that physicists consider in statistical mechanics, over a long enough time frame, the error bars on our expected values for representation of a trait in a population ought to get quite small.  You ought to have the training to do some persuasive calculations on this front yourself if you make a couple simplifying assumptions.  (and don't try to tell me that physicists don't make simplifying assumptions; unless you're talking about simple harmonic oscillators, or particles in boxes, pretty much all the calculations at the core of your discipline depend on reasonable simplifications)</p><p>Now, I'm not claiming I have complete respect for what most academic biologists out there do with their time.  An awful lot of what they do barely qualifies as science, but the basic theory of evolution is a very concrete, testable, and well understood theory, and is a heck of a lot closer to real science than string theory or a lot of the other flavor of the month theories that physics has been producing of late.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is what makes evolution a bad theory and creationism a much worse one , neither makes concrete testable predictions.Where do you get the idea that evolution does n't make concrete testable predictions ?
The theory of evolution is based on a few concrete premises each of which is very concrete and testable , and implies countless predictions.Properly , the theory of evolution might be better called the theory of descent with modification , evolution was never Darwin 's choice name , he used the word once in his book , and the newspapers ran with it .
The theory of descent with modification is very concrete .
Offspring tend to share properties of their parents , but also have random variations .
This is easily tested .
Breed a bunch of fruit flies , kill all the ones that do n't have a desired trait each generation .
After a while you will find that the trait is much more strongly represented in the population .
You will also find that some of the offspring will have traits neither parent had , and some may even have traits none of their ancestors had .
This is just one test I came up with off the top of my head .
There are millions .
You can further more do tests to verify specific models of inheritance , but it 's important to keep in mind that the general theory of evolution does n't say anything about the specific mechanism for descent with modification.The rest of what we think of as the theory of evolution follows pretty quickly .
If a selection pressure acts on a population over enough time , it becomes a statistical inevitability that the trait which leads to greater reproductive success will become more represented in the population .
As a condensed matter physicist , this sort of statistical argument should be very familiar to you , and while the numbers involved are n't at the 10 ^ 24 order of magnitude that physicists consider in statistical mechanics , over a long enough time frame , the error bars on our expected values for representation of a trait in a population ought to get quite small .
You ought to have the training to do some persuasive calculations on this front yourself if you make a couple simplifying assumptions .
( and do n't try to tell me that physicists do n't make simplifying assumptions ; unless you 're talking about simple harmonic oscillators , or particles in boxes , pretty much all the calculations at the core of your discipline depend on reasonable simplifications ) Now , I 'm not claiming I have complete respect for what most academic biologists out there do with their time .
An awful lot of what they do barely qualifies as science , but the basic theory of evolution is a very concrete , testable , and well understood theory , and is a heck of a lot closer to real science than string theory or a lot of the other flavor of the month theories that physics has been producing of late .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is what makes evolution a bad theory and creationism a much worse one, neither makes concrete testable predictions.Where do you get the idea that evolution doesn't make concrete testable predictions?
The theory of evolution is based on a few concrete premises each of which is very concrete and testable, and implies countless predictions.Properly, the theory of evolution might be better called the theory of descent with modification, evolution was never Darwin's choice name, he used the word once in his book, and the newspapers ran with it.
The theory of descent with modification is very concrete.
Offspring tend to share properties of their parents, but also have random variations.
This is easily tested.
Breed a bunch of fruit flies, kill all the ones that don't have a desired trait each generation.
After a while you will find that the trait is much more strongly represented in the population.
You will also find that some of the offspring will have traits neither parent had, and some may even have traits none of their ancestors had.
This is just one test I came up with off the top of my head.
There are millions.
You can further more do tests to verify specific models of inheritance, but it's important to keep in mind that the general theory of evolution doesn't say anything about the specific mechanism for descent with modification.The rest of what we think of as the theory of evolution follows pretty quickly.
If a selection pressure acts on a population over enough time, it becomes a statistical inevitability that the trait which leads to greater reproductive success will become more represented in the population.
As a condensed matter physicist, this sort of statistical argument should be very familiar to you, and while the numbers involved aren't at the 10^24 order of magnitude that physicists consider in statistical mechanics, over a long enough time frame, the error bars on our expected values for representation of a trait in a population ought to get quite small.
You ought to have the training to do some persuasive calculations on this front yourself if you make a couple simplifying assumptions.
(and don't try to tell me that physicists don't make simplifying assumptions; unless you're talking about simple harmonic oscillators, or particles in boxes, pretty much all the calculations at the core of your discipline depend on reasonable simplifications)Now, I'm not claiming I have complete respect for what most academic biologists out there do with their time.
An awful lot of what they do barely qualifies as science, but the basic theory of evolution is a very concrete, testable, and well understood theory, and is a heck of a lot closer to real science than string theory or a lot of the other flavor of the month theories that physics has been producing of late.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221675</id>
	<title>Yeah...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244213460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Unfortunately, the correspondence cannot prove or disprove string theory, although it is a positive step.</p></div></blockquote><p>
That is to say, if you view that the proving of string theory to be true a <em>positive</em> step.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , the correspondence can not prove or disprove string theory , although it is a positive step .
That is to say , if you view that the proving of string theory to be true a positive step .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, the correspondence cannot prove or disprove string theory, although it is a positive step.
That is to say, if you view that the proving of string theory to be true a positive step.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222505</id>
	<title>Re:Science Fiction</title>
	<author>elashish14</author>
	<datestamp>1244217120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's all science ever is. Nobody knows what a wavefunction is supposed to be, but it's the core element of quantum mechanics and it's incredibly useful. Nobody really understand what entropy is either, or how you're supposed to understand things like enthalpy or Gibbs/Helmholtz free energy, but they're still essential for determining equilibrium systems/structures via thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. The value of a theory is based on how much it explains and whether it makes any useful, verifiable and applicable predictions. So yes, in essence, you're right but your misunderstanding is more of what science is as opposed to string theory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's all science ever is .
Nobody knows what a wavefunction is supposed to be , but it 's the core element of quantum mechanics and it 's incredibly useful .
Nobody really understand what entropy is either , or how you 're supposed to understand things like enthalpy or Gibbs/Helmholtz free energy , but they 're still essential for determining equilibrium systems/structures via thermodynamics and statistical mechanics .
The value of a theory is based on how much it explains and whether it makes any useful , verifiable and applicable predictions .
So yes , in essence , you 're right but your misunderstanding is more of what science is as opposed to string theory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's all science ever is.
Nobody knows what a wavefunction is supposed to be, but it's the core element of quantum mechanics and it's incredibly useful.
Nobody really understand what entropy is either, or how you're supposed to understand things like enthalpy or Gibbs/Helmholtz free energy, but they're still essential for determining equilibrium systems/structures via thermodynamics and statistical mechanics.
The value of a theory is based on how much it explains and whether it makes any useful, verifiable and applicable predictions.
So yes, in essence, you're right but your misunderstanding is more of what science is as opposed to string theory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28251133</id>
	<title>Re:Only a 2D construct in anti-de-Sitter space!</title>
	<author>ConceptJunkie</author>
	<datestamp>1244476620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what you're saying is, reading certain Wikipedia topics is like blowing too much air into a balloon.  Except the balloon is your head.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what you 're saying is , reading certain Wikipedia topics is like blowing too much air into a balloon .
Except the balloon is your head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what you're saying is, reading certain Wikipedia topics is like blowing too much air into a balloon.
Except the balloon is your head.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689</id>
	<title>Science Fiction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244213520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it just me or does String Theory really sound like someone is making it up as they go along. It's like: "we haven't a clue whats going on but reality's so wierd we've decided to pull a theory out of our ass!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it just me or does String Theory really sound like someone is making it up as they go along .
It 's like : " we have n't a clue whats going on but reality 's so wierd we 've decided to pull a theory out of our ass !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it just me or does String Theory really sound like someone is making it up as they go along.
It's like: "we haven't a clue whats going on but reality's so wierd we've decided to pull a theory out of our ass!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224557</id>
	<title>The Universe is 3D space + time</title>
	<author>sweetser</author>
	<datestamp>1244224800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
Hello:

<p>Sentences like this are silly: "His theory states that the known universe is only a 2D construct in anti-de-Sitter space, projected into 3 dimensions."

</p><p>No, the Universe has 3 spatial dimensions and one for time. If you take spacetime seriously, writing software to animate equations in 3D space + time, then you can get visual insights into physics that make sense.

</p><p>Take EM. It has a symmetry called U(1), but non-technical people can understand it as a circle (in the complex plane for the technical folks). If you have an electrical charge, then you have a circle in a complex plane so you have the symmetry U(1), <a href="http://bit.ly/6qpVm" title="bit.ly" rel="nofollow">visualphysics.org/forums</a> [bit.ly] Why is electric charge quantized? Because you can count circles.

</p><p>Doug
<br>http://VisualPhysics.org</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hello : Sentences like this are silly : " His theory states that the known universe is only a 2D construct in anti-de-Sitter space , projected into 3 dimensions .
" No , the Universe has 3 spatial dimensions and one for time .
If you take spacetime seriously , writing software to animate equations in 3D space + time , then you can get visual insights into physics that make sense .
Take EM .
It has a symmetry called U ( 1 ) , but non-technical people can understand it as a circle ( in the complex plane for the technical folks ) .
If you have an electrical charge , then you have a circle in a complex plane so you have the symmetry U ( 1 ) , visualphysics.org/forums [ bit.ly ] Why is electric charge quantized ?
Because you can count circles .
Doug http : //VisualPhysics.org</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Hello:

Sentences like this are silly: "His theory states that the known universe is only a 2D construct in anti-de-Sitter space, projected into 3 dimensions.
"

