<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_14_2013250</id>
	<title>Ocean Currents Proposed As Cause of Magnetic Field</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1244973780000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>pjt33 notes a recently published paper proposing that <a href="http://www.iop.org/News/news\_35352.html">ocean currents could account for Earth's magnetic field</a>. The wrteup appears on the Institute of Physics site; the IOP is co-owner, with the German Physical Society, of the open-access journal in which <a href="http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1367-2630/11/6/063015/njp9\_6\_063015.html">the paper</a> appears. This reader adds, "The currently predominant theory is that the cause of Earth's magnetic field is molten iron flowing in the outer core. There is at present no direct evidence for either theory." <i>"Professor Gregory Ryskin from the School of Engineering and Applied Science at Northwestern University in Illinois, US, has defied the long-standing convention by applying equations from magnetohydrodynamics to our oceans' salt water (which conducts electricity) and found that the long-term changes (the secular variation) in the Earth's main magnetic field are possibly induced by our oceans' circulation."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>pjt33 notes a recently published paper proposing that ocean currents could account for Earth 's magnetic field .
The wrteup appears on the Institute of Physics site ; the IOP is co-owner , with the German Physical Society , of the open-access journal in which the paper appears .
This reader adds , " The currently predominant theory is that the cause of Earth 's magnetic field is molten iron flowing in the outer core .
There is at present no direct evidence for either theory .
" " Professor Gregory Ryskin from the School of Engineering and Applied Science at Northwestern University in Illinois , US , has defied the long-standing convention by applying equations from magnetohydrodynamics to our oceans ' salt water ( which conducts electricity ) and found that the long-term changes ( the secular variation ) in the Earth 's main magnetic field are possibly induced by our oceans ' circulation .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pjt33 notes a recently published paper proposing that ocean currents could account for Earth's magnetic field.
The wrteup appears on the Institute of Physics site; the IOP is co-owner, with the German Physical Society, of the open-access journal in which the paper appears.
This reader adds, "The currently predominant theory is that the cause of Earth's magnetic field is molten iron flowing in the outer core.
There is at present no direct evidence for either theory.
" "Professor Gregory Ryskin from the School of Engineering and Applied Science at Northwestern University in Illinois, US, has defied the long-standing convention by applying equations from magnetohydrodynamics to our oceans' salt water (which conducts electricity) and found that the long-term changes (the secular variation) in the Earth's main magnetic field are possibly induced by our oceans' circulation.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329875</id>
	<title>Headline is a Lie</title>
	<author>MrMista\_B</author>
	<datestamp>1244980140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Read above.</p><p>Ocean currents are<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/NOT/ being proposed as a cause of the magnetic field.</p><p>The headline is a lie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Read above.Ocean currents are /NOT/ being proposed as a cause of the magnetic field.The headline is a lie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read above.Ocean currents are /NOT/ being proposed as a cause of the magnetic field.The headline is a lie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329971</id>
	<title>A big fish story is circulating into a vortex</title>
	<author>itsybitsy</author>
	<datestamp>1244981220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, that's quite the fish story. Pretty interesting hypothesis though it needs solid, er, liquid evidence to back it up... otherwise it's flowing into the dust bin, er, drain of science history as a pretty darn cool and silly theory that didn't make it.</p><p>Well actually he's saying that there is a "main field" and that the ocean currents are a modification or additional field. Cool. Cutting edge science can be fun. It's where cross currents of ideas and beliefs mix until evidence eventually coalesces with a vortex pulling everyone to the indisputable conclusions - if you're lucky and on course of course.</p><p>I wonder if this hypothesis might explain the "magnetic anomalies" in the oceans around the world that are constantly changing? I'd love to see a three dimensional simulation of the raw data collected by the magnetic sensing satellites and the gravity satellites correlated together with ocean current movements.</p><p>Does this theory spin the other way in the southern hemisphere?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , that 's quite the fish story .
Pretty interesting hypothesis though it needs solid , er , liquid evidence to back it up... otherwise it 's flowing into the dust bin , er , drain of science history as a pretty darn cool and silly theory that did n't make it.Well actually he 's saying that there is a " main field " and that the ocean currents are a modification or additional field .
Cool. Cutting edge science can be fun .
It 's where cross currents of ideas and beliefs mix until evidence eventually coalesces with a vortex pulling everyone to the indisputable conclusions - if you 're lucky and on course of course.I wonder if this hypothesis might explain the " magnetic anomalies " in the oceans around the world that are constantly changing ?
I 'd love to see a three dimensional simulation of the raw data collected by the magnetic sensing satellites and the gravity satellites correlated together with ocean current movements.Does this theory spin the other way in the southern hemisphere ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, that's quite the fish story.
Pretty interesting hypothesis though it needs solid, er, liquid evidence to back it up... otherwise it's flowing into the dust bin, er, drain of science history as a pretty darn cool and silly theory that didn't make it.Well actually he's saying that there is a "main field" and that the ocean currents are a modification or additional field.
Cool. Cutting edge science can be fun.
It's where cross currents of ideas and beliefs mix until evidence eventually coalesces with a vortex pulling everyone to the indisputable conclusions - if you're lucky and on course of course.I wonder if this hypothesis might explain the "magnetic anomalies" in the oceans around the world that are constantly changing?
I'd love to see a three dimensional simulation of the raw data collected by the magnetic sensing satellites and the gravity satellites correlated together with ocean current movements.Does this theory spin the other way in the southern hemisphere?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329753</id>
	<title>Re:But this would mean?!?!?!?!?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244978880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The magnetic field is believed to prevent solar wind from eroding water and oxygen.  If ocean water creates a magnetic field that prevents water from eroding<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... that's a serious chicken/egg problem.  FWIW, Mars used to have water and may have at one point had a stronger magnetic field than the Earth.  It currently has a weak magnetic field and negligible water. Mars doesn't have a large moon to create tides, either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The magnetic field is believed to prevent solar wind from eroding water and oxygen .
If ocean water creates a magnetic field that prevents water from eroding .... that 's a serious chicken/egg problem .
FWIW , Mars used to have water and may have at one point had a stronger magnetic field than the Earth .
It currently has a weak magnetic field and negligible water .
Mars does n't have a large moon to create tides , either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The magnetic field is believed to prevent solar wind from eroding water and oxygen.
If ocean water creates a magnetic field that prevents water from eroding .... that's a serious chicken/egg problem.
FWIW, Mars used to have water and may have at one point had a stronger magnetic field than the Earth.
It currently has a weak magnetic field and negligible water.
Mars doesn't have a large moon to create tides, either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329645</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329621</id>
	<title>Polarity switch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244977620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>So basically we know that global warming has taken over our ocean's currents when our compasses start pointing to the south...</htmltext>
<tokenext>So basically we know that global warming has taken over our ocean 's currents when our compasses start pointing to the south.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So basically we know that global warming has taken over our ocean's currents when our compasses start pointing to the south...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329889</id>
	<title>Re:Uh, right.</title>
	<author>im\_thatoneguy</author>
	<datestamp>1244980260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am neither a geophysicist nor am I an oceonographer nor am I any sort of natural scientist.  BUT there is a place for this sort of theory.   You're essentially advocating the watchmaker theory.</p><p>"Since all sophisticated machine whose origins we have observed are by an intelligent creator all sophisticated machines are therefore created through intelligent design."</p><p>The alternate scientific theory is that "While intelligent designers do create things (including potentially life) we think the more likely explanation free of unnecessary supposition is natural Evolution."</p><p>Occam's razor in this case is not necessary because as TFA states we don't necessarily have proof of a molten iron dynamo.  Therefore there could be multiple causes of magnetospheres and on earth our cause might not be the same as on other planets.</p><p>I wouldn't give this theory as strong of a likelihood but it's certainly not an superfluous claim subject to Occam's razor just an alternate one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am neither a geophysicist nor am I an oceonographer nor am I any sort of natural scientist .
BUT there is a place for this sort of theory .
You 're essentially advocating the watchmaker theory .
" Since all sophisticated machine whose origins we have observed are by an intelligent creator all sophisticated machines are therefore created through intelligent design .
" The alternate scientific theory is that " While intelligent designers do create things ( including potentially life ) we think the more likely explanation free of unnecessary supposition is natural Evolution .
" Occam 's razor in this case is not necessary because as TFA states we do n't necessarily have proof of a molten iron dynamo .
Therefore there could be multiple causes of magnetospheres and on earth our cause might not be the same as on other planets.I would n't give this theory as strong of a likelihood but it 's certainly not an superfluous claim subject to Occam 's razor just an alternate one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am neither a geophysicist nor am I an oceonographer nor am I any sort of natural scientist.
BUT there is a place for this sort of theory.
You're essentially advocating the watchmaker theory.
"Since all sophisticated machine whose origins we have observed are by an intelligent creator all sophisticated machines are therefore created through intelligent design.
"The alternate scientific theory is that "While intelligent designers do create things (including potentially life) we think the more likely explanation free of unnecessary supposition is natural Evolution.
"Occam's razor in this case is not necessary because as TFA states we don't necessarily have proof of a molten iron dynamo.
Therefore there could be multiple causes of magnetospheres and on earth our cause might not be the same as on other planets.I wouldn't give this theory as strong of a likelihood but it's certainly not an superfluous claim subject to Occam's razor just an alternate one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28337473</id>
	<title>Re:Could be...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245090840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting. What ferrous material floats (that is in the category of "junk")?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting .
What ferrous material floats ( that is in the category of " junk " ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting.
What ferrous material floats (that is in the category of "junk")?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28392169</id>
	<title>Re:Polarity switch</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1245435840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which means the fact that the pole is moving further north is difinative proof that global warming is a hoax!!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which means the fact that the pole is moving further north is difinative proof that global warming is a hoax ! !
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which means the fact that the pole is moving further north is difinative proof that global warming is a hoax!!
:P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28332345</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't say ocean currents cause the field</title>
	<author>fxj</author>
	<datestamp>1245007020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OMG you RTFA!!!</p><p>yeah you are right! but that would not be sensational enough for being news for nerds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OMG you RTFA ! !
! yeah you are right !
but that would not be sensational enough for being news for nerds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OMG you RTFA!!
!yeah you are right!
but that would not be sensational enough for being news for nerds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28347389</id>
	<title>Re:Could be...</title>
	<author>houstonbofh</author>
	<datestamp>1245166320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A shipping container, for one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A shipping container , for one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A shipping container, for one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28337473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28333807</id>
	<title>Bremuda</title>
	<author>Joebert</author>
	<datestamp>1245071640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And here all this time I thought the Bremuda Triangle was just a clipping error in Gods video game !</htmltext>
<tokenext>And here all this time I thought the Bremuda Triangle was just a clipping error in Gods video game !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And here all this time I thought the Bremuda Triangle was just a clipping error in Gods video game !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330111</id>
	<title>Especially when we keep crashing planes into them</title>
	<author>atmurray</author>
	<datestamp>1244982780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Too soon?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too soon ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too soon?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28340087</id>
	<title>Re:Uh, right.</title>
	<author>demonbug</author>
	<datestamp>1245057900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be fair, the paper doesn't make the claim that the article and summary say it makes. The paper only claims that some of the secular variation observed in paleomagnetic and geomagnetic data may be the result of variations in the flow of ocean currents through the "primary" magnetic field. There is no claim that the ocean currents are responsible for this primary field. As seems all to common, the slashdot summary is wildly inaccurate - although in this case there is an excuse (sort of), as the linked article is also wildly inaccurate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair , the paper does n't make the claim that the article and summary say it makes .
The paper only claims that some of the secular variation observed in paleomagnetic and geomagnetic data may be the result of variations in the flow of ocean currents through the " primary " magnetic field .
There is no claim that the ocean currents are responsible for this primary field .
As seems all to common , the slashdot summary is wildly inaccurate - although in this case there is an excuse ( sort of ) , as the linked article is also wildly inaccurate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair, the paper doesn't make the claim that the article and summary say it makes.
The paper only claims that some of the secular variation observed in paleomagnetic and geomagnetic data may be the result of variations in the flow of ocean currents through the "primary" magnetic field.
There is no claim that the ocean currents are responsible for this primary field.
As seems all to common, the slashdot summary is wildly inaccurate - although in this case there is an excuse (sort of), as the linked article is also wildly inaccurate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330873</id>
	<title>Re:Uh, right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244990160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why make up a new theory? Two words: research grants.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why make up a new theory ?
Two words : research grants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why make up a new theory?
Two words: research grants.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28332311</id>
	<title>Re:Polarity switch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245006660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jayne Cobb: Well I might!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jayne Cobb : Well I might !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jayne Cobb: Well I might!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329761</id>
	<title>Re: Uh, right.</title>
	<author>sakdoctor</author>
	<datestamp>1244978940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Occam's Razor was the razor to own. Then the other guy came out with a three-blade razor. Were we scared? Hell, no. Because we hit back with a little thing called the Occam's Razor Turbo. That's three blades and an aloe strip. For moisture. But you know what happened next? Shut up, I'm telling you what happened&#226;"the bastards went to four blades. Now we're standing around with our cocks in our hands, selling three blades and a strip. Moisture or no, suddenly we're the chumps. Well, fuck it. We're going to five blades.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Occam 's Razor was the razor to own .
