<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_15_1658255</id>
	<title>Introducing the Warpship</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1245095460000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.astroengine.com/" rel="nofollow">astroengine</a> writes <i>"Dr. Richard Obousy, a guy who has put <a href="http://www.richardobousyconsulting.com/warp\_drive.html">modern science into the warp drive</a>, has designed <a href="http://dsc.discovery.com/space/slideshows/warpship/">his very own warpship</a>. Now, for the first time, he's shared it with the world. It might not be the sleek Starship Enterprise, but its structure has been <a href="http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/07/28/warp-speed-engine.html">optimized to harness local 'dark energy,'</a> generating a warp bubble so faster-than-light velocities are possible."</i> Now, the only question is: will the ship achieve faster-than-light travel ... or will the company hit those speeds once it has enough money from investors?</htmltext>
<tokenext>astroengine writes " Dr. Richard Obousy , a guy who has put modern science into the warp drive , has designed his very own warpship .
Now , for the first time , he 's shared it with the world .
It might not be the sleek Starship Enterprise , but its structure has been optimized to harness local 'dark energy, ' generating a warp bubble so faster-than-light velocities are possible .
" Now , the only question is : will the ship achieve faster-than-light travel ... or will the company hit those speeds once it has enough money from investors ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>astroengine writes "Dr. Richard Obousy, a guy who has put modern science into the warp drive, has designed his very own warpship.
Now, for the first time, he's shared it with the world.
It might not be the sleek Starship Enterprise, but its structure has been optimized to harness local 'dark energy,' generating a warp bubble so faster-than-light velocities are possible.
" Now, the only question is: will the ship achieve faster-than-light travel ... or will the company hit those speeds once it has enough money from investors?</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28342507</id>
	<title>I want to see...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245070980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pics or it didn't happen!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pics or it did n't happen !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pics or it didn't happen!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28344869</id>
	<title>Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse</title>
	<author>j\_sp\_r</author>
	<datestamp>1245093720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tried that. Cost me two teeth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tried that .
Cost me two teeth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tried that.
Cost me two teeth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339947</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28343397</id>
	<title>Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245078120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ENGAGE!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ENGAGE !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ENGAGE!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339641</id>
	<title>Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse</title>
	<author>oneirophrenos</author>
	<datestamp>1245099420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How about we figure out how to warp time first <em>and then</em> figure out a ship to utilize that science for the sake of travel?</p></div><p>Where's the fun in that?!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about we figure out how to warp time first and then figure out a ship to utilize that science for the sake of travel ? Where 's the fun in that ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about we figure out how to warp time first and then figure out a ship to utilize that science for the sake of travel?Where's the fun in that?
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339561</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340431</id>
	<title>Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse</title>
	<author>Gilmoure</author>
	<datestamp>1245059160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The hard part is when the ground keeps chasing after you. Once I figure out a way to disabuse the ground of the notion of following me, I'll be set.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The hard part is when the ground keeps chasing after you .
Once I figure out a way to disabuse the ground of the notion of following me , I 'll be set .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The hard part is when the ground keeps chasing after you.
Once I figure out a way to disabuse the ground of the notion of following me, I'll be set.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339947</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339965</id>
	<title>Can't they get anything right?</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1245057480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I told them to say warship instead of worship. Stupid spiders.</p><p>(will be downmodded before anyone gets the reference.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I told them to say warship instead of worship .
Stupid spiders .
( will be downmodded before anyone gets the reference .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I told them to say warship instead of worship.
Stupid spiders.
(will be downmodded before anyone gets the reference.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28348661</id>
	<title>Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse</title>
	<author>crhylove</author>
	<datestamp>1245172200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well I read "sake" as Sake, the popular rice wine served at sushi bars.  So the "Sake of Travel" seems pretty fun to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I read " sake " as Sake , the popular rice wine served at sushi bars .
So the " Sake of Travel " seems pretty fun to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I read "sake" as Sake, the popular rice wine served at sushi bars.
So the "Sake of Travel" seems pretty fun to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339841</id>
	<title>Re:Scotty</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245056940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Resistance is always futile, especially if a woman is involved.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Resistance is always futile , especially if a woman is involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Resistance is always futile, especially if a woman is involved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339755</id>
	<title>Understand your target audience</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1245056640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, they are seeking funding from the same people that invested in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moller\_Skycar\_M400" title="wikipedia.org">Moller Skycar</a> [wikipedia.org], then?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , they are seeking funding from the same people that invested in the Moller Skycar [ wikipedia.org ] , then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, they are seeking funding from the same people that invested in the Moller Skycar [wikipedia.org], then?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28346335</id>
	<title>Don't you remember ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245159000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This:</p><p>http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23292/ </p><p>and </p><p>http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/05/27/1215204&amp;tid=14</p><p>So, warp travel IS possible, but, for the moment there is no way to stabilize the warpship.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This : http : //www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23292/ and http : //science.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 99/05/27/1215204&amp;tid = 14So , warp travel IS possible , but , for the moment there is no way to stabilize the warpship .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This:http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23292/ and http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/05/27/1215204&amp;tid=14So, warp travel IS possible, but, for the moment there is no way to stabilize the warpship.
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341061</id>
	<title>Universal inflation</title>
	<author>Neanderthal Ninny</author>
	<datestamp>1245061980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The words "Universal Inflation" sounds like what we are experiencing financially now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The words " Universal Inflation " sounds like what we are experiencing financially now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The words "Universal Inflation" sounds like what we are experiencing financially now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28342147</id>
	<title>Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245068460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's kinda what satellites do - they're falling all the time but they're moving forward fast enough so the ground curves away underneath them and they miss.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's kinda what satellites do - they 're falling all the time but they 're moving forward fast enough so the ground curves away underneath them and they miss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's kinda what satellites do - they're falling all the time but they're moving forward fast enough so the ground curves away underneath them and they miss.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339947</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339769</id>
	<title>Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245056700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh we figured that out already. I say 'we', of course I mean 'Einstein'. Mass and energy warp space and time, so we just have to gather together some mass or energy. [Insert "your momma is so fat" joke here]</p><p>I recall a TV show about time travel where they reckoned they needed most of the mass in the universe to make a time travel machine...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh we figured that out already .
I say 'we ' , of course I mean 'Einstein' .
Mass and energy warp space and time , so we just have to gather together some mass or energy .
[ Insert " your momma is so fat " joke here ] I recall a TV show about time travel where they reckoned they needed most of the mass in the universe to make a time travel machine.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh we figured that out already.
I say 'we', of course I mean 'Einstein'.
Mass and energy warp space and time, so we just have to gather together some mass or energy.
[Insert "your momma is so fat" joke here]I recall a TV show about time travel where they reckoned they needed most of the mass in the universe to make a time travel machine...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339561</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341951</id>
	<title>Re:Only solving half the problem...</title>
	<author>thebigbadme</author>
	<datestamp>1245067260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what if people have already come back?   I don't really think this way, but, for the sake of discussion (irrational or not)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... how would you know?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what if people have already come back ?
I do n't really think this way , but , for the sake of discussion ( irrational or not ) ... how would you know ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what if people have already come back?
I don't really think this way, but, for the sake of discussion (irrational or not) ... how would you know?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340685</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28342123</id>
	<title>I always wondered...</title>
	<author>Anachragnome</author>
	<datestamp>1245068340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I always wondered about Faster-then-light travel and all the muck in the universe getting in the way whilst zipping through space.</p><p>Think about it.</p><p>That galaxy might be well out of our path when that path is calculated, but where the hell will it be when we are actually passing through that area, and just how, exactly, does our mucking around with time effect our spatial relationship to other celestial bodies, especially since some of them display complex interactions with both time and space?</p><p>Wouldn't that galaxy be in a different location in space since it is in a different location in time (assuming it was moving to begin with, as Big Bang Theory suggests)? One would think we would have to map all the trajectories, and not just locations, of damn near every celestial body simply to avoid crashing into them.</p><p>But hey, since we could go forward in time, we should also be able to go backward as well, right? If that is the case, it might as well be "Full speed ahead...and pass the bong." Anything goes wrong, you just go back.</p><p>But then, I could be wrong. Or could have been...or will be...man, my head hurts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I always wondered about Faster-then-light travel and all the muck in the universe getting in the way whilst zipping through space.Think about it.That galaxy might be well out of our path when that path is calculated , but where the hell will it be when we are actually passing through that area , and just how , exactly , does our mucking around with time effect our spatial relationship to other celestial bodies , especially since some of them display complex interactions with both time and space ? Would n't that galaxy be in a different location in space since it is in a different location in time ( assuming it was moving to begin with , as Big Bang Theory suggests ) ?
One would think we would have to map all the trajectories , and not just locations , of damn near every celestial body simply to avoid crashing into them.But hey , since we could go forward in time , we should also be able to go backward as well , right ?
If that is the case , it might as well be " Full speed ahead...and pass the bong .
" Anything goes wrong , you just go back.But then , I could be wrong .
Or could have been...or will be...man , my head hurts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always wondered about Faster-then-light travel and all the muck in the universe getting in the way whilst zipping through space.Think about it.That galaxy might be well out of our path when that path is calculated, but where the hell will it be when we are actually passing through that area, and just how, exactly, does our mucking around with time effect our spatial relationship to other celestial bodies, especially since some of them display complex interactions with both time and space?Wouldn't that galaxy be in a different location in space since it is in a different location in time (assuming it was moving to begin with, as Big Bang Theory suggests)?
One would think we would have to map all the trajectories, and not just locations, of damn near every celestial body simply to avoid crashing into them.But hey, since we could go forward in time, we should also be able to go backward as well, right?
If that is the case, it might as well be "Full speed ahead...and pass the bong.
" Anything goes wrong, you just go back.But then, I could be wrong.