No, the Universe has 3 spatial dimensions and one for time.
If you take spacetime seriously, writing software to animate equations in 3D space + time, then you can get visual insights into physics that make sense.
Take EM.
It has a symmetry called U(1), but non-technical people can understand it as a circle (in the complex plane for the technical folks).
If you have an electrical charge, then you have a circle in a complex plane so you have the symmetry U(1), visualphysics.org/forums [bit.ly] Why is electric charge quantized?
Because you can count circles.
Doug
http://VisualPhysics.org</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222109</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244215560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Evolution certainly makes concrete, testable predictions: about what we expect to see in the fossil record, about what we expect to see in the genetic makeup of various species, about what we expect to see in the phenotypic features and behaviors of modern species, and about how we expect species to change over time.  As a simple example of the last, consider http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/paul\_ewald\_asks\_can\_we\_domesticate\_germs.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Evolution certainly makes concrete , testable predictions : about what we expect to see in the fossil record , about what we expect to see in the genetic makeup of various species , about what we expect to see in the phenotypic features and behaviors of modern species , and about how we expect species to change over time .
As a simple example of the last , consider http : //www.ted.com/index.php/talks/paul \ _ewald \ _asks \ _can \ _we \ _domesticate \ _germs.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Evolution certainly makes concrete, testable predictions: about what we expect to see in the fossil record, about what we expect to see in the genetic makeup of various species, about what we expect to see in the phenotypic features and behaviors of modern species, and about how we expect species to change over time.
As a simple example of the last, consider http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/paul\_ewald\_asks\_can\_we\_domesticate\_germs.html</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28225827</id>
	<title>Who's the lucky guy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244230140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... that get's to peer review the 1000 pages of math?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... that get 's to peer review the 1000 pages of math ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... that get's to peer review the 1000 pages of math?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28226205</id>
	<title>Re:Science Fiction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244232180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>String theory is a belief that there are little strings of something vibrating back and forth each complementing each other.</p><p>Now the Japanese guy that came up with this, is close. I'll give him that. But he actually hasn't thought it all the way through. Einstein was actually correct when he said that there is a theory of everything.</p><p>Now I know that this well be modded into -10 something. That is fine. I know that there is 300 years of physics that I am going against and working against the people that will mod this way down. But I wanted to go on record somewhere that the Large Hadron Collider will not find anything unless there is two.</p><p>Galileo was imprisoned for going against 1000 years of history by saying that the earth rotated round the sun. I know that it isn't as harsh now as it was back then. If someone studying physics could just stop and ponder about what is the most abundant in outer space and how particles could happen, our energy problems would be solved.</p><p>I came to the keep it simple solution after watching a program on discovery channel. I know I am going to get laughed at but one day, I'll have the last laugh.</p><p>Going further to make any element all you need is a bunch of heat and a bunch of absence of heat. When an atomic bomb splits an atom, that atom gives off the exact amount of heat that it took to produce that element.</p><p>Fusing Hydrogen to produce Helium is different because, it is taking two elements and making one form, not two forms banging into each other.</p><p>Now laugh at this. Alchemist spent a life time trying to make gold. If I had the proper lab equipment, not only could I prove my theory, I could easily make a bunch of the stuff given only two elements.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>String theory is a belief that there are little strings of something vibrating back and forth each complementing each other.Now the Japanese guy that came up with this , is close .
I 'll give him that .
But he actually has n't thought it all the way through .
Einstein was actually correct when he said that there is a theory of everything.Now I know that this well be modded into -10 something .
That is fine .
I know that there is 300 years of physics that I am going against and working against the people that will mod this way down .
But I wanted to go on record somewhere that the Large Hadron Collider will not find anything unless there is two.Galileo was imprisoned for going against 1000 years of history by saying that the earth rotated round the sun .
I know that it is n't as harsh now as it was back then .
If someone studying physics could just stop and ponder about what is the most abundant in outer space and how particles could happen , our energy problems would be solved.I came to the keep it simple solution after watching a program on discovery channel .
I know I am going to get laughed at but one day , I 'll have the last laugh.Going further to make any element all you need is a bunch of heat and a bunch of absence of heat .
When an atomic bomb splits an atom , that atom gives off the exact amount of heat that it took to produce that element.Fusing Hydrogen to produce Helium is different because , it is taking two elements and making one form , not two forms banging into each other.Now laugh at this .
Alchemist spent a life time trying to make gold .
If I had the proper lab equipment , not only could I prove my theory , I could easily make a bunch of the stuff given only two elements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>String theory is a belief that there are little strings of something vibrating back and forth each complementing each other.Now the Japanese guy that came up with this, is close.
I'll give him that.
But he actually hasn't thought it all the way through.
Einstein was actually correct when he said that there is a theory of everything.Now I know that this well be modded into -10 something.
That is fine.
I know that there is 300 years of physics that I am going against and working against the people that will mod this way down.
But I wanted to go on record somewhere that the Large Hadron Collider will not find anything unless there is two.Galileo was imprisoned for going against 1000 years of history by saying that the earth rotated round the sun.
I know that it isn't as harsh now as it was back then.
If someone studying physics could just stop and ponder about what is the most abundant in outer space and how particles could happen, our energy problems would be solved.I came to the keep it simple solution after watching a program on discovery channel.
I know I am going to get laughed at but one day, I'll have the last laugh.Going further to make any element all you need is a bunch of heat and a bunch of absence of heat.
When an atomic bomb splits an atom, that atom gives off the exact amount of heat that it took to produce that element.Fusing Hydrogen to produce Helium is different because, it is taking two elements and making one form, not two forms banging into each other.Now laugh at this.
Alchemist spent a life time trying to make gold.
If I had the proper lab equipment, not only could I prove my theory, I could easily make a bunch of the stuff given only two elements.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28231151</id>
	<title>Re:Flying Spaghetti Theory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244281860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From enough distance, he appears three-dimensional, but when you approach His Presence, It becomes a One Dimensional Creature.</p><p>Fractal dimension could be in the vicinity of 1.3</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From enough distance , he appears three-dimensional , but when you approach His Presence , It becomes a One Dimensional Creature.Fractal dimension could be in the vicinity of 1.3</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From enough distance, he appears three-dimensional, but when you approach His Presence, It becomes a One Dimensional Creature.Fractal dimension could be in the vicinity of 1.3</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28229535</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>johanatan</author>
	<datestamp>1244214540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... but rather that our current theories may very well be incomplete.</p></div><p>As per Kurt Godel-- our current theories are definitely incomplete and if they weren't, then they'd be inconsistent.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... but rather that our current theories may very well be incomplete.As per Kurt Godel-- our current theories are definitely incomplete and if they were n't , then they 'd be inconsistent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... but rather that our current theories may very well be incomplete.As per Kurt Godel-- our current theories are definitely incomplete and if they weren't, then they'd be inconsistent.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224913</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28225357</id>
	<title>Re:String Theory Predicts Something?</title>
	<author>kjllmn</author>
	<datestamp>1244228100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Math is not reality." <br>
&nbsp; <br>Not even if it's correct?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Math is not reality .
"   Not even if it 's correct ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Math is not reality.
" 
  Not even if it's correct?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223991</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244222580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I didn't get my physics degree.  I stopped trying after Quantum Mechanics freshman year.  I love relativity, but I felt like Quantum Mechanics was using one mathematical equation to prove another one which is used to prove a third.  And so on.  Eventually, you could plot the course of an electron around a hydrogen atom, but helium was too complex.  Of course, a contributing factor might have been that my University didn't check the course requirements and realize that I didn't have the right level of Math to take Quantum Mechanics.  I still love physics, but I still don't like Quantum Mechanics.  (I passed the course with a C, but I think the only reason I didn't fail is that there were only 3 students in the course and the professor didn't want to have a 33\% failure rate.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I did n't get my physics degree .
I stopped trying after Quantum Mechanics freshman year .
I love relativity , but I felt like Quantum Mechanics was using one mathematical equation to prove another one which is used to prove a third .
And so on .
Eventually , you could plot the course of an electron around a hydrogen atom , but helium was too complex .
Of course , a contributing factor might have been that my University did n't check the course requirements and realize that I did n't have the right level of Math to take Quantum Mechanics .
I still love physics , but I still do n't like Quantum Mechanics .
( I passed the course with a C , but I think the only reason I did n't fail is that there were only 3 students in the course and the professor did n't want to have a 33 \ % failure rate .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I didn't get my physics degree.
I stopped trying after Quantum Mechanics freshman year.
I love relativity, but I felt like Quantum Mechanics was using one mathematical equation to prove another one which is used to prove a third.
And so on.
Eventually, you could plot the course of an electron around a hydrogen atom, but helium was too complex.
Of course, a contributing factor might have been that my University didn't check the course requirements and realize that I didn't have the right level of Math to take Quantum Mechanics.
I still love physics, but I still don't like Quantum Mechanics.
(I passed the course with a C, but I think the only reason I didn't fail is that there were only 3 students in the course and the professor didn't want to have a 33\% failure rate.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28227035</id>
	<title>Re:It's the math, stupid</title>
	<author>psnyder</author>
	<datestamp>1244193060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"></div><p> <a href="http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/garrett\_lisi\_on\_his\_theory\_of\_everything.html" title="ted.com">The competing theory is right here</a> [ted.com].  AND it will be testable as soon as CERN is up and running.
<br> <br>
Whether it pans out or not, I exceptionally like this part of the introduction to <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.0770" title="arxiv.org">his paper</a> [arxiv.org], which I believe highlights the weakness of string theory.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Hundreds of years of theoretical and experimental work have produced an extremely
successful pair of mathematical theories describing our world. The standard model of particles and interactions described by quantum field theory is a paragon of predictive excellence.
General relativity, a theory of gravity built from pure geometry, is exceedingly elegant and
effective in its domain of applicability. Any attempt to describe nature at the foundational
level must reproduce these successful theories, and the most sensible course towards unification is to extend them with as little new mathematical machinery as necessary.<br> <br>
<b>The further
we drift from these experimentally verified foundations, the less likely our mathematics is
to correspond with reality. In the absence of new experimental data, we should be very
careful, accepting sophisticated mathematical constructions only when they provide a clear
simplification.</b>
<br> <br>
And we should pare and unite existing structures whenever possible.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The competing theory is right here [ ted.com ] .
AND it will be testable as soon as CERN is up and running .
Whether it pans out or not , I exceptionally like this part of the introduction to his paper [ arxiv.org ] , which I believe highlights the weakness of string theory.Hundreds of years of theoretical and experimental work have produced an extremely successful pair of mathematical theories describing our world .
The standard model of particles and interactions described by quantum field theory is a paragon of predictive excellence .
General relativity , a theory of gravity built from pure geometry , is exceedingly elegant and effective in its domain of applicability .
Any attempt to describe nature at the foundational level must reproduce these successful theories , and the most sensible course towards unification is to extend them with as little new mathematical machinery as necessary .
The further we drift from these experimentally verified foundations , the less likely our mathematics is to correspond with reality .
In the absence of new experimental data , we should be very careful , accepting sophisticated mathematical constructions only when they provide a clear simplification .
And we should pare and unite existing structures whenever possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The competing theory is right here [ted.com].
AND it will be testable as soon as CERN is up and running.
Whether it pans out or not, I exceptionally like this part of the introduction to his paper [arxiv.org], which I believe highlights the weakness of string theory.Hundreds of years of theoretical and experimental work have produced an extremely
successful pair of mathematical theories describing our world.
The standard model of particles and interactions described by quantum field theory is a paragon of predictive excellence.
General relativity, a theory of gravity built from pure geometry, is exceedingly elegant and
effective in its domain of applicability.
Any attempt to describe nature at the foundational
level must reproduce these successful theories, and the most sensible course towards unification is to extend them with as little new mathematical machinery as necessary.
The further
we drift from these experimentally verified foundations, the less likely our mathematics is
to correspond with reality.
In the absence of new experimental data, we should be very
careful, accepting sophisticated mathematical constructions only when they provide a clear
simplification.
And we should pare and unite existing structures whenever possible.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222193</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28225651</id>
	<title>Re:It's the math, stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244229420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that the deeper you look the tighter consistency conditions are on your theory. Nothing in classical physics prevents you from changing the dimensionality of space, nothing in particle physics fixes the masses of roughly 20 fundamental particles, or the strength of their interactions... in string theory there is only one free parameter, the string tension.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that the deeper you look the tighter consistency conditions are on your theory .
Nothing in classical physics prevents you from changing the dimensionality of space , nothing in particle physics fixes the masses of roughly 20 fundamental particles , or the strength of their interactions... in string theory there is only one free parameter , the string tension .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that the deeper you look the tighter consistency conditions are on your theory.
Nothing in classical physics prevents you from changing the dimensionality of space, nothing in particle physics fixes the masses of roughly 20 fundamental particles, or the strength of their interactions... in string theory there is only one free parameter, the string tension.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222085</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah...</title>
	<author>EL\_mal0</author>
	<datestamp>1244215440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Stick to physics; evolution does make testable predictions.  It usually takes a while to run the tests, though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stick to physics ; evolution does make testable predictions .
It usually takes a while to run the tests , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stick to physics; evolution does make testable predictions.
It usually takes a while to run the tests, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221863</id>
	<title>Re:It's the math, stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244214300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that's such BS. I'll bet you don't even know the difference between a cosmic string and a cosmic filament.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that 's such BS .
I 'll bet you do n't even know the difference between a cosmic string and a cosmic filament .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that's such BS.
I'll bet you don't even know the difference between a cosmic string and a cosmic filament.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28226577</id>
	<title>Re:String Theory Predicts Something?</title>
	<author>JohnFluxx</author>
	<datestamp>1244233860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you can prove that string theory isn't ever going to be testable, then you can win a nobel prize.</p><p>If you are arguing that it's not possible to test it at this very moment, then you should support trying to improve on it, so I don't see how calling it not science helps anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you can prove that string theory is n't ever going to be testable , then you can win a nobel prize.If you are arguing that it 's not possible to test it at this very moment , then you should support trying to improve on it , so I do n't see how calling it not science helps anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can prove that string theory isn't ever going to be testable, then you can win a nobel prize.If you are arguing that it's not possible to test it at this very moment, then you should support trying to improve on it, so I don't see how calling it not science helps anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223085</id>
	<title>an obvious joke</title>
	<author>bingbong</author>
	<datestamp>1244219280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Do you know string theory?"</p><p>"No, I'm a frayed knot."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Do you know string theory ?
" " No , I 'm a frayed knot .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Do you know string theory?
""No, I'm a frayed knot.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224813</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>OldSoldier</author>
	<datestamp>1244225760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having a physics undergrad degree myself I always felt this humility was due to quantum mechanics. It is just so bizarre and so far removed from everyday common sense that physicists have to live every day with the realization that the universe *is* stranger than we can suppose. Pretty humbling.</p><p>But also, it may be due to a much more rapid set of paradigm changing events in physics as compared to other sciences. Within the last 150 years physics has gone from renowned scientists saying that "we've almost discovered all there is to discover" to Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, steady-state to big bang, dark matter, dark energy, and possibly more that I'm leaving out. When phycisists can look back in relatively recent memory and see such changes as well as titans say things like "God does not play dice with the universe" to seeing proof that, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's\_Theorem" title="wikipedia.org">well he does</a> [wikipedia.org], why should anyone be cocky?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having a physics undergrad degree myself I always felt this humility was due to quantum mechanics .
It is just so bizarre and so far removed from everyday common sense that physicists have to live every day with the realization that the universe * is * stranger than we can suppose .
Pretty humbling.But also , it may be due to a much more rapid set of paradigm changing events in physics as compared to other sciences .
Within the last 150 years physics has gone from renowned scientists saying that " we 've almost discovered all there is to discover " to Relativity , Quantum Mechanics , steady-state to big bang , dark matter , dark energy , and possibly more that I 'm leaving out .
When phycisists can look back in relatively recent memory and see such changes as well as titans say things like " God does not play dice with the universe " to seeing proof that , well he does [ wikipedia.org ] , why should anyone be cocky ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having a physics undergrad degree myself I always felt this humility was due to quantum mechanics.
It is just so bizarre and so far removed from everyday common sense that physicists have to live every day with the realization that the universe *is* stranger than we can suppose.
Pretty humbling.But also, it may be due to a much more rapid set of paradigm changing events in physics as compared to other sciences.
Within the last 150 years physics has gone from renowned scientists saying that "we've almost discovered all there is to discover" to Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, steady-state to big bang, dark matter, dark energy, and possibly more that I'm leaving out.
When phycisists can look back in relatively recent memory and see such changes as well as titans say things like "God does not play dice with the universe" to seeing proof that, well he does [wikipedia.org], why should anyone be cocky?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28236143</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244280780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Take no offence, but attending to to physics course to realize that "the world is far far far stranger than anything our everyday experience would lead us to believe" is pretty disappointing. Have you ever observed what people do when they are together ? Have you ever saw a good movie ? Read a good poem ? In those very simple things you should see how incredibly strange human nature is and how stranger it is than the movement of a few particles in space. Complexity is at both ends of the matter, but when you look at the human side, you understand you don't understand much quicker (without anything else than basig calculus<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>Stefan</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take no offence , but attending to to physics course to realize that " the world is far far far stranger than anything our everyday experience would lead us to believe " is pretty disappointing .
Have you ever observed what people do when they are together ?
Have you ever saw a good movie ?
Read a good poem ?
In those very simple things you should see how incredibly strange human nature is and how stranger it is than the movement of a few particles in space .
Complexity is at both ends of the matter , but when you look at the human side , you understand you do n't understand much quicker ( without anything else than basig calculus : - ) Stefan</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take no offence, but attending to to physics course to realize that "the world is far far far stranger than anything our everyday experience would lead us to believe" is pretty disappointing.
Have you ever observed what people do when they are together ?
Have you ever saw a good movie ?
Read a good poem ?
In those very simple things you should see how incredibly strange human nature is and how stranger it is than the movement of a few particles in space.
Complexity is at both ends of the matter, but when you look at the human side, you understand you don't understand much quicker (without anything else than basig calculus :-)Stefan</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224913</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221727</id>
	<title>Wow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244213700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm always amazed that theoretical physicists can manipulate such immensely complex abstract objects in their heads and still be able to breathe and maintain bladder control. It really makes software engineering look like a piece of piss. Much respect.</p><p>I would also say that having worked with academic medics, chemists, mathematicians, computer scientists and biologists, physicists are almost always the coolest, most down to earth and least douchey scientists out there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm always amazed that theoretical physicists can manipulate such immensely complex abstract objects in their heads and still be able to breathe and maintain bladder control .
It really makes software engineering look like a piece of piss .
Much respect.I would also say that having worked with academic medics , chemists , mathematicians , computer scientists and biologists , physicists are almost always the coolest , most down to earth and least douchey scientists out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm always amazed that theoretical physicists can manipulate such immensely complex abstract objects in their heads and still be able to breathe and maintain bladder control.
It really makes software engineering look like a piece of piss.
Much respect.I would also say that having worked with academic medics, chemists, mathematicians, computer scientists and biologists, physicists are almost always the coolest, most down to earth and least douchey scientists out there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222625</id>
	<title>mind-boggling folding</title>
	<author>muntis</author>
	<datestamp>1244217600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Folding 10 dimensions down to four can be done in a mind-boggling 10^500 ways</p></div><p>Jeah, I'm not a physicist and I know, that I'm spoiling my karma right now, but seams that they just made up some very generic "function" with N attributes and every time result does not match, they say- "Hei, change that attribute" or "Take 8 dimensions instead of 10" or "Fold 5th dimension that way". Come on, even y = ax^2 + bc + c almost match with y=sin(x) in some particular region of x if you set up a's, b's and c's correctly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Folding 10 dimensions down to four can be done in a mind-boggling 10 ^ 500 waysJeah , I 'm not a physicist and I know , that I 'm spoiling my karma right now , but seams that they just made up some very generic " function " with N attributes and every time result does not match , they say- " Hei , change that attribute " or " Take 8 dimensions instead of 10 " or " Fold 5th dimension that way " .
Come on , even y = ax ^ 2 + bc + c almost match with y = sin ( x ) in some particular region of x if you set up a 's , b 's and c 's correctly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Folding 10 dimensions down to four can be done in a mind-boggling 10^500 waysJeah, I'm not a physicist and I know, that I'm spoiling my karma right now, but seams that they just made up some very generic "function" with N attributes and every time result does not match, they say- "Hei, change that attribute" or "Take 8 dimensions instead of 10" or "Fold 5th dimension that way".
Come on, even y = ax^2 + bc + c almost match with y=sin(x) in some particular region of x if you set up a's, b's and c's correctly.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223503</id>
	<title>Re:String Theory Predicts Something?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244220900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Ok, I'll bite, which one?</i>
<br> <br>
The one described in the fucking summary?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , I 'll bite , which one ?
The one described in the fucking summary ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, I'll bite, which one?
The one described in the fucking summary?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222021</id>
	<title>Re:Only a 2D construct in anti-de-Sitter space!</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1244215140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Indeed. I hadn't heard of the term before, so I looked it up.<p><div class="quote"><p>In mathematics and physics, n-dimensional anti de Sitter space, sometimes written AdSn, is a maximally symmetric Lorentzian manifold with constant negative scalar curvature. It is the Lorentzian analog of n-dimensional hyperbolic space, just as Minkowski space and de Sitter space are the analogs of Euclidean and elliptical spaces respectively. It is best known for its role in the AdS/CFT correspondence.<br> <br> - <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti\_de\_Sitter\_space" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti\_de\_Sitter\_space</a> [wikipedia.org]</p> </div><p>Well, glad that's cleared up!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
I had n't heard of the term before , so I looked it up.In mathematics and physics , n-dimensional anti de Sitter space , sometimes written AdSn , is a maximally symmetric Lorentzian manifold with constant negative scalar curvature .
It is the Lorentzian analog of n-dimensional hyperbolic space , just as Minkowski space and de Sitter space are the analogs of Euclidean and elliptical spaces respectively .
It is best known for its role in the AdS/CFT correspondence .
- http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti \ _de \ _Sitter \ _space [ wikipedia.org ] Well , glad that 's cleared up !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
I hadn't heard of the term before, so I looked it up.In mathematics and physics, n-dimensional anti de Sitter space, sometimes written AdSn, is a maximally symmetric Lorentzian manifold with constant negative scalar curvature.
It is the Lorentzian analog of n-dimensional hyperbolic space, just as Minkowski space and de Sitter space are the analogs of Euclidean and elliptical spaces respectively.
It is best known for its role in the AdS/CFT correspondence.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti\_de\_Sitter\_space [wikipedia.org] Well, glad that's cleared up!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224741</id>
	<title>Re:Science Fiction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244225400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Speaking of Newton.  To me string theory is really just like calculus.  No one complains that calculus can't be disproven.  Such a statement is silly.  There are specific models using calculus that can be disproven, just like specific string theory models.  The fact that this tool can be used to make new models work doesn't mean something is wrong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking of Newton .
To me string theory is really just like calculus .
No one complains that calculus ca n't be disproven .
Such a statement is silly .
There are specific models using calculus that can be disproven , just like specific string theory models .
The fact that this tool can be used to make new models work does n't mean something is wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking of Newton.
To me string theory is really just like calculus.
No one complains that calculus can't be disproven.
Such a statement is silly.
There are specific models using calculus that can be disproven, just like specific string theory models.
The fact that this tool can be used to make new models work doesn't mean something is wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222235</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28225603</id>
	<title>Obligitory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244229180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://xkcd.com/171/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //xkcd.com/171/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://xkcd.com/171/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223195</id>
	<title>Re:Only a 2D construct in anti-de-Sitter space!</title>
	<author>KraftDinner</author>
	<datestamp>1244219700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I tried to find one at simple.wikipedia.org but no such luck.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried to find one at simple.wikipedia.org but no such luck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried to find one at simple.wikipedia.org but no such luck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223593</id>
	<title>Re:String Theory Predicts Something?</title>
	<author>HadouKen24</author>
	<datestamp>1244221200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, they modify existing theories to fit new facts. That's how science is done.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , they modify existing theories to fit new facts .
That 's how science is done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, they modify existing theories to fit new facts.
That's how science is done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224913</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>catchblue22</author>
	<datestamp>1244226240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For me, I came out of my physics education with a realization that the world is far far far stranger than anything our everyday experience would lead us to believe.  It has also left me with a strong sense that none of our knowledge is absolutely certain.  That doesn't mean that I believe that our scientific theories are necessarily completely wrong, but rather that our current theories may very well be incomplete.  </p><p>String theory is definitely interesting.  Gaining even a glimpse into it is far more humbling than learning quantum mechanics, and that is saying something!  Where it will lead is completely unknown.  For all we know, string theory may turn into a dead end (or into a massively complicated labyrinth with nothing but dead ends).  Or it may turn into an immensely powerful predictive tool.  Who can tell?</p><p>There are alternatives to string theory that show promise in uniting quantum mechanics and gravity.  I haven't fully digested this yet, but this <a href="http://www.physorg.com/news157203574.html" title="physorg.com">paper summary</a> [physorg.com] argues that space-time may have fractal elements that have the potential to predict both quantum mechanics and gravity.  </p><p>The bottom line is that the universe is immense, and immensely complicated, and we are small.  In such a universe, certainty becomes an absurdity. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For me , I came out of my physics education with a realization that the world is far far far stranger than anything our everyday experience would lead us to believe .
It has also left me with a strong sense that none of our knowledge is absolutely certain .
That does n't mean that I believe that our scientific theories are necessarily completely wrong , but rather that our current theories may very well be incomplete .
String theory is definitely interesting .
Gaining even a glimpse into it is far more humbling than learning quantum mechanics , and that is saying something !
Where it will lead is completely unknown .
For all we know , string theory may turn into a dead end ( or into a massively complicated labyrinth with nothing but dead ends ) .
Or it may turn into an immensely powerful predictive tool .
Who can tell ? There are alternatives to string theory that show promise in uniting quantum mechanics and gravity .
I have n't fully digested this yet , but this paper summary [ physorg.com ] argues that space-time may have fractal elements that have the potential to predict both quantum mechanics and gravity .
The bottom line is that the universe is immense , and immensely complicated , and we are small .
In such a universe , certainty becomes an absurdity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For me, I came out of my physics education with a realization that the world is far far far stranger than anything our everyday experience would lead us to believe.
It has also left me with a strong sense that none of our knowledge is absolutely certain.
That doesn't mean that I believe that our scientific theories are necessarily completely wrong, but rather that our current theories may very well be incomplete.
String theory is definitely interesting.
Gaining even a glimpse into it is far more humbling than learning quantum mechanics, and that is saying something!
Where it will lead is completely unknown.
For all we know, string theory may turn into a dead end (or into a massively complicated labyrinth with nothing but dead ends).
Or it may turn into an immensely powerful predictive tool.
Who can tell?There are alternatives to string theory that show promise in uniting quantum mechanics and gravity.
I haven't fully digested this yet, but this paper summary [physorg.com] argues that space-time may have fractal elements that have the potential to predict both quantum mechanics and gravity.
The bottom line is that the universe is immense, and immensely complicated, and we are small.
In such a universe, certainty becomes an absurdity. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223547</id>
	<title>Re:Title</title>
	<author>nicolas.kassis</author>
	<datestamp>1244221020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Soviets are coming for our bodily fluids?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Soviets are coming for our bodily fluids ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Soviets are coming for our bodily fluids?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221847</id>
	<title>Re:Science Fiction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244214240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
It's like spaghetti theory.  They throw bunch up against wall, and if a few sticks then they say "see, like we were saying...".
</p><p>
Doesn't matter.  They'd all soon be hanged with FSM tentacles for sacrilege.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's like spaghetti theory .
They throw bunch up against wall , and if a few sticks then they say " see , like we were saying... " .
Does n't matter .
They 'd all soon be hanged with FSM tentacles for sacrilege .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
It's like spaghetti theory.
They throw bunch up against wall, and if a few sticks then they say "see, like we were saying...".
Doesn't matter.
They'd all soon be hanged with FSM tentacles for sacrilege.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221753</id>
	<title>Only a 2D construct in anti-de-Sitter space!</title>
	<author>Dystopian Rebel</author>
	<datestamp>1244213820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the known universe is only a 2D construct in anti-de-Sitter space, projected into 3 dimensions</p></div><p>Well if THAT'S all it is, I see no reason to upgrade my video card.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the known universe is only a 2D construct in anti-de-Sitter space , projected into 3 dimensionsWell if THAT 'S all it is , I see no reason to upgrade my video card .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the known universe is only a 2D construct in anti-de-Sitter space, projected into 3 dimensionsWell if THAT'S all it is, I see no reason to upgrade my video card.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224889</id>
	<title>Re:Only a 2D construct in anti-de-Sitter space!</title>
	<author>Bengie</author>
	<datestamp>1244226120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>our video cards project a pseudo 3d space onto pseudo 2d surface located in our pseudo 3d space which is then picked up by our pseudo 2d eyes and translated into 3d</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>our video cards project a pseudo 3d space onto pseudo 2d surface located in our pseudo 3d space which is then picked up by our pseudo 2d eyes and translated into 3d</tokentext>
<sentencetext>our video cards project a pseudo 3d space onto pseudo 2d surface located in our pseudo 3d space which is then picked up by our pseudo 2d eyes and translated into 3d</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222417</id>
	<title>Ah so the world is flat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244216760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See live long enough and you do get proved right now how do they explain the horizion?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See live long enough and you do get proved right now how do they explain the horizion ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See live long enough and you do get proved right now how do they explain the horizion?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28229435</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah...</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1244213220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am not convinced that string theory *can* be proven or disproven at our current level of technological development and scientific knowledge.  Either proving or disproving it could potentially be a useful result, because either outcome might give us information we currently can only guess at.  But it may have to wait for other developments (if it ever even materializes at all; more than one physicist has suggested that string theory may be inherently non-falsifiable due to its intrinsic vagueness).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not convinced that string theory * can * be proven or disproven at our current level of technological development and scientific knowledge .
Either proving or disproving it could potentially be a useful result , because either outcome might give us information we currently can only guess at .
But it may have to wait for other developments ( if it ever even materializes at all ; more than one physicist has suggested that string theory may be inherently non-falsifiable due to its intrinsic vagueness ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not convinced that string theory *can* be proven or disproven at our current level of technological development and scientific knowledge.
Either proving or disproving it could potentially be a useful result, because either outcome might give us information we currently can only guess at.
But it may have to wait for other developments (if it ever even materializes at all; more than one physicist has suggested that string theory may be inherently non-falsifiable due to its intrinsic vagueness).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221675</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224279</id>
	<title>Re:String Theory Predicts Something?</title>
	<author>SlappyBastard</author>
	<datestamp>1244223720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>String Theory isn't even a proper theory in the scientific sense.</p><p>A proper theory has a testable conclusion.  Yeah, sometimes we're not currently able to test those conclusions as much as we like, as is the case with something like the Theory of Relativity.  But, Relativity is not as testable as we'd like mostly because we lack the technology to test it that well.</p><p>String Theory doesn't provide the basis for testing.  Therefore, it is not science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>String Theory is n't even a proper theory in the scientific sense.A proper theory has a testable conclusion .
Yeah , sometimes we 're not currently able to test those conclusions as much as we like , as is the case with something like the Theory of Relativity .
But , Relativity is not as testable as we 'd like mostly because we lack the technology to test it that well.String Theory does n't provide the basis for testing .
Therefore , it is not science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>String Theory isn't even a proper theory in the scientific sense.A proper theory has a testable conclusion.
Yeah, sometimes we're not currently able to test those conclusions as much as we like, as is the case with something like the Theory of Relativity.
But, Relativity is not as testable as we'd like mostly because we lack the technology to test it that well.String Theory doesn't provide the basis for testing.
Therefore, it is not science.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223589</id>
	<title>Re:Give it time</title>
	<author>ath1901</author>
	<datestamp>1244221200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Um... No.
Quantum Mechanics was created as a reaction to unexplainable experiments (The photo electric effect, atomic spectrums etc). It was a process of many small incremental steps in both experiments and theory that led to what we have today. It didn't take long to get predictions from QM, it was almost immediate, that's why QM survived. Nobody liked it since it is counter intuitive, defying logic etc but they had no choice. It was the only available theory that could make predictions in the subatomic world. String theory on the other hand is a bunch of mathematical tools with has yet to make any predictions.