Then the other guy came out with a three-blade razor .
Were we scared ?
Hell , no .
Because we hit back with a little thing called the Occam 's Razor Turbo .
That 's three blades and an aloe strip .
For moisture .
But you know what happened next ?
Shut up , I 'm telling you what happened   " the bastards went to four blades .
Now we 're standing around with our cocks in our hands , selling three blades and a strip .
Moisture or no , suddenly we 're the chumps .
Well , fuck it .
We 're going to five blades .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Occam's Razor was the razor to own.
Then the other guy came out with a three-blade razor.
Were we scared?
Hell, no.
Because we hit back with a little thing called the Occam's Razor Turbo.
That's three blades and an aloe strip.
For moisture.
But you know what happened next?
Shut up, I'm telling you what happenedâ"the bastards went to four blades.
Now we're standing around with our cocks in our hands, selling three blades and a strip.
Moisture or no, suddenly we're the chumps.
Well, fuck it.
We're going to five blades.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28340549</id>
	<title>Re:Polarity switch</title>
	<author>Ungrounded Lightning</author>
	<datestamp>1245059640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But last I heard it moves essentially in a circle or otherwise wanders around near the rotational north pole, rather than heading south for the winter.</p><p>So how fast it's moving is no big deal - but a change in the direction of its motion might be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But last I heard it moves essentially in a circle or otherwise wanders around near the rotational north pole , rather than heading south for the winter.So how fast it 's moving is no big deal - but a change in the direction of its motion might be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But last I heard it moves essentially in a circle or otherwise wanders around near the rotational north pole, rather than heading south for the winter.So how fast it's moving is no big deal - but a change in the direction of its motion might be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28331427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28332129</id>
	<title>Awful post.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245004140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good lord, the summary in this post completely mauled the meaning of the actual article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good lord , the summary in this post completely mauled the meaning of the actual article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good lord, the summary in this post completely mauled the meaning of the actual article.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329775</id>
	<title>Re:I may be wrong, Im not an astrologer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244979120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's correct. According to their theory, moons like Europa should have a rather strong magnetosphere.</p><p>Europa is believed to have a warm, salty ocean under the ice crust. And yet, it shows only slight inducted magnetic field from Jupiter. Contrast that with Ganymede, the only moon with its own magnetosphere and a liquid iron core. Satellite photos dont show very much (or any) water on its surface.</p><p>Hmm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's correct .
According to their theory , moons like Europa should have a rather strong magnetosphere.Europa is believed to have a warm , salty ocean under the ice crust .
And yet , it shows only slight inducted magnetic field from Jupiter .
Contrast that with Ganymede , the only moon with its own magnetosphere and a liquid iron core .
Satellite photos dont show very much ( or any ) water on its surface.Hmm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's correct.
According to their theory, moons like Europa should have a rather strong magnetosphere.Europa is believed to have a warm, salty ocean under the ice crust.
And yet, it shows only slight inducted magnetic field from Jupiter.
Contrast that with Ganymede, the only moon with its own magnetosphere and a liquid iron core.
Satellite photos dont show very much (or any) water on its surface.Hmm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329969</id>
	<title>Testing, testing...</title>
	<author>hyades1</author>
	<datestamp>1244981220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> We might have proof of this in the foreseeable future.  If we keep warming up the planet, it's quite possible that one or more major ocean currents will start behaving differently.  If that happens and we see a change in the magnetic field, that would provide a strong hint that the two are connected in some way. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We might have proof of this in the foreseeable future .
If we keep warming up the planet , it 's quite possible that one or more major ocean currents will start behaving differently .
If that happens and we see a change in the magnetic field , that would provide a strong hint that the two are connected in some way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> We might have proof of this in the foreseeable future.
If we keep warming up the planet, it's quite possible that one or more major ocean currents will start behaving differently.
If that happens and we see a change in the magnetic field, that would provide a strong hint that the two are connected in some way. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28332677</id>
	<title>Re:But this would mean?!?!?!?!?</title>
	<author>damburger</author>
	<datestamp>1245098040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mars also has much lower gravity; basically what determines loss of volatiles is if the radiation impacting on the top of the atmosphere can give the molecules escape velocity. The actual mechanism is a bit more complicated than that, but is ultimately bound by conservation of energy.</p><p>Mars also didn't lose all its atmosphere to space - some froze as dry ice. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mars also has much lower gravity ; basically what determines loss of volatiles is if the radiation impacting on the top of the atmosphere can give the molecules escape velocity .
The actual mechanism is a bit more complicated than that , but is ultimately bound by conservation of energy.Mars also did n't lose all its atmosphere to space - some froze as dry ice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mars also has much lower gravity; basically what determines loss of volatiles is if the radiation impacting on the top of the atmosphere can give the molecules escape velocity.
The actual mechanism is a bit more complicated than that, but is ultimately bound by conservation of energy.Mars also didn't lose all its atmosphere to space - some froze as dry ice. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28333047</id>
	<title>Re:Polarity switch</title>
	<author>Randle\_Revar</author>
	<datestamp>1245059880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;No, the poles already reversed once in theory</p><p>No, the magnetic poles have reversed a great many times as can easily be seen in the changing domain alignments in crust created over time around mid ocean ridges.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; No , the poles already reversed once in theoryNo , the magnetic poles have reversed a great many times as can easily be seen in the changing domain alignments in crust created over time around mid ocean ridges .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;No, the poles already reversed once in theoryNo, the magnetic poles have reversed a great many times as can easily be seen in the changing domain alignments in crust created over time around mid ocean ridges.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28331305</id>
	<title>Ridiculous!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244995080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is ridiculous!  Everyone knows that Jesus put the magnetic field there to test us!  Science is the devil!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is ridiculous !
Everyone knows that Jesus put the magnetic field there to test us !
Science is the devil !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is ridiculous!
Everyone knows that Jesus put the magnetic field there to test us!
Science is the devil!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28331427</id>
	<title>Re:Polarity switch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244996160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well magnetic north has moved over 1100 kilometers in the past 100 years, and the motion is accelerating.  It is currently moving about 40km per year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well magnetic north has moved over 1100 kilometers in the past 100 years , and the motion is accelerating .
It is currently moving about 40km per year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well magnetic north has moved over 1100 kilometers in the past 100 years, and the motion is accelerating.
It is currently moving about 40km per year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28332343</id>
	<title>A global warming scare tactic</title>
	<author>mrbugjacobs</author>
	<datestamp>1245007020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a ploy to make global warming, that can change oceans currents supposedly, look more dangerous.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a ploy to make global warming , that can change oceans currents supposedly , look more dangerous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a ploy to make global warming, that can change oceans currents supposedly, look more dangerous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28335843</id>
	<title>Perhaps its the other way around.</title>
	<author>BigGar'</author>
	<datestamp>1245083760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if he might have it backwards.  Perhaps the ocean currents are influenced by the earths magnetic field, not so much the other way around.<br>So one would have correlation, just not in the way posited here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if he might have it backwards .
Perhaps the ocean currents are influenced by the earths magnetic field , not so much the other way around.So one would have correlation , just not in the way posited here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if he might have it backwards.
Perhaps the ocean currents are influenced by the earths magnetic field, not so much the other way around.So one would have correlation, just not in the way posited here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330179</id>
	<title>Another reason to cut Carbon Emissions.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244983440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine...Global warming melts the polar ice caps, the sea rises, the earths sea currents change which in turn effects the earths magnetic field. What a crazy thought...our pollution could change the direction of North.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine...Global warming melts the polar ice caps , the sea rises , the earths sea currents change which in turn effects the earths magnetic field .
What a crazy thought...our pollution could change the direction of North .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine...Global warming melts the polar ice caps, the sea rises, the earths sea currents change which in turn effects the earths magnetic field.
What a crazy thought...our pollution could change the direction of North.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28337033</id>
	<title>Picture</title>
	<author>cupantae</author>
	<datestamp>1245088800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do the magnetic poles in the picture come out through India and the Atlantic ocean?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do the magnetic poles in the picture come out through India and the Atlantic ocean ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do the magnetic poles in the picture come out through India and the Atlantic ocean?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28337251</id>
	<title>Re:Uh, right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245089880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pretty sure you are not a PhD holder and professor at Northwestern University, a very prestigious higher education and research institution.  Just sayin, I'm more inclined to listen to the professor's ideas than some troll on slashdot who indirectly claims sufficient astronomical and planetary magnetodynamics knowledge to disagree with said professor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty sure you are not a PhD holder and professor at Northwestern University , a very prestigious higher education and research institution .
Just sayin , I 'm more inclined to listen to the professor 's ideas than some troll on slashdot who indirectly claims sufficient astronomical and planetary magnetodynamics knowledge to disagree with said professor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty sure you are not a PhD holder and professor at Northwestern University, a very prestigious higher education and research institution.
Just sayin, I'm more inclined to listen to the professor's ideas than some troll on slashdot who indirectly claims sufficient astronomical and planetary magnetodynamics knowledge to disagree with said professor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28331725</id>
	<title>Re:Language matters</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1244999040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>A worker whose research achieves the level of Theory is among the 'Nobel class' of scientists.</i></p><p>Nope.  There are big theories and little theories, (probably) right theories and wrong theories.  The dividing line between a theory and a hypothesis is very often blurred, fuzzy and not at all agreed upon.</p><p>Generally a hypothesis is considered to be a fairly simple, smaller scale idea that is individually testable.  An simple prediction.  A theory, on the other hand, is usually a large scale set of ideas that has some explanatory power and can be used to make multiple predictions.</p><p>The idea that there is an attractive force between all bits of matter is the theory of gravity.  The idea that an apple will fall to the ground when released from an apple tree is a hypothesis.</p><p>The idea that salt water makes a significant contribution to the magnetic field is a bit trickier.  I'd tend to call it a hypothesis, but I certainly wouldn't say that someone who called it a theory was doing a disservice to science or scientists.  I would tend to put a collection of ideas that describe the origin of planetary magnetic fields reasonably into the theory category.</p><p>A theory is NOT a confirmed hypothesis, and a hypothesis is NOT an unconfirmed theory.  There are lots of definitions floating around the web that stumble over themselves and do backflips to try to indicate that (about.com makes up the category "hypothetical theory" to describe M-theory).  A good counter example is string theory: definitely NOT confirmed but with a breadth that makes it really not a hypothesis.  Another example is Einstein's theory of relativity, back at the beginning of last century.  It had not been confirmed.  There was a lot of opposition to this theory that proposed to overturn Newton.  But, the theory made a bunch of predictions that generated hypotheses that could be tested.  Maybe the most famous of which was the hypothesis "when a star's light travels close to a large body such as the sun on it's way to our telescope, it will be deflected by gravity, making the star appear to change position."  This hypothesis was tested, and found to be true, lending support to the theory of relativity.</p><p>Another example is quantum mechanics.  Einstein and many of his colleagues really disliked the new <i>theory</i> and thought it could not possibly be correct.  Yet hypotheses designed to test the theory continued to support it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A worker whose research achieves the level of Theory is among the 'Nobel class ' of scientists.Nope .
There are big theories and little theories , ( probably ) right theories and wrong theories .
The dividing line between a theory and a hypothesis is very often blurred , fuzzy and not at all agreed upon.Generally a hypothesis is considered to be a fairly simple , smaller scale idea that is individually testable .
An simple prediction .
A theory , on the other hand , is usually a large scale set of ideas that has some explanatory power and can be used to make multiple predictions.The idea that there is an attractive force between all bits of matter is the theory of gravity .
The idea that an apple will fall to the ground when released from an apple tree is a hypothesis.The idea that salt water makes a significant contribution to the magnetic field is a bit trickier .
I 'd tend to call it a hypothesis , but I certainly would n't say that someone who called it a theory was doing a disservice to science or scientists .
I would tend to put a collection of ideas that describe the origin of planetary magnetic fields reasonably into the theory category.A theory is NOT a confirmed hypothesis , and a hypothesis is NOT an unconfirmed theory .
There are lots of definitions floating around the web that stumble over themselves and do backflips to try to indicate that ( about.com makes up the category " hypothetical theory " to describe M-theory ) .
A good counter example is string theory : definitely NOT confirmed but with a breadth that makes it really not a hypothesis .
Another example is Einstein 's theory of relativity , back at the beginning of last century .
It had not been confirmed .
There was a lot of opposition to this theory that proposed to overturn Newton .
But , the theory made a bunch of predictions that generated hypotheses that could be tested .
Maybe the most famous of which was the hypothesis " when a star 's light travels close to a large body such as the sun on it 's way to our telescope , it will be deflected by gravity , making the star appear to change position .
" This hypothesis was tested , and found to be true , lending support to the theory of relativity.Another example is quantum mechanics .
Einstein and many of his colleagues really disliked the new theory and thought it could not possibly be correct .
Yet hypotheses designed to test the theory continued to support it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A worker whose research achieves the level of Theory is among the 'Nobel class' of scientists.Nope.
There are big theories and little theories, (probably) right theories and wrong theories.