Or could have been...or will be...man, my head hurts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340941</id>
	<title>Re:Only solving half the problem...</title>
	<author>Isarian</author>
	<datestamp>1245061380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You still end up with global causality violation if an object can communicate outside its light cone.</p></div><p>Oh shit, here comes the Eschaton:

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity\_Sky" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity\_Sky</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You still end up with global causality violation if an object can communicate outside its light cone.Oh shit , here comes the Eschaton : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity \ _Sky [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You still end up with global causality violation if an object can communicate outside its light cone.Oh shit, here comes the Eschaton:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity\_Sky [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28345679</id>
	<title>Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse</title>
	<author>smoker2</author>
	<datestamp>1245148920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Flight is a very good example IMHO. The first people who wanted to fly, jumped up in the air and promptly fell back down again. So next time they jumped out of trees or off cliffs to extend the time they spent in the air. Gradually they worked out that they needed some other components to slow the descent, and this gradually became a "wing". So they got as far as the hang glider. Wing shape was then concentrated on and eventually the concept of lift was discovered. Then the engines were developed to push that wing through the air fast enough to take off without needing to drop from height first.<br> <br>So deciding to do something is the very first step in learning how to do it. Nothing is invented in reverse. Except in computing, where a lot of solutions seem to always be in search of a problem.<br>Your last sentence speaks the truth, but negates your argument. Yes, heavier than air flight was considered impossible, and yet boeing 747s are commonplace. But it all started from a few nutters jumping out of trees.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Flight is a very good example IMHO .
The first people who wanted to fly , jumped up in the air and promptly fell back down again .
So next time they jumped out of trees or off cliffs to extend the time they spent in the air .
Gradually they worked out that they needed some other components to slow the descent , and this gradually became a " wing " .
So they got as far as the hang glider .
Wing shape was then concentrated on and eventually the concept of lift was discovered .
Then the engines were developed to push that wing through the air fast enough to take off without needing to drop from height first .
So deciding to do something is the very first step in learning how to do it .
Nothing is invented in reverse .
Except in computing , where a lot of solutions seem to always be in search of a problem.Your last sentence speaks the truth , but negates your argument .
Yes , heavier than air flight was considered impossible , and yet boeing 747s are commonplace .
But it all started from a few nutters jumping out of trees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flight is a very good example IMHO.
The first people who wanted to fly, jumped up in the air and promptly fell back down again.
So next time they jumped out of trees or off cliffs to extend the time they spent in the air.
Gradually they worked out that they needed some other components to slow the descent, and this gradually became a "wing".
So they got as far as the hang glider.
Wing shape was then concentrated on and eventually the concept of lift was discovered.
Then the engines were developed to push that wing through the air fast enough to take off without needing to drop from height first.
So deciding to do something is the very first step in learning how to do it.
Nothing is invented in reverse.
Except in computing, where a lot of solutions seem to always be in search of a problem.Your last sentence speaks the truth, but negates your argument.
Yes, heavier than air flight was considered impossible, and yet boeing 747s are commonplace.
But it all started from a few nutters jumping out of trees.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28346731</id>
	<title>Re:FTL paradoxes for dummies?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245162180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That argument is only correct if you assume causality cannot be violated.  Quantum mechanics has made us give up some of our cherished assumptions.  I don't see any particular reason why strict causality should be sacred.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That argument is only correct if you assume causality can not be violated .
Quantum mechanics has made us give up some of our cherished assumptions .
I do n't see any particular reason why strict causality should be sacred .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That argument is only correct if you assume causality cannot be violated.
Quantum mechanics has made us give up some of our cherished assumptions.
I don't see any particular reason why strict causality should be sacred.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28345987</id>
	<title>Re:Only solving half the problem...</title>
	<author>master\_p</author>
	<datestamp>1245154020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Faster-than-light travel does not cause causality violation for the simple reason that Bob is never in Alice's past, not matter what the Minkowski diagram says. However, Bob can experience Alice's past while Alice is in the future. That does not really cause a causality violation problem, it's just that Bob can't observe Alice directly because Alice is in a different reference frame. But they could certainly exchange FTL messages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Faster-than-light travel does not cause causality violation for the simple reason that Bob is never in Alice 's past , not matter what the Minkowski diagram says .
However , Bob can experience Alice 's past while Alice is in the future .
That does not really cause a causality violation problem , it 's just that Bob ca n't observe Alice directly because Alice is in a different reference frame .
But they could certainly exchange FTL messages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Faster-than-light travel does not cause causality violation for the simple reason that Bob is never in Alice's past, not matter what the Minkowski diagram says.
However, Bob can experience Alice's past while Alice is in the future.
That does not really cause a causality violation problem, it's just that Bob can't observe Alice directly because Alice is in a different reference frame.
But they could certainly exchange FTL messages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28342171</id>
	<title>Re:We dont need more horses</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1245068580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So why haven't you done it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So why have n't you done it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So why haven't you done it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340717</id>
	<title>Sorry Obousy....</title>
	<author>brunes69</author>
	<datestamp>1245060240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You've got the wrong last name, and are thus detined to failure.</p><p>Waiting for a Z. Cochrane to come forward.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've got the wrong last name , and are thus detined to failure.Waiting for a Z. Cochrane to come forward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've got the wrong last name, and are thus detined to failure.Waiting for a Z. Cochrane to come forward.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28345855</id>
	<title>Re:Only solving half the problem...</title>
	<author>smoker2</author>
	<datestamp>1245151920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Concentrating on the paradoxes isn't very useful. It just gives a way to avoid the question of "is it possible".<br>If a ship travels at 1.5c away from the earth for a year, it still has taken a year to do that. If it then travels back at the same speed, it will take a year to do that. So 2 years have passed since you set off. I don't see how it can be said that 20 or 30 years might have passed on earth. You can argue that it would depend where you measure that year from, either in the ship or on the earth, but it is not a deal breaker. If you work out what the time dilation effect is at 1.5c you can set your clock on board ship to the relevant value relative to earth time. So you could travel for a minute at 1.5c (ship time) and reach a point which has taken a year to reach (earth time). You wouldn't come back before you left because you can't have negative time, either on earth or in the ship. If you go faster, then relatively more time passes on earth, you don't go backwards in time. Whatever speed you travel at, time passes. It takes time to go anywhere, as speed is a function of time and distance. Surely you would need a negative value for either speed or distance to get a negative value for time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Concentrating on the paradoxes is n't very useful .
It just gives a way to avoid the question of " is it possible " .If a ship travels at 1.5c away from the earth for a year , it still has taken a year to do that .
If it then travels back at the same speed , it will take a year to do that .
So 2 years have passed since you set off .
I do n't see how it can be said that 20 or 30 years might have passed on earth .
You can argue that it would depend where you measure that year from , either in the ship or on the earth , but it is not a deal breaker .
If you work out what the time dilation effect is at 1.5c you can set your clock on board ship to the relevant value relative to earth time .
So you could travel for a minute at 1.5c ( ship time ) and reach a point which has taken a year to reach ( earth time ) .
You would n't come back before you left because you ca n't have negative time , either on earth or in the ship .
If you go faster , then relatively more time passes on earth , you do n't go backwards in time .
Whatever speed you travel at , time passes .
It takes time to go anywhere , as speed is a function of time and distance .
Surely you would need a negative value for either speed or distance to get a negative value for time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Concentrating on the paradoxes isn't very useful.
It just gives a way to avoid the question of "is it possible".If a ship travels at 1.5c away from the earth for a year, it still has taken a year to do that.
If it then travels back at the same speed, it will take a year to do that.
So 2 years have passed since you set off.
I don't see how it can be said that 20 or 30 years might have passed on earth.
You can argue that it would depend where you measure that year from, either in the ship or on the earth, but it is not a deal breaker.
If you work out what the time dilation effect is at 1.5c you can set your clock on board ship to the relevant value relative to earth time.
So you could travel for a minute at 1.5c (ship time) and reach a point which has taken a year to reach (earth time).
You wouldn't come back before you left because you can't have negative time, either on earth or in the ship.
If you go faster, then relatively more time passes on earth, you don't go backwards in time.
Whatever speed you travel at, time passes.
It takes time to go anywhere, as speed is a function of time and distance.
Surely you would need a negative value for either speed or distance to get a negative value for time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340337</id>
	<title>We dont need more horses</title>
	<author>voss</author>
	<datestamp>1245058620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We use cars now...because some guy decided at some point to hook up an engine to a belt to turn a wheel to make a cart go without horses.</p><p>At some point science has take the crap or get off the pot, stop endlessly theorising about doing and just try and do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We use cars now...because some guy decided at some point to hook up an engine to a belt to turn a wheel to make a cart go without horses.At some point science has take the crap or get off the pot , stop endlessly theorising about doing and just try and do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We use cars now...because some guy decided at some point to hook up an engine to a belt to turn a wheel to make a cart go without horses.At some point science has take the crap or get off the pot, stop endlessly theorising about doing and just try and do it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339561</id>
	<title>Let's not put the cart before the horse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245099120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about we figure out how to warp time first <em>and then</em> figure out a ship to utilize that science for the sake of travel?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about we figure out how to warp time first and then figure out a ship to utilize that science for the sake of travel ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about we figure out how to warp time first and then figure out a ship to utilize that science for the sake of travel?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340689</id>
	<title>Re:Impossible to observe?</title>
	<author>node 3</author>
	<datestamp>1245060120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Photonic BOOM!</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Photonic BOOM !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Photonic BOOM!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341111</id>
	<title>Fabulous</title>
	<author>xednieht</author>
	<datestamp>1245062400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Man invented the wheel.... again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Man invented the wheel.... again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man invented the wheel.... again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339905</id>
	<title>Something about that...</title>
	<author>hardwarejunkie9</author>
	<datestamp>1245057240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This article bothers me primarily because it simply recovers old ground on a theory of the possibility of warp travel. The idea of utilizing dark energy to create waves in space-time is hardly new or original and so what we end up seeing in front of us is a series of explanations about possible "space time bubbles" that we have no idea how to create, or even if they're technically feasible, supplemented by a few minor CAD renderings and a wonderful representation of a planar mesh. Pardon me if I'm not entirely enthused. There seems to be no real mention of any progress since this topic was last covered in the scientific press. In short, while a nice idea, it's an old theory and less than stellar (if you'll pardon the pun). This is more science fiction than science, in my opinion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This article bothers me primarily because it simply recovers old ground on a theory of the possibility of warp travel .
The idea of utilizing dark energy to create waves in space-time is hardly new or original and so what we end up seeing in front of us is a series of explanations about possible " space time bubbles " that we have no idea how to create , or even if they 're technically feasible , supplemented by a few minor CAD renderings and a wonderful representation of a planar mesh .