So for QM: There was a strange phenomena, they created a weird theory that explained it.
But for string theory: There was a weird theory, they have yet to find a phenomena it explains.

Huge difference there...
(Oh, and they've already had 30 years to find some use for it. How long should we wait before calling shenanigans?)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Um... No . Quantum Mechanics was created as a reaction to unexplainable experiments ( The photo electric effect , atomic spectrums etc ) .
It was a process of many small incremental steps in both experiments and theory that led to what we have today .
It did n't take long to get predictions from QM , it was almost immediate , that 's why QM survived .
Nobody liked it since it is counter intuitive , defying logic etc but they had no choice .
It was the only available theory that could make predictions in the subatomic world .
String theory on the other hand is a bunch of mathematical tools with has yet to make any predictions .
So for QM : There was a strange phenomena , they created a weird theory that explained it .
But for string theory : There was a weird theory , they have yet to find a phenomena it explains .
Huge difference there.. . ( Oh , and they 've already had 30 years to find some use for it .
How long should we wait before calling shenanigans ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um... No.
Quantum Mechanics was created as a reaction to unexplainable experiments (The photo electric effect, atomic spectrums etc).
It was a process of many small incremental steps in both experiments and theory that led to what we have today.
It didn't take long to get predictions from QM, it was almost immediate, that's why QM survived.
Nobody liked it since it is counter intuitive, defying logic etc but they had no choice.
It was the only available theory that could make predictions in the subatomic world.
String theory on the other hand is a bunch of mathematical tools with has yet to make any predictions.
So for QM: There was a strange phenomena, they created a weird theory that explained it.
But for string theory: There was a weird theory, they have yet to find a phenomena it explains.
Huge difference there...
(Oh, and they've already had 30 years to find some use for it.
How long should we wait before calling shenanigans?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224011</id>
	<title>Magical pony theory predicts everything</title>
	<author>SlappyBastard</author>
	<datestamp>1244222640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You see, there's a magical pony pony, represented by the variable P.  And there's magic, represented by the variable M.  And there's everything, represented by the variable E.</p><p>P + M = E</p><p>Ha, motherfucker!  Magical pony theory beats all!!  I have the math to prove it.</p><p>The problem with string theory is that exists in its own little world of mathematics.  And you're allowed to relentlessly massage the mathematics until one day you can jump up and say, "Look, my math proves \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_!"</p><p>And then when someone says, "Well what the hell does that have to do with the observed universe?" some jackass will come along and start rambling on about some crap like holographic representations of dimensions.  "So, you see, you can represent five dimensions in a universe that appears four dimensional because the fifth dimension was tucked under your pillow by the tooth fairy.  And the sixth dimension is under the pillow, tucked away in a fold in the sheet."</p><p>So, fuck it.  I say the seventh dimension is tucked in the ass crack of the magical pony, the bringer of all things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You see , there 's a magical pony pony , represented by the variable P. And there 's magic , represented by the variable M. And there 's everything , represented by the variable E.P + M = EHa , motherfucker !
Magical pony theory beats all ! !
I have the math to prove it.The problem with string theory is that exists in its own little world of mathematics .
And you 're allowed to relentlessly massage the mathematics until one day you can jump up and say , " Look , my math proves \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ !
" And then when someone says , " Well what the hell does that have to do with the observed universe ?
" some jackass will come along and start rambling on about some crap like holographic representations of dimensions .
" So , you see , you can represent five dimensions in a universe that appears four dimensional because the fifth dimension was tucked under your pillow by the tooth fairy .
And the sixth dimension is under the pillow , tucked away in a fold in the sheet .
" So , fuck it .
I say the seventh dimension is tucked in the ass crack of the magical pony , the bringer of all things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You see, there's a magical pony pony, represented by the variable P.  And there's magic, represented by the variable M.  And there's everything, represented by the variable E.P + M = EHa, motherfucker!
Magical pony theory beats all!!
I have the math to prove it.The problem with string theory is that exists in its own little world of mathematics.
And you're allowed to relentlessly massage the mathematics until one day you can jump up and say, "Look, my math proves \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_!
"And then when someone says, "Well what the hell does that have to do with the observed universe?
" some jackass will come along and start rambling on about some crap like holographic representations of dimensions.
"So, you see, you can represent five dimensions in a universe that appears four dimensional because the fifth dimension was tucked under your pillow by the tooth fairy.
And the sixth dimension is under the pillow, tucked away in a fold in the sheet.
"So, fuck it.
I say the seventh dimension is tucked in the ass crack of the magical pony, the bringer of all things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221781</id>
	<title>But...</title>
	<author>HaeMaker</author>
	<datestamp>1244213880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>on page 642 of the second book, they divide by zero, so back to the drawing board.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>on page 642 of the second book , they divide by zero , so back to the drawing board .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>on page 642 of the second book, they divide by zero, so back to the drawing board.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222129</id>
	<title>Re:Science Fiction</title>
	<author>Prof.Phreak</author>
	<datestamp>1244215680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly! Who the heck even -knows- what string theory really is? (beyond the pop-sci ``we model things as strings instead of point particles'').</p><p>From what I've read, the equations are so broad that you can calculate and fit'em to pretty much anything (sorta like you can calculate anything with a general purpose computer...therefore, the computer is a physics theory---it calculates things so exactly!)</p><p>The problem of string theory isn't its ability to predict. It's falsifiability. I've yet to see an experiment (or even an -idea-) that -could- prove string theory wrong. Without that little bit, it's not a theory at all... it's a... religion!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly !
Who the heck even -knows- what string theory really is ?
( beyond the pop-sci ` ` we model things as strings instead of point particles' ' ) .From what I 've read , the equations are so broad that you can calculate and fit'em to pretty much anything ( sorta like you can calculate anything with a general purpose computer...therefore , the computer is a physics theory---it calculates things so exactly !
) The problem of string theory is n't its ability to predict .
It 's falsifiability .
I 've yet to see an experiment ( or even an -idea- ) that -could- prove string theory wrong .
Without that little bit , it 's not a theory at all... it 's a... religion !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly!
Who the heck even -knows- what string theory really is?
(beyond the pop-sci ``we model things as strings instead of point particles'').From what I've read, the equations are so broad that you can calculate and fit'em to pretty much anything (sorta like you can calculate anything with a general purpose computer...therefore, the computer is a physics theory---it calculates things so exactly!
)The problem of string theory isn't its ability to predict.
It's falsifiability.
I've yet to see an experiment (or even an -idea-) that -could- prove string theory wrong.
Without that little bit, it's not a theory at all... it's a... religion!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221803</id>
	<title>Re:Science Fiction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244214000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's what upper-level science is. One can become so fluent in a language that they can spin a tale and manipulate the rules of the language to explain what is said. For example:<br> <br>

Kill the children<br>
Save the food<br>
They're nothing but a bunch of <b>black jig-a-boos</b> <br> <br>

Save your money<br>
Let 'em die<br>
So we can <b>snort dope</b> and get <b>fuckin' high</b>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what upper-level science is .
One can become so fluent in a language that they can spin a tale and manipulate the rules of the language to explain what is said .
For example : Kill the children Save the food They 're nothing but a bunch of black jig-a-boos Save your money Let 'em die So we can snort dope and get fuckin ' high .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what upper-level science is.
One can become so fluent in a language that they can spin a tale and manipulate the rules of the language to explain what is said.
For example: 