The dividing line between a theory and a hypothesis is very often blurred, fuzzy and not at all agreed upon.Generally a hypothesis is considered to be a fairly simple, smaller scale idea that is individually testable.
An simple prediction.
A theory, on the other hand, is usually a large scale set of ideas that has some explanatory power and can be used to make multiple predictions.The idea that there is an attractive force between all bits of matter is the theory of gravity.
The idea that an apple will fall to the ground when released from an apple tree is a hypothesis.The idea that salt water makes a significant contribution to the magnetic field is a bit trickier.
I'd tend to call it a hypothesis, but I certainly wouldn't say that someone who called it a theory was doing a disservice to science or scientists.
I would tend to put a collection of ideas that describe the origin of planetary magnetic fields reasonably into the theory category.A theory is NOT a confirmed hypothesis, and a hypothesis is NOT an unconfirmed theory.
There are lots of definitions floating around the web that stumble over themselves and do backflips to try to indicate that (about.com makes up the category "hypothetical theory" to describe M-theory).
A good counter example is string theory: definitely NOT confirmed but with a breadth that makes it really not a hypothesis.
Another example is Einstein's theory of relativity, back at the beginning of last century.
It had not been confirmed.
There was a lot of opposition to this theory that proposed to overturn Newton.
But, the theory made a bunch of predictions that generated hypotheses that could be tested.
Maybe the most famous of which was the hypothesis "when a star's light travels close to a large body such as the sun on it's way to our telescope, it will be deflected by gravity, making the star appear to change position.
"  This hypothesis was tested, and found to be true, lending support to the theory of relativity.Another example is quantum mechanics.
Einstein and many of his colleagues really disliked the new theory and thought it could not possibly be correct.
Yet hypotheses designed to test the theory continued to support it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330129</id>
	<title>Re:Polarity switch</title>
	<author>Killer Orca</author>
	<datestamp>1244983080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, the poles already reversed once in theory <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's\_magnetic\_field" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's\_magnetic\_field</a> [wikipedia.org], and are likely to keep reversing, though none of us will be around to find out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , the poles already reversed once in theory http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth 's \ _magnetic \ _field [ wikipedia.org ] , and are likely to keep reversing , though none of us will be around to find out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, the poles already reversed once in theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's\_magnetic\_field [wikipedia.org], and are likely to keep reversing, though none of us will be around to find out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28332235</id>
	<title>Re:Just last night...</title>
	<author>mister\_playboy</author>
	<datestamp>1245005820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I also saw this.  They were focusing on an area in the South Atlantic where the magnetic field is weakening.  This seems to be indicative of a coming reversal of the Earth's magnetic field.  The actual reversal probably occurs over at least 1000 years, so we won't get to experience it.</p><p>The field reversal being a common reoccuring event has evidence everywhere you look, from the ocean floor to the rocks near your house.  Most of us accept the fact that dinosaurs existed, and this phenomenon has left way more physical evidence laying about than they ever did.</p><p>The oceans of Earth seem large to a human being, but they are quite tiny compared to the volume of the inner and outer core of the Earth... the idea that they "create" the magnetic field is ridiculous.  Do they have some local effect on it?  Certainly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I also saw this .
They were focusing on an area in the South Atlantic where the magnetic field is weakening .
This seems to be indicative of a coming reversal of the Earth 's magnetic field .
The actual reversal probably occurs over at least 1000 years , so we wo n't get to experience it.The field reversal being a common reoccuring event has evidence everywhere you look , from the ocean floor to the rocks near your house .
Most of us accept the fact that dinosaurs existed , and this phenomenon has left way more physical evidence laying about than they ever did.The oceans of Earth seem large to a human being , but they are quite tiny compared to the volume of the inner and outer core of the Earth... the idea that they " create " the magnetic field is ridiculous .
Do they have some local effect on it ?
Certainly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also saw this.
They were focusing on an area in the South Atlantic where the magnetic field is weakening.
This seems to be indicative of a coming reversal of the Earth's magnetic field.
The actual reversal probably occurs over at least 1000 years, so we won't get to experience it.The field reversal being a common reoccuring event has evidence everywhere you look, from the ocean floor to the rocks near your house.
Most of us accept the fact that dinosaurs existed, and this phenomenon has left way more physical evidence laying about than they ever did.The oceans of Earth seem large to a human being, but they are quite tiny compared to the volume of the inner and outer core of the Earth... the idea that they "create" the magnetic field is ridiculous.
Do they have some local effect on it?
Certainly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28339833</id>
	<title>Re:I may be wrong, Im not an astrologer</title>
	<author>demonbug</author>
	<datestamp>1245056880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>That's correct. According to their theory, moons like Europa should have a rather strong magnetosphere.</i> </p><p>If you look at the actual paper you will quickly notice that both the slashdot summary and the primary linked article are both inaccurate. They are not suggesting that the oceans create the primary magnetic field of the earth - in fact, in the paper's abstract it clearly states that the field they are discussing is the result of circulation of oceans through the primary magnetic field. So no, according to their theory Europa should not necessarily have a strong magnetic field; they are not claiming that ocean circulation alone is responsible for the earth's (or Europa's) magnetic field.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's correct .
According to their theory , moons like Europa should have a rather strong magnetosphere .
If you look at the actual paper you will quickly notice that both the slashdot summary and the primary linked article are both inaccurate .
They are not suggesting that the oceans create the primary magnetic field of the earth - in fact , in the paper 's abstract it clearly states that the field they are discussing is the result of circulation of oceans through the primary magnetic field .
So no , according to their theory Europa should not necessarily have a strong magnetic field ; they are not claiming that ocean circulation alone is responsible for the earth 's ( or Europa 's ) magnetic field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's correct.
According to their theory, moons like Europa should have a rather strong magnetosphere.
If you look at the actual paper you will quickly notice that both the slashdot summary and the primary linked article are both inaccurate.
They are not suggesting that the oceans create the primary magnetic field of the earth - in fact, in the paper's abstract it clearly states that the field they are discussing is the result of circulation of oceans through the primary magnetic field.
So no, according to their theory Europa should not necessarily have a strong magnetic field; they are not claiming that ocean circulation alone is responsible for the earth's (or Europa's) magnetic field.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329775</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329723</id>
	<title>Simply solved</title>
	<author>Creepy Crawler</author>
	<datestamp>1244978640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, relativity simply solved.</p><p>All we need to do is find an object that has a magnetosphere and no aqueous sea.</p><p>How about the Sun?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , relativity simply solved.All we need to do is find an object that has a magnetosphere and no aqueous sea.How about the Sun ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, relativity simply solved.All we need to do is find an object that has a magnetosphere and no aqueous sea.How about the Sun?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329697</id>
	<title>Summary wrong: Oceans only small variations</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244978400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Slashdot summary is totally wrong.</p><p>From the abstract of the paper: "I propose a different mechanism of secular variation: ocean water [...] as it flows through the Earth's main field may [...] manifest itself globally as secular variation."</p><p>Meaning: There is a major magnetic field that comes from the molten core. However, certain variations that are as yet unexplained may not result from core phenomena, but from the ocean currents.</p><p>I find this much more believable than the swill in the slashdot summary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Slashdot summary is totally wrong.From the abstract of the paper : " I propose a different mechanism of secular variation : ocean water [ ... ] as it flows through the Earth 's main field may [ ... ] manifest itself globally as secular variation .
" Meaning : There is a major magnetic field that comes from the molten core .
However , certain variations that are as yet unexplained may not result from core phenomena , but from the ocean currents.I find this much more believable than the swill in the slashdot summary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Slashdot summary is totally wrong.From the abstract of the paper: "I propose a different mechanism of secular variation: ocean water [...] as it flows through the Earth's main field may [...] manifest itself globally as secular variation.
"Meaning: There is a major magnetic field that comes from the molten core.
However, certain variations that are as yet unexplained may not result from core phenomena, but from the ocean currents.I find this much more believable than the swill in the slashdot summary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330487</id>
	<title>Re:Uh, right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244986440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have read you other replied and don't wish to contend the premise of your statement, but I need to ask you, what happened when Occam's Razor is wrong?</p><p>I know it leaves a provision for being wrong within the application itself but swearing by it could leave something important out of the picture.</p><p>Let me explain this a little in laymens terms that everyone can understand and i would like you hear your thoughts on it. Ok suppose we are attempting to figure out how to make some dinner dish that mom used to make before she passed away. The end product is home made bread. The ingredients are flour, water, salt, yeast, and perhaps a pinch of sugar to help set the yeast off. We mix them all, together, let knead, let rise, punch down, knead, shape, and let rise in the pan before baking. That's the simplest, easiest way to make bread which would follow Occam's Razor. Now what if it didn't turn out like moms, still edible and good, but not quite the same. Lets suppose this is because mom let the doe rise three times and lined the bread pan with olive oil and sprinkled a butter substitute on top of it instead of just greasing the sides with butter. In one hand, we have a general explanation. In the other, we have more complicated steps that fail Occam's Razor when we are looking at the smallest detail.</p><p>Now, I hoped that was an overly simplified explanation to what I meant by when Occam's Razor is wrong. It could be hundreds of years before something else is discovered and the simplest explanation no longer works where looking at the more complicated explanations sooner could result in more useful knowledge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have read you other replied and do n't wish to contend the premise of your statement , but I need to ask you , what happened when Occam 's Razor is wrong ? I know it leaves a provision for being wrong within the application itself but swearing by it could leave something important out of the picture.Let me explain this a little in laymens terms that everyone can understand and i would like you hear your thoughts on it .
Ok suppose we are attempting to figure out how to make some dinner dish that mom used to make before she passed away .
The end product is home made bread .
The ingredients are flour , water , salt , yeast , and perhaps a pinch of sugar to help set the yeast off .
We mix them all , together , let knead , let rise , punch down , knead , shape , and let rise in the pan before baking .
That 's the simplest , easiest way to make bread which would follow Occam 's Razor .
Now what if it did n't turn out like moms , still edible and good , but not quite the same .
Lets suppose this is because mom let the doe rise three times and lined the bread pan with olive oil and sprinkled a butter substitute on top of it instead of just greasing the sides with butter .
In one hand , we have a general explanation .
In the other , we have more complicated steps that fail Occam 's Razor when we are looking at the smallest detail.Now , I hoped that was an overly simplified explanation to what I meant by when Occam 's Razor is wrong .
It could be hundreds of years before something else is discovered and the simplest explanation no longer works where looking at the more complicated explanations sooner could result in more useful knowledge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have read you other replied and don't wish to contend the premise of your statement, but I need to ask you, what happened when Occam's Razor is wrong?I know it leaves a provision for being wrong within the application itself but swearing by it could leave something important out of the picture.Let me explain this a little in laymens terms that everyone can understand and i would like you hear your thoughts on it.
Ok suppose we are attempting to figure out how to make some dinner dish that mom used to make before she passed away.
The end product is home made bread.
The ingredients are flour, water, salt, yeast, and perhaps a pinch of sugar to help set the yeast off.
We mix them all, together, let knead, let rise, punch down, knead, shape, and let rise in the pan before baking.
That's the simplest, easiest way to make bread which would follow Occam's Razor.
Now what if it didn't turn out like moms, still edible and good, but not quite the same.
Lets suppose this is because mom let the doe rise three times and lined the bread pan with olive oil and sprinkled a butter substitute on top of it instead of just greasing the sides with butter.
In one hand, we have a general explanation.
In the other, we have more complicated steps that fail Occam's Razor when we are looking at the smallest detail.Now, I hoped that was an overly simplified explanation to what I meant by when Occam's Razor is wrong.
It could be hundreds of years before something else is discovered and the simplest explanation no longer works where looking at the more complicated explanations sooner could result in more useful knowledge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28333847</id>
	<title>In ancient times ...</title>
	<author>rch\_slashdot</author>
	<datestamp>1245072120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... there was little salt, and little conductivity, in the oceans. Where does the remnant field in the rock come from?</htmltext>
<tokenext>... there was little salt , and little conductivity , in the oceans .
Where does the remnant field in the rock come from ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... there was little salt, and little conductivity, in the oceans.
Where does the remnant field in the rock come from?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28335419</id>
	<title>By the way...</title>
	<author>raguirre</author>
	<datestamp>1245082080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's a <a href="http://vtr.com/" title="vtr.com" rel="nofollow">chilean cable provider</a> [vtr.com] that seems to have been inspired by the Slashdot logo.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a chilean cable provider [ vtr.com ] that seems to have been inspired by the Slashdot logo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a chilean cable provider [vtr.com] that seems to have been inspired by the Slashdot logo.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28341429</id>
	<title>I'm skeptical</title>
	<author>DrLudicrous</author>
	<datestamp>1245064320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This should have appeared as a preprint on the xxx archives first, if it wants to be taken seriously.  I see a bunch of math, and a disjointed argument.  That sounds alarm bells in my head.  I would not really pay close attention to this article until it was cleaned up and resubmitted and/or I heard the author present his ideas live, with the ability to ask questions and get clarifications.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This should have appeared as a preprint on the xxx archives first , if it wants to be taken seriously .
I see a bunch of math , and a disjointed argument .
That sounds alarm bells in my head .