Pardon me if I 'm not entirely enthused .
There seems to be no real mention of any progress since this topic was last covered in the scientific press .
In short , while a nice idea , it 's an old theory and less than stellar ( if you 'll pardon the pun ) .
This is more science fiction than science , in my opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article bothers me primarily because it simply recovers old ground on a theory of the possibility of warp travel.
The idea of utilizing dark energy to create waves in space-time is hardly new or original and so what we end up seeing in front of us is a series of explanations about possible "space time bubbles" that we have no idea how to create, or even if they're technically feasible, supplemented by a few minor CAD renderings and a wonderful representation of a planar mesh.
Pardon me if I'm not entirely enthused.
There seems to be no real mention of any progress since this topic was last covered in the scientific press.
In short, while a nice idea, it's an old theory and less than stellar (if you'll pardon the pun).
This is more science fiction than science, in my opinion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340679</id>
	<title>Yeah go for it. Don't let *us* stop you.</title>
	<author>Un pobre guey</author>
	<datestamp>1245060060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><em>"These calculations are based on some arbitrary advance in technology or some alien technology that would let us manipulate the extra dimension," said Cleaver.
<br>
What the scientists were able to estimate was the amount of energy necessary, if the technology was available, to change these dimensions: about 10^45 joules.</em>
<br>
<br>
This is somewhere between blue sky scientific speculation and plain old mental masturbation. I suspect that beer drinking played a key role somewhere.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" These calculations are based on some arbitrary advance in technology or some alien technology that would let us manipulate the extra dimension , " said Cleaver .
What the scientists were able to estimate was the amount of energy necessary , if the technology was available , to change these dimensions : about 10 ^ 45 joules .
This is somewhere between blue sky scientific speculation and plain old mental masturbation .
I suspect that beer drinking played a key role somewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"These calculations are based on some arbitrary advance in technology or some alien technology that would let us manipulate the extra dimension," said Cleaver.
What the scientists were able to estimate was the amount of energy necessary, if the technology was available, to change these dimensions: about 10^45 joules.
This is somewhere between blue sky scientific speculation and plain old mental masturbation.
I suspect that beer drinking played a key role somewhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28343873</id>
	<title>Re:Can't they get anything right?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245082560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wanted to ask you about your flowers.</p><p>Quasi-science meets Quasi-space?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wanted to ask you about your flowers.Quasi-science meets Quasi-space ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wanted to ask you about your flowers.Quasi-science meets Quasi-space?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28345513</id>
	<title>Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse</title>
	<author>feepness</author>
	<datestamp>1245146160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Honey, does this warpship make my ass look fat?"</p></div><p>"No honey, it's the fat that makes your ass look fat."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Honey , does this warpship make my ass look fat ?
" " No honey , it 's the fat that makes your ass look fat .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Honey, does this warpship make my ass look fat?
""No honey, it's the fat that makes your ass look fat.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28345183</id>
	<title>Re:FTL paradoxes for dummies?</title>
	<author>khayman80</author>
	<datestamp>1245184560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Can anyone point me at a web site that explains why FTL travel violates causality?</p></div></blockquote><p>I've tried to explain that <a href="http://dumbscientist.com/archives/any-ftl-signal-can-be-sent-back-in-time" title="dumbscientist.com">here</a> [dumbscientist.com]. Long story short: FTL travel can automatically be used as a time machine, which means you can kill your own grandfather.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone point me at a web site that explains why FTL travel violates causality ? I 've tried to explain that here [ dumbscientist.com ] .
Long story short : FTL travel can automatically be used as a time machine , which means you can kill your own grandfather .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anyone point me at a web site that explains why FTL travel violates causality?I've tried to explain that here [dumbscientist.com].
Long story short: FTL travel can automatically be used as a time machine, which means you can kill your own grandfather.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341181</id>
	<title>How to create the bubble</title>
	<author>istartedi</author>
	<datestamp>1245062760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just have the Federal Reserve keep the
rate of the Universe's expansion artificially
low for a few years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just have the Federal Reserve keep the rate of the Universe 's expansion artificially low for a few years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just have the Federal Reserve keep the
rate of the Universe's expansion artificially
low for a few years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28349921</id>
	<title>Re:Only solving half the problem...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245176220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'll give a couple of examples, one using special relativity and one involving some general relativity, to amplify a little on what Geoffrey Landis said above.</p><p>Let's start with a couple of definitions. An "event" in relativity means a combination of time and place. Event B is defined as lying outside event A's light cone if the distance from A to B, in light-years, is greater than the time-difference between A and B, in years.</p><p>Example #1:<br>Suppose that faster-than-light (FTL) were possible. Then it would be possible for event A to cause event B, where B lies outside A's light cone.<br>You could simply travel in your FTL spaceship, starting at A and ending up at B, where you'd deliver a message. But according to special relativity, the time-ordering of events is not as absolute as in classical physics, because observers in different frames of reference disagree on the flow of time. Suppose the original setup was described according to one observer, O1, and now we have a second observer, O2, who is moving relative to O1 at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light. If the speed of the relative motion is high enough, then you can always get a situation where O2 says B happened before A, rather than after A. (This only happens if B is outside A's light cone.) So O1 says A caused B, but O2 says B caused A.</p></div><p>I'm sorry but to my EE mind this is no more a temporal paradox than the old <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post\_hoc\_ergo\_propter\_hoc" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow"> <i>post hoc</i> </a> [wikipedia.org] arguement!  Confusion about the order of events by an observer doesn't change the actual order in which they happened, even in a relativistic universe.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Example #2:<br>In general relativity, wormhole is a possible way to travel between different places, but since time and space are treated on the same footing in general relativity, there's every reason to believe that if wormholes exist, they would also go between different times, i.e., they would be time machines. But let's suppose for the sake of argument that you come across a wormhole that only goes between different places, with both mouths being synchronized in time. This would seem like FTL without time travel. But such a wormhole can always be used for time-travel as well. One method is to use gravitational fields to accelerate one mouth of the wormhole in some direction, bring it to a stop, and then use a similar acceleration and deceleration to bring it back to where it started. When you do this, you get something exactly like the twin "paradox" of special relavitity; the wormholes' times are no longer synchronized. So now if your no-time-travel FTL has been turned into FTL with time travel.</p></div><p>I take it by "twin 'paradox' you mean this <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin\_paradox" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">one</a> [wikipedia.org]? If so, as you can see this isn't a real violation of causality (which would be an actual temporal paradox), instead it really is just a weird artifact of time dialation.  Going back to your example #2, if space and time are connected it is likely that the ability to travel through time is directly linked to the length of the wormhole.  Therefore, to travel to an arbitrary point in space-time you'd have to manipulate <b>both</b> ends, using gravitational fields; which have yet to be prove to even exist, much less how we could create and control fields of the magnitude required. It may turn out that to utilize this method of time travel is theoritically possible, but to use it to travel significantly into the past or future would take more energy than is available in the Local Group of galaxies! So I'd say your still safe from becoming your own grandparent.;)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>There's nothing special about these two examples. The idea that FTL naturally makes time travel possible is tightly bound to the structure of relativity. Since time travel seems to lead to causality paradoxes (e.g., going back in time and killing yourself), the conclusion seems to be that FTL leads to paradoxes, and that makes physicists suspect that FTL isn't actually physically possible.</p></div><p>As others in this thread have stated, there are theories (like the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novikov\_self-consistency\_principle)Novikov" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">) which would allow time travel without paradoxes.  Basically a time-traveller couldn't actually alter the time-line, because anything they affected would have already been part of their time-line prior to the trip.  If one of these theories are correct, neither of your examples would prevent FTL even if it did include a time travel aspect.</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll give a couple of examples , one using special relativity and one involving some general relativity , to amplify a little on what Geoffrey Landis said above.Let 's start with a couple of definitions .
An " event " in relativity means a combination of time and place .
Event B is defined as lying outside event A 's light cone if the distance from A to B , in light-years , is greater than the time-difference between A and B , in years.Example # 1 : Suppose that faster-than-light ( FTL ) were possible .
Then it would be possible for event A to cause event B , where B lies outside A 's light cone.You could simply travel in your FTL spaceship , starting at A and ending up at B , where you 'd deliver a message .
But according to special relativity , the time-ordering of events is not as absolute as in classical physics , because observers in different frames of reference disagree on the flow of time .
Suppose the original setup was described according to one observer , O1 , and now we have a second observer , O2 , who is moving relative to O1 at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light .
If the speed of the relative motion is high enough , then you can always get a situation where O2 says B happened before A , rather than after A .
( This only happens if B is outside A 's light cone .
) So O1 says A caused B , but O2 says B caused A.I 'm sorry but to my EE mind this is no more a temporal paradox than the old post hoc [ wikipedia.org ] arguement !
Confusion about the order of events by an observer does n't change the actual order in which they happened , even in a relativistic universe.Example # 2 : In general relativity , wormhole is a possible way to travel between different places , but since time and space are treated on the same footing in general relativity , there 's every reason to believe that if wormholes exist , they would also go between different times , i.e. , they would be time machines .
But let 's suppose for the sake of argument that you come across a wormhole that only goes between different places , with both mouths being synchronized in time .
This would seem like FTL without time travel .
But such a wormhole can always be used for time-travel as well .
One method is to use gravitational fields to accelerate one mouth of the wormhole in some direction , bring it to a stop , and then use a similar acceleration and deceleration to bring it back to where it started .
When you do this , you get something exactly like the twin " paradox " of special relavitity ; the wormholes ' times are no longer synchronized .
So now if your no-time-travel FTL has been turned into FTL with time travel.I take it by " twin 'paradox ' you mean this one [ wikipedia.org ] ?
If so , as you can see this is n't a real violation of causality ( which would be an actual temporal paradox ) , instead it really is just a weird artifact of time dialation .
Going back to your example # 2 , if space and time are connected it is likely that the ability to travel through time is directly linked to the length of the wormhole .
Therefore , to travel to an arbitrary point in space-time you 'd have to manipulate both ends , using gravitational fields ; which have yet to be prove to even exist , much less how we could create and control fields of the magnitude required .
It may turn out that to utilize this method of time travel is theoritically possible , but to use it to travel significantly into the past or future would take more energy than is available in the Local Group of galaxies !