Kill the children
Save the food
They're nothing but a bunch of black jig-a-boos  

Save your money
Let 'em die
So we can snort dope and get fuckin' high.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28225353</id>
	<title>Re:Only a 2D construct in anti-de-Sitter space!</title>
	<author>Have Brain Will Rent</author>
	<datestamp>1244228100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>IIRC Scientific American had an article on mapping a 3d universe onto a 2d universe and AdSn not too long ago (3 years?). IIRC the 2D3D mapping requires that space be bounded (why it needs to be AdSn). My theory is that if we just bound space well enough we will find we are actually a 1D universe appearing to be a 2D universe which appears to be a 3D universe. Of course we could simply be a scalar posing as a 1D entity. In that case I claim PI!</htmltext>
<tokenext>IIRC Scientific American had an article on mapping a 3d universe onto a 2d universe and AdSn not too long ago ( 3 years ? ) .
IIRC the 2D3D mapping requires that space be bounded ( why it needs to be AdSn ) .
My theory is that if we just bound space well enough we will find we are actually a 1D universe appearing to be a 2D universe which appears to be a 3D universe .
Of course we could simply be a scalar posing as a 1D entity .
In that case I claim PI !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IIRC Scientific American had an article on mapping a 3d universe onto a 2d universe and AdSn not too long ago (3 years?).
IIRC the 2D3D mapping requires that space be bounded (why it needs to be AdSn).
My theory is that if we just bound space well enough we will find we are actually a 1D universe appearing to be a 2D universe which appears to be a 3D universe.
Of course we could simply be a scalar posing as a 1D entity.
In that case I claim PI!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222081</id>
	<title>Re:Science Fiction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244215440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know people that pull Strings out of their ass...., but usually beads are attached to them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know people that pull Strings out of their ass.... , but usually beads are attached to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know people that pull Strings out of their ass...., but usually beads are attached to them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222875</id>
	<title>Re:Science Fiction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244218560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Speaking, like most people on slashdot, as someone who has absolutely no knowledge of the topic other than what I have read in the summary, I agree 1,000,000\%.  Science is useless, any scientific theory I don't understand is a hoax or a religion, Ron Paul is electable, and 9/11 was an inside job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking , like most people on slashdot , as someone who has absolutely no knowledge of the topic other than what I have read in the summary , I agree 1,000,000 \ % .
Science is useless , any scientific theory I do n't understand is a hoax or a religion , Ron Paul is electable , and 9/11 was an inside job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking, like most people on slashdot, as someone who has absolutely no knowledge of the topic other than what I have read in the summary, I agree 1,000,000\%.
Science is useless, any scientific theory I don't understand is a hoax or a religion, Ron Paul is electable, and 9/11 was an inside job.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222555</id>
	<title>Re:O.o</title>
	<author>robinsonne</author>
	<datestamp>1244217360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>IIRC, that was a <i>ribbon</i>, not a string.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IIRC , that was a ribbon , not a string .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IIRC, that was a ribbon, not a string.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221723</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223967</id>
	<title>Flying Spaghetti Theory</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1244222520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spaghetti is tastier than string, and they could unify biology and physics with AdS/FSM spaces. How many dimensions has His Noodly Appendage?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spaghetti is tastier than string , and they could unify biology and physics with AdS/FSM spaces .
How many dimensions has His Noodly Appendage ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spaghetti is tastier than string, and they could unify biology and physics with AdS/FSM spaces.
How many dimensions has His Noodly Appendage?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224789</id>
	<title>Re:It's the math, stupid</title>
	<author>rubycodez</author>
	<datestamp>1244225640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there are many systems of mathematics, some have rules that exclude others.  And we may have to invent new systems to describe the real universe, or we may find ourselves incapable of doing so.  We don't know all the particles that might exist, nor do we even know that all forces and actions are caused by particles.  So I reject the assertion that "all particle behavior is explainable using mathematics".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there are many systems of mathematics , some have rules that exclude others .
And we may have to invent new systems to describe the real universe , or we may find ourselves incapable of doing so .
We do n't know all the particles that might exist , nor do we even know that all forces and actions are caused by particles .
So I reject the assertion that " all particle behavior is explainable using mathematics " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there are many systems of mathematics, some have rules that exclude others.
And we may have to invent new systems to describe the real universe, or we may find ourselves incapable of doing so.
We don't know all the particles that might exist, nor do we even know that all forces and actions are caused by particles.
So I reject the assertion that "all particle behavior is explainable using mathematics".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222465</id>
	<title>String Theory Predicts Something?</title>
	<author>hAckz0r</author>
	<datestamp>1244216940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ok, I'll bite, which one? There are NUMEROUS 'String Theories' and they don't all mean the same thing. In fact I will be happy when the day comes that there is some kind of a 'Unified String Theory' so there is enough of it all in one place to be able to *disprove* something. Its kind of hard to prove that ten gallons of Jello won't fit in a bottle half its size if you can't get it all in one place at one time. You can't disprove something that you have not even sufficiently defined either. <p>

The major problem with String/F/D/Dn/S/Brane/M/Multiverse/Whatever's-next Theory is that every time someone finds a problem that doesn't fit with experiments/reality they just go and find an excuse and then modify the equations until it mathematically works out in that general direction. They don't start with the latest and greatest and modify that. They just pick their favourite Theory-of-the-day and add an extra dimension here, or there, twist it there, or subtract another infinite from both sides, because the formula is inconveniently looking incorrect at the moment. In other words, Just squish the Jello a little here and make it come out over there instead, until someone discovers 'the new mess' on the floor. </p><p>

If a theory has no basis in fact (i.e. no physical reality that can be described) then it is just Math. Math is not reality. You can model anything with Math, and it doesn't even have to exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , I 'll bite , which one ?
There are NUMEROUS 'String Theories ' and they do n't all mean the same thing .
In fact I will be happy when the day comes that there is some kind of a 'Unified String Theory ' so there is enough of it all in one place to be able to * disprove * something .
Its kind of hard to prove that ten gallons of Jello wo n't fit in a bottle half its size if you ca n't get it all in one place at one time .
You ca n't disprove something that you have not even sufficiently defined either .
The major problem with String/F/D/Dn/S/Brane/M/Multiverse/Whatever 's-next Theory is that every time someone finds a problem that does n't fit with experiments/reality they just go and find an excuse and then modify the equations until it mathematically works out in that general direction .
They do n't start with the latest and greatest and modify that .
They just pick their favourite Theory-of-the-day and add an extra dimension here , or there , twist it there , or subtract another infinite from both sides , because the formula is inconveniently looking incorrect at the moment .
In other words , Just squish the Jello a little here and make it come out over there instead , until someone discovers 'the new mess ' on the floor .
If a theory has no basis in fact ( i.e .
no physical reality that can be described ) then it is just Math .
Math is not reality .
You can model anything with Math , and it does n't even have to exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, I'll bite, which one?
There are NUMEROUS 'String Theories' and they don't all mean the same thing.
In fact I will be happy when the day comes that there is some kind of a 'Unified String Theory' so there is enough of it all in one place to be able to *disprove* something.
Its kind of hard to prove that ten gallons of Jello won't fit in a bottle half its size if you can't get it all in one place at one time.
You can't disprove something that you have not even sufficiently defined either.
The major problem with String/F/D/Dn/S/Brane/M/Multiverse/Whatever's-next Theory is that every time someone finds a problem that doesn't fit with experiments/reality they just go and find an excuse and then modify the equations until it mathematically works out in that general direction.
They don't start with the latest and greatest and modify that.
They just pick their favourite Theory-of-the-day and add an extra dimension here, or there, twist it there, or subtract another infinite from both sides, because the formula is inconveniently looking incorrect at the moment.
In other words, Just squish the Jello a little here and make it come out over there instead, until someone discovers 'the new mess' on the floor.
If a theory has no basis in fact (i.e.
no physical reality that can be described) then it is just Math.
Math is not reality.
You can model anything with Math, and it doesn't even have to exist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28228251</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>Myrddin Wyllt</author>
	<datestamp>1244200920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext> <p>So to do physics right you should feel like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting yourself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lies all undiscovered before you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So to do physics right you should feel like a boy playing on the seashore , and diverting yourself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary , whilst the great ocean of truth lies all undiscovered before you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> So to do physics right you should feel like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting yourself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lies all undiscovered before you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28225557</id>
	<title>String theory for beginners</title>
	<author>janwedekind</author>
	<datestamp>1244229000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But Newton didn't have a computer.</p><p>s = "string"<br># "string"<br>s[ 1<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. 2 ]<br># "tr"<br>s + s<br># "stringstring"<br>s * 3<br># "stringstringstring"<br>s.reverse<br># "gnirts"<br>s.upcase<br># "STRING"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But Newton did n't have a computer.s = " string " # " string " s [ 1 .. 2 ] # " tr " s + s # " stringstring " s * 3 # " stringstringstring " s.reverse # " gnirts " s.upcase # " STRING "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But Newton didn't have a computer.s = "string"# "string"s[ 1 .. 2 ]# "tr"s + s# "stringstring"s * 3# "stringstringstring"s.reverse# "gnirts"s.upcase# "STRING"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222235</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221967</id>
	<title>Of course...</title>
	<author>M-RES</author>
	<datestamp>1244214780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read TFA and just thought "as you do..."</p><p>Surely any discovery, either for or against prior ideas is a step forward and thus positive. It's the scientific method - proving yourself wrong is just as big a success as proving yourself right. It's the proof that is important<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read TFA and just thought " as you do... " Surely any discovery , either for or against prior ideas is a step forward and thus positive .
It 's the scientific method - proving yourself wrong is just as big a success as proving yourself right .
It 's the proof that is important : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read TFA and just thought "as you do..."Surely any discovery, either for or against prior ideas is a step forward and thus positive.
It's the scientific method - proving yourself wrong is just as big a success as proving yourself right.
It's the proof that is important :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221911</id>
	<title>String theory started as a theory of QCD</title>
	<author>PvtVoid</author>
	<datestamp>1244214540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>String theory was originally conceived as a theory for QCD, and only later was it applied to quantum gravity. Here (<a href="http://physics.aps.org/articles/v1/10" title="aps.org" rel="nofollow">http://physics.aps.org/articles/v1/10</a> [aps.org]) is an article which explains the new results with a little historical context.</htmltext>
<tokenext>String theory was originally conceived as a theory for QCD , and only later was it applied to quantum gravity .
Here ( http : //physics.aps.org/articles/v1/10 [ aps.org ] ) is an article which explains the new results with a little historical context .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>String theory was originally conceived as a theory for QCD, and only later was it applied to quantum gravity.
Here (http://physics.aps.org/articles/v1/10 [aps.org]) is an article which explains the new results with a little historical context.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223543</id>
	<title>Re:Only a 2D construct in anti-de-Sitter space!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244221020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Gah! That's so common in technical topics on Wikipedia. The problem is that it is is written by undergrads and interested amateurs (I know, I'm one of them). Often they don't know the subject well enough to simplify it for a general audience, and are stuck putting it in the same language they learned it in. Simplifying a complex topic generally takes quite a degree of mastery, in order to know which simplifications are justifiable, and which would distort the concept too much.</p><p>Also, I think sometimes they like to show off by writing things people can't understand.</p></div><p>Who was it that said, "You don't really understand something unless you can explain it in the vernacular"?</p><p>In other words, if you have to use jargon or big words, you don't really know what you're talking about.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gah !
That 's so common in technical topics on Wikipedia .
The problem is that it is is written by undergrads and interested amateurs ( I know , I 'm one of them ) .
Often they do n't know the subject well enough to simplify it for a general audience , and are stuck putting it in the same language they learned it in .
Simplifying a complex topic generally takes quite a degree of mastery , in order to know which simplifications are justifiable , and which would distort the concept too much.Also , I think sometimes they like to show off by writing things people ca n't understand.Who was it that said , " You do n't really understand something unless you can explain it in the vernacular " ? In other words , if you have to use jargon or big words , you do n't really know what you 're talking about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gah!
That's so common in technical topics on Wikipedia.
The problem is that it is is written by undergrads and interested amateurs (I know, I'm one of them).
Often they don't know the subject well enough to simplify it for a general audience, and are stuck putting it in the same language they learned it in.
Simplifying a complex topic generally takes quite a degree of mastery, in order to know which simplifications are justifiable, and which would distort the concept too much.Also, I think sometimes they like to show off by writing things people can't understand.Who was it that said, "You don't really understand something unless you can explain it in the vernacular"?In other words, if you have to use jargon or big words, you don't really know what you're talking about.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222235</id>
	<title>Re:Science Fiction</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1244216160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be fair, the same could be (and was) said of Quantum Physics as well. Reality *is* fucked up after all.</p><p>Pity, Newton's equations were *so* much easier...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair , the same could be ( and was ) said of Quantum Physics as well .
Reality * is * fucked up after all.Pity , Newton 's equations were * so * much easier.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair, the same could be (and was) said of Quantum Physics as well.
Reality *is* fucked up after all.Pity, Newton's equations were *so* much easier...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28225063</id>
	<title>Marty!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244226720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're not thinking TWO-dimensionally!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're not thinking TWO-dimensionally !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're not thinking TWO-dimensionally!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223221</id>
	<title>Anti stiller space</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244219760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>anything that comes up with an anti stiller space must be good.</p><p>hey! that's what I read on a very small phone screen!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>anything that comes up with an anti stiller space must be good.hey !
that 's what I read on a very small phone screen !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>anything that comes up with an anti stiller space must be good.hey!
that's what I read on a very small phone screen!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222857</id>
	<title>Re:Science Fiction</title>
	<author>kalirion</author>
	<datestamp>1244218500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's what I think about Dark Matter / Energy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what I think about Dark Matter / Energy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what I think about Dark Matter / Energy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221809</id>
	<title>Re:Science Fiction</title>
	<author>ZombieWomble</author>
	<datestamp>1244214000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, not like all that <i>good</i> science which is decided in advance and then rigidly adhered to!<p>
Wait a minute...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , not like all that good science which is decided in advance and then rigidly adhered to !
Wait a minute.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, not like all that good science which is decided in advance and then rigidly adhered to!
Wait a minute...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28230431</id>
	<title>And how is this a news ?</title>
	<author>S3D</author>
	<datestamp>1244227200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdS/CFT\_correspondence" title="wikipedia.org">Maldacena duality</a> [wikipedia.org] is discussed for more then ten years already, <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0501068" title="arxiv.org">"dual black holes" on the RHIC</a> [arxiv.org] is of 2005 and <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3215" title="arxiv.org">application to the superconductors</a> [arxiv.org] is of 2007.
So why now ? Are there any new development? Or it's just slashdot  catching up on the tow years old news?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maldacena duality [ wikipedia.org ] is discussed for more then ten years already , " dual black holes " on the RHIC [ arxiv.org ] is of 2005 and application to the superconductors [ arxiv.org ] is of 2007 .
So why now ?
Are there any new development ?
Or it 's just slashdot catching up on the tow years old news ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maldacena duality [wikipedia.org] is discussed for more then ten years already, "dual black holes" on the RHIC [arxiv.org] is of 2005 and application to the superconductors [arxiv.org] is of 2007.
So why now ?
Are there any new development?
Or it's just slashdot  catching up on the tow years old news?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224909</id>
	<title>Re:It's the math, stupid</title>
	<author>CorporateSuit</author>
	<datestamp>1244226180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's because string theory is just math with a mask on.  Math is math.  3 + 1 = 4.  2 + 2 = 4.  Everyone knows these, but what if I say (3-1)+(1+1) = 4?  If I add or subtract from the each of variables symmetrically, yet inversely, then I get the same sum.  You can use this to calculate anything you want in physics, and it will prove that the universe is made up of 1 dimensional numbers, we just perceive it as more than that.  How can you possibly dispute a statement like that, besides saying "That's not really connected..." to which I can tell you that you're just not getting it.<br> <br>
The same is with string theory.  It's all math, and since physics follows math, the universe must be made up of vibrating strings, right?  Wrong -- since anything that tells you that you have to add or subtract dimensions to make it work means it's not physics -- it's just more math.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because string theory is just math with a mask on .
Math is math .
3 + 1 = 4 .
2 + 2 = 4 .
Everyone knows these , but what if I say ( 3-1 ) + ( 1 + 1 ) = 4 ?
If I add or subtract from the each of variables symmetrically , yet inversely , then I get the same sum .
You can use this to calculate anything you want in physics , and it will prove that the universe is made up of 1 dimensional numbers , we just perceive it as more than that .
How can you possibly dispute a statement like that , besides saying " That 's not really connected... " to which I can tell you that you 're just not getting it .
The same is with string theory .
It 's all math , and since physics follows math , the universe must be made up of vibrating strings , right ?
Wrong -- since anything that tells you that you have to add or subtract dimensions to make it work means it 's not physics -- it 's just more math .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because string theory is just math with a mask on.
Math is math.
3 + 1 = 4.
2 + 2 = 4.
Everyone knows these, but what if I say (3-1)+(1+1) = 4?
If I add or subtract from the each of variables symmetrically, yet inversely, then I get the same sum.
You can use this to calculate anything you want in physics, and it will prove that the universe is made up of 1 dimensional numbers, we just perceive it as more than that.
How can you possibly dispute a statement like that, besides saying "That's not really connected..." to which I can tell you that you're just not getting it.
The same is with string theory.
It's all math, and since physics follows math, the universe must be made up of vibrating strings, right?
Wrong -- since anything that tells you that you have to add or subtract dimensions to make it work means it's not physics -- it's just more math.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222193</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223003</id>
	<title>Re:Science Fiction</title>
	<author>lawpoop</author>
	<datestamp>1244218980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They pulled a string theory out of their ass?<br> <br>In high school, I had a friend who had a small to medium 12-year-old yappy dog. He was blind, so he would bark at you even if he knew you, until he got close enough to smell you. Then he still might yap. <br> <br>One day he ate a baseball. A few days later, a string started coming out of his butt. They had to pull the string out, unless they wanted his to drag his butt string around all day. So they pulled, and when they did, he would yap. He was like some kind of life pull-string toy: pull the string from his butt, and he would bark.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They pulled a string theory out of their ass ?
In high school , I had a friend who had a small to medium 12-year-old yappy dog .
He was blind , so he would bark at you even if he knew you , until he got close enough to smell you .
Then he still might yap .
One day he ate a baseball .
A few days later , a string started coming out of his butt .
They had to pull the string out , unless they wanted his to drag his butt string around all day .
So they pulled , and when they did , he would yap .
He was like some kind of life pull-string toy : pull the string from his butt , and he would bark .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They pulled a string theory out of their ass?
In high school, I had a friend who had a small to medium 12-year-old yappy dog.
He was blind, so he would bark at you even if he knew you, until he got close enough to smell you.
Then he still might yap.
One day he ate a baseball.
A few days later, a string started coming out of his butt.
They had to pull the string out, unless they wanted his to drag his butt string around all day.
So they pulled, and when they did, he would yap.
He was like some kind of life pull-string toy: pull the string from his butt, and he would bark.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222945</id>
	<title>Superfluid?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244218740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're a non-Newtonian fluid<br>The kind you can't take home to moth-tha.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're a non-Newtonian fluidThe kind you ca n't take home to moth-tha .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're a non-Newtonian fluidThe kind you can't take home to moth-tha.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222023</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244215140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A bit of a side point, you can never prove a theory no matter how much biologists (or anyone else) claims differently, you can only uncover evidence that supports it.  However you can disprove a theory quite easily just by finding one case that doesn't fit with the theoretical predictions.<br>This is what makes evolution a bad theory and creationism a much worse one, neither makes concrete testable predictions.  String theory falls in the same category, no testable predictions.  The summery (because this is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. and we don't read articles here) just says that the mathematics from string theory has been used to model already observed behavior.  Neat idea but until the mathematics makes a testable prediction that matches the followup experiments, it is just masturbation with numbers.<br>Yes I have my phd in theoretical soft condensed mater physics and work in a research lab.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A bit of a side point , you can never prove a theory no matter how much biologists ( or anyone else ) claims differently , you can only uncover evidence that supports it .
However you can disprove a theory quite easily just by finding one case that does n't fit with the theoretical predictions.This is what makes evolution a bad theory and creationism a much worse one , neither makes concrete testable predictions .
String theory falls in the same category , no testable predictions .
The summery ( because this is / .
and we do n't read articles here ) just says that the mathematics from string theory has been used to model already observed behavior .
Neat idea but until the mathematics makes a testable prediction that matches the followup experiments , it is just masturbation with numbers.Yes I have my phd in theoretical soft condensed mater physics and work in a research lab .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A bit of a side point, you can never prove a theory no matter how much biologists (or anyone else) claims differently, you can only uncover evidence that supports it.
However you can disprove a theory quite easily just by finding one case that doesn't fit with the theoretical predictions.This is what makes evolution a bad theory and creationism a much worse one, neither makes concrete testable predictions.
String theory falls in the same category, no testable predictions.
The summery (because this is /.
and we don't read articles here) just says that the mathematics from string theory has been used to model already observed behavior.
Neat idea but until the mathematics makes a testable prediction that matches the followup experiments, it is just masturbation with numbers.Yes I have my phd in theoretical soft condensed mater physics and work in a research lab.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221675</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28225115</id>
	<title>Re:Science Fiction</title>
	<author>Vahokif</author>
	<datestamp>1244226960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <strong>I</strong> haven't a clue whats going on but reality's so wierd I've decided they've pulled the theory out of their asses!"</p></div><p>Fixed that for ya.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't a clue whats going on but reality 's so wierd I 've decided they 've pulled the theory out of their asses !
" Fixed that for ya .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I haven't a clue whats going on but reality's so wierd I've decided they've pulled the theory out of their asses!
"Fixed that for ya.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28226505</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>JohnFluxx</author>
	<datestamp>1244233440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know if you're just making a weak joke or if you're actually making a brilliant joke because that's exactly what does happen.</p><p>Basically you end up with a whole bunch of terms that are infinity (like from trying to divide by zero).  Then you do a magic trick with the math and cancel the infinities.  This technique is called renormalization.</p><p>As a quick example, a charged object has energy from its electrical field,  E = q^2 / (8 pi r).  But an electron is a point particle - it has a radius of 0.  So you end up dividing by zero and finding that the electron has an infinite energy (and thus also infinite mass)</p><p>So then you say that the electron itself also has a mass (a bare mass)..  but when you put the numbers in divide by zero again and you find the bare mass is negative infinity.</p><p>So now you say the bare mass + electric field mass  =  infinity + -infinity,  then wave your hands around and say the answer is 9.1x10^-31 kg<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know if you 're just making a weak joke or if you 're actually making a brilliant joke because that 's exactly what does happen.Basically you end up with a whole bunch of terms that are infinity ( like from trying to divide by zero ) .
Then you do a magic trick with the math and cancel the infinities .
This technique is called renormalization.As a quick example , a charged object has energy from its electrical field , E = q ^ 2 / ( 8 pi r ) .
But an electron is a point particle - it has a radius of 0 .
So you end up dividing by zero and finding that the electron has an infinite energy ( and thus also infinite mass ) So then you say that the electron itself also has a mass ( a bare mass ) .. but when you put the numbers in divide by zero again and you find the bare mass is negative infinity.So now you say the bare mass + electric field mass = infinity + -infinity , then wave your hands around and say the answer is 9.1x10 ^ -31 kg : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know if you're just making a weak joke or if you're actually making a brilliant joke because that's exactly what does happen.Basically you end up with a whole bunch of terms that are infinity (like from trying to divide by zero).
Then you do a magic trick with the math and cancel the infinities.
This technique is called renormalization.As a quick example, a charged object has energy from its electrical field,  E = q^2 / (8 pi r).
But an electron is a point particle - it has a radius of 0.
So you end up dividing by zero and finding that the electron has an infinite energy (and thus also infinite mass)So then you say that the electron itself also has a mass (a bare mass)..  but when you put the numbers in divide by zero again and you find the bare mass is negative infinity.So now you say the bare mass + electric field mass  =  infinity + -infinity,  then wave your hands around and say the answer is 9.1x10^-31 kg :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222115</id>
	<title>Re:It's the math, stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244215620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any statistician will tell you that if you put enough free parameters in a model, you can calibrate it to the given data.  Admittedly, string theory has some impressive parts to it, but it seems like it's just excess parameter fitting for a class of models that can all explain roughly the standard model.</p><p>But if somebody does come up with a particular string-theoretic model with new, testable implications that get verified that would be impressive - it would certainly indicate that they are barking up the right tree rather than just working on a pleasant geometric abstraction that can be set up to reduce to the messy realities of our fundamental forces and particles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any statistician will tell you that if you put enough free parameters in a model , you can calibrate it to the given data .
Admittedly , string theory has some impressive parts to it , but it seems like it 's just excess parameter fitting for a class of models that can all explain roughly the standard model.But if somebody does come up with a particular string-theoretic model with new , testable implications that get verified that would be impressive - it would certainly indicate that they are barking up the right tree rather than just working on a pleasant geometric abstraction that can be set up to reduce to the messy realities of our fundamental forces and particles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any statistician will tell you that if you put enough free parameters in a model, you can calibrate it to the given data.
Admittedly, string theory has some impressive parts to it, but it seems like it's just excess parameter fitting for a class of models that can all explain roughly the standard model.But if somebody does come up with a particular string-theoretic model with new, testable implications that get verified that would be impressive - it would certainly indicate that they are barking up the right tree rather than just working on a pleasant geometric abstraction that can be set up to reduce to the messy realities of our fundamental forces and particles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28267773</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah...</title>
	<author>Sj0</author>
	<datestamp>1244570160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If evolution is true, then when you poison a population, eventually the population will develop resistance to the poison.</p><p>What's that? There are drug resistant bacteria now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If evolution is true , then when you poison a population , eventually the population will develop resistance to the poison.What 's that ?
There are drug resistant bacteria now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If evolution is true, then when you poison a population, eventually the population will develop resistance to the poison.What's that?
There are drug resistant bacteria now?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222101</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244215500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have you met old scientists?  Smelly old men with irritable bowel and asthma.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you met old scientists ?
Smelly old men with irritable bowel and asthma .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you met old scientists?
Smelly old men with irritable bowel and asthma.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28227531</id>
	<title>Re:Give it time</title>
	<author>Planx\_Constant</author>
	<datestamp>1244196240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Max Planck explains blackbody radiation in terms of quantized light: 1900<br>
Einstein explains the photoelectric effect in terms of quantized light, starting everybody off on experiments, predictions, further understanding of small scale reality: 1905<br>