I would not really pay close attention to this article until it was cleaned up and resubmitted and/or I heard the author present his ideas live , with the ability to ask questions and get clarifications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This should have appeared as a preprint on the xxx archives first, if it wants to be taken seriously.
I see a bunch of math, and a disjointed argument.
That sounds alarm bells in my head.
I would not really pay close attention to this article until it was cleaned up and resubmitted and/or I heard the author present his ideas live, with the ability to ask questions and get clarifications.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28331077</id>
	<title>Re:Polarity switch</title>
	<author>vulpinemac</author>
	<datestamp>1244992560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No, the poles already reversed once in theory <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's\_magnetic\_field" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's\_magnetic\_field</a> [wikipedia.org], and are likely to keep reversing, though none of us will be around to find out.</p></div><p>If you do some non-wiki research, you will find out that Earth's magnetic field has reversed many times over the eons. We're overdue now by several thousand years. This Global Warming may be just another indicator that such a change is imminent.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , the poles already reversed once in theory http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth 's \ _magnetic \ _field [ wikipedia.org ] , and are likely to keep reversing , though none of us will be around to find out.If you do some non-wiki research , you will find out that Earth 's magnetic field has reversed many times over the eons .
We 're overdue now by several thousand years .
This Global Warming may be just another indicator that such a change is imminent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, the poles already reversed once in theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's\_magnetic\_field [wikipedia.org], and are likely to keep reversing, though none of us will be around to find out.If you do some non-wiki research, you will find out that Earth's magnetic field has reversed many times over the eons.
We're overdue now by several thousand years.
This Global Warming may be just another indicator that such a change is imminent.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28334265</id>
	<title>Re:Polarity switch</title>
	<author>randalny</author>
	<datestamp>1245075780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No, the poles already reversed once in theory <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's\_magnetic\_field" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's\_magnetic\_field</a> [wikipedia.org], and are likely to keep reversing, though none of us will be around to find out.</p></div><p>This is not really a theory at this point. It has been demonstrated clearly in the geologic record that the earth's polarity has completely reversed at least hundreds of times (as wikipedia notes, "at an average interval of approximately 250,000 years").</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , the poles already reversed once in theory http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth 's \ _magnetic \ _field [ wikipedia.org ] , and are likely to keep reversing , though none of us will be around to find out.This is not really a theory at this point .
It has been demonstrated clearly in the geologic record that the earth 's polarity has completely reversed at least hundreds of times ( as wikipedia notes , " at an average interval of approximately 250,000 years " ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, the poles already reversed once in theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's\_magnetic\_field [wikipedia.org], and are likely to keep reversing, though none of us will be around to find out.This is not really a theory at this point.
It has been demonstrated clearly in the geologic record that the earth's polarity has completely reversed at least hundreds of times (as wikipedia notes, "at an average interval of approximately 250,000 years").
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329967</id>
	<title>It doesn't say ocean currents cause the field</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244981220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The <a href="http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1367-2630/11/6/063015/njp9\_6\_063015.html" title="iop.org"> paper </a> [iop.org] does not say that ocean currents cause the magnetic field.  It hypothesizes that ocean currents cause secular variations in the magnetic field.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The paper [ iop.org ] does not say that ocean currents cause the magnetic field .
It hypothesizes that ocean currents cause secular variations in the magnetic field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The  paper  [iop.org] does not say that ocean currents cause the magnetic field.
It hypothesizes that ocean currents cause secular variations in the magnetic field.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329931</id>
	<title>Re:Simply solved</title>
	<author>CheshireCatCO</author>
	<datestamp>1244980740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Better example: Mercury.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Better example : Mercury .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better example: Mercury.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329723</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28332619</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245097260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's hope he has a good think about anthropogenic CO2 and evolution and reaches similarly correct but against-the-mainstream conclusions.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's hope he has a good think about anthropogenic CO2 and evolution and reaches similarly correct but against-the-mainstream conclusions .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's hope he has a good think about anthropogenic CO2 and evolution and reaches similarly correct but against-the-mainstream conclusions.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329659</id>
	<title>I may be wrong, Im not an astrologer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244978040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Aren't there planets that do have magnetic fields, but don't have oceans?  And aren't there moons that are the opposite case?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are n't there planets that do have magnetic fields , but do n't have oceans ?
And are n't there moons that are the opposite case ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aren't there planets that do have magnetic fields, but don't have oceans?
And aren't there moons that are the opposite case?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28333977</id>
	<title>Re:Ocean mass vs outer core mass</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1245073440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;In order for the oceans to generate the kind of magnetic field the Earth has, they would<br>&gt; need to be highly magnetic</p><p>Salt water is not magnetic at all.  It is highly conductive.  Look up what happens when conductors move through magnetic fields.</p><p>&gt; The Earth we see is a wafer-thin skin on the massive iron/nickel mass that is the Earth</p><p>1800 miles is, IMHO, a bit more than a thin skin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; In order for the oceans to generate the kind of magnetic field the Earth has , they would &gt; need to be highly magneticSalt water is not magnetic at all .
It is highly conductive .
Look up what happens when conductors move through magnetic fields. &gt; The Earth we see is a wafer-thin skin on the massive iron/nickel mass that is the Earth1800 miles is , IMHO , a bit more than a thin skin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;In order for the oceans to generate the kind of magnetic field the Earth has, they would&gt; need to be highly magneticSalt water is not magnetic at all.
It is highly conductive.
Look up what happens when conductors move through magnetic fields.&gt; The Earth we see is a wafer-thin skin on the massive iron/nickel mass that is the Earth1800 miles is, IMHO, a bit more than a thin skin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28331291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329739</id>
	<title>Re:Uh, right.</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1244978760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why not invent some brand new, goofy theory that applies only to the Earth and not to any of the other celestial bodies that we know have magnetic fields which DON'T have oceans? Has somebody never heard of Occam's Razor?</p> </div><p>Better question: Is somebody misinterpreting Occam's Razor?  The answer is "yes: pclminion."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not invent some brand new , goofy theory that applies only to the Earth and not to any of the other celestial bodies that we know have magnetic fields which DO N'T have oceans ?
Has somebody never heard of Occam 's Razor ?
Better question : Is somebody misinterpreting Occam 's Razor ?
The answer is " yes : pclminion .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not invent some brand new, goofy theory that applies only to the Earth and not to any of the other celestial bodies that we know have magnetic fields which DON'T have oceans?
Has somebody never heard of Occam's Razor?
Better question: Is somebody misinterpreting Occam's Razor?
The answer is "yes: pclminion.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28333419</id>
	<title>I don't think so...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245066720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>During an ice age, most of the Earth's oceans freeze.<br>Less water, less currents. (duh...)<br>If there's less current, there's less magnetic field.<br>If there's less magnetic field, the solar wind hits the planet harder.</p><p>The thing is: if during the last billion years 90\% of the time the Earth was living an Ice age, the magnetic field would be significantly weaker. Shouldn't the solar wind severely affect the planet ?</p><p>I dont't think a "thin" layer of about 6 km of salty water would have a dominant influence in the planet's magnetic field.<br>It seems a lot more plausible to me that a convective (due to plate tectonics) thick mantle of thousands of km and a ferroneus core are the real cause of the magnetic field.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>During an ice age , most of the Earth 's oceans freeze.Less water , less currents .
( duh... ) If there 's less current , there 's less magnetic field.If there 's less magnetic field , the solar wind hits the planet harder.The thing is : if during the last billion years 90 \ % of the time the Earth was living an Ice age , the magnetic field would be significantly weaker .
Should n't the solar wind severely affect the planet ? I dont't think a " thin " layer of about 6 km of salty water would have a dominant influence in the planet 's magnetic field.It seems a lot more plausible to me that a convective ( due to plate tectonics ) thick mantle of thousands of km and a ferroneus core are the real cause of the magnetic field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>During an ice age, most of the Earth's oceans freeze.Less water, less currents.
(duh...)If there's less current, there's less magnetic field.If there's less magnetic field, the solar wind hits the planet harder.The thing is: if during the last billion years 90\% of the time the Earth was living an Ice age, the magnetic field would be significantly weaker.
Shouldn't the solar wind severely affect the planet ?I dont't think a "thin" layer of about 6 km of salty water would have a dominant influence in the planet's magnetic field.It seems a lot more plausible to me that a convective (due to plate tectonics) thick mantle of thousands of km and a ferroneus core are the real cause of the magnetic field.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28333213</id>
	<title>This is kdwason, folks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245062880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>His summaries are made of suck, as are his headlines, you might want to look at the article itself.<br>The actual theory is that the ocean causes secular variations in the magnetic field, not that oceans generate the magnetic field on their own.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>His summaries are made of suck , as are his headlines , you might want to look at the article itself.The actual theory is that the ocean causes secular variations in the magnetic field , not that oceans generate the magnetic field on their own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His summaries are made of suck, as are his headlines, you might want to look at the article itself.The actual theory is that the ocean causes secular variations in the magnetic field, not that oceans generate the magnetic field on their own.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330033</id>
	<title>Winds</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1244981880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ocean currents? Here's an even better idea : winds! I know it's true because when I throw a fridge magnet in the wind it goes in the same direction. So next time you want to know in what direction the wind is going, just look at a magnetic compass!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ocean currents ?
Here 's an even better idea : winds !
I know it 's true because when I throw a fridge magnet in the wind it goes in the same direction .
So next time you want to know in what direction the wind is going , just look at a magnetic compass !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ocean currents?
Here's an even better idea : winds!
I know it's true because when I throw a fridge magnet in the wind it goes in the same direction.
So next time you want to know in what direction the wind is going, just look at a magnetic compass!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330079</id>
	<title>Re:Uh, right.</title>
	<author>Latinhypercube</author>
	<datestamp>1244982360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed this sounds wrong, especially with no proof.
Surely a giant spinning iron core would produce a much stronger field.
Like a dynamo <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed this sounds wrong , especially with no proof .
Surely a giant spinning iron core would produce a much stronger field .
Like a dynamo http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed this sounds wrong, especially with no proof.
Surely a giant spinning iron core would produce a much stronger field.
Like a dynamo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28334297</id>
	<title>Wow way to bring the news!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245075960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could at least read the paper. It doesn't talk about the oceans being responsible for the magnetic field, or even part of it. It talks about non-periodic variation in the magnetic field. So you actually need a magnetic field to start with, likely produced by the molten core. This paper is very rational and the correlation with ocean flow-intensity is quite good.</p><p>This doesn't mean he is right: ocean flow intensities could be tightly regulated by the magnetic field. However an interesting claim is the link between Europe climate variation and magnetic variation. Think about that: before this paper, no one would have argue that the mantel core was responsible for Western Europe historical climate variation. Wether this guy is right or wrong, he does bring a very interesting idea that will branch to many other interesting aspects. It&#226;(TM)s worth investigating.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could at least read the paper .
It does n't talk about the oceans being responsible for the magnetic field , or even part of it .
It talks about non-periodic variation in the magnetic field .
So you actually need a magnetic field to start with , likely produced by the molten core .
This paper is very rational and the correlation with ocean flow-intensity is quite good.This does n't mean he is right : ocean flow intensities could be tightly regulated by the magnetic field .
However an interesting claim is the link between Europe climate variation and magnetic variation .
Think about that : before this paper , no one would have argue that the mantel core was responsible for Western Europe historical climate variation .
Wether this guy is right or wrong , he does bring a very interesting idea that will branch to many other interesting aspects .
It   ( TM ) s worth investigating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could at least read the paper.
It doesn't talk about the oceans being responsible for the magnetic field, or even part of it.
It talks about non-periodic variation in the magnetic field.
So you actually need a magnetic field to start with, likely produced by the molten core.
This paper is very rational and the correlation with ocean flow-intensity is quite good.This doesn't mean he is right: ocean flow intensities could be tightly regulated by the magnetic field.
However an interesting claim is the link between Europe climate variation and magnetic variation.
Think about that: before this paper, no one would have argue that the mantel core was responsible for Western Europe historical climate variation.
Wether this guy is right or wrong, he does bring a very interesting idea that will branch to many other interesting aspects.
Itâ(TM)s worth investigating.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28333511</id>
	<title>Re:Uh, right.</title>
	<author>Jesus\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1245067980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The sun certainly lack an iron core.</p></div></blockquote><p>Hence the magnetic ocean theory.<br> <br>...Wait.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The sun certainly lack an iron core.Hence the magnetic ocean theory .
...Wait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sun certainly lack an iron core.Hence the magnetic ocean theory.
...Wait.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28331491</id>
	<title>Actually, negative</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1244996700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>FWIW, Mars used to have water and may have at one point had a stronger magnetic field than the Earth</i></p><p>Actually, somebody published a paper this week that suggested that Earth's magnetic field might actually accelerate our loss of atmosphere relative to Mars.  In fact, Earth right now is leaking atmosphere faster than Mars is, pound for pound.  The ionosphere follows the magnetic field lines high up into space, and then the sun just whisks it away.</p><p>If this paper and the OP paper stack up, I'd say a good chunk of what we know about the atmosphere just got pissed on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FWIW , Mars used to have water and may have at one point had a stronger magnetic field than the EarthActually , somebody published a paper this week that suggested that Earth 's magnetic field might actually accelerate our loss of atmosphere relative to Mars .