So I 'd say your still safe from becoming your own grandparent .
; ) There 's nothing special about these two examples .
The idea that FTL naturally makes time travel possible is tightly bound to the structure of relativity .
Since time travel seems to lead to causality paradoxes ( e.g. , going back in time and killing yourself ) , the conclusion seems to be that FTL leads to paradoxes , and that makes physicists suspect that FTL is n't actually physically possible.As others in this thread have stated , there are theories ( like the ) which would allow time travel without paradoxes .
Basically a time-traveller could n't actually alter the time-line , because anything they affected would have already been part of their time-line prior to the trip .
If one of these theories are correct , neither of your examples would prevent FTL even if it did include a time travel aspect .
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll give a couple of examples, one using special relativity and one involving some general relativity, to amplify a little on what Geoffrey Landis said above.Let's start with a couple of definitions.
An "event" in relativity means a combination of time and place.
Event B is defined as lying outside event A's light cone if the distance from A to B, in light-years, is greater than the time-difference between A and B, in years.Example #1:Suppose that faster-than-light (FTL) were possible.
Then it would be possible for event A to cause event B, where B lies outside A's light cone.You could simply travel in your FTL spaceship, starting at A and ending up at B, where you'd deliver a message.
But according to special relativity, the time-ordering of events is not as absolute as in classical physics, because observers in different frames of reference disagree on the flow of time.
Suppose the original setup was described according to one observer, O1, and now we have a second observer, O2, who is moving relative to O1 at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light.
If the speed of the relative motion is high enough, then you can always get a situation where O2 says B happened before A, rather than after A.
(This only happens if B is outside A's light cone.
) So O1 says A caused B, but O2 says B caused A.I'm sorry but to my EE mind this is no more a temporal paradox than the old  post hoc  [wikipedia.org] arguement!
Confusion about the order of events by an observer doesn't change the actual order in which they happened, even in a relativistic universe.Example #2:In general relativity, wormhole is a possible way to travel between different places, but since time and space are treated on the same footing in general relativity, there's every reason to believe that if wormholes exist, they would also go between different times, i.e., they would be time machines.
But let's suppose for the sake of argument that you come across a wormhole that only goes between different places, with both mouths being synchronized in time.
This would seem like FTL without time travel.
But such a wormhole can always be used for time-travel as well.
One method is to use gravitational fields to accelerate one mouth of the wormhole in some direction, bring it to a stop, and then use a similar acceleration and deceleration to bring it back to where it started.
When you do this, you get something exactly like the twin "paradox" of special relavitity; the wormholes' times are no longer synchronized.
So now if your no-time-travel FTL has been turned into FTL with time travel.I take it by "twin 'paradox' you mean this one [wikipedia.org]?
If so, as you can see this isn't a real violation of causality (which would be an actual temporal paradox), instead it really is just a weird artifact of time dialation.
Going back to your example #2, if space and time are connected it is likely that the ability to travel through time is directly linked to the length of the wormhole.
Therefore, to travel to an arbitrary point in space-time you'd have to manipulate both ends, using gravitational fields; which have yet to be prove to even exist, much less how we could create and control fields of the magnitude required.
It may turn out that to utilize this method of time travel is theoritically possible, but to use it to travel significantly into the past or future would take more energy than is available in the Local Group of galaxies!
So I'd say your still safe from becoming your own grandparent.
;)There's nothing special about these two examples.
The idea that FTL naturally makes time travel possible is tightly bound to the structure of relativity.
Since time travel seems to lead to causality paradoxes (e.g., going back in time and killing yourself), the conclusion seems to be that FTL leads to paradoxes, and that makes physicists suspect that FTL isn't actually physically possible.As others in this thread have stated, there are theories (like the ) which would allow time travel without paradoxes.
Basically a time-traveller couldn't actually alter the time-line, because anything they affected would have already been part of their time-line prior to the trip.
If one of these theories are correct, neither of your examples would prevent FTL even if it did include a time travel aspect.
[wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339717</id>
	<title>A consultant said it so it *must* be true</title>
	<author>StuartHankins</author>
	<datestamp>1245056520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>A consultant, eh? Making the big promises, he is?<br> <br>Well when he's done and had his turn, I've got some <em>marvelous</em> things to show you. I wouldn't show just anybody, it's our secret. Everyone will want one and we'll be rich and famous so get them while you can now!</htmltext>
<tokenext>A consultant , eh ?
Making the big promises , he is ?
Well when he 's done and had his turn , I 've got some marvelous things to show you .
I would n't show just anybody , it 's our secret .
Everyone will want one and we 'll be rich and famous so get them while you can now !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A consultant, eh?
Making the big promises, he is?
Well when he's done and had his turn, I've got some marvelous things to show you.
I wouldn't show just anybody, it's our secret.
Everyone will want one and we'll be rich and famous so get them while you can now!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340173</id>
	<title>Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse</title>
	<author>ground.zero.612</author>
	<datestamp>1245058200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I already have a time warping machine. I use it once daily to skip ahead 8hrs into tomorrow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I already have a time warping machine .
I use it once daily to skip ahead 8hrs into tomorrow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I already have a time warping machine.
I use it once daily to skip ahead 8hrs into tomorrow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339561</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28342235</id>
	<title>Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse</title>
	<author>archgoon</author>
	<datestamp>1245069060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think mine's broken, it never gets a full 8. Then again, I'm a grad student...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think mine 's broken , it never gets a full 8 .
Then again , I 'm a grad student.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think mine's broken, it never gets a full 8.
Then again, I'm a grad student...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28342561</id>
	<title>Credulity</title>
	<author>Brandybuck</author>
	<datestamp>1245071280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slashdot editors: So credulous they manage to asound even 9/11 Troofers with with their gullability...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot editors : So credulous they manage to asound even 9/11 Troofers with with their gullability.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot editors: So credulous they manage to asound even 9/11 Troofers with with their gullability...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339707</id>
	<title>Impossible to observe?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245056460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And, if the ship does achieve faster than light travel, will an observer even be able to see it doing so?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And , if the ship does achieve faster than light travel , will an observer even be able to see it doing so ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And, if the ship does achieve faster than light travel, will an observer even be able to see it doing so?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340539</id>
	<title>Travel faster than light...</title>
	<author>bagsta</author>
	<datestamp>1245059640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can you imagine that when we make our first travel faster than light, a Vulcan spaceship(or any other alien except <a href="http://c.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicms.gif" title="fsdn.com" rel="nofollow">Borgs</a> [fsdn.com]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P) will passing by our neighborhood and make the first contact with aliens...?
<br>

<br>
<i>Noooo, I think I see too much science fiction</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you imagine that when we make our first travel faster than light , a Vulcan spaceship ( or any other alien except Borgs [ fsdn.com ] : P ) will passing by our neighborhood and make the first contact with aliens... ?
Noooo , I think I see too much science fiction</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you imagine that when we make our first travel faster than light, a Vulcan spaceship(or any other alien except Borgs [fsdn.com] :P) will passing by our neighborhood and make the first contact with aliens...?
Noooo, I think I see too much science fiction</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28343013</id>
	<title>Obligatory Futurama Quote</title>
	<author>baKanale</author>
	<datestamp>1245074820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Professor: Where's the device that lets to speed up or slow down the passage of time?<br>Fry: [pulls out a bong] Under the seat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Professor : Where 's the device that lets to speed up or slow down the passage of time ? Fry : [ pulls out a bong ] Under the seat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Professor: Where's the device that lets to speed up or slow down the passage of time?Fry: [pulls out a bong] Under the seat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28342487</id>
	<title>Re:Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245070800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TFA is guilty of a little bit of nonsense WRT "dark energy" contribution to expansion.</p><p>Early in the history of the universe the effect of dark energy was extremely negligable.. Most cosmology types believe that the expansion rate of the universe actually slowed a bit initially as the gravitational attraction of objects constrained the expansion rate.  Then at some point later the rate of expansion sped up again due to the so-called "dark energy" or what is really most likely just a property of space itself to get bigger and bigger.</p><p>Dark matter and dark energy are totally separate items.</p><p>Dark matter is stuff we can't see because their made of rocks, heavy neutrinos or other even more exotic nonsense.</p><p>Dark energy is the metric expansion of space (hubble expansion) the balloon concept in TFA is a good way of thinking of it.  I'll add that for the naysayers who think exceeding C from an observers perspective is still not possible<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. we can actually view galaxies receding from us at greater the speed of light due to the effects of metric expansion.</p><p>There just...ah..isn't really any way we know to practiacally do it as TFA points out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA is guilty of a little bit of nonsense WRT " dark energy " contribution to expansion.Early in the history of the universe the effect of dark energy was extremely negligable.. Most cosmology types believe that the expansion rate of the universe actually slowed a bit initially as the gravitational attraction of objects constrained the expansion rate .
Then at some point later the rate of expansion sped up again due to the so-called " dark energy " or what is really most likely just a property of space itself to get bigger and bigger.Dark matter and dark energy are totally separate items.Dark matter is stuff we ca n't see because their made of rocks , heavy neutrinos or other even more exotic nonsense.Dark energy is the metric expansion of space ( hubble expansion ) the balloon concept in TFA is a good way of thinking of it .
I 'll add that for the naysayers who think exceeding C from an observers perspective is still not possible .. we can actually view galaxies receding from us at greater the speed of light due to the effects of metric expansion.There just...ah..is n't really any way we know to practiacally do it as TFA points out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA is guilty of a little bit of nonsense WRT "dark energy" contribution to expansion.Early in the history of the universe the effect of dark energy was extremely negligable.. Most cosmology types believe that the expansion rate of the universe actually slowed a bit initially as the gravitational attraction of objects constrained the expansion rate.
Then at some point later the rate of expansion sped up again due to the so-called "dark energy" or what is really most likely just a property of space itself to get bigger and bigger.Dark matter and dark energy are totally separate items.Dark matter is stuff we can't see because their made of rocks, heavy neutrinos or other even more exotic nonsense.Dark energy is the metric expansion of space (hubble expansion) the balloon concept in TFA is a good way of thinking of it.