Not exactly ages.   Now look at string theory:<br>

Nambu, Susskind, and Nielson develop the foundations of string theory: 1970 <br>

Nearly four decades later, what are the predictions and tests available from string theory? I'm not saying string theory is necessarily wrong; there isn't enough evidence for any statement about its validity to be anything other than essentially a religious belief.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Max Planck explains blackbody radiation in terms of quantized light : 1900 Einstein explains the photoelectric effect in terms of quantized light , starting everybody off on experiments , predictions , further understanding of small scale reality : 1905 Not exactly ages .
Now look at string theory : Nambu , Susskind , and Nielson develop the foundations of string theory : 1970 Nearly four decades later , what are the predictions and tests available from string theory ?
I 'm not saying string theory is necessarily wrong ; there is n't enough evidence for any statement about its validity to be anything other than essentially a religious belief .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Max Planck explains blackbody radiation in terms of quantized light: 1900
Einstein explains the photoelectric effect in terms of quantized light, starting everybody off on experiments, predictions, further understanding of small scale reality: 1905

Not exactly ages.
Now look at string theory:

Nambu, Susskind, and Nielson develop the foundations of string theory: 1970 

Nearly four decades later, what are the predictions and tests available from string theory?
I'm not saying string theory is necessarily wrong; there isn't enough evidence for any statement about its validity to be anything other than essentially a religious belief.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223261</id>
	<title>Re:Give it time</title>
	<author>HetMes</author>
	<datestamp>1244219940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly, String Theory is the layman's Rubik's Cube: "It's a stupid toy, because I don't understand it and therefore can't show it off to my friends! Baww...."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly , String Theory is the layman 's Rubik 's Cube : " It 's a stupid toy , because I do n't understand it and therefore ca n't show it off to my friends !
Baww.... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly, String Theory is the layman's Rubik's Cube: "It's a stupid toy, because I don't understand it and therefore can't show it off to my friends!
Baww...."</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223549</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah...</title>
	<author>HadouKen24</author>
	<datestamp>1244221020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>However you can disprove a theory quite easily just by finding one case that doesn't fit with the theoretical predictions.
</p></div><p>I'd recommend taking a class or two on the philosophy of science. As it turns out, this just isn't true.</p><p>A theory is not, generally speaking, a single predictive proposition. It is a set of propositions which, when taken together, imply a single prediction. Discovering that the prediction fails does not tell you which of the propositions is incorrect. It is almost certainly impossible to isolate the incorrect proposition experimentally.</p><p>This principle is known in the philosophy of science as the Quine-Duhem thesis. The underlying logic has been found to be quite sound.</p><p>And it coheres well with our normal intuitions about how science is to be done. If, for instance, we were to find a heavier-than-air object that falls up from a state of rest, we would not scrap the entire theory of gravity. We would realize that this is a special case and try to figure out what the correct way to modify it would be.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However you can disprove a theory quite easily just by finding one case that does n't fit with the theoretical predictions .
I 'd recommend taking a class or two on the philosophy of science .
As it turns out , this just is n't true.A theory is not , generally speaking , a single predictive proposition .
It is a set of propositions which , when taken together , imply a single prediction .
Discovering that the prediction fails does not tell you which of the propositions is incorrect .
It is almost certainly impossible to isolate the incorrect proposition experimentally.This principle is known in the philosophy of science as the Quine-Duhem thesis .
The underlying logic has been found to be quite sound.And it coheres well with our normal intuitions about how science is to be done .
If , for instance , we were to find a heavier-than-air object that falls up from a state of rest , we would not scrap the entire theory of gravity .
We would realize that this is a special case and try to figure out what the correct way to modify it would be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However you can disprove a theory quite easily just by finding one case that doesn't fit with the theoretical predictions.
I'd recommend taking a class or two on the philosophy of science.
As it turns out, this just isn't true.A theory is not, generally speaking, a single predictive proposition.
It is a set of propositions which, when taken together, imply a single prediction.
Discovering that the prediction fails does not tell you which of the propositions is incorrect.
It is almost certainly impossible to isolate the incorrect proposition experimentally.This principle is known in the philosophy of science as the Quine-Duhem thesis.
The underlying logic has been found to be quite sound.And it coheres well with our normal intuitions about how science is to be done.
If, for instance, we were to find a heavier-than-air object that falls up from a state of rest, we would not scrap the entire theory of gravity.
We would realize that this is a special case and try to figure out what the correct way to modify it would be.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28230791</id>
	<title>Re:Poster doesn't understand TFA</title>
	<author>realnrh</author>
	<datestamp>1244319240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>... It's late and I'm going to bed, because I had to read that three times to get it to not say "The Macarena duality..."</htmltext>
<tokenext>... It 's late and I 'm going to bed , because I had to read that three times to get it to not say " The Macarena duality... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... It's late and I'm going to bed, because I had to read that three times to get it to not say "The Macarena duality..."</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221941</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28230041</id>
	<title>Re:Science Fiction</title>
	<author>JBaustian</author>
	<datestamp>1244221800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, I know there are lots of folks who are smarter than I am. but they are not THAT much smarter. Given a reasonably coherent explanation, I can usually understand most anything,  including astrophysics and cosmology. String theory does sound like a prank.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I know there are lots of folks who are smarter than I am .
but they are not THAT much smarter .
Given a reasonably coherent explanation , I can usually understand most anything , including astrophysics and cosmology .
String theory does sound like a prank .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I know there are lots of folks who are smarter than I am.
but they are not THAT much smarter.
Given a reasonably coherent explanation, I can usually understand most anything,  including astrophysics and cosmology.
String theory does sound like a prank.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28231861</id>
	<title>hmm...</title>
	<author>Ben1220</author>
	<datestamp>1244293920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>seems a little like using differentiation to find the gradient of a straight line...

except we know differentiation works</htmltext>
<tokenext>seems a little like using differentiation to find the gradient of a straight line.. . except we know differentiation works</tokentext>
<sentencetext>seems a little like using differentiation to find the gradient of a straight line...