In fact , Earth right now is leaking atmosphere faster than Mars is , pound for pound .
The ionosphere follows the magnetic field lines high up into space , and then the sun just whisks it away.If this paper and the OP paper stack up , I 'd say a good chunk of what we know about the atmosphere just got pissed on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FWIW, Mars used to have water and may have at one point had a stronger magnetic field than the EarthActually, somebody published a paper this week that suggested that Earth's magnetic field might actually accelerate our loss of atmosphere relative to Mars.
In fact, Earth right now is leaking atmosphere faster than Mars is, pound for pound.
The ionosphere follows the magnetic field lines high up into space, and then the sun just whisks it away.If this paper and the OP paper stack up, I'd say a good chunk of what we know about the atmosphere just got pissed on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329597</id>
	<title>First post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244977500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You may be attracted to Slashdot, but you'll be repelled by my first post!</htmltext>
<tokenext>You may be attracted to Slashdot , but you 'll be repelled by my first post !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may be attracted to Slashdot, but you'll be repelled by my first post!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28333869</id>
	<title>By the way ...</title>
	<author>rch\_slashdot</author>
	<datestamp>1245072420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Richard Feynman tells me the earth carries a large negative charge, daily replenished by lightning. This rotates at a mean speed. Will this rotating charge not give (some of) us what we want?
- Roger -</htmltext>
<tokenext>Richard Feynman tells me the earth carries a large negative charge , daily replenished by lightning .
This rotates at a mean speed .
Will this rotating charge not give ( some of ) us what we want ?
- Roger -</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Richard Feynman tells me the earth carries a large negative charge, daily replenished by lightning.
This rotates at a mean speed.
Will this rotating charge not give (some of) us what we want?
- Roger -</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28332515</id>
	<title>Nice joke.</title>
	<author>silentil</author>
	<datestamp>1245009300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think this scientist was mixing crack in his testing solutions. Of course when you are on the ocean traversing a ridiculously large ocean current your compass goes nuts because the influence is in close proximity to said ocean current, and thats why commerical divers often get lost. If there is an influence on the earth's magnetic field, it's so pathetically small that my collection of fridge magnets will have an equal effect. Humourous..thanks for the laugh.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this scientist was mixing crack in his testing solutions .
Of course when you are on the ocean traversing a ridiculously large ocean current your compass goes nuts because the influence is in close proximity to said ocean current , and thats why commerical divers often get lost .
If there is an influence on the earth 's magnetic field , it 's so pathetically small that my collection of fridge magnets will have an equal effect .
Humourous..thanks for the laugh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this scientist was mixing crack in his testing solutions.
Of course when you are on the ocean traversing a ridiculously large ocean current your compass goes nuts because the influence is in close proximity to said ocean current, and thats why commerical divers often get lost.
If there is an influence on the earth's magnetic field, it's so pathetically small that my collection of fridge magnets will have an equal effect.
Humourous..thanks for the laugh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28333315</id>
	<title>Re:Polarity switch</title>
	<author>digitalchinky</author>
	<datestamp>1245064860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your link to wiki says that magnetic reversal appears to have happened (once all the geology is averaged out) every 250,000 years. I'm not seeing anything indicative of this having only ever happened once. The last time this event may have occurred was 750k years ago, so why is it none of us would be around to find out about the next one?</p><p>Am I missing something here?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your link to wiki says that magnetic reversal appears to have happened ( once all the geology is averaged out ) every 250,000 years .
I 'm not seeing anything indicative of this having only ever happened once .
The last time this event may have occurred was 750k years ago , so why is it none of us would be around to find out about the next one ? Am I missing something here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your link to wiki says that magnetic reversal appears to have happened (once all the geology is averaged out) every 250,000 years.
I'm not seeing anything indicative of this having only ever happened once.
The last time this event may have occurred was 750k years ago, so why is it none of us would be around to find out about the next one?Am I missing something here?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329893</id>
	<title>What happens when Ocean current patterns change?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244980320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I have no expertise in this area<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Are ocean current patterns really as static as the Earth's magnetic field? I'd think that there would be more fluctuations/variations in the Earth's magnetic field if it depended on the waterbodies. Wouldn't this also require compasses / magentic fields being disrupted when there are earthquakes/tsunamis or major storms?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I have no expertise in this area ... Are ocean current patterns really as static as the Earth 's magnetic field ?
I 'd think that there would be more fluctuations/variations in the Earth 's magnetic field if it depended on the waterbodies .
Would n't this also require compasses / magentic fields being disrupted when there are earthquakes/tsunamis or major storms ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I have no expertise in this area ... Are ocean current patterns really as static as the Earth's magnetic field?
I'd think that there would be more fluctuations/variations in the Earth's magnetic field if it depended on the waterbodies.
Wouldn't this also require compasses / magentic fields being disrupted when there are earthquakes/tsunamis or major storms?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28335669</id>
	<title>Re:Uh, right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245083100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The only reason the 'present theory' is so simple and explanatory is because we arbitrarily decide on the planets' internals are such that our theory is always guaranteed to fit."</p><p>Not in the case of the Earth.  The internals of the Earth are also strongly constrained by seismic data (sound) and the clues it gives about the physical properties of the materials the sounds pass through.  For example, that the Earth has an outer liquid and inner solid core is not reasonably disputable because pressure waves travel through the outer core, but shear waves do not (shear waves don't propagate through liquids).  That's the pattern seen for sound traveling through the Earth (it causes the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow\_zone" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">"shadow zone"</a> [wikipedia.org]).  The mass and density of the Earth is known to a good precision (~5.5 g/cm^3), and is far in excess of the densities of the rock materials we see at the surface (~2.5-3.0g/cm^3), implying that there is a much denser material down there (i.e. metal).  Coincidentally the seismic velocities and other properties match that of liquid and solid iron-nickel -- which also coincidentally are the materials seen in iron meteorites, which are probably fragments of larger asteroids that became chemically and density differentiated like the Earth is from similar materials.  The bulk composition is also constrained by the relative abundance of elements seen elsewhere in the solar system (e.g., the composition of the Sun, the Moon, and of meteorites).  You couldn't, for example, make the Earth's core mostly out of titanium instead of iron-nickel and have it make any sense.</p><p>To put it another way, the article's suggestion: "Familiar text book images that illustrate a flow of hot and highly electrically-conducting fluid at the core of the Earth are based on conjecture and could now be rendered invalid" is bogus.  No, the Earth would still have an inner solid and outer liquid metal core based on very confident and independent evidence.  All that would change is the label saying "magnetic field generated here", and perhaps some ideas about how the metal was convecting/flowing.  That's it.</p><p>For the other solar system bodies, yeah, you're right.  There isn't as much to work with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The only reason the 'present theory ' is so simple and explanatory is because we arbitrarily decide on the planets ' internals are such that our theory is always guaranteed to fit .
" Not in the case of the Earth .
The internals of the Earth are also strongly constrained by seismic data ( sound ) and the clues it gives about the physical properties of the materials the sounds pass through .
For example , that the Earth has an outer liquid and inner solid core is not reasonably disputable because pressure waves travel through the outer core , but shear waves do not ( shear waves do n't propagate through liquids ) .
That 's the pattern seen for sound traveling through the Earth ( it causes the " shadow zone " [ wikipedia.org ] ) .
The mass and density of the Earth is known to a good precision ( ~ 5.5 g/cm ^ 3 ) , and is far in excess of the densities of the rock materials we see at the surface ( ~ 2.5-3.0g/cm ^ 3 ) , implying that there is a much denser material down there ( i.e .
metal ) . Coincidentally the seismic velocities and other properties match that of liquid and solid iron-nickel -- which also coincidentally are the materials seen in iron meteorites , which are probably fragments of larger asteroids that became chemically and density differentiated like the Earth is from similar materials .
The bulk composition is also constrained by the relative abundance of elements seen elsewhere in the solar system ( e.g. , the composition of the Sun , the Moon , and of meteorites ) .
You could n't , for example , make the Earth 's core mostly out of titanium instead of iron-nickel and have it make any sense.To put it another way , the article 's suggestion : " Familiar text book images that illustrate a flow of hot and highly electrically-conducting fluid at the core of the Earth are based on conjecture and could now be rendered invalid " is bogus .
No , the Earth would still have an inner solid and outer liquid metal core based on very confident and independent evidence .
All that would change is the label saying " magnetic field generated here " , and perhaps some ideas about how the metal was convecting/flowing .
That 's it.For the other solar system bodies , yeah , you 're right .
There is n't as much to work with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The only reason the 'present theory' is so simple and explanatory is because we arbitrarily decide on the planets' internals are such that our theory is always guaranteed to fit.
"Not in the case of the Earth.
The internals of the Earth are also strongly constrained by seismic data (sound) and the clues it gives about the physical properties of the materials the sounds pass through.
For example, that the Earth has an outer liquid and inner solid core is not reasonably disputable because pressure waves travel through the outer core, but shear waves do not (shear waves don't propagate through liquids).
That's the pattern seen for sound traveling through the Earth (it causes the "shadow zone" [wikipedia.org]).
The mass and density of the Earth is known to a good precision (~5.5 g/cm^3), and is far in excess of the densities of the rock materials we see at the surface (~2.5-3.0g/cm^3), implying that there is a much denser material down there (i.e.
metal).  Coincidentally the seismic velocities and other properties match that of liquid and solid iron-nickel -- which also coincidentally are the materials seen in iron meteorites, which are probably fragments of larger asteroids that became chemically and density differentiated like the Earth is from similar materials.
The bulk composition is also constrained by the relative abundance of elements seen elsewhere in the solar system (e.g., the composition of the Sun, the Moon, and of meteorites).
You couldn't, for example, make the Earth's core mostly out of titanium instead of iron-nickel and have it make any sense.To put it another way, the article's suggestion: "Familiar text book images that illustrate a flow of hot and highly electrically-conducting fluid at the core of the Earth are based on conjecture and could now be rendered invalid" is bogus.
No, the Earth would still have an inner solid and outer liquid metal core based on very confident and independent evidence.
All that would change is the label saying "magnetic field generated here", and perhaps some ideas about how the metal was convecting/flowing.
That's it.For the other solar system bodies, yeah, you're right.
There isn't as much to work with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330117</id>
	<title>Re:Summary wrong: Oceans only small variations</title>
	<author>RobVB</author>
	<datestamp>1244982840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>A few interesting links with more info about these subjects:<br><br>http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/field/sec\_e.php (about secular variation)<br><br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic\_declination (about magnetic declination, obviously)<br><br>Long story short, magnetic declination is the difference between the geographical North Pole and the apparent magnetic North Pole at any one place on earth. The secular variation they're talking about is the gradual change in that magnetic declination, or the apparent movement of the Earth's magnetic North Pole. Secular variation is usually between 0 and 15 arcminutes per year - specific example: a nautical chart of the Thames Estuary from 2008 lists a yearly secular variation of 8' (arcminutes) Eastward.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A few interesting links with more info about these subjects : http : //gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/field/sec \ _e.php ( about secular variation ) http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic \ _declination ( about magnetic declination , obviously ) Long story short , magnetic declination is the difference between the geographical North Pole and the apparent magnetic North Pole at any one place on earth .
The secular variation they 're talking about is the gradual change in that magnetic declination , or the apparent movement of the Earth 's magnetic North Pole .
Secular variation is usually between 0 and 15 arcminutes per year - specific example : a nautical chart of the Thames Estuary from 2008 lists a yearly secular variation of 8 ' ( arcminutes ) Eastward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A few interesting links with more info about these subjects:http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/field/sec\_e.php (about secular variation)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic\_declination (about magnetic declination, obviously)Long story short, magnetic declination is the difference between the geographical North Pole and the apparent magnetic North Pole at any one place on earth.
The secular variation they're talking about is the gradual change in that magnetic declination, or the apparent movement of the Earth's magnetic North Pole.
Secular variation is usually between 0 and 15 arcminutes per year - specific example: a nautical chart of the Thames Estuary from 2008 lists a yearly secular variation of 8' (arcminutes) Eastward.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329979</id>
	<title>Pseudoscientists attend!</title>
	<author>rlseaman</author>
	<datestamp>1244981340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Note how this dishes the favorite argument of pseudoscientists, who always (always, always) claim that the scientific "establishment" refuses to hear evidence that conflicts with accepted wisdom.  Rather - to the extent that such an establishment can be said to actually exist - science will entertain any sort of extreme argument, as long as it is cogently - and entertainingly - presented.  To overturn competing theories extreme arguments ultimately demand extreme evidence, however.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Note how this dishes the favorite argument of pseudoscientists , who always ( always , always ) claim that the scientific " establishment " refuses to hear evidence that conflicts with accepted wisdom .
Rather - to the extent that such an establishment can be said to actually exist - science will entertain any sort of extreme argument , as long as it is cogently - and entertainingly - presented .
To overturn competing theories extreme arguments ultimately demand extreme evidence , however .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note how this dishes the favorite argument of pseudoscientists, who always (always, always) claim that the scientific "establishment" refuses to hear evidence that conflicts with accepted wisdom.