I'll add that for the naysayers who think exceeding C from an observers perspective is still not possible .. we can actually view galaxies receding from us at greater the speed of light due to the effects of metric expansion.There just...ah..isn't really any way we know to practiacally do it as TFA points out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339681</id>
	<title>Scotty</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245056400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But I'm giving all she's got, cap'n!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>But I 'm giving all she 's got , cap'n !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I'm giving all she's got, cap'n!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28342365</id>
	<title>Reminds me of this song....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245069960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't want to set the world... on fire.....</p><p>Now, for VATS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't want to set the world... on fire.....Now , for VATS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't want to set the world... on fire.....Now, for VATS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28342013</id>
	<title>Alternative energy?</title>
	<author>Zarf</author>
	<datestamp>1245067680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh, is dark energy the ultimate alternative energy? What happens when you use up all the dark energy in a region of space?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , is dark energy the ultimate alternative energy ?
What happens when you use up all the dark energy in a region of space ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, is dark energy the ultimate alternative energy?
What happens when you use up all the dark energy in a region of space?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340079</id>
	<title>Re:Only solving half the problem...</title>
	<author>JaredOfEuropa</author>
	<datestamp>1245057900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You still end up with global causality violation if an object can communicate outside its light cone.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Perhaps a knowledgable phycisist can clarify: is the light cone thingy a <i>fundamental rule</i> necessary to make our current theories work, or is it merely a <i>consequence</i> following from the fact that our current theories generally do not allow for faster-than-light travel?  If the latter, a warp drive wouldn't "violate" any causality rule.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You still end up with global causality violation if an object can communicate outside its light cone .
Perhaps a knowledgable phycisist can clarify : is the light cone thingy a fundamental rule necessary to make our current theories work , or is it merely a consequence following from the fact that our current theories generally do not allow for faster-than-light travel ?
If the latter , a warp drive would n't " violate " any causality rule .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You still end up with global causality violation if an object can communicate outside its light cone.
Perhaps a knowledgable phycisist can clarify: is the light cone thingy a fundamental rule necessary to make our current theories work, or is it merely a consequence following from the fact that our current theories generally do not allow for faster-than-light travel?
If the latter, a warp drive wouldn't "violate" any causality rule.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341245</id>
	<title>That's nice... but how exactly?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245063120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It'd be nice to have an explanation of exactly HOW the design is optimized to exploit dark energy, ie. how the geometry and/or features of the ship would contribute to harnessing and/or channeling dark energy. Without an explanation, it just looks like yet another science fiction space ship.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 'd be nice to have an explanation of exactly HOW the design is optimized to exploit dark energy , ie .
how the geometry and/or features of the ship would contribute to harnessing and/or channeling dark energy .
Without an explanation , it just looks like yet another science fiction space ship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It'd be nice to have an explanation of exactly HOW the design is optimized to exploit dark energy, ie.
how the geometry and/or features of the ship would contribute to harnessing and/or channeling dark energy.
Without an explanation, it just looks like yet another science fiction space ship.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341769</id>
	<title>Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse</title>
	<author>BotnetZombie</author>
	<datestamp>1245066240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just throw yourself at the ground and miss</p></div><p>
If you try to fail and succeed at it, what the hell have you just done?<br>
Ah, I see what you're doing here. Perpetual energy by dead philosophers spinning in their graves?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just throw yourself at the ground and miss If you try to fail and succeed at it , what the hell have you just done ?
Ah , I see what you 're doing here .
Perpetual energy by dead philosophers spinning in their graves ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just throw yourself at the ground and miss
If you try to fail and succeed at it, what the hell have you just done?
Ah, I see what you're doing here.
Perpetual energy by dead philosophers spinning in their graves?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339947</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341641</id>
	<title>Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse</title>
	<author>flyingsquid</author>
	<datestamp>1245065460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>All I can say is... that is one dorky looking spaceship. Looks sort of like some bike tires in an awkward three-way. I mean, come on! Can you imagine showing up for a space battle in that kind of thing? The rest of the galaxy would just think we were completely uncool. It'd be like the alien commander would take one look at the screen and he would hiss from his fifteen slime-covered mouths, "That's their ship? That thing? Wait, you're sure it's not like a refinery, or a space station, or some kind of orbital exercise facility? Maybe a decoy, and they have like a really awesome spaceship hidden behind it? Wow, so that's really the flagship of the Human fleet? Oh. Man, I feel sorry for these guys... maybe we should go easy on them." And then our admiral would have to lie and be all like, "Uh, it's not really my ship. Yeah, my ship's really badass. But it's in the shop. New photon torpedo tubes and a couple heavy laser banks. And we're putting some bitchin' flames on the side. This is just a rental till my real ship is back from the shop."<p>
I am not saying that every spaceship has to be as awesome as the Millennium Falcon, but is he saying that we can solve the problem of harnessing dark energy, and we can solve the problem of warping the space-time continuum, but we can't figure out how to do it without building something that looks like an intergalactic Segway?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All I can say is... that is one dorky looking spaceship .
Looks sort of like some bike tires in an awkward three-way .
I mean , come on !
Can you imagine showing up for a space battle in that kind of thing ?
The rest of the galaxy would just think we were completely uncool .
It 'd be like the alien commander would take one look at the screen and he would hiss from his fifteen slime-covered mouths , " That 's their ship ?
That thing ?
Wait , you 're sure it 's not like a refinery , or a space station , or some kind of orbital exercise facility ?
Maybe a decoy , and they have like a really awesome spaceship hidden behind it ?
Wow , so that 's really the flagship of the Human fleet ?
Oh. Man , I feel sorry for these guys... maybe we should go easy on them .
" And then our admiral would have to lie and be all like , " Uh , it 's not really my ship .
Yeah , my ship 's really badass .
But it 's in the shop .
New photon torpedo tubes and a couple heavy laser banks .
And we 're putting some bitchin ' flames on the side .
This is just a rental till my real ship is back from the shop .
" I am not saying that every spaceship has to be as awesome as the Millennium Falcon , but is he saying that we can solve the problem of harnessing dark energy , and we can solve the problem of warping the space-time continuum , but we ca n't figure out how to do it without building something that looks like an intergalactic Segway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All I can say is... that is one dorky looking spaceship.
Looks sort of like some bike tires in an awkward three-way.
I mean, come on!
Can you imagine showing up for a space battle in that kind of thing?
The rest of the galaxy would just think we were completely uncool.
It'd be like the alien commander would take one look at the screen and he would hiss from his fifteen slime-covered mouths, "That's their ship?
That thing?
Wait, you're sure it's not like a refinery, or a space station, or some kind of orbital exercise facility?
Maybe a decoy, and they have like a really awesome spaceship hidden behind it?
Wow, so that's really the flagship of the Human fleet?
Oh. Man, I feel sorry for these guys... maybe we should go easy on them.
" And then our admiral would have to lie and be all like, "Uh, it's not really my ship.
Yeah, my ship's really badass.
But it's in the shop.
New photon torpedo tubes and a couple heavy laser banks.
And we're putting some bitchin' flames on the side.
This is just a rental till my real ship is back from the shop.
"
I am not saying that every spaceship has to be as awesome as the Millennium Falcon, but is he saying that we can solve the problem of harnessing dark energy, and we can solve the problem of warping the space-time continuum, but we can't figure out how to do it without building something that looks like an intergalactic Segway?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341385</id>
	<title>Re:Only solving half the problem...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245064080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More like 500 error</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More like 500 error</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More like 500 error</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340167</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339671</id>
	<title>Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse</title>
	<author>gnick</author>
	<datestamp>1245099540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah - Here's the kicker, found on Page 2 of TFA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Exactly how the 11th dimension would be expanded and shrunk is still unknown.</p></div><p>Sounds pretty similar to the way I walk - I move my feet and the Earth rotates beneath me.  I'm planning on starting to fly instead, it's just maintaining altitude after lift-off.  But I won't let that small detail stop me from making travel plans - I'll work that out after jumping.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah - Here 's the kicker , found on Page 2 of TFA : Exactly how the 11th dimension would be expanded and shrunk is still unknown.Sounds pretty similar to the way I walk - I move my feet and the Earth rotates beneath me .
I 'm planning on starting to fly instead , it 's just maintaining altitude after lift-off .
But I wo n't let that small detail stop me from making travel plans - I 'll work that out after jumping .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah - Here's the kicker, found on Page 2 of TFA:Exactly how the 11th dimension would be expanded and shrunk is still unknown.Sounds pretty similar to the way I walk - I move my feet and the Earth rotates beneath me.
I'm planning on starting to fly instead, it's just maintaining altitude after lift-off.
But I won't let that small detail stop me from making travel plans - I'll work that out after jumping.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339561</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28346631</id>
	<title>Re:Only solving half the problem...</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1245161400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This whole thread is 203 Non-Authoritative Information</htmltext>
<tokenext>This whole thread is 203 Non-Authoritative Information</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This whole thread is 203 Non-Authoritative Information</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340167</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341375</id>
	<title>Re:Only solving half the problem...</title>
	<author>bcrowell</author>
	<datestamp>1245064020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Didn't Novikov solve that problem?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
No, he didn't. All they did was find one very simple toy model in which there was no inconsistency. And even in their toy model, there are too many solutions, with no way to tell which is the one that actually would occur.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't Novikov solve that problem ?
No , he did n't .
All they did was find one very simple toy model in which there was no inconsistency .
And even in their toy model , there are too many solutions , with no way to tell which is the one that actually would occur .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't Novikov solve that problem?
No, he didn't.
All they did was find one very simple toy model in which there was no inconsistency.