except we know differentiation works</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221849</id>
	<title>Re:Science Fiction</title>
	<author>mikael</author>
	<datestamp>1244214240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think astrophysics is like that - I once went into a university bookstore to buy some recommended textbooks. On the top of the discount book table was a really impressive looking book with a some wireframe graphics on the front page. It was a summary of all the research carried out on the mathematical theory of black holes over 10 years (the size of two PC keyboards back to back). It was being sold at a discount because all the research was now out of date.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think astrophysics is like that - I once went into a university bookstore to buy some recommended textbooks .
On the top of the discount book table was a really impressive looking book with a some wireframe graphics on the front page .
It was a summary of all the research carried out on the mathematical theory of black holes over 10 years ( the size of two PC keyboards back to back ) .
It was being sold at a discount because all the research was now out of date .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think astrophysics is like that - I once went into a university bookstore to buy some recommended textbooks.
On the top of the discount book table was a really impressive looking book with a some wireframe graphics on the front page.
It was a summary of all the research carried out on the mathematical theory of black holes over 10 years (the size of two PC keyboards back to back).
It was being sold at a discount because all the research was now out of date.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223203</id>
	<title>I just realized something</title>
	<author>uvsc\_wolverine</author>
	<datestamp>1244219760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am feeling REALLY unintelligent after reading the summary.  I'm not even going to try to RTFA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am feeling REALLY unintelligent after reading the summary .
I 'm not even going to try to RTFA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am feeling REALLY unintelligent after reading the summary.
I'm not even going to try to RTFA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221755</id>
	<title>It's the math, stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244213820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>String theory works because the math works. There isn't anything special about the string theorists' model of humming cosmic strings that makes it work. All particle behavior is explainable using mathematics.</p><p>What makes this interesting is that the model allowed for the construction of mathematical constructs that explain the behavior correctly. But it still doesn't say anything about the predictions that the model completely blows.</p><p>What String Theory has, more than anything else, is a great set of marketeers behind it. Michio Kaku is a smart and articulate guy. It's not the steak, it's the sizzle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>String theory works because the math works .
There is n't anything special about the string theorists ' model of humming cosmic strings that makes it work .
All particle behavior is explainable using mathematics.What makes this interesting is that the model allowed for the construction of mathematical constructs that explain the behavior correctly .
But it still does n't say anything about the predictions that the model completely blows.What String Theory has , more than anything else , is a great set of marketeers behind it .
Michio Kaku is a smart and articulate guy .
It 's not the steak , it 's the sizzle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>String theory works because the math works.
There isn't anything special about the string theorists' model of humming cosmic strings that makes it work.
All particle behavior is explainable using mathematics.What makes this interesting is that the model allowed for the construction of mathematical constructs that explain the behavior correctly.
But it still doesn't say anything about the predictions that the model completely blows.What String Theory has, more than anything else, is a great set of marketeers behind it.
Michio Kaku is a smart and articulate guy.
It's not the steak, it's the sizzle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223371</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244220300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously, IANAM(I Am Not A Mathematician), but if super string theory is based on pure math, couldn't that math be proven? If you could prove string theory and you find more things to predict using it, which adds up, couldn't you create mathematical proofs using string theory to prove certain equations in physics based on the results from the pure math equations?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously , IANAM ( I Am Not A Mathematician ) , but if super string theory is based on pure math , could n't that math be proven ?
If you could prove string theory and you find more things to predict using it , which adds up , could n't you create mathematical proofs using string theory to prove certain equations in physics based on the results from the pure math equations ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously, IANAM(I Am Not A Mathematician), but if super string theory is based on pure math, couldn't that math be proven?
If you could prove string theory and you find more things to predict using it, which adds up, couldn't you create mathematical proofs using string theory to prove certain equations in physics based on the results from the pure math equations?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28237083</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244288580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know if I can consider myself a "theoretical physicist" since now I'm working in a much different field, but believe me, even if probably my comment stay unread due to my "anonymous coward" status, this is the most kind and encouraging thing I've heard for a long time.</p><p>I've never regret becoming a physicist, even if I'm a poor one. Probably there are jobs out there which can provide more, but the satisfaction being a physicist and try to make people realize the beauty of our universe, can't be compared with any amount of money (well... that's not entirely true... OK I'm just kidding!!!)</p><p>Anyway, THANK YOU for the encouragement!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know if I can consider myself a " theoretical physicist " since now I 'm working in a much different field , but believe me , even if probably my comment stay unread due to my " anonymous coward " status , this is the most kind and encouraging thing I 've heard for a long time.I 've never regret becoming a physicist , even if I 'm a poor one .
Probably there are jobs out there which can provide more , but the satisfaction being a physicist and try to make people realize the beauty of our universe , ca n't be compared with any amount of money ( well... that 's not entirely true... OK I 'm just kidding ! ! !
) Anyway , THANK YOU for the encouragement !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know if I can consider myself a "theoretical physicist" since now I'm working in a much different field, but believe me, even if probably my comment stay unread due to my "anonymous coward" status, this is the most kind and encouraging thing I've heard for a long time.I've never regret becoming a physicist, even if I'm a poor one.
Probably there are jobs out there which can provide more, but the satisfaction being a physicist and try to make people realize the beauty of our universe, can't be compared with any amount of money (well... that's not entirely true... OK I'm just kidding!!!
)Anyway, THANK YOU for the encouragement!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28231249</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>KingBenny</author>
	<datestamp>1244283360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>ofcourse, but M-theory still seems a bit fantastic to me to say the least<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... i can visualize more or less the concept of strings but colliding universes bubbling about giving birth to big bangs<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... that's just to make the picture fit the frame, it's wild guessing. Then again, 1950s sci-fi seems to be the matter of the quantum and the astro now<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>ofcourse , but M-theory still seems a bit fantastic to me to say the least ... i can visualize more or less the concept of strings but colliding universes bubbling about giving birth to big bangs ... that 's just to make the picture fit the frame , it 's wild guessing .
Then again , 1950s sci-fi seems to be the matter of the quantum and the astro now : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ofcourse, but M-theory still seems a bit fantastic to me to say the least ... i can visualize more or less the concept of strings but colliding universes bubbling about giving birth to big bangs ... that's just to make the picture fit the frame, it's wild guessing.
Then again, 1950s sci-fi seems to be the matter of the quantum and the astro now :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224863</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244226000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...having worked with academic medics, chemists, mathematicians, computer scientists and biologists, physicists are almost always the coolest, most down to earth and least douchey scientists out there.</p></div><p>Having worked with the same set I have to say the precise opposite. But perhaps physicists who decide to come and work in biology are somehow an exception. Certainly it's a miracle that many I've met manage to control their bladders, considering how little control they apparently have over their tongues.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...having worked with academic medics , chemists , mathematicians , computer scientists and biologists , physicists are almost always the coolest , most down to earth and least douchey scientists out there.Having worked with the same set I have to say the precise opposite .
But perhaps physicists who decide to come and work in biology are somehow an exception .
Certainly it 's a miracle that many I 've met manage to control their bladders , considering how little control they apparently have over their tongues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...having worked with academic medics, chemists, mathematicians, computer scientists and biologists, physicists are almost always the coolest, most down to earth and least douchey scientists out there.Having worked with the same set I have to say the precise opposite.
But perhaps physicists who decide to come and work in biology are somehow an exception.
Certainly it's a miracle that many I've met manage to control their bladders, considering how little control they apparently have over their tongues.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222079</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>Fnkmaster</author>
	<datestamp>1244215380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Very simple explanation - nothing in the universe builds humility like an education in physics.  If you don't walk out of a physics degree feeling like you know less than you did when you started, like all you've done is build layer upon layer of model and gained only modest flashes of insight into reality after marathon sessions of math, then you've done something wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very simple explanation - nothing in the universe builds humility like an education in physics .
If you do n't walk out of a physics degree feeling like you know less than you did when you started , like all you 've done is build layer upon layer of model and gained only modest flashes of insight into reality after marathon sessions of math , then you 've done something wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very simple explanation - nothing in the universe builds humility like an education in physics.
If you don't walk out of a physics degree feeling like you know less than you did when you started, like all you've done is build layer upon layer of model and gained only modest flashes of insight into reality after marathon sessions of math, then you've done something wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223739</id>
	<title>Re:Science Fiction</title>
	<author>Gilmoure</author>
	<datestamp>1244221740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would be really cool if the Police got back together. That's my theory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would be really cool if the Police got back together .
That 's my theory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would be really cool if the Police got back together.
That's my theory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28226309</id>
	<title>Re:Only a 2D construct in anti-de-Sitter space!</title>
	<author>JohnFluxx</author>
	<datestamp>1244232600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had an attempt at explaining the de sitter space:</p><p>If our universe was completely flat, with 3 ordinary dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time, then we'd call that Minkowski space, and the ordinary euclidean geometry that you learnt at school would be correct (angles in a triangle add up to 180 degrees etc)</p><p>But our universe is actually curved, like a ball, and we have special relativity. We call this space the "de Sitter space".</p><p>If the universe was curved, but more like saddle, then we would call that the "anti de Sitter space" (since a saddle curves in a way that is kinda opposite to how a saddle curves).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had an attempt at explaining the de sitter space : If our universe was completely flat , with 3 ordinary dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time , then we 'd call that Minkowski space , and the ordinary euclidean geometry that you learnt at school would be correct ( angles in a triangle add up to 180 degrees etc ) But our universe is actually curved , like a ball , and we have special relativity .
We call this space the " de Sitter space " .If the universe was curved , but more like saddle , then we would call that the " anti de Sitter space " ( since a saddle curves in a way that is kinda opposite to how a saddle curves ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had an attempt at explaining the de sitter space:If our universe was completely flat, with 3 ordinary dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time, then we'd call that Minkowski space, and the ordinary euclidean geometry that you learnt at school would be correct (angles in a triangle add up to 180 degrees etc)But our universe is actually curved, like a ball, and we have special relativity.
We call this space the "de Sitter space".If the universe was curved, but more like saddle, then we would call that the "anti de Sitter space" (since a saddle curves in a way that is kinda opposite to how a saddle curves).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28225183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221987</id>
	<title>Wow, the theory that matches all experimental data</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1244214900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>except the datum of there being \_at\_least\_ 3 spatial dimensions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>except the datum of there being \ _at \ _least \ _ 3 spatial dimensions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>except the datum of there being \_at\_least\_ 3 spatial dimensions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221973</id>
	<title>I don't understand</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244214840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, really I don't. "space-time has any number of dimensions, usually 10" USUALLY?! What is anti-de-Sitter space anyway? What? WHAT? WHAT THE FRELL?!?!!111one</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , really I do n't .
" space-time has any number of dimensions , usually 10 " USUALLY ? !
What is anti-de-Sitter space anyway ?
What ? WHAT ?
WHAT THE FRELL ? ! ? !
! 111one</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, really I don't.
"space-time has any number of dimensions, usually 10" USUALLY?!
What is anti-de-Sitter space anyway?
What? WHAT?
WHAT THE FRELL?!?!
!111one</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28226285</id>
	<title>Re:Only a 2D construct in anti-de-Sitter space!</title>
	<author>JohnFluxx</author>
	<datestamp>1244232480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In mathematics and physics, n-dimensional anti de Sitter space, sometimes written AdSn, is a maximally symmetric Lorentzian manifold with constant negative scalar curvature. It is the Lorentzian analog of n-dimensional hyperbolic space, just as Minkowski space and de Sitter space are the analogs of Euclidean and elliptical spaces respectively. It is best known for its role in the AdS/CFT correspondence.</p></div><p>Here's my simple attempt:</p><p>If our universe was completely flat, with 3 ordinary dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time, then we'd call that Minkowski space, and the ordinary euclidean geometry that you learnt at school would be correct (angles in a triangle add up to 180 degrees etc)</p><p>But our universe is actually curved, like a ball, and we have special relativity.  We call this space the "de Sitter space".</p><p>If the universe was curved, but more like saddle, then we would call that the "and de sitter space" (since a saddle curves in a way that is kinda opposite to how a saddle curves).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In mathematics and physics , n-dimensional anti de Sitter space , sometimes written AdSn , is a maximally symmetric Lorentzian manifold with constant negative scalar curvature .
It is the Lorentzian analog of n-dimensional hyperbolic space , just as Minkowski space and de Sitter space are the analogs of Euclidean and elliptical spaces respectively .
It is best known for its role in the AdS/CFT correspondence.Here 's my simple attempt : If our universe was completely flat , with 3 ordinary dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time , then we 'd call that Minkowski space , and the ordinary euclidean geometry that you learnt at school would be correct ( angles in a triangle add up to 180 degrees etc ) But our universe is actually curved , like a ball , and we have special relativity .
We call this space the " de Sitter space " .If the universe was curved , but more like saddle , then we would call that the " and de sitter space " ( since a saddle curves in a way that is kinda opposite to how a saddle curves ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In mathematics and physics, n-dimensional anti de Sitter space, sometimes written AdSn, is a maximally symmetric Lorentzian manifold with constant negative scalar curvature.
It is the Lorentzian analog of n-dimensional hyperbolic space, just as Minkowski space and de Sitter space are the analogs of Euclidean and elliptical spaces respectively.
It is best known for its role in the AdS/CFT correspondence.Here's my simple attempt:If our universe was completely flat, with 3 ordinary dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time, then we'd call that Minkowski space, and the ordinary euclidean geometry that you learnt at school would be correct (angles in a triangle add up to 180 degrees etc)But our universe is actually curved, like a ball, and we have special relativity.
We call this space the "de Sitter space".If the universe was curved, but more like saddle, then we would call that the "and de sitter space" (since a saddle curves in a way that is kinda opposite to how a saddle curves).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223721</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>Saba</author>
	<datestamp>1244221680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; I'm always amazed that theoretical physicists can manipulate such immensely complex abstract objects in their heads and still be able to breathe and maintain bladder control.<br> <br>