Rather - to the extent that such an establishment can be said to actually exist - science will entertain any sort of extreme argument, as long as it is cogently - and entertainingly - presented.
To overturn competing theories extreme arguments ultimately demand extreme evidence, however.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330291</id>
	<title>Didn't this guy prove it was the molten inards?</title>
	<author>BradyB</author>
	<datestamp>1244984400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This link to an article on NPR, <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90947943" title="npr.org">http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90947943</a> [npr.org], was also in a short show on the Science Channel about magnetic fields. So, I think that the reader should not state that there is no evidence that the molten inards of the Earth are not the probable cause of our magnetosphere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This link to an article on NPR , http : //www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php ? storyId = 90947943 [ npr.org ] , was also in a short show on the Science Channel about magnetic fields .
So , I think that the reader should not state that there is no evidence that the molten inards of the Earth are not the probable cause of our magnetosphere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This link to an article on NPR, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90947943 [npr.org], was also in a short show on the Science Channel about magnetic fields.
So, I think that the reader should not state that there is no evidence that the molten inards of the Earth are not the probable cause of our magnetosphere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28333563</id>
	<title>But there is a molten outer core..</title>
	<author>jlehtira</author>
	<datestamp>1245068760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have proven the existence of a molten outer core inside the Earth, and the proof doesn't depend on the magnetic field, but rather, seismology. Sound and vibration can travel in any substance as a pressure wave - material compressing and decompressing (P-waves). In solids, vibration can also be orthogonal to the direction of propagation (S-waves). Think of vibration in a string, or in a tuning fork. It is known empirically that S-waves travel through the Earth only to certain depth. Because they can't propagate deeper than that, the material must be unsuitable for S-waves, which means liquid.</p><p>Now, if there's a liquid, a gravitational field, and a temperature difference, convective flow must be present too. In addition, this liquid outer core is circulating around the Earth's axis. So the "geodynamo" still seems like the best explanation to me (I recommend Fowler's The Solid Earth if anyone's actually interested in the science and reasoning behind all this).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>the long-term changes (the secular variation) in the Earth's main magnetic field are possibly induced by our oceans' circulation.</p></div><p>This here is what the article actually states. I'm not surprised that oceanic currents can correlate with the details of the magnetic field, as the field is known to be the result of several phenomena. Actually this finding can turn out to be supporting the geodynamo idea, as one problem with the geodynamo is why the magnetic field is such a mess<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;). Maybe core currents generate most of the magnetic field and oceans add variation to it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We have proven the existence of a molten outer core inside the Earth , and the proof does n't depend on the magnetic field , but rather , seismology .
Sound and vibration can travel in any substance as a pressure wave - material compressing and decompressing ( P-waves ) .
In solids , vibration can also be orthogonal to the direction of propagation ( S-waves ) .
Think of vibration in a string , or in a tuning fork .
It is known empirically that S-waves travel through the Earth only to certain depth .
Because they ca n't propagate deeper than that , the material must be unsuitable for S-waves , which means liquid.Now , if there 's a liquid , a gravitational field , and a temperature difference , convective flow must be present too .
In addition , this liquid outer core is circulating around the Earth 's axis .
So the " geodynamo " still seems like the best explanation to me ( I recommend Fowler 's The Solid Earth if anyone 's actually interested in the science and reasoning behind all this ) .the long-term changes ( the secular variation ) in the Earth 's main magnetic field are possibly induced by our oceans ' circulation.This here is what the article actually states .
I 'm not surprised that oceanic currents can correlate with the details of the magnetic field , as the field is known to be the result of several phenomena .
Actually this finding can turn out to be supporting the geodynamo idea , as one problem with the geodynamo is why the magnetic field is such a mess ; ) .
Maybe core currents generate most of the magnetic field and oceans add variation to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have proven the existence of a molten outer core inside the Earth, and the proof doesn't depend on the magnetic field, but rather, seismology.
Sound and vibration can travel in any substance as a pressure wave - material compressing and decompressing (P-waves).
In solids, vibration can also be orthogonal to the direction of propagation (S-waves).
Think of vibration in a string, or in a tuning fork.
It is known empirically that S-waves travel through the Earth only to certain depth.
Because they can't propagate deeper than that, the material must be unsuitable for S-waves, which means liquid.Now, if there's a liquid, a gravitational field, and a temperature difference, convective flow must be present too.
In addition, this liquid outer core is circulating around the Earth's axis.
So the "geodynamo" still seems like the best explanation to me (I recommend Fowler's The Solid Earth if anyone's actually interested in the science and reasoning behind all this).the long-term changes (the secular variation) in the Earth's main magnetic field are possibly induced by our oceans' circulation.This here is what the article actually states.
I'm not surprised that oceanic currents can correlate with the details of the magnetic field, as the field is known to be the result of several phenomena.
Actually this finding can turn out to be supporting the geodynamo idea, as one problem with the geodynamo is why the magnetic field is such a mess ;).
Maybe core currents generate most of the magnetic field and oceans add variation to it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28332627</id>
	<title>Problem of scale.</title>
	<author>Ihlosi</author>
	<datestamp>1245097320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Earths magnetic field is big (compared to, say, Mercurys, Venus' or Mars'). And compared to the mass of the planet, the oceans are tiny, shallow puddles on the surface. If I were to bet, my money would still be on the "molten iron currents" hypothesis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Earths magnetic field is big ( compared to , say , Mercurys , Venus ' or Mars ' ) .
And compared to the mass of the planet , the oceans are tiny , shallow puddles on the surface .
If I were to bet , my money would still be on the " molten iron currents " hypothesis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Earths magnetic field is big (compared to, say, Mercurys, Venus' or Mars').
And compared to the mass of the planet, the oceans are tiny, shallow puddles on the surface.
If I were to bet, my money would still be on the "molten iron currents" hypothesis.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28398217</id>
	<title>Bad summary of an even worse story</title>
	<author>crmarvin42</author>
	<datestamp>1245421260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Basically, the newspapers took what the paper said, and extrapolated to an obscene extent.  The author of the actual research disavows almost the entire news article outside of having a theory, and it involving oceans and magnetism.
<br> <br>
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/20/bad-science-magnetism-ocean-core" title="guardian.co.uk">http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/20/bad-science-magnetism-ocean-core</a> [guardian.co.uk]
<br> <br>
Complete BS</htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically , the newspapers took what the paper said , and extrapolated to an obscene extent .
The author of the actual research disavows almost the entire news article outside of having a theory , and it involving oceans and magnetism .
http : //www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/20/bad-science-magnetism-ocean-core [ guardian.co.uk ] Complete BS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically, the newspapers took what the paper said, and extrapolated to an obscene extent.
The author of the actual research disavows almost the entire news article outside of having a theory, and it involving oceans and magnetism.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/20/bad-science-magnetism-ocean-core [guardian.co.uk]
 
Complete BS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28336171</id>
	<title>article image wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245085020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The image with the article has the poles of the magnetic field wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The image with the article has the poles of the magnetic field wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The image with the article has the poles of the magnetic field wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330019</id>
	<title>Re: Uh, right.</title>
	<author>doublebackslash</author>
	<datestamp>1244981820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>^\_^ That was a good onion article, that one was. <br>
<a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33930" title="theonion.com"> </a> [theonion.com]<a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33930" title="theonion.com">http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33930</a> [theonion.com]  <br> <br>

By the by, when did the onion open up their archives? I recall them shuffling articles out of their free page very quickly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>^ \ _ ^ That was a good onion article , that one was .
[ theonion.com ] http : //www.theonion.com/content/node/33930 [ theonion.com ] By the by , when did the onion open up their archives ?
I recall them shuffling articles out of their free page very quickly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>^\_^ That was a good onion article, that one was.
[theonion.com]http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33930 [theonion.com]   

By the by, when did the onion open up their archives?
I recall them shuffling articles out of their free page very quickly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330359</id>
	<title>Re:Polarity switch</title>
	<author>atheistmonk</author>
	<datestamp>1244985180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What we need to do is reverse the polarity of the neutron flow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What we need to do is reverse the polarity of the neutron flow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What we need to do is reverse the polarity of the neutron flow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330041</id>
	<title>Language matters</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244982000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The currently predominant theory<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...of Earth's magnetic field"<p>

To be certain, there are NO 'theories' for Earth's magnetism, only a variety of HYPOTHESIS'S.</p><p>

Once again the term theory is being misused for HYPOTHESIS. It is a great disservice to science and scientists to not understand the definition and implications for both terms. </p><p>
A worker whose research achieves the level of Theory is among the 'Nobel class' of scientists. Therefore the term should be used properly and with some reverence. </p><p>

So before we go any further, would someone venture to post the scientific definitions and usage for these two terms, hypothesis and Theory.</p><p>

Thanx</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The currently predominant theory ...of Earth 's magnetic field " To be certain , there are NO 'theories ' for Earth 's magnetism , only a variety of HYPOTHESIS 'S .
Once again the term theory is being misused for HYPOTHESIS .
It is a great disservice to science and scientists to not understand the definition and implications for both terms .
A worker whose research achieves the level of Theory is among the 'Nobel class ' of scientists .
Therefore the term should be used properly and with some reverence .
So before we go any further , would someone venture to post the scientific definitions and usage for these two terms , hypothesis and Theory .
Thanx</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The currently predominant theory ...of Earth's magnetic field"

To be certain, there are NO 'theories' for Earth's magnetism, only a variety of HYPOTHESIS'S.
Once again the term theory is being misused for HYPOTHESIS.
It is a great disservice to science and scientists to not understand the definition and implications for both terms.
A worker whose research achieves the level of Theory is among the 'Nobel class' of scientists.
Therefore the term should be used properly and with some reverence.
So before we go any further, would someone venture to post the scientific definitions and usage for these two terms, hypothesis and Theory.
Thanx</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28336341</id>
	<title>Wrong title: Ocean current not main cause of field</title>
	<author>QuantumV</author>
	<datestamp>1245085680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The title and summary gets this paper all wrong. It does not propose that ocean currents are causing the earth's magnetic field. In proposes that many of the small scale variations of the field is caused by variations in ocean currents. The main field is still produced by the core.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The title and summary gets this paper all wrong .
It does not propose that ocean currents are causing the earth 's magnetic field .
In proposes that many of the small scale variations of the field is caused by variations in ocean currents .
The main field is still produced by the core .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The title and summary gets this paper all wrong.
It does not propose that ocean currents are causing the earth's magnetic field.
In proposes that many of the small scale variations of the field is caused by variations in ocean currents.
The main field is still produced by the core.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329693</id>
	<title>New possibilities in terraforming?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244978340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fascinating!  If true, I wonder how it could effect theories on terraforming.  If we got enough open and moving water on Mars could it then develop the field needed to block solar radiation and trap an atmosphere?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fascinating !
If true , I wonder how it could effect theories on terraforming .
If we got enough open and moving water on Mars could it then develop the field needed to block solar radiation and trap an atmosphere ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fascinating!
If true, I wonder how it could effect theories on terraforming.
If we got enough open and moving water on Mars could it then develop the field needed to block solar radiation and trap an atmosphere?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330373</id>
	<title>Re:Summary wrong: Oceans only small variations</title>
	<author>mapkinase</author>
	<datestamp>1244985300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The Slashdot summary is totally wrong." that's  kdawson  for you</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The Slashdot summary is totally wrong .
" that 's kdawson for you</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The Slashdot summary is totally wrong.
" that's  kdawson  for you</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28331717</id>
	<title>What?</title>
	<author>spaceguinness</author>
	<datestamp>1244998980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How does this explain the magnetic fields on Mercury, Jupiter and Saturn?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How does this explain the magnetic fields on Mercury , Jupiter and Saturn ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does this explain the magnetic fields on Mercury, Jupiter and Saturn?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28331291</id>
	<title>Ocean mass vs outer core mass</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244994960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm highly skeptical of this idea for one reason.  The volume of the oceans is MINISCULE compared to the volume of the outer core.  In order for the oceans to generate the kind of magnetic field the Earth has, they would need to be highly magnetic.  Steel ships orient themselves to the currents automatically type levels.  The Earth we see is a wafer-thin skin on the massive iron/nickel mass that is the Earth</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm highly skeptical of this idea for one reason .
The volume of the oceans is MINISCULE compared to the volume of the outer core .
In order for the oceans to generate the kind of magnetic field the Earth has , they would need to be highly magnetic .
Steel ships orient themselves to the currents automatically type levels .
The Earth we see is a wafer-thin skin on the massive iron/nickel mass that is the Earth</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm highly skeptical of this idea for one reason.
The volume of the oceans is MINISCULE compared to the volume of the outer core.
In order for the oceans to generate the kind of magnetic field the Earth has, they would need to be highly magnetic.
Steel ships orient themselves to the currents automatically type levels.