And even in their toy model, there are too many solutions, with no way to tell which is the one that actually would occur.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340925</id>
	<title>Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245061320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except we knew birds could do it....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except we knew birds could do it... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except we knew birds could do it....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340737</id>
	<title>Warp Bubble</title>
	<author>awarrenfells</author>
	<datestamp>1245060360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would like to know more about this supposed warp bubble, and what were to happen if the said warp bubble were to collapse in mid flight?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would like to know more about this supposed warp bubble , and what were to happen if the said warp bubble were to collapse in mid flight ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would like to know more about this supposed warp bubble, and what were to happen if the said warp bubble were to collapse in mid flight?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340311</id>
	<title>Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse</title>
	<author>Rude Turnip</author>
	<datestamp>1245058560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It must be frustrating when someone walks in the opposite direction!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It must be frustrating when someone walks in the opposite direction !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It must be frustrating when someone walks in the opposite direction!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340343</id>
	<title>Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse</title>
	<author>Sandbags</author>
	<datestamp>1245058680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>11th dimension?  hell, have you even tried working in 5D?</p><p><a href="http://www.gravitation3d.com/magiccube5d/" title="gravitation3d.com">http://www.gravitation3d.com/magiccube5d/</a> [gravitation3d.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>11th dimension ?
hell , have you even tried working in 5D ? http : //www.gravitation3d.com/magiccube5d/ [ gravitation3d.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>11th dimension?
hell, have you even tried working in 5D?http://www.gravitation3d.com/magiccube5d/ [gravitation3d.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339935</id>
	<title>Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse</title>
	<author>internerdj</author>
	<datestamp>1245057300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>How am I supposed to secure the patent if I wait until after someone else has discovered the underlying science?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How am I supposed to secure the patent if I wait until after someone else has discovered the underlying science ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How am I supposed to secure the patent if I wait until after someone else has discovered the underlying science?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339561</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28347341</id>
	<title>If you think rocket fuel's expensive...</title>
	<author>Daemonic</author>
	<datestamp>1245165960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So okay, we've got this FTL warpship design, yeah?
<br>
We can send a spaceship to the far reaches of the universe...
<br>
But we lose Jupiter?
<br>
<b>Maybe</b> the environmental lobby will have something to say about that.
<br>
Not to mention the practical difficulties of finding another spare Jupiter lying around for the second trip.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So okay , we 've got this FTL warpship design , yeah ?
We can send a spaceship to the far reaches of the universe.. . But we lose Jupiter ?
Maybe the environmental lobby will have something to say about that .
Not to mention the practical difficulties of finding another spare Jupiter lying around for the second trip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So okay, we've got this FTL warpship design, yeah?
We can send a spaceship to the far reaches of the universe...

But we lose Jupiter?
Maybe the environmental lobby will have something to say about that.
Not to mention the practical difficulties of finding another spare Jupiter lying around for the second trip.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28343563</id>
	<title>Re:Only solving half the problem...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245079740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That would only apply if you were actually moving at or beyond light speed.</p><p>Alcubierre's warp theory states that spacetime is compressed and stretched around a warp bubble, the inside of which is completely stationary normal spacetime, resulting in effective superluminal velocity. Sort of like how an airplane wing creates lift. Or, even better, how oxygen bubbles rise in the water.</p><p>Since nothing is really moving, you aren't violating causality. Normal spacetime in and outside of the bubble remains constant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would only apply if you were actually moving at or beyond light speed.Alcubierre 's warp theory states that spacetime is compressed and stretched around a warp bubble , the inside of which is completely stationary normal spacetime , resulting in effective superluminal velocity .
Sort of like how an airplane wing creates lift .
Or , even better , how oxygen bubbles rise in the water.Since nothing is really moving , you are n't violating causality .
Normal spacetime in and outside of the bubble remains constant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would only apply if you were actually moving at or beyond light speed.Alcubierre's warp theory states that spacetime is compressed and stretched around a warp bubble, the inside of which is completely stationary normal spacetime, resulting in effective superluminal velocity.
Sort of like how an airplane wing creates lift.
Or, even better, how oxygen bubbles rise in the water.Since nothing is really moving, you aren't violating causality.
Normal spacetime in and outside of the bubble remains constant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28345997</id>
	<title>Re:Only solving half the problem...</title>
	<author>master\_p</author>
	<datestamp>1245154260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time travel to the past is not possible - the past does not exist. Alice can sent information to Bob when Bob sees a past image of Alice, but when he tries to affect Alice, nothing will happen: Alice is not there, it's only a ghost image of Alice.</p><p>If I had a faster-than-light Star destruction beam and shoot it directly to the Sun, would the Sun be destroyed? nope, because I would have shot my ray not to the current position of the Sun, but to the position of the Sun 8 minutes ago.</p><p>There is no need for such philosophical twists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time travel to the past is not possible - the past does not exist .
Alice can sent information to Bob when Bob sees a past image of Alice , but when he tries to affect Alice , nothing will happen : Alice is not there , it 's only a ghost image of Alice.If I had a faster-than-light Star destruction beam and shoot it directly to the Sun , would the Sun be destroyed ?
nope , because I would have shot my ray not to the current position of the Sun , but to the position of the Sun 8 minutes ago.There is no need for such philosophical twists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time travel to the past is not possible - the past does not exist.
Alice can sent information to Bob when Bob sees a past image of Alice, but when he tries to affect Alice, nothing will happen: Alice is not there, it's only a ghost image of Alice.If I had a faster-than-light Star destruction beam and shoot it directly to the Sun, would the Sun be destroyed?
nope, because I would have shot my ray not to the current position of the Sun, but to the position of the Sun 8 minutes ago.There is no need for such philosophical twists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339949</id>
	<title>Oh yes!</title>
	<author>Kranerian</author>
	<datestamp>1245057360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll be sure to buy my faster than light ship, once the nice man from Nigeria finishes transferring me the money he promised!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll be sure to buy my faster than light ship , once the nice man from Nigeria finishes transferring me the money he promised !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll be sure to buy my faster than light ship, once the nice man from Nigeria finishes transferring me the money he promised!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340527</id>
	<title>Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245059580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Yeah - Here's the kicker, found on Page 2 of TFA:</p><blockquote><div><p>Exactly how the 11th dimension would be expanded and shrunk is still unknown.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Sounds pretty similar to the way I walk - I move my feet and the Earth rotates beneath me. I'm planning on starting to fly instead, it's just maintaining altitude after lift-off. But I won't let that small detail stop me from making travel plans - I'll work that out after jumping.</p></div></blockquote><p>Being half serious:</p><p>How will those, that are aware in the 11th dimension, experience this when WE expand their Universe?</p><p>"Honey, does this warpship make my ass look fat?"</p><p>And the 11th dimensional husband heads out to the 9th dimension for a drink before he answers that question.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah - Here 's the kicker , found on Page 2 of TFA : Exactly how the 11th dimension would be expanded and shrunk is still unknown .
Sounds pretty similar to the way I walk - I move my feet and the Earth rotates beneath me .
I 'm planning on starting to fly instead , it 's just maintaining altitude after lift-off .
But I wo n't let that small detail stop me from making travel plans - I 'll work that out after jumping.Being half serious : How will those , that are aware in the 11th dimension , experience this when WE expand their Universe ?
" Honey , does this warpship make my ass look fat ?
" And the 11th dimensional husband heads out to the 9th dimension for a drink before he answers that question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah - Here's the kicker, found on Page 2 of TFA:Exactly how the 11th dimension would be expanded and shrunk is still unknown.
Sounds pretty similar to the way I walk - I move my feet and the Earth rotates beneath me.
I'm planning on starting to fly instead, it's just maintaining altitude after lift-off.
But I won't let that small detail stop me from making travel plans - I'll work that out after jumping.Being half serious:How will those, that are aware in the 11th dimension, experience this when WE expand their Universe?
"Honey, does this warpship make my ass look fat?
"And the 11th dimensional husband heads out to the 9th dimension for a drink before he answers that question.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340685</id>
	<title>Re:Only solving half the problem...</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1245060060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well really, I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about that as something that "needs to be solved" before you time travel.  You can more or less assume that such things will work themselves out, just so long as you're confident that you're not going to destroy the universe or anything.
</p><p>I'm not worried though, because I don't think we'll invent time machines.  If we were to one day invent them, then most likely a future traveller would have shown up by now.  I've just come to the conclusion that if a time machine will ever be invented, that the person who invents it will eventually use it to go back in time and prevent himself from inventing it, thereby preventing time travel from ever occurring, solving all time paradox problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well really , I 'm not sure it makes sense to talk about that as something that " needs to be solved " before you time travel .
You can more or less assume that such things will work themselves out , just so long as you 're confident that you 're not going to destroy the universe or anything .
I 'm not worried though , because I do n't think we 'll invent time machines .
If we were to one day invent them , then most likely a future traveller would have shown up by now .
I 've just come to the conclusion that if a time machine will ever be invented , that the person who invents it will eventually use it to go back in time and prevent himself from inventing it , thereby preventing time travel from ever occurring , solving all time paradox problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well really, I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about that as something that "needs to be solved" before you time travel.
You can more or less assume that such things will work themselves out, just so long as you're confident that you're not going to destroy the universe or anything.
I'm not worried though, because I don't think we'll invent time machines.
If we were to one day invent them, then most likely a future traveller would have shown up by now.
I've just come to the conclusion that if a time machine will ever be invented, that the person who invents it will eventually use it to go back in time and prevent himself from inventing it, thereby preventing time travel from ever occurring, solving all time paradox problems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341803</id>
	<title>Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245066480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the answer is yes. (It's really sad when Han Solo is a cooler ship designer than we are.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the answer is yes .
( It 's really sad when Han Solo is a cooler ship designer than we are .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the answer is yes.
(It's really sad when Han Solo is a cooler ship designer than we are.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28343201</id>
	<title>Nope, Stefano Finazzi has shown that the bubbles c</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245076500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23292/<br>Quantum setback for warp drives<br>Include quantum mechanics in the calculations and faster-than-light drives become unstable</p><p>Bad news I'm afraid -- it looks as if faster-than-light travel isn't possible after all. That's the conclusion of a new study into how warp drives would behave when quantum mechanics is taken into account. "Warp drives would become rapidly unstable once superluminal speeds are reached," say Stefano Finazzi at the International School for Advanced Studies in Trieste, Italy, and a couple of friends...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23292/Quantum setback for warp drivesInclude quantum mechanics in the calculations and faster-than-light drives become unstableBad news I 'm afraid -- it looks as if faster-than-light travel is n't possible after all .
That 's the conclusion of a new study into how warp drives would behave when quantum mechanics is taken into account .
" Warp drives would become rapidly unstable once superluminal speeds are reached , " say Stefano Finazzi at the International School for Advanced Studies in Trieste , Italy , and a couple of friends.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23292/Quantum setback for warp drivesInclude quantum mechanics in the calculations and faster-than-light drives become unstableBad news I'm afraid -- it looks as if faster-than-light travel isn't possible after all.