That's easy. You just imagine <i>n</i> dimensions, and let n tend to 11...</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I 'm always amazed that theoretical physicists can manipulate such immensely complex abstract objects in their heads and still be able to breathe and maintain bladder control .
That 's easy .
You just imagine n dimensions , and let n tend to 11.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; I'm always amazed that theoretical physicists can manipulate such immensely complex abstract objects in their heads and still be able to breathe and maintain bladder control.
That's easy.
You just imagine n dimensions, and let n tend to 11...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221703</id>
	<title>Title</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244213580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a theory that there must be a joke in here somewhere about strings and superfluid!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a theory that there must be a joke in here somewhere about strings and superfluid !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a theory that there must be a joke in here somewhere about strings and superfluid!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28225891</id>
	<title>Re:Science Fiction</title>
	<author>hoggoth</author>
	<datestamp>1244230500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>String theorists don't make predictions, they make excuses. -Feynman</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>String theorists do n't make predictions , they make excuses .
-Feynman</tokentext>
<sentencetext>String theorists don't make predictions, they make excuses.
-Feynman</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221793</id>
	<title>Exciting</title>
	<author>Rosco P. Coltrane</author>
	<datestamp>1244213940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>one condensed matter theorist said, "It took two years and two 1000-page books of dense mathematics, but I learned string theory and got kind of enchanted by it.</i></p><p>Boy, long winter evenings must just fly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>one condensed matter theorist said , " It took two years and two 1000-page books of dense mathematics , but I learned string theory and got kind of enchanted by it.Boy , long winter evenings must just fly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>one condensed matter theorist said, "It took two years and two 1000-page books of dense mathematics, but I learned string theory and got kind of enchanted by it.Boy, long winter evenings must just fly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221875</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah...</title>
	<author>Polir</author>
	<datestamp>1244214360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I suspect that you are just trolling and you perfectly understand that the statement only tries to emphasise that: even that the calculations by this theory corresponds with experimental data it does not prove the theory true, although it is a positive step (so it at least doesn't contradicts). And that this has nothing to do with wheter string theory itself a "positive step" to anywhere or not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect that you are just trolling and you perfectly understand that the statement only tries to emphasise that : even that the calculations by this theory corresponds with experimental data it does not prove the theory true , although it is a positive step ( so it at least does n't contradicts ) .
And that this has nothing to do with wheter string theory itself a " positive step " to anywhere or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect that you are just trolling and you perfectly understand that the statement only tries to emphasise that: even that the calculations by this theory corresponds with experimental data it does not prove the theory true, although it is a positive step (so it at least doesn't contradicts).
And that this has nothing to do with wheter string theory itself a "positive step" to anywhere or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221675</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223209</id>
	<title>Re:Science Fiction</title>
	<author>NotFamous</author>
	<datestamp>1244219760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"we haven't a clue whats going on but reality's so wierd we've decided to pull a theory out of our ass!"</p></div><p>If that is true, then we must be smart asses.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" we have n't a clue whats going on but reality 's so wierd we 've decided to pull a theory out of our ass !
" If that is true , then we must be smart asses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"we haven't a clue whats going on but reality's so wierd we've decided to pull a theory out of our ass!
"If that is true, then we must be smart asses.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28225183</id>
	<title>Re:Only a 2D construct in anti-de-Sitter space!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244227260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, how DO you explain what an anti de Sitter space is to an interested layperson with no actual mathematical background (highschool doesn't count)?</p><p>It seems to me that pretty much the only thing you'd be able to say is "It's a mathematical thingamajic that we can't even begin to explain because you not only don't know the necessary concepts but also refuse to learn them".</p><p>At least with Wikipedia's description, you CAN look up all the terms and learn.</p><p>Here's an experiment for you: take a relative who doesn't know the slightest thing about computers and explain to them an IT concept that's immediately obvious to you - garbage collectors, say. Can you actually give them an understanding of what a garbage collector does (no, "it collects garbage, just like the garbage man does with our trash each week" doesn't count), why it's important and what the pitfalls are?</p><p>You probably can, but you won't be able to without investing some time and explaining some things along the way.</p><p>And you know what? There's *nothing wrong with that*.</p><p>Simplify things as much as possible, but don't simplify them any further. There is such a thing as the inherent complexity of a topic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , how DO you explain what an anti de Sitter space is to an interested layperson with no actual mathematical background ( highschool does n't count ) ? It seems to me that pretty much the only thing you 'd be able to say is " It 's a mathematical thingamajic that we ca n't even begin to explain because you not only do n't know the necessary concepts but also refuse to learn them " .At least with Wikipedia 's description , you CAN look up all the terms and learn.Here 's an experiment for you : take a relative who does n't know the slightest thing about computers and explain to them an IT concept that 's immediately obvious to you - garbage collectors , say .
Can you actually give them an understanding of what a garbage collector does ( no , " it collects garbage , just like the garbage man does with our trash each week " does n't count ) , why it 's important and what the pitfalls are ? You probably can , but you wo n't be able to without investing some time and explaining some things along the way.And you know what ?
There 's * nothing wrong with that * .Simplify things as much as possible , but do n't simplify them any further .
There is such a thing as the inherent complexity of a topic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, how DO you explain what an anti de Sitter space is to an interested layperson with no actual mathematical background (highschool doesn't count)?It seems to me that pretty much the only thing you'd be able to say is "It's a mathematical thingamajic that we can't even begin to explain because you not only don't know the necessary concepts but also refuse to learn them".At least with Wikipedia's description, you CAN look up all the terms and learn.Here's an experiment for you: take a relative who doesn't know the slightest thing about computers and explain to them an IT concept that's immediately obvious to you - garbage collectors, say.
Can you actually give them an understanding of what a garbage collector does (no, "it collects garbage, just like the garbage man does with our trash each week" doesn't count), why it's important and what the pitfalls are?You probably can, but you won't be able to without investing some time and explaining some things along the way.And you know what?
There's *nothing wrong with that*.Simplify things as much as possible, but don't simplify them any further.
There is such a thing as the inherent complexity of a topic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224137</id>
	<title>Re:Only a 2D construct in anti-de-Sitter space!</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1244223180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Simplifying a complex topic generally takes quite a degree of mastery, in order to know which simplifications are justifiable, and which would distort the concept too much.</p></div><p>
Which is precisely why men understand the appeal of porn and most women have no clue....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Simplifying a complex topic generally takes quite a degree of mastery , in order to know which simplifications are justifiable , and which would distort the concept too much .
Which is precisely why men understand the appeal of porn and most women have no clue... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simplifying a complex topic generally takes quite a degree of mastery, in order to know which simplifications are justifiable, and which would distort the concept too much.
Which is precisely why men understand the appeal of porn and most women have no clue....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222781</id>
	<title>Re:Only a 2D construct in anti-de-Sitter space!</title>
	<author>berashith</author>
	<datestamp>1244218260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>my two year old son can beat the shit out of a keyboard and write something that people cant understand. It is no reason to show off!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>my two year old son can beat the shit out of a keyboard and write something that people cant understand .
It is no reason to show off !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>my two year old son can beat the shit out of a keyboard and write something that people cant understand.
It is no reason to show off!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224305</id>
	<title>Re:It's the math, stupid</title>
	<author>RobDude</author>
	<datestamp>1244223780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's basically the, 'If you can't completely and convincingly prove my wild theory wrong, then it must be correct' argument.</p><p>"If God isn't real - then how do you explain \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_"<br>'Well, I can't explain \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ but I'm saying that there are problems and contradictions in your religious beliefs like,'<br>"BWHAHAHA GOD EXISTS BECAUSE YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN WHAT STARTED THE BIG BANG".</p><p>A lack of a better theory doesn't make a theory right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's basically the , 'If you ca n't completely and convincingly prove my wild theory wrong , then it must be correct ' argument .
" If God is n't real - then how do you explain \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ " 'Well , I ca n't explain \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ but I 'm saying that there are problems and contradictions in your religious beliefs like, ' " BWHAHAHA GOD EXISTS BECAUSE YOU CA N'T EXPLAIN WHAT STARTED THE BIG BANG " .A lack of a better theory does n't make a theory right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's basically the, 'If you can't completely and convincingly prove my wild theory wrong, then it must be correct' argument.
"If God isn't real - then how do you explain \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_"'Well, I can't explain \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ but I'm saying that there are problems and contradictions in your religious beliefs like,'"BWHAHAHA GOD EXISTS BECAUSE YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN WHAT STARTED THE BIG BANG".A lack of a better theory doesn't make a theory right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222193</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28231753</id>
	<title>Fusion?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244292240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would this AdS/CFT correspondence provide any further insight into something like fusion reactions?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would this AdS/CFT correspondence provide any further insight into something like fusion reactions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would this AdS/CFT correspondence provide any further insight into something like fusion reactions?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222955</id>
	<title>first Pos7?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244218800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>exploited t4at. A is the ultimate</htmltext>
<tokenext>exploited t4at .
A is the ultimate</tokentext>
<sentencetext>exploited t4at.
A is the ultimate</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223969</id>
	<title>Oblig...</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1244222520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>As always....xkcd explains it best <a href="http://xkcd.com/171/" title="xkcd.com" rel="nofollow"> here</a> [xkcd.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>As always....xkcd explains it best here [ xkcd.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As always....xkcd explains it best  here [xkcd.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224845</id>
	<title>Re:Science Fiction</title>
	<author>acgetchell</author>
	<datestamp>1244225940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are several very cool results from String/M-theory, but nothing that can be fully understood without the mathematics. But a theory that fully explains all interactions, including matter fields, with supersymmetry and supergravity arising naturally from it, an explanation of the heirarchy problem, and use of perturbation theory and renormalization for gravitons which are generally non-renormalizable, is interesting.</p><p>Loop Quantum gravity is interesting too, especially for its background independence, but it will never explain matter fields, and the semiclassical sector is currently lacking. By contrast, string theory has a natural extension to classical general relativity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are several very cool results from String/M-theory , but nothing that can be fully understood without the mathematics .
But a theory that fully explains all interactions , including matter fields , with supersymmetry and supergravity arising naturally from it , an explanation of the heirarchy problem , and use of perturbation theory and renormalization for gravitons which are generally non-renormalizable , is interesting.Loop Quantum gravity is interesting too , especially for its background independence , but it will never explain matter fields , and the semiclassical sector is currently lacking .
By contrast , string theory has a natural extension to classical general relativity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are several very cool results from String/M-theory, but nothing that can be fully understood without the mathematics.
But a theory that fully explains all interactions, including matter fields, with supersymmetry and supergravity arising naturally from it, an explanation of the heirarchy problem, and use of perturbation theory and renormalization for gravitons which are generally non-renormalizable, is interesting.Loop Quantum gravity is interesting too, especially for its background independence, but it will never explain matter fields, and the semiclassical sector is currently lacking.
By contrast, string theory has a natural extension to classical general relativity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221945</id>
	<title>I lol'd</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244214720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The current tags (in order) for this story read to me:<blockquote><div><p> <tt>mygoddoyouknowwhatthismeans noidont stoptalkingintags</tt></p></div> </blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The current tags ( in order ) for this story read to me : mygoddoyouknowwhatthismeans noidont stoptalkingintags</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The current tags (in order) for this story read to me: mygoddoyouknowwhatthismeans noidont stoptalkingintags 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222111</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>OneSmartFellow</author>
	<datestamp>1244215560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Frink: Oh, I forgot to er, carry the one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Frink : Oh , I forgot to er , carry the one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frink: Oh, I forgot to er, carry the one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222193</id>
	<title>Re:It's the math, stupid</title>
	<author>m.ducharme</author>
	<datestamp>1244215980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So where's the competing theory, the one that explains things better, and is testable and whatnot?  I hadn't heard that there really was one. My impression was that the one advantage the String theorists have is that they currently don't have any credible competition, though I confess that I haven't been keeping up with the debates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So where 's the competing theory , the one that explains things better , and is testable and whatnot ?
I had n't heard that there really was one .
My impression was that the one advantage the String theorists have is that they currently do n't have any credible competition , though I confess that I have n't been keeping up with the debates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So where's the competing theory, the one that explains things better, and is testable and whatnot?
I hadn't heard that there really was one.
My impression was that the one advantage the String theorists have is that they currently don't have any credible competition, though I confess that I haven't been keeping up with the debates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222453</id>
	<title>Give it time</title>
	<author>elashish14</author>
	<datestamp>1244216880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everybody gives string theory a hard time because it hasn't made any predictions, and because it can't be tested. Give it some damn time. It took ages before anyone could make useful predictions with quantum mechanics, and it was shunned for a while too (even by Einstein) and now it's an essential part of our scientific understanding. We shouldn't be so quick to cast out string theory either. Some time, eventually, maybe very far down the road (and if it turns out to be right), it too could be as useful as quantum mechanics has become. I wish scientists would just open their damn minds for once.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everybody gives string theory a hard time because it has n't made any predictions , and because it ca n't be tested .
Give it some damn time .
It took ages before anyone could make useful predictions with quantum mechanics , and it was shunned for a while too ( even by Einstein ) and now it 's an essential part of our scientific understanding .
We should n't be so quick to cast out string theory either .
Some time , eventually , maybe very far down the road ( and if it turns out to be right ) , it too could be as useful as quantum mechanics has become .
I wish scientists would just open their damn minds for once .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everybody gives string theory a hard time because it hasn't made any predictions, and because it can't be tested.
Give it some damn time.
It took ages before anyone could make useful predictions with quantum mechanics, and it was shunned for a while too (even by Einstein) and now it's an essential part of our scientific understanding.
We shouldn't be so quick to cast out string theory either.
Some time, eventually, maybe very far down the road (and if it turns out to be right), it too could be as useful as quantum mechanics has become.
I wish scientists would just open their damn minds for once.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28229267</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>tsotha</author>
	<datestamp>1244210640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I'm always amazed that theoretical physicists can manipulate such immensely complex abstract objects in their heads and still be able to breathe and maintain bladder control. It really makes software engineering look like a piece of piss. Much respect.</i>