The Earth we see is a wafer-thin skin on the massive iron/nickel mass that is the Earth</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330195</id>
	<title>Re:Simply solved</title>
	<author>Progman3K</author>
	<datestamp>1244983560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The sun has a sort of liquid... Plasma...<br>Of course the summary for the article is wrong, so we can just make up stuff if we want to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The sun has a sort of liquid... Plasma...Of course the summary for the article is wrong , so we can just make up stuff if we want to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sun has a sort of liquid... Plasma...Of course the summary for the article is wrong, so we can just make up stuff if we want to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329723</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329609</id>
	<title>Could be...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244977560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is enough junk floating on the oceans that the currents could be ferrous.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is enough junk floating on the oceans that the currents could be ferrous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is enough junk floating on the oceans that the currents could be ferrous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28341085</id>
	<title>Re:Summary wrong: Oceans only small variations</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245062280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DAMN IT, SLASHDOT!</p><p>These mis-summarizations are why I never register for a slashdot account.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DAMN IT , SLASHDOT ! These mis-summarizations are why I never register for a slashdot account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DAMN IT, SLASHDOT!These mis-summarizations are why I never register for a slashdot account.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28334119</id>
	<title>The Tail Wags The Dog</title>
	<author>jman.org</author>
	<datestamp>1245074820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>More likely the salt is following the magnetic flow, rather than the other way around.
<br> <br>
Don't recall the show, just saw something on one of the science channels wherein some scientists made a planetary model (a big rotating ball of liquid sodium around a free-floating iron ball), their theory being it is the rotational difference between the outer molten core and the solid inner core that causes our magnetic field.  In the model, once the thing came up to speed, it generated a field similar to the Earth's magnetosphere.
<br> <br>
Also, the field has reversed itself (pointing in to the planet, allowing radiation in, rather than keeping it out) many times.  Just check out cores from any long-standing lava flows.  We seem to be starting another flip, partially evidenced by holes in our magnetosphere ( <a href="ahref=http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/17/2352243/rel=url2html-31969" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">ahref=http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/17/2352243/rel=url2html-31969</a> [slashdot.org]http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/17/2352243/&gt; ).
<br> <br>
If this rotational difference is in fact where our magnetic field comes from, tinfoil had mode says exploiting geothermal energy is ultimately a no-no.  Go solar!</htmltext>
<tokenext>More likely the salt is following the magnetic flow , rather than the other way around .
Do n't recall the show , just saw something on one of the science channels wherein some scientists made a planetary model ( a big rotating ball of liquid sodium around a free-floating iron ball ) , their theory being it is the rotational difference between the outer molten core and the solid inner core that causes our magnetic field .
In the model , once the thing came up to speed , it generated a field similar to the Earth 's magnetosphere .
Also , the field has reversed itself ( pointing in to the planet , allowing radiation in , rather than keeping it out ) many times .
Just check out cores from any long-standing lava flows .
We seem to be starting another flip , partially evidenced by holes in our magnetosphere ( ahref = http : //news.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 08/12/17/2352243/rel = url2html-31969 [ slashdot.org ] http : //news.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 08/12/17/2352243/ &gt; ) .
If this rotational difference is in fact where our magnetic field comes from , tinfoil had mode says exploiting geothermal energy is ultimately a no-no .
Go solar !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More likely the salt is following the magnetic flow, rather than the other way around.
Don't recall the show, just saw something on one of the science channels wherein some scientists made a planetary model (a big rotating ball of liquid sodium around a free-floating iron ball), their theory being it is the rotational difference between the outer molten core and the solid inner core that causes our magnetic field.
In the model, once the thing came up to speed, it generated a field similar to the Earth's magnetosphere.
Also, the field has reversed itself (pointing in to the planet, allowing radiation in, rather than keeping it out) many times.
Just check out cores from any long-standing lava flows.
We seem to be starting another flip, partially evidenced by holes in our magnetosphere ( ahref=http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/17/2352243/rel=url2html-31969 [slashdot.org]http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/17/2352243/&gt; ).
If this rotational difference is in fact where our magnetic field comes from, tinfoil had mode says exploiting geothermal energy is ultimately a no-no.
Go solar!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329837</id>
	<title>Re:Uh, right.</title>
	<author>physicsphairy</author>
	<datestamp>1244979900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to the article, there is no direct evidence for the metal currents which allegedly induce the magnetic field.  They are inferred on basis of the existence of the field.  Venus doesn't have a magnetic field--so we decide it doesn't have a molten iron core.  The only reason the 'present theory' is so simple and explanatory is because we arbitrarily decide on the planets' internals are such that our theory is always guaranteed to fit.

</p><p>Your generalization is also a bit off, as plenty (probably most) of the large celestial objects have magnetic fields but lack iron cores.  The sun certainly lack an iron core.  We assume Jupiter's magnetic field is supplied by metallic hydrogen, but it could just as easily support it by electrical currents.

</p><p>The magnetic fields are actually quite complex and Occam's razor doesn't mean assuming everything is a perfect sphere, as the classic joke goes.  If the oceanic theory successfully explains secular variation then Occam's razor may be more likely to back the ocean theory than the dynamo theory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the article , there is no direct evidence for the metal currents which allegedly induce the magnetic field .
They are inferred on basis of the existence of the field .
Venus does n't have a magnetic field--so we decide it does n't have a molten iron core .
The only reason the 'present theory ' is so simple and explanatory is because we arbitrarily decide on the planets ' internals are such that our theory is always guaranteed to fit .
Your generalization is also a bit off , as plenty ( probably most ) of the large celestial objects have magnetic fields but lack iron cores .
The sun certainly lack an iron core .
We assume Jupiter 's magnetic field is supplied by metallic hydrogen , but it could just as easily support it by electrical currents .
The magnetic fields are actually quite complex and Occam 's razor does n't mean assuming everything is a perfect sphere , as the classic joke goes .
If the oceanic theory successfully explains secular variation then Occam 's razor may be more likely to back the ocean theory than the dynamo theory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the article, there is no direct evidence for the metal currents which allegedly induce the magnetic field.
They are inferred on basis of the existence of the field.
Venus doesn't have a magnetic field--so we decide it doesn't have a molten iron core.
The only reason the 'present theory' is so simple and explanatory is because we arbitrarily decide on the planets' internals are such that our theory is always guaranteed to fit.
Your generalization is also a bit off, as plenty (probably most) of the large celestial objects have magnetic fields but lack iron cores.
The sun certainly lack an iron core.
We assume Jupiter's magnetic field is supplied by metallic hydrogen, but it could just as easily support it by electrical currents.
The magnetic fields are actually quite complex and Occam's razor doesn't mean assuming everything is a perfect sphere, as the classic joke goes.
If the oceanic theory successfully explains secular variation then Occam's razor may be more likely to back the ocean theory than the dynamo theory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28335091</id>
	<title>Re:But this would mean?!?!?!?!?</title>
	<author>scorp1us</author>
	<datestamp>1245080400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually recent papers published (last week?) actually indicate that the Earth is losing atmosphere faster than Venus and Mars. It seems that the belief is wholly incorrect. It does seem to still prevent radiation exposure though, which is always a Good Thing(tm) <a href="http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/06/02/solar-wind-atmosphere.html" title="discovery.com">Discovery Channel coverage</a> [discovery.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually recent papers published ( last week ?
) actually indicate that the Earth is losing atmosphere faster than Venus and Mars .
It seems that the belief is wholly incorrect .
It does seem to still prevent radiation exposure though , which is always a Good Thing ( tm ) Discovery Channel coverage [ discovery.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually recent papers published (last week?
) actually indicate that the Earth is losing atmosphere faster than Venus and Mars.
It seems that the belief is wholly incorrect.
It does seem to still prevent radiation exposure though, which is always a Good Thing(tm) Discovery Channel coverage [discovery.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330089</id>
	<title>Re:Summary wrong: Oceans only small variations</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1244982360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I find this much more believable than the swill in the slashdot summary.</i></p><p>Take a look at who submitted it. PEBKAC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find this much more believable than the swill in the slashdot summary.Take a look at who submitted it .
PEBKAC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find this much more believable than the swill in the slashdot summary.Take a look at who submitted it.
PEBKAC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28335169</id>
	<title>Would be trouble if true</title>
	<author>mattr</author>
	<datestamp>1245080820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Recently I heard of a study that showed a major change in the way ocean water flows from one hemisphere to the other is a significant factor in warming data. I'd believe small variations but not the entire field coming from the ocean. That said it might need to be considered regarding aerospace and naval systems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Recently I heard of a study that showed a major change in the way ocean water flows from one hemisphere to the other is a significant factor in warming data .
I 'd believe small variations but not the entire field coming from the ocean .
That said it might need to be considered regarding aerospace and naval systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Recently I heard of a study that showed a major change in the way ocean water flows from one hemisphere to the other is a significant factor in warming data.
I'd believe small variations but not the entire field coming from the ocean.
That said it might need to be considered regarding aerospace and naval systems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28331565</id>
	<title>hmm special on discovery showed a liquid metal</title>
	<author>majortom1981</author>
	<datestamp>1244997360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am confused. The discovery channel showed a huge experiment done my scientists showing that liquid metal circulating due to the earths rotation would cause a magnetic field. They did this by taking sodium and spinning it in a sphere and it produced a magnetic field.

How is this not proof ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am confused .
The discovery channel showed a huge experiment done my scientists showing that liquid metal circulating due to the earths rotation would cause a magnetic field .
They did this by taking sodium and spinning it in a sphere and it produced a magnetic field .
How is this not proof ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am confused.
The discovery channel showed a huge experiment done my scientists showing that liquid metal circulating due to the earths rotation would cause a magnetic field.
They did this by taking sodium and spinning it in a sphere and it produced a magnetic field.
How is this not proof ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330381</id>
	<title>Re:New possibilities in terraforming?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244985360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which is an interesting question - because it's currently believed that loss of the magnetic field cause the loss of atmosphere and the subsequent loss of water on Mars.<br>
&nbsp; <br>Failing to explain Mars represents a major hole in this theory.<br>
&nbsp; <br>Failing to explain why the Earth's magnetic fields are more-or-less symmetrical, which the core is and the oceans aren't, is another major problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is an interesting question - because it 's currently believed that loss of the magnetic field cause the loss of atmosphere and the subsequent loss of water on Mars .
  Failing to explain Mars represents a major hole in this theory .
  Failing to explain why the Earth 's magnetic fields are more-or-less symmetrical , which the core is and the oceans are n't , is another major problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is an interesting question - because it's currently believed that loss of the magnetic field cause the loss of atmosphere and the subsequent loss of water on Mars.
  Failing to explain Mars represents a major hole in this theory.
  Failing to explain why the Earth's magnetic fields are more-or-less symmetrical, which the core is and the oceans aren't, is another major problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329693</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329691</id>
	<title>Uh, right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244978340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, that makes a whole hell of a lot of sense. Why not invent some brand new, goofy theory that applies only to the Earth and not to any of the other celestial bodies that we know have magnetic fields which DON'T have oceans? Has somebody never heard of Occam's Razor? Instead of one theory which works to explain all magnetic fields on all celestial bodies why not invent something stupid for no good reason?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , that makes a whole hell of a lot of sense .
Why not invent some brand new , goofy theory that applies only to the Earth and not to any of the other celestial bodies that we know have magnetic fields which DO N'T have oceans ?
Has somebody never heard of Occam 's Razor ?
Instead of one theory which works to explain all magnetic fields on all celestial bodies why not invent something stupid for no good reason ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, that makes a whole hell of a lot of sense.
Why not invent some brand new, goofy theory that applies only to the Earth and not to any of the other celestial bodies that we know have magnetic fields which DON'T have oceans?
Has somebody never heard of Occam's Razor?
Instead of one theory which works to explain all magnetic fields on all celestial bodies why not invent something stupid for no good reason?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329791</id>
	<title>Ahah!</title>
	<author>XPeter</author>
	<datestamp>1244979240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He predicted Global Warming...shocked the world with "An Inconvinient Truth"...and created the internet.</p><p>This can only mean one thing: Al Gore is the Messiah. Move over Obama, there's a new kid in town.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He predicted Global Warming...shocked the world with " An Inconvinient Truth " ...and created the internet.This can only mean one thing : Al Gore is the Messiah .
Move over Obama , there 's a new kid in town .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He predicted Global Warming...shocked the world with "An Inconvinient Truth"...and created the internet.This can only mean one thing: Al Gore is the Messiah.
Move over Obama, there's a new kid in town.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329827</id>
	<title>Re:I may be wrong, Im not an astrologer</title>
	<author>im\_thatoneguy</author>
	<datestamp>1244979780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Europa's ocean may not have strong currents though.  Also there could be multiple causes that don't match every planet.  Our sample size is pretty small on the subject.  Ganymede might have a magnetic field due to its liquid iron core.  And we might have a magnetic field due to our oceans.  And Planet X might have a magnetic field due to something else all together.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Europa 's ocean may not have strong currents though .
Also there could be multiple causes that do n't match every planet .
Our sample size is pretty small on the subject .
Ganymede might have a magnetic field due to its liquid iron core .
And we might have a magnetic field due to our oceans .
And Planet X might have a magnetic field due to something else all together .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Europa's ocean may not have strong currents though.
Also there could be multiple causes that don't match every planet.
Our sample size is pretty small on the subject.
Ganymede might have a magnetic field due to its liquid iron core.
And we might have a magnetic field due to our oceans.