That's the conclusion of a new study into how warp drives would behave when quantum mechanics is taken into account.
"Warp drives would become rapidly unstable once superluminal speeds are reached," say Stefano Finazzi at the International School for Advanced Studies in Trieste, Italy, and a couple of friends...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341589</id>
	<title>Re:Only solving half the problem...</title>
	<author>bcrowell</author>
	<datestamp>1245065100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll give a couple of examples, one using special relativity and one involving some general relativity, to amplify a little on what Geoffrey Landis said above.</p><p>
Let's start with a couple of definitions. An "event" in relativity means a combination of time and place. Event B is defined as lying outside event A's light cone if the distance from A to B, in light-years, is greater than the time-difference between A and B, in years.
</p><p>Example #1:
Suppose that faster-than-light (FTL) were possible. Then it would be possible for event A to cause event B, where B lies outside A's light cone.
You could simply travel in your FTL spaceship, starting at A and ending up at B, where you'd deliver a message. But according to special relativity, the time-ordering of events is not as absolute as in classical physics, because observers in different frames of reference disagree on the flow of time. Suppose the original setup was described according to one observer, O1, and now we have a second observer, O2, who is moving relative to O1 at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light. If the speed of the relative motion is high enough, then you can always get a situation where O2 says B happened before A, rather than after A. (This only happens if B is outside A's light cone.) So O1 says A caused B, but O2 says B caused A.
</p><p>
Example #2:
In general relativity, wormhole is a possible way to travel between different places, but since time and space are treated on the same footing in general relativity, there's every reason to believe that if wormholes exist, they would also go between different times, i.e., they would be time machines. But let's suppose for the sake of argument that you come across a wormhole that only goes between different places, with both mouths being synchronized in time. This would seem like FTL without time travel. But such a wormhole can always be used for time-travel as well. One method is to use gravitational fields to accelerate one mouth of the wormhole in some direction, bring it to a stop, and then use a similar acceleration and deceleration to bring it back to where it started. When you do this, you get something exactly like the twin "paradox" of special relavitity; the wormholes' times are no longer synchronized. So now if your no-time-travel FTL has been turned into FTL with time travel.
</p><p>
There's nothing special about these two examples. The idea that FTL naturally makes time travel possible is tightly bound to the structure of relativity. Since time travel seems to lead to causality paradoxes (e.g., going back in time and killing yourself), the conclusion seems to be that FTL leads to paradoxes, and that makes physicists suspect that FTL isn't actually physically possible.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll give a couple of examples , one using special relativity and one involving some general relativity , to amplify a little on what Geoffrey Landis said above .
Let 's start with a couple of definitions .
An " event " in relativity means a combination of time and place .
Event B is defined as lying outside event A 's light cone if the distance from A to B , in light-years , is greater than the time-difference between A and B , in years .
Example # 1 : Suppose that faster-than-light ( FTL ) were possible .
Then it would be possible for event A to cause event B , where B lies outside A 's light cone .
You could simply travel in your FTL spaceship , starting at A and ending up at B , where you 'd deliver a message .
But according to special relativity , the time-ordering of events is not as absolute as in classical physics , because observers in different frames of reference disagree on the flow of time .
Suppose the original setup was described according to one observer , O1 , and now we have a second observer , O2 , who is moving relative to O1 at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light .
If the speed of the relative motion is high enough , then you can always get a situation where O2 says B happened before A , rather than after A .
( This only happens if B is outside A 's light cone .
) So O1 says A caused B , but O2 says B caused A . Example # 2 : In general relativity , wormhole is a possible way to travel between different places , but since time and space are treated on the same footing in general relativity , there 's every reason to believe that if wormholes exist , they would also go between different times , i.e. , they would be time machines .
But let 's suppose for the sake of argument that you come across a wormhole that only goes between different places , with both mouths being synchronized in time .
This would seem like FTL without time travel .
But such a wormhole can always be used for time-travel as well .
One method is to use gravitational fields to accelerate one mouth of the wormhole in some direction , bring it to a stop , and then use a similar acceleration and deceleration to bring it back to where it started .
When you do this , you get something exactly like the twin " paradox " of special relavitity ; the wormholes ' times are no longer synchronized .
So now if your no-time-travel FTL has been turned into FTL with time travel .
There 's nothing special about these two examples .
The idea that FTL naturally makes time travel possible is tightly bound to the structure of relativity .
Since time travel seems to lead to causality paradoxes ( e.g. , going back in time and killing yourself ) , the conclusion seems to be that FTL leads to paradoxes , and that makes physicists suspect that FTL is n't actually physically possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll give a couple of examples, one using special relativity and one involving some general relativity, to amplify a little on what Geoffrey Landis said above.
Let's start with a couple of definitions.
An "event" in relativity means a combination of time and place.
Event B is defined as lying outside event A's light cone if the distance from A to B, in light-years, is greater than the time-difference between A and B, in years.
Example #1:
Suppose that faster-than-light (FTL) were possible.
Then it would be possible for event A to cause event B, where B lies outside A's light cone.
You could simply travel in your FTL spaceship, starting at A and ending up at B, where you'd deliver a message.
But according to special relativity, the time-ordering of events is not as absolute as in classical physics, because observers in different frames of reference disagree on the flow of time.
Suppose the original setup was described according to one observer, O1, and now we have a second observer, O2, who is moving relative to O1 at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light.
If the speed of the relative motion is high enough, then you can always get a situation where O2 says B happened before A, rather than after A.
(This only happens if B is outside A's light cone.
) So O1 says A caused B, but O2 says B caused A.

Example #2:
In general relativity, wormhole is a possible way to travel between different places, but since time and space are treated on the same footing in general relativity, there's every reason to believe that if wormholes exist, they would also go between different times, i.e., they would be time machines.
But let's suppose for the sake of argument that you come across a wormhole that only goes between different places, with both mouths being synchronized in time.
This would seem like FTL without time travel.
But such a wormhole can always be used for time-travel as well.
One method is to use gravitational fields to accelerate one mouth of the wormhole in some direction, bring it to a stop, and then use a similar acceleration and deceleration to bring it back to where it started.
When you do this, you get something exactly like the twin "paradox" of special relavitity; the wormholes' times are no longer synchronized.
So now if your no-time-travel FTL has been turned into FTL with time travel.
There's nothing special about these two examples.
The idea that FTL naturally makes time travel possible is tightly bound to the structure of relativity.
Since time travel seems to lead to causality paradoxes (e.g., going back in time and killing yourself), the conclusion seems to be that FTL leads to paradoxes, and that makes physicists suspect that FTL isn't actually physically possible.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339639</id>
	<title>Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse</title>
	<author>gparent</author>
	<datestamp>1245099420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're right! Let's head at Warp 9.975 into that direction!</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right !
Let 's head at Warp 9.975 into that direction !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right!
Let's head at Warp 9.975 into that direction!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339561</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28345431</id>
	<title>Re:Only solving half the problem...</title>
	<author>ultranova</author>
	<datestamp>1245144780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Causality-Shmausality. I dropped a glass because I found it in pieces on the floor just this afternoon...</p></div> </blockquote><p>You laugh, but are actually correct. The laws of physics don't discriminate by the direction of time. If you see a glass falling towards floor, you can reasonably conclude that there is a point in spacetime where a glass hits the floor; if you see pieces of glass on a floor, you can reasonably conclude that there is a point in spacetime where a glass hits the floor. The important thing is that spacetime is continuous, that there are no discontinuities in either space or time. Given a point in spacetime, you can draw conclusions about other nearby points, both past, present and future, because those points must "fit" your point. This extends the normal intuitive concept of causality, where the future must fit the present.</p><p>The problem with time travel is that it allows the creation of closed loops, which are not necessarily continuous. Imagine yourself doing a year of research, then traveling in the past and giving yourself your research. Your past self would then continue where your future self left off, skipping the research he's already done at the previous iteration of the loop. The problem with this is that information comes out of nowhere - since you never did the research, yet it was you who gave it to you, where did it come from?</p><p>One possible way to solve this is to assume that time is actually two-dimensional, which allows us to turn the closed loop into a spiral. Another way is to simply accept the existence of such loops, which violate the naive concept of determinism, as long as the loop doesn't create discontinuities - information simply exists in the loop. And a third would be to assume that such loops cancel themselves out - you go through the loop over and over again, altering the past again and again, until you alter it so much you no longer travel there; at that point, since you never traveled there, the original past is replayed, but quantum uncertainties cause it to play out differently, so you never travel there (if you do, if the differences are not sufficient to prevent you, then the whole thing simply happens again and again until they are).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Causality-Shmausality .
I dropped a glass because I found it in pieces on the floor just this afternoon... You laugh , but are actually correct .
The laws of physics do n't discriminate by the direction of time .
If you see a glass falling towards floor , you can reasonably conclude that there is a point in spacetime where a glass hits the floor ; if you see pieces of glass on a floor , you can reasonably conclude that there is a point in spacetime where a glass hits the floor .
The important thing is that spacetime is continuous , that there are no discontinuities in either space or time .
Given a point in spacetime , you can draw conclusions about other nearby points , both past , present and future , because those points must " fit " your point .
This extends the normal intuitive concept of causality , where the future must fit the present.The problem with time travel is that it allows the creation of closed loops , which are not necessarily continuous .
Imagine yourself doing a year of research , then traveling in the past and giving yourself your research .
Your past self would then continue where your future self left off , skipping the research he 's already done at the previous iteration of the loop .
The problem with this is that information comes out of nowhere - since you never did the research , yet it was you who gave it to you , where did it come from ? One possible way to solve this is to assume that time is actually two-dimensional , which allows us to turn the closed loop into a spiral .
Another way is to simply accept the existence of such loops , which violate the naive concept of determinism , as long as the loop does n't create discontinuities - information simply exists in the loop .
And a third would be to assume that such loops cancel themselves out - you go through the loop over and over again , altering the past again and again , until you alter it so much you no longer travel there ; at that point , since you never traveled there , the original past is replayed , but quantum uncertainties cause it to play out differently , so you never travel there ( if you do , if the differences are not sufficient to prevent you , then the whole thing simply happens again and again until they are ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Causality-Shmausality.