Sure, but since you have no idea what they're talking about, for all you know it's just random mathematical-sounding bullshit to keep their university positions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm always amazed that theoretical physicists can manipulate such immensely complex abstract objects in their heads and still be able to breathe and maintain bladder control .
It really makes software engineering look like a piece of piss .
Much respect .
Sure , but since you have no idea what they 're talking about , for all you know it 's just random mathematical-sounding bullshit to keep their university positions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm always amazed that theoretical physicists can manipulate such immensely complex abstract objects in their heads and still be able to breathe and maintain bladder control.
It really makes software engineering look like a piece of piss.
Much respect.
Sure, but since you have no idea what they're talking about, for all you know it's just random mathematical-sounding bullshit to keep their university positions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28227835</id>
	<title>Um, I'd hate to point this out...</title>
	<author>Secret Rabbit</author>
	<datestamp>1244198100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... but this quote:</p><p>"but it fails to correspond to the shape of space-time in the known universe."</p><p>Kinda puts the nail in the coffin of this evidence for string theory now doesn't it.  I really wish that they guys would just shut-up, stop grasping at straws and go away.  At least until they actually find something useful that fits known Physics and doesn't contradict it in some significant way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... but this quote : " but it fails to correspond to the shape of space-time in the known universe .
" Kinda puts the nail in the coffin of this evidence for string theory now does n't it .
I really wish that they guys would just shut-up , stop grasping at straws and go away .
At least until they actually find something useful that fits known Physics and does n't contradict it in some significant way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... but this quote:"but it fails to correspond to the shape of space-time in the known universe.
"Kinda puts the nail in the coffin of this evidence for string theory now doesn't it.
I really wish that they guys would just shut-up, stop grasping at straws and go away.
At least until they actually find something useful that fits known Physics and doesn't contradict it in some significant way.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28233545</id>
	<title>Re:It's the math, stupid</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1244306820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's basically the, 'If you can't completely and convincingly prove my wild theory wrong, then it must be correct' argument.</p></div><p>No, what you're describing is that total lack of evidence makes every theory wild. What was before time, what is outside the universe, what's after death is all pure speculation. The moment you have evidence, the theory that fits it best is the most correct one. As for what is pure speculation, what's sane to assume - that everything you haven't observed does or doesn't exist? I've never seen fairies or unicorns but that's not proof they don't exist but I'd be pretty strange to assume that they do.</p><p>If they start pulling up the book and the Church as proof, it's time to get nasty. Back then they believed in so many strange things of folklore and superstition and sorcery and witchcraft and whatnot. We've abandoned almost all of that except religion, because clearly people 2000 years ago couldn't be fooled into believing in anyone else than the true son of god. And since then time and time again the book has been proven wrong on many things, but of course we can never go back and know what really happened when he allegedly rose from the dead. Don't get me wrong, he could have been an ancient day Gandhi but the alleged divine insight I have very hard to see...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's basically the , 'If you ca n't completely and convincingly prove my wild theory wrong , then it must be correct ' argument.No , what you 're describing is that total lack of evidence makes every theory wild .
What was before time , what is outside the universe , what 's after death is all pure speculation .
The moment you have evidence , the theory that fits it best is the most correct one .
As for what is pure speculation , what 's sane to assume - that everything you have n't observed does or does n't exist ?
I 've never seen fairies or unicorns but that 's not proof they do n't exist but I 'd be pretty strange to assume that they do.If they start pulling up the book and the Church as proof , it 's time to get nasty .
Back then they believed in so many strange things of folklore and superstition and sorcery and witchcraft and whatnot .
We 've abandoned almost all of that except religion , because clearly people 2000 years ago could n't be fooled into believing in anyone else than the true son of god .
And since then time and time again the book has been proven wrong on many things , but of course we can never go back and know what really happened when he allegedly rose from the dead .
Do n't get me wrong , he could have been an ancient day Gandhi but the alleged divine insight I have very hard to see.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's basically the, 'If you can't completely and convincingly prove my wild theory wrong, then it must be correct' argument.No, what you're describing is that total lack of evidence makes every theory wild.
What was before time, what is outside the universe, what's after death is all pure speculation.
The moment you have evidence, the theory that fits it best is the most correct one.
As for what is pure speculation, what's sane to assume - that everything you haven't observed does or doesn't exist?
I've never seen fairies or unicorns but that's not proof they don't exist but I'd be pretty strange to assume that they do.If they start pulling up the book and the Church as proof, it's time to get nasty.
Back then they believed in so many strange things of folklore and superstition and sorcery and witchcraft and whatnot.
We've abandoned almost all of that except religion, because clearly people 2000 years ago couldn't be fooled into believing in anyone else than the true son of god.
And since then time and time again the book has been proven wrong on many things, but of course we can never go back and know what really happened when he allegedly rose from the dead.
Don't get me wrong, he could have been an ancient day Gandhi but the alleged divine insight I have very hard to see...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224305</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28231559</id>
	<title>Re:Science Fiction</title>
	<author>metaforest</author>
	<datestamp>1244289060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and as long as you stay out of the universe of the very, very big, and the very very small, Newton is accurate out to about 1e-6.</p><p>Good enough for g'varmit work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and as long as you stay out of the universe of the very , very big , and the very very small , Newton is accurate out to about 1e-6.Good enough for g'varmit work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and as long as you stay out of the universe of the very, very big, and the very very small, Newton is accurate out to about 1e-6.Good enough for g'varmit work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222235</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223295</id>
	<title>The Big Band Theory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244220060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except Sheldon Cooper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except Sheldon Cooper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except Sheldon Cooper.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222973</id>
	<title>String theory is a real predictive model...</title>
	<author>bistromath007</author>
	<datestamp>1244218860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And everyone agrees that it STILL doesn't make sense.<br>
<br>
I am now totally convinced that Douglas Adams wrote this universe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And everyone agrees that it STILL does n't make sense .
I am now totally convinced that Douglas Adams wrote this universe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And everyone agrees that it STILL doesn't make sense.
I am now totally convinced that Douglas Adams wrote this universe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222835</id>
	<title>Re:String Theory Predicts Something?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244218440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If a theory has no basis in fact (i.e. no physical reality that can be described) then it is just Math. Math is not reality. You can model anything with Math, and it doesn't even have to exist.</p></div><p>Unless what we believe (or model) has more to do with reality than anything physical.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If a theory has no basis in fact ( i.e .
no physical reality that can be described ) then it is just Math .
Math is not reality .
You can model anything with Math , and it does n't even have to exist.Unless what we believe ( or model ) has more to do with reality than anything physical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a theory has no basis in fact (i.e.
no physical reality that can be described) then it is just Math.
Math is not reality.
You can model anything with Math, and it doesn't even have to exist.Unless what we believe (or model) has more to do with reality than anything physical.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223249</id>
	<title>You don't really prove things to be true</title>
	<author>Colin Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1244219940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All you can say really is that the evidence fits the hypothesis, and therefore it hasn't been proven false.</p><p>Think of it like sculpting. Eventually after you chip away all the junk you are left with a shape, or model which looks like the truth. You can't say it *is* the truth, but it sure looks a lot like it.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All you can say really is that the evidence fits the hypothesis , and therefore it has n't been proven false.Think of it like sculpting .
Eventually after you chip away all the junk you are left with a shape , or model which looks like the truth .
You ca n't say it * is * the truth , but it sure looks a lot like it .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>All you can say really is that the evidence fits the hypothesis, and therefore it hasn't been proven false.Think of it like sculpting.
Eventually after you chip away all the junk you are left with a shape, or model which looks like the truth.
You can't say it *is* the truth, but it sure looks a lot like it.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221675</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223903</id>
	<title>Re:Only a 2D construct in anti-de-Sitter space!</title>
	<author>OctaviusIII</author>
	<datestamp>1244222220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Suddenly, I have a greater respect for Star Trek technobabble, as well as the simple analogies that often follow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Suddenly , I have a greater respect for Star Trek technobabble , as well as the simple analogies that often follow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Suddenly, I have a greater respect for Star Trek technobabble, as well as the simple analogies that often follow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28226681</id>
	<title>Re:It's the math, stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244234640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Theory is never right, it's just might be useful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Theory is never right , it 's just might be useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Theory is never right, it's just might be useful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224305</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221751</id>
	<title>Re:Science Fiction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244213760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And pulling it out with strings!</p><p>Sorry about that...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And pulling it out with strings ! Sorry about that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And pulling it out with strings!Sorry about that...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224781</id>
	<title>What a load of crap.</title>
	<author>nausea\_malvarma</author>
	<datestamp>1244225580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When will these scientists realize the <a href="http://www.timecube.com/" title="timecube.com">cubic properties of time and space?</a> [timecube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>When will these scientists realize the cubic properties of time and space ?
[ timecube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When will these scientists realize the cubic properties of time and space?
[timecube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28230459</id>
	<title>Ask Carmack!</title>
	<author>G3ckoG33k</author>
	<datestamp>1244227800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Understanding these materials at the deepest level involves calculating how huge numbers of particles interact - something that we simply don't have the tools to cope with. "It's very dissatisfying that in the centuries since Galileo kick-started modern physics, we still can't deal with that," says Sean Hartnoll, a string theorist at Harvard University."</p><p>Huh? I guess they haven't yet asked John Carmack if he could help out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Understanding these materials at the deepest level involves calculating how huge numbers of particles interact - something that we simply do n't have the tools to cope with .
" It 's very dissatisfying that in the centuries since Galileo kick-started modern physics , we still ca n't deal with that , " says Sean Hartnoll , a string theorist at Harvard University. " Huh ?
I guess they have n't yet asked John Carmack if he could help out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Understanding these materials at the deepest level involves calculating how huge numbers of particles interact - something that we simply don't have the tools to cope with.
"It's very dissatisfying that in the centuries since Galileo kick-started modern physics, we still can't deal with that," says Sean Hartnoll, a string theorist at Harvard University."Huh?
I guess they haven't yet asked John Carmack if he could help out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28227585</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244196660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Of course, a contributing factor might have been that my University didn't check the course requirements and realize that I didn't have the right level of Math to take Quantum Mechanics.</p></div><p>Or, you could have done this yourself<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but I'm sure it's the university's fault.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , a contributing factor might have been that my University did n't check the course requirements and realize that I did n't have the right level of Math to take Quantum Mechanics.Or , you could have done this yourself ... but I 'm sure it 's the university 's fault .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, a contributing factor might have been that my University didn't check the course requirements and realize that I didn't have the right level of Math to take Quantum Mechanics.Or, you could have done this yourself ... but I'm sure it's the university's fault.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28244489</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244372100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>medics, chemists, mathematicians, computer scientists and biologists, physicists are almost always the coolest, most down to earth and least douchey scientists out there.</p></div><p>In my experience it's just the opposite</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>medics , chemists , mathematicians , computer scientists and biologists , physicists are almost always the coolest , most down to earth and least douchey scientists out there.In my experience it 's just the opposite</tokentext>
<sentencetext>medics, chemists, mathematicians, computer scientists and biologists, physicists are almost always the coolest, most down to earth and least douchey scientists out there.In my experience it's just the opposite
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222415</id>
	<title>Re:Science Fiction</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1244216760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it isn't just you.  A lot of ignorant, know-it-all, non-physicist Slashdotters have made the same complaint.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it is n't just you .
A lot of ignorant , know-it-all , non-physicist Slashdotters have made the same complaint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it isn't just you.
A lot of ignorant, know-it-all, non-physicist Slashdotters have made the same complaint.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222495</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244217060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is what makes evolution<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... neither makes concrete testable predictions.</p> </div><p>Really?<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik#Discovery</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"It's one of those things you can point to and say, 'I told you this would exist,' and there it is."</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is what makes evolution ... neither makes concrete testable predictions .
Really ? http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik # Discovery " It 's one of those things you can point to and say , 'I told you this would exist, ' and there it is .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is what makes evolution ... neither makes concrete testable predictions.
Really?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik#Discovery"It's one of those things you can point to and say, 'I told you this would exist,' and there it is.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28232799</id>
	<title>Re:Only a 2D construct in anti-de-Sitter space!</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1244302260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, let me try to make a simpler explaination from what I understood:</p><p>Euclidian geometry is what you learned in grade school, straight lines go parallel. Then we thought of the possibility that space curves, and one of those options is that lines diverge in what we call hyperbolic space.</p><p>Separately, you have theories about spacetime where you add time and they interact.</p><p>Separately, you have theories about more than three dimensions in space.</p><p>This is basicly d) all of the above. It's theories about a n-dimentional hyperbolic spacetime. That's as close to a layman's explaination you'll get.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , let me try to make a simpler explaination from what I understood : Euclidian geometry is what you learned in grade school , straight lines go parallel .
Then we thought of the possibility that space curves , and one of those options is that lines diverge in what we call hyperbolic space.Separately , you have theories about spacetime where you add time and they interact.Separately , you have theories about more than three dimensions in space.This is basicly d ) all of the above .
It 's theories about a n-dimentional hyperbolic spacetime .
That 's as close to a layman 's explaination you 'll get .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, let me try to make a simpler explaination from what I understood:Euclidian geometry is what you learned in grade school, straight lines go parallel.
Then we thought of the possibility that space curves, and one of those options is that lines diverge in what we call hyperbolic space.Separately, you have theories about spacetime where you add time and they interact.Separately, you have theories about more than three dimensions in space.This is basicly d) all of the above.
It's theories about a n-dimentional hyperbolic spacetime.
That's as close to a layman's explaination you'll get.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222411</id>
	<title>Re:Only a 2D construct in anti-de-Sitter space!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244216760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gah! That's so common in technical topics on Wikipedia. The problem is that it is is written by undergrads and interested amateurs (I know, I'm one of them). Often they don't know the subject well enough to simplify it for a general audience, and are stuck putting it in the same language they learned it in. Simplifying a complex topic generally takes quite a degree of mastery, in order to know which simplifications are justifiable, and which would distort the concept too much.</p><p>Also, I think sometimes they like to show off by writing things people can't understand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gah !
That 's so common in technical topics on Wikipedia .
The problem is that it is is written by undergrads and interested amateurs ( I know , I 'm one of them ) .
Often they do n't know the subject well enough to simplify it for a general audience , and are stuck putting it in the same language they learned it in .
Simplifying a complex topic generally takes quite a degree of mastery , in order to know which simplifications are justifiable , and which would distort the concept too much.Also , I think sometimes they like to show off by writing things people ca n't understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gah!
That's so common in technical topics on Wikipedia.
The problem is that it is is written by undergrads and interested amateurs (I know, I'm one of them).
Often they don't know the subject well enough to simplify it for a general audience, and are stuck putting it in the same language they learned it in.
Simplifying a complex topic generally takes quite a degree of mastery, in order to know which simplifications are justifiable, and which would distort the concept too much.Also, I think sometimes they like to show off by writing things people can't understand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224721</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah...</title>
	<author>SlappyBastard</author>
	<datestamp>1244225340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Pardon me for the semantics, but no science/scientific theory can be "proven" - even the theory of gravity can't be proven."</p><p>Well, if you want to be an ass about it, the word proven is just a word.  Since "proof" is a cultural norm, all you have to do to eradicate any proof is eradicate the cultural norm of the proof itself.  I mean, this is after all what evangelicals do every day when confronted with the Theory of Evolution.  By your standard, Stephen Colbert is the greatest philosopher and scientist in human history.</p><p>"Proven" means that a theory has a predictable conclusion, and that the predicted conclusion occurs in a repeatable manner so that if a variance in the prediction does occur, that variance can be accounted for by observed conditions.</p><p>"If I take a rock and drop it on my desk a million times, that doesn't prove that it'll fall there again on the 1e6+1th time."</p><p>But, you're misconstruing the cultural concept of "falling" with the scientific concept of gravity.  If your rock failed to fall, out Theory of Gravity is sufficient enough that when it failed to fall we could rapidly deduce why it failed to fall (planet went away, you forgot to open your hand, some smartass installed thrusters on the bottom of the rock, etc).</p><p>We can easily look at a problem like that and work our way through the observed event and tie it to our understanding of gravity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Pardon me for the semantics , but no science/scientific theory can be " proven " - even the theory of gravity ca n't be proven .
" Well , if you want to be an ass about it , the word proven is just a word .
Since " proof " is a cultural norm , all you have to do to eradicate any proof is eradicate the cultural norm of the proof itself .
I mean , this is after all what evangelicals do every day when confronted with the Theory of Evolution .
By your standard , Stephen Colbert is the greatest philosopher and scientist in human history .
" Proven " means that a theory has a predictable conclusion , and that the predicted conclusion occurs in a repeatable manner so that if a variance in the prediction does occur , that variance can be accounted for by observed conditions .
" If I take a rock and drop it on my desk a million times , that does n't prove that it 'll fall there again on the 1e6 + 1th time .
" But , you 're misconstruing the cultural concept of " falling " with the scientific concept of gravity .
If your rock failed to fall , out Theory of Gravity is sufficient enough that when it failed to fall we could rapidly deduce why it failed to fall ( planet went away , you forgot to open your hand , some smartass installed thrusters on the bottom of the rock , etc ) .We can easily look at a problem like that and work our way through the observed event and tie it to our understanding of gravity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Pardon me for the semantics, but no science/scientific theory can be "proven" - even the theory of gravity can't be proven.
"Well, if you want to be an ass about it, the word proven is just a word.
Since "proof" is a cultural norm, all you have to do to eradicate any proof is eradicate the cultural norm of the proof itself.
I mean, this is after all what evangelicals do every day when confronted with the Theory of Evolution.
By your standard, Stephen Colbert is the greatest philosopher and scientist in human history.
"Proven" means that a theory has a predictable conclusion, and that the predicted conclusion occurs in a repeatable manner so that if a variance in the prediction does occur, that variance can be accounted for by observed conditions.
"If I take a rock and drop it on my desk a million times, that doesn't prove that it'll fall there again on the 1e6+1th time.
"But, you're misconstruing the cultural concept of "falling" with the scientific concept of gravity.
If your rock failed to fall, out Theory of Gravity is sufficient enough that when it failed to fall we could rapidly deduce why it failed to fall (planet went away, you forgot to open your hand, some smartass installed thrusters on the bottom of the rock, etc).We can easily look at a problem like that and work our way through the observed event and tie it to our understanding of gravity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28231251</id>
	<title>Re:Only a 2D construct in anti-de-Sitter space!</title>
	<author>m50d</author>
	<datestamp>1244283420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But the subject <i>is</i> complicated. Sure, you could expand out all those definitions - say what negative curvature means, and what a Lorentzian spacetime is and so on. But all you'd do is make the introduction much longer and harder to read for people who do know what the terms are. And for people who don't understand the terms, the links are presumably right there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But the subject is complicated .
Sure , you could expand out all those definitions - say what negative curvature means , and what a Lorentzian spacetime is and so on .
But all you 'd do is make the introduction much longer and harder to read for people who do know what the terms are .
And for people who do n't understand the terms , the links are presumably right there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the subject is complicated.
Sure, you could expand out all those definitions - say what negative curvature means, and what a Lorentzian spacetime is and so on.
But all you'd do is make the introduction much longer and harder to read for people who do know what the terms are.
And for people who don't understand the terms, the links are presumably right there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224551</id>
	<title>Same this with all sciences</title>
	<author>Bragador</author>
	<datestamp>1244224800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After my B.Sc in Psychology, I finally understood that we are not only weird illogical animals, but also that we don't know who we are. Then you get your degree and you go outside, you look at everyone running around and you see something totally different than when you first began your studies...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After my B.Sc in Psychology , I finally understood that we are not only weird illogical animals , but also that we do n't know who we are .
Then you get your degree and you go outside , you look at everyone running around and you see something totally different than when you first began your studies.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After my B.Sc in Psychology, I finally understood that we are not only weird illogical animals, but also that we don't know who we are.
Then you get your degree and you go outside, you look at everyone running around and you see something totally different than when you first began your studies...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28225607</id>
	<title>Re:It's the math, stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244229180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you sell insurance right...? i used to...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you sell insurance right... ?
i used to.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you sell insurance right...?
i used to...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28225495</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah...</title>
	<author>Eternauta3k</author>
	<datestamp>1244228760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>even the theory of gravity can't be proven</p></div><p>You lose a million points for saying theory of gravity, <i>specially</i> if you meant it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>even the theory of gravity ca n't be provenYou lose a million points for saying theory of gravity , specially if you meant it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>even the theory of gravity can't be provenYou lose a million points for saying theory of gravity, specially if you meant it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28226731</id>
	<title>Re:Give it time</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1244234880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quantum mechanics were necessary to account for a newly discovered set of phenomenons. String theory isn't here to account for anything not already taken into account, it's here to hold the whole thing together. And to do so, it will go at any lengths to distort itself into fitting whatever we already know and take into account.</p><p>I think the problem with string theory is that the entire approach seems flawed. You create a whole lot of stuff that we have no reason to think exists, such as tiny vibrating strings, or 26 space dimensions, just to explain what we know, and we'll create 100 more dimensions if we need to take new observations into account. It just seems like "we have nowhere to go so let's just try something anyways" approach.</p><p>You wish scientists would open their minds? Wait, I thought that string theory was very much the mainstream theory you can totally can get grant money for in the field of theoretical physics? It just seemed to me like all the theoretical physics were going into it because without the search for a unification theory they'd have little left to do with their career.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quantum mechanics were necessary to account for a newly discovered set of phenomenons .
String theory is n't here to account for anything not already taken into account , it 's here to hold the whole thing together .
And to do so , it will go at any lengths to distort itself into fitting whatever we already know and take into account.I think the problem with string theory is that the entire approach seems flawed .
You create a whole lot of stuff that we have no reason to think exists , such as tiny vibrating strings , or 26 space dimensions , just to explain what we know , and we 'll create 100 more dimensions if we need to take new observations into account .
It just seems like " we have nowhere to go so let 's just try something anyways " approach.You wish scientists would open their minds ?
Wait , I thought that string theory was very much the mainstream theory you can totally can get grant money for in the field of theoretical physics ?
It just seemed to me like all the theoretical physics were going into it because without the search for a unification theory they 'd have little left to do with their career .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quantum mechanics were necessary to account for a newly discovered set of phenomenons.
String theory isn't here to account for anything not already taken into account, it's here to hold the whole thing together.
And to do so, it will go at any lengths to distort itself into fitting whatever we already know and take into account.I think the problem with string theory is that the entire approach seems flawed.
You create a whole lot of stuff that we have no reason to think exists, such as tiny vibrating strings, or 26 space dimensions, just to explain what we know, and we'll create 100 more dimensions if we need to take new observations into account.
It just seems like "we have nowhere to go so let's just try something anyways" approach.You wish scientists would open their minds?
Wait, I thought that string theory was very much the mainstream theory you can totally can get grant money for in the field of theoretical physics?
It just seemed to me like all the theoretical physics were going into it because without the search for a unification theory they'd have little left to do with their career.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28231789</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>metaforest</author>
	<datestamp>1244292780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Citation please... and maybe a direct quote?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Citation please... and maybe a direct quote ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Citation please... and maybe a direct quote?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221723</id>
	<title>O.o</title>
	<author>Nickodeimus</author>
	<datestamp>1244213700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>is string theory something to do with that thing in space in Star Trek: Generations?</htmltext>
<tokenext>is string theory something to do with that thing in space in Star Trek : Generations ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is string theory something to do with that thing in space in Star Trek: Generations?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28227531
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221703
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223547
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221875
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224741
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28226577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28225183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28226309
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28226285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223739
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28244489
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222857
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28231251
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28226731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28229435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28232799
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224305
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28226681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221849
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28225353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28227585
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28231789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222085
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222417
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28225357
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28225115
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28225603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28236143
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222101
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28237083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28225651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28231559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28227035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28230791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223589
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222875
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224305
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28233545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224221
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28251133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223209
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28231151
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28229267
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222415
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223261
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28229535
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223969
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28226505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28225557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28230735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224909
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28225607
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223549
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28225495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223249
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28231249
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28228251
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28225891
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28267773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28230041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224845
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223593
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28226205
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_05_1343226_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224137
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1343226.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222465
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223503
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222835
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28225357
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223593
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224279
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28226577
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1343226.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221689
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221849
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28225115
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222235
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28231559
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224741
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28225557
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221809
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222129
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28226205
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223739
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221847
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223003
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28225603
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222505
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222875
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221751
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28230041
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223969
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221803
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223209
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224845
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222857
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28225891
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222415
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222081
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221757
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1343226.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222973
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1343226.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221987
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1343226.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222453
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28227531
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223261
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28226731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223589
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1343226.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221941
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28230791
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1343226.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221703
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223547
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1343226.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224557
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1343226.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221727
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28229267
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224813
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223721
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28237083
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222079
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224913
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28236143
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28229535
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28228251
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223991
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28227585
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224863
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28231249
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28244489
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223295
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1343226.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221973
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1343226.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223967
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28231151
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1343226.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221781
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28226505
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28231789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222111
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1343226.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221675
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222563
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223371
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28225495
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224721
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221875
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222023
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222085
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28267773
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224221
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223549
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222495
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222109
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28229435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223249
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1343226.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221723
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28230735
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222555
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1343226.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221793
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1343226.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221755
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222115
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28225651
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222193
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224305
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28226681
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28233545
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28227035
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224909
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221863
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28225607
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224789
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_05_1343226.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28221753
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222417
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222021
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28226285
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223195
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222411
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223543
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28231251
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28222781
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223219
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224137
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28225183
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28226309
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28225353
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28232799
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28223903
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28251133
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_05_1343226.28224889
</commentlist>
</conversation>