And Planet X might have a magnetic field due to something else all together.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329775</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329939</id>
	<title>Just last night...</title>
	<author>Anachragnome</author>
	<datestamp>1244980800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just last night there was an interesting show on television that focused on the subject of magnetic fields associated with planets.</p><p>There was an experiment covered in the show that was essentially a large, hollow orb filled with liquid sodium (a substitute for the iron at Earth's outer core. It is impossible to reproduce the pressure and heat of our Earth's guts in such a small scale experiment) which was then spun at a comparatively equal rate to that of Earth. The orb began producing strong magnetic fields.</p><p>I somehow doubt that if the same experiment were to be reproduced solely with a thin layer of salt water on the surface (and no sodium inside) that it would produce such strong magnetic fields. That being said, while the thought of Earth's magnetic field being produced solely by the water on the surface is interesting, personally I think it is more then likely a combination of the two factors rather then one alone that produces our protective magnetic field.</p><p>In addition, I wonder if the flux in ocean water levels, historically speaking, coincides with the strength and direction of past magnetic fields as recorded in ancient lava flows. If so, this would seem to back up the theory proposed in the article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just last night there was an interesting show on television that focused on the subject of magnetic fields associated with planets.There was an experiment covered in the show that was essentially a large , hollow orb filled with liquid sodium ( a substitute for the iron at Earth 's outer core .
It is impossible to reproduce the pressure and heat of our Earth 's guts in such a small scale experiment ) which was then spun at a comparatively equal rate to that of Earth .
The orb began producing strong magnetic fields.I somehow doubt that if the same experiment were to be reproduced solely with a thin layer of salt water on the surface ( and no sodium inside ) that it would produce such strong magnetic fields .
That being said , while the thought of Earth 's magnetic field being produced solely by the water on the surface is interesting , personally I think it is more then likely a combination of the two factors rather then one alone that produces our protective magnetic field.In addition , I wonder if the flux in ocean water levels , historically speaking , coincides with the strength and direction of past magnetic fields as recorded in ancient lava flows .
If so , this would seem to back up the theory proposed in the article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just last night there was an interesting show on television that focused on the subject of magnetic fields associated with planets.There was an experiment covered in the show that was essentially a large, hollow orb filled with liquid sodium (a substitute for the iron at Earth's outer core.
It is impossible to reproduce the pressure and heat of our Earth's guts in such a small scale experiment) which was then spun at a comparatively equal rate to that of Earth.
The orb began producing strong magnetic fields.I somehow doubt that if the same experiment were to be reproduced solely with a thin layer of salt water on the surface (and no sodium inside) that it would produce such strong magnetic fields.
That being said, while the thought of Earth's magnetic field being produced solely by the water on the surface is interesting, personally I think it is more then likely a combination of the two factors rather then one alone that produces our protective magnetic field.In addition, I wonder if the flux in ocean water levels, historically speaking, coincides with the strength and direction of past magnetic fields as recorded in ancient lava flows.
If so, this would seem to back up the theory proposed in the article.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28331321</id>
	<title>Re:Polarity switch</title>
	<author>dziban303</author>
	<datestamp>1244995200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>though none of us will be around to find out.</p></div><p>
Jesus will be.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>though none of us will be around to find out .
Jesus will be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>though none of us will be around to find out.
Jesus will be.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330039</id>
	<title>Another reason to dig deep...</title>
	<author>RobVB</author>
	<datestamp>1244981940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... and I mean that literally. I'm a big fan of space research, but maybe we should also be working on an expedition (or Journey, if you will) to the Centre of the Earth. Or at least find a way to take samples and readings down there. Humanity has never dug deeper than 12,262 meters(*), and although I see the obvious problems in digging for lava, I'm convinced it would yield interesting results.<br><br>(*) This number was taken from the following article, about a Russian digging experiment: http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=567<br><br>And I'll just post this here too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated\_Ocean\_Drilling\_Program</htmltext>
<tokenext>... and I mean that literally .
I 'm a big fan of space research , but maybe we should also be working on an expedition ( or Journey , if you will ) to the Centre of the Earth .
Or at least find a way to take samples and readings down there .
Humanity has never dug deeper than 12,262 meters ( * ) , and although I see the obvious problems in digging for lava , I 'm convinced it would yield interesting results .
( * ) This number was taken from the following article , about a Russian digging experiment : http : //www.damninteresting.com/ ? p = 567And I 'll just post this here too : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated \ _Ocean \ _Drilling \ _Program</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and I mean that literally.
I'm a big fan of space research, but maybe we should also be working on an expedition (or Journey, if you will) to the Centre of the Earth.
Or at least find a way to take samples and readings down there.
Humanity has never dug deeper than 12,262 meters(*), and although I see the obvious problems in digging for lava, I'm convinced it would yield interesting results.
(*) This number was taken from the following article, about a Russian digging experiment: http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=567And I'll just post this here too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated\_Ocean\_Drilling\_Program</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329705</id>
	<title>Makes as close as to no sense as possible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244978460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bunk.</p><p>Wouldn't explain magnetized rocks, magnetic north, etc...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bunk.Would n't explain magnetized rocks , magnetic north , etc.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bunk.Wouldn't explain magnetized rocks, magnetic north, etc...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329607</id>
	<title>First magenetic field causing trout!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244977500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am a FISH!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a FISH !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a FISH!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28333739</id>
	<title>Correlation is not Causation</title>
	<author>Drakkenmensch</author>
	<datestamp>1245070800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oooooo-kay... so the article claim that this could be possible because "water can conduct electricity"... so WHERE is this water-borne electricity coming from, then? We have a magnetic field that surrounds the whole planet, wouldn't that turn the entire ocean's wildlife into fishsticks? Also, when you run electric current through water (such as when you set up a simple electro-plating rig) wouldn't that run nearby compasses nuts?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oooooo-kay... so the article claim that this could be possible because " water can conduct electricity " ... so WHERE is this water-borne electricity coming from , then ?
We have a magnetic field that surrounds the whole planet , would n't that turn the entire ocean 's wildlife into fishsticks ?
Also , when you run electric current through water ( such as when you set up a simple electro-plating rig ) would n't that run nearby compasses nuts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oooooo-kay... so the article claim that this could be possible because "water can conduct electricity"... so WHERE is this water-borne electricity coming from, then?
We have a magnetic field that surrounds the whole planet, wouldn't that turn the entire ocean's wildlife into fishsticks?
Also, when you run electric current through water (such as when you set up a simple electro-plating rig) wouldn't that run nearby compasses nuts?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28331905</id>
	<title>So let me get this straight...</title>
	<author>XDirtypunkX</author>
	<datestamp>1245001440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This would mean that the science in "the core" was even more wrong? I didn't think it was possible!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This would mean that the science in " the core " was even more wrong ?
I did n't think it was possible !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This would mean that the science in "the core" was even more wrong?
I didn't think it was possible!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329841</id>
	<title>Re:Could be...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244979960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So are you saying the ocean is a ferrous wheel?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So are you saying the ocean is a ferrous wheel ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So are you saying the ocean is a ferrous wheel?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28337185</id>
	<title>Re: overdue... for lunch</title>
	<author>recharged95</author>
	<datestamp>1245089580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We're overdue now by several thousand years.</p></div><p>
Not to sound igno<i>rant</i>, but why is it that we're overdue for:
</p><ul>
<li>some magnetic reversal</li><li>some major earthquake</li><li>some major meteorite impact event</li><li>some major ice age</li><li>some major flooding</li><li>some major solar flare event</li><li>some major ocean current changes</li><li>etc...etc...</li></ul><p>
We're overdue for everything, such that, I'm overdue for some coffee.
</p><p>
I know it's Monday morning: don't worry about being late.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're overdue now by several thousand years .
Not to sound ignorant , but why is it that we 're overdue for : some magnetic reversalsome major earthquakesome major meteorite impact eventsome major ice agesome major floodingsome major solar flare eventsome major ocean current changesetc...etc.. . We 're overdue for everything , such that , I 'm overdue for some coffee .
I know it 's Monday morning : do n't worry about being late .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're overdue now by several thousand years.
Not to sound ignorant, but why is it that we're overdue for:

some magnetic reversalsome major earthquakesome major meteorite impact eventsome major ice agesome major floodingsome major solar flare eventsome major ocean current changesetc...etc...
We're overdue for everything, such that, I'm overdue for some coffee.
I know it's Monday morning: don't worry about being late.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28331077</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28331413</id>
	<title>Ryskin should be taken with a grain of salt</title>
	<author>dwarmstr</author>
	<datestamp>1244995980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I attended a lecture (probably ten years ago at this point) in which he suggested particular mass extinction horizons in the geological column were the result of methane hydrate eruptions.  I can't recall the specifics, other than the general disbelief of most of us in the room, on his particular hypothesis.  It required a lot of specific proofs that weren't there.  There was much discussion on the existence of C60 in various ash levels. And that's all I can remember, other than thinking Gregory Ryskin needs to provide stronger evidence to this hypotheses.  But seriously, some of the leading paleontologists and paleoclimate people really thought his stuff was ignoring strong evidence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I attended a lecture ( probably ten years ago at this point ) in which he suggested particular mass extinction horizons in the geological column were the result of methane hydrate eruptions .
I ca n't recall the specifics , other than the general disbelief of most of us in the room , on his particular hypothesis .
It required a lot of specific proofs that were n't there .
There was much discussion on the existence of C60 in various ash levels .
And that 's all I can remember , other than thinking Gregory Ryskin needs to provide stronger evidence to this hypotheses .
But seriously , some of the leading paleontologists and paleoclimate people really thought his stuff was ignoring strong evidence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I attended a lecture (probably ten years ago at this point) in which he suggested particular mass extinction horizons in the geological column were the result of methane hydrate eruptions.
I can't recall the specifics, other than the general disbelief of most of us in the room, on his particular hypothesis.
It required a lot of specific proofs that weren't there.
There was much discussion on the existence of C60 in various ash levels.
And that's all I can remember, other than thinking Gregory Ryskin needs to provide stronger evidence to this hypotheses.
But seriously, some of the leading paleontologists and paleoclimate people really thought his stuff was ignoring strong evidence.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330145</id>
	<title>Does this mean</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244983200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That I can no longer believe the science in that truly awesome movie The Core?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That I can no longer believe the science in that truly awesome movie The Core ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That I can no longer believe the science in that truly awesome movie The Core?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28331563</id>
	<title>Re:Polarity switch</title>
	<author>Daychilde</author>
	<datestamp>1244997360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I"m trying hard to make a joke about writing down when it happened and referring to that as reverse pole-ish notation, but... I think I'll let it go.</p><p>(I should probably post this anonymously, but hey - I stand by my bad puns!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I " m trying hard to make a joke about writing down when it happened and referring to that as reverse pole-ish notation , but... I think I 'll let it go .
( I should probably post this anonymously , but hey - I stand by my bad puns !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I"m trying hard to make a joke about writing down when it happened and referring to that as reverse pole-ish notation, but... I think I'll let it go.
(I should probably post this anonymously, but hey - I stand by my bad puns!
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329645</id>
	<title>But this would mean?!?!?!?!?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244977860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Core was just a bunch of non-scientific crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Core was just a bunch of non-scientific crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Core was just a bunch of non-scientific crap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2013250_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28331321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2013250_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28332345
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2013250_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28333315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2013250_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2013250_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28331725
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2013250_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329875
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2013250_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28333511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2013250_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28332311
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2013250_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329739
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2013250_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329645
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28332677
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2013250_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28341085
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2013250_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2013250_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28335669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2013250_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2013250_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28331291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28333977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2013250_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28332235
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2013250_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329645
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28331491
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2013250_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28331077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28337185
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2013250_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329609
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28337473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28347389
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2013250_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28339833
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2013250_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28333563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2013250_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329609
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2013250_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330019
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2013250_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330117
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2013250_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2013250_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2013250_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329645
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28335091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2013250_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28331563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2013250_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330359
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2013250_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28331427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28340549
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2013250_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330089
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2013250_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329609
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2013250_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329931
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2013250_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2013250_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2013250_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28392169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2013250_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28333047
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2013250_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28340087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2013250_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329827
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2013250_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28337251
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_14_2013250_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28334265
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_2013250.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329969
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_2013250.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329609
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329841
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28337473
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28347389
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330111
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_2013250.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329693
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330381
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_2013250.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329893
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_2013250.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329723
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329931
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330195
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_2013250.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329659
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329775
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28339833
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329827
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_2013250.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329621
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330359
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28392169
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330129
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28333315
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28334265
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28331321
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28331427
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28340549
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28331563
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28333047
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28332311
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28331077
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28337185
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_2013250.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329691
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329739
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28337251
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330487
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329889
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329837
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28335669
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28333511
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28333563
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330873
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28340087
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329761
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330019
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_2013250.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329967
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28332345
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_2013250.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329979
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_2013250.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329597
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_2013250.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28334119
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_2013250.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28331905
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_2013250.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329645
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329753
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28332677
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28335091
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28331491
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_2013250.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329697
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28341085
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330373
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329875
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330089
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330117
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_2013250.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28331291
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28333977
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_2013250.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330039
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_2013250.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28329939
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28332235
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_14_2013250.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28330041
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_14_2013250.28331725
</commentlist>
</conversation>