I dropped a glass because I found it in pieces on the floor just this afternoon... You laugh, but are actually correct.
The laws of physics don't discriminate by the direction of time.
If you see a glass falling towards floor, you can reasonably conclude that there is a point in spacetime where a glass hits the floor; if you see pieces of glass on a floor, you can reasonably conclude that there is a point in spacetime where a glass hits the floor.
The important thing is that spacetime is continuous, that there are no discontinuities in either space or time.
Given a point in spacetime, you can draw conclusions about other nearby points, both past, present and future, because those points must "fit" your point.
This extends the normal intuitive concept of causality, where the future must fit the present.The problem with time travel is that it allows the creation of closed loops, which are not necessarily continuous.
Imagine yourself doing a year of research, then traveling in the past and giving yourself your research.
Your past self would then continue where your future self left off, skipping the research he's already done at the previous iteration of the loop.
The problem with this is that information comes out of nowhere - since you never did the research, yet it was you who gave it to you, where did it come from?One possible way to solve this is to assume that time is actually two-dimensional, which allows us to turn the closed loop into a spiral.
Another way is to simply accept the existence of such loops, which violate the naive concept of determinism, as long as the loop doesn't create discontinuities - information simply exists in the loop.
And a third would be to assume that such loops cancel themselves out - you go through the loop over and over again, altering the past again and again, until you alter it so much you no longer travel there; at that point, since you never traveled there, the original past is replayed, but quantum uncertainties cause it to play out differently, so you never travel there (if you do, if the differences are not sufficient to prevent you, then the whole thing simply happens again and again until they are).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341743</id>
	<title>Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse</title>
	<author>dyfet</author>
	<datestamp>1245066060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real trick is not flying, but rather landing, that is letting yourself fall back to the ground and successfully missing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real trick is not flying , but rather landing , that is letting yourself fall back to the ground and successfully missing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real trick is not flying, but rather landing, that is letting yourself fall back to the ground and successfully missing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28344405</id>
	<title>Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1245088380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess you caught that story about radiation-hardened pentiums too, huh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess you caught that story about radiation-hardened pentiums too , huh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess you caught that story about radiation-hardened pentiums too, huh?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340225</id>
	<title>Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245058320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know, flight isn't a very good example as... well... you know... <em>we've learnt how to do that</em>. Hell, if I remember correctly, they considered heavier-than-air aircraft at least as impossible as warp-drive is considered today.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , flight is n't a very good example as... well... you know... we 've learnt how to do that .
Hell , if I remember correctly , they considered heavier-than-air aircraft at least as impossible as warp-drive is considered today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, flight isn't a very good example as... well... you know... we've learnt how to do that.
Hell, if I remember correctly, they considered heavier-than-air aircraft at least as impossible as warp-drive is considered today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28342559</id>
	<title>hmm.</title>
	<author>Nekomusume</author>
	<datestamp>1245071220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've got dibs on the Eldar Craftworlds!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got dibs on the Eldar Craftworlds !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got dibs on the Eldar Craftworlds!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340375</id>
	<title>Re:Only solving half the problem...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245058860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't worry, you can just buy a causality default swap as a hedge, and then tranche the resulting multiverse into marketable reality instruments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't worry , you can just buy a causality default swap as a hedge , and then tranche the resulting multiverse into marketable reality instruments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't worry, you can just buy a causality default swap as a hedge, and then tranche the resulting multiverse into marketable reality instruments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28342165</id>
	<title>Investors?</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1245068580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is that what they call them?  Wow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that what they call them ?
Wow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that what they call them?
Wow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341209</id>
	<title>Not really a scientific idea</title>
	<author>krakround</author>
	<datestamp>1245062880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is really no better fleshed out than any idea bandied about in your favorite sci-fi novel.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is really no better fleshed out than any idea bandied about in your favorite sci-fi novel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is really no better fleshed out than any idea bandied about in your favorite sci-fi novel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341359</id>
	<title>This warpship will fly</title>
	<author>nausea\_malvarma</author>
	<datestamp>1245063960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>on the same day I play Duke Nukem Forever in HURD.</htmltext>
<tokenext>on the same day I play Duke Nukem Forever in HURD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>on the same day I play Duke Nukem Forever in HURD.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28343967</id>
	<title>Man will never fly!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245083400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ha ha ha... the idea of a man flying is absurd!</p><p>We'll never travel faster than 20 miles per hour... anything faster than that and our bodies will break apart.</p><p>Ha... a man on the moon! Fantasy!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ha ha ha... the idea of a man flying is absurd ! We 'll never travel faster than 20 miles per hour... anything faster than that and our bodies will break apart.Ha... a man on the moon !
Fantasy ! !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ha ha ha... the idea of a man flying is absurd!We'll never travel faster than 20 miles per hour... anything faster than that and our bodies will break apart.Ha... a man on the moon!
Fantasy!!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340365</id>
	<title>Start Drawing</title>
	<author>Woodengineer</author>
	<datestamp>1245058800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess it's time for me to start drawing pictures of spaceships and claiming they are optimized for warp speed because I have just as much evidence as he does. I'm sure a meme is very applicable here and it involves PROFIT!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess it 's time for me to start drawing pictures of spaceships and claiming they are optimized for warp speed because I have just as much evidence as he does .
I 'm sure a meme is very applicable here and it involves PROFIT !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess it's time for me to start drawing pictures of spaceships and claiming they are optimized for warp speed because I have just as much evidence as he does.
I'm sure a meme is very applicable here and it involves PROFIT!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339957</id>
	<title>Re:Only solving half the problem...</title>
	<author>TheThiefMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1245057420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought causality didn't require faster than light travel to be impossible, only travelling backwards in time at more than 1s/s (i.e. cancelling the normal flow of time out and stopping) to be impossible?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought causality did n't require faster than light travel to be impossible , only travelling backwards in time at more than 1s/s ( i.e .
cancelling the normal flow of time out and stopping ) to be impossible ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought causality didn't require faster than light travel to be impossible, only travelling backwards in time at more than 1s/s (i.e.
cancelling the normal flow of time out and stopping) to be impossible?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28345873</id>
	<title>Sad</title>
	<author>jandersen</author>
	<datestamp>1245152220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it is sad, really, and not so much something to laugh at. The guy is clearly intelligent, but deluded, is my guess - the other option being that he is simply a fraud, of course. I can't help wondering what makes a gifted person lose contact with relity like that; a large part of it is probably social isolation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it is sad , really , and not so much something to laugh at .
The guy is clearly intelligent , but deluded , is my guess - the other option being that he is simply a fraud , of course .
I ca n't help wondering what makes a gifted person lose contact with relity like that ; a large part of it is probably social isolation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it is sad, really, and not so much something to laugh at.
The guy is clearly intelligent, but deluded, is my guess - the other option being that he is simply a fraud, of course.
I can't help wondering what makes a gifted person lose contact with relity like that; a large part of it is probably social isolation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28370261</id>
	<title>Re:Can't they get anything right?</title>
	<author>Blancmange</author>
	<datestamp>1245267420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I haven't played all of Star Control II yet, but I believe you're referring to the race who, if they were real, will one day be formerly known as the Ilwrath.</p><p>As Douglas Adams pointed out in The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, the ability to travel through time means for a multitude of temporal grammatical tenses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't played all of Star Control II yet , but I believe you 're referring to the race who , if they were real , will one day be formerly known as the Ilwrath.As Douglas Adams pointed out in The Restaurant at the End of the Universe , the ability to travel through time means for a multitude of temporal grammatical tenses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't played all of Star Control II yet, but I believe you're referring to the race who, if they were real, will one day be formerly known as the Ilwrath.As Douglas Adams pointed out in The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, the ability to travel through time means for a multitude of temporal grammatical tenses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341251</id>
	<title>Re:Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Endo13</author>
	<datestamp>1245063180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference though is that you can actually find scientific evidence that would seem to indicate some kind of big bang event. (Which probably wasn't so much a "big bang" as just a sudden rapid expansion of the universe.)</p><p>Also, the big bang and "in the beginning was..." try to explain two different things. They are not mutually exclusive. Taking Genesis literally actually allows for a "big bang" event (initiated by God). "In the beginning" would be the explanation of what was <i>before</i> the big bang.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference though is that you can actually find scientific evidence that would seem to indicate some kind of big bang event .
( Which probably was n't so much a " big bang " as just a sudden rapid expansion of the universe .
) Also , the big bang and " in the beginning was... " try to explain two different things .
They are not mutually exclusive .
Taking Genesis literally actually allows for a " big bang " event ( initiated by God ) .
" In the beginning " would be the explanation of what was before the big bang .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference though is that you can actually find scientific evidence that would seem to indicate some kind of big bang event.
(Which probably wasn't so much a "big bang" as just a sudden rapid expansion of the universe.
)Also, the big bang and "in the beginning was..." try to explain two different things.
They are not mutually exclusive.
Taking Genesis literally actually allows for a "big bang" event (initiated by God).
"In the beginning" would be the explanation of what was before the big bang.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28346027</id>
	<title>Re:Only solving half the problem...</title>
	<author>master\_p</author>
	<datestamp>1245154740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Example #1: it may be that each observer sees the order of events differently, but that could not be used to change the state of the other observer. It's only an observational problem.</p><p>Example #2: the twin paradox is no paradox at all. The faster an object moves, the slower time passes. It has been proven with atomic clocks.</p><p>In conclusion: trips to the future are allowed by traveling at relativistic speeds. Trips to the past are not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Example # 1 : it may be that each observer sees the order of events differently , but that could not be used to change the state of the other observer .
It 's only an observational problem.Example # 2 : the twin paradox is no paradox at all .
The faster an object moves , the slower time passes .
It has been proven with atomic clocks.In conclusion : trips to the future are allowed by traveling at relativistic speeds .
Trips to the past are not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Example #1: it may be that each observer sees the order of events differently, but that could not be used to change the state of the other observer.
It's only an observational problem.Example #2: the twin paradox is no paradox at all.
The faster an object moves, the slower time passes.
It has been proven with atomic clocks.In conclusion: trips to the future are allowed by traveling at relativistic speeds.
Trips to the past are not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339947</id>
	<title>Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse</title>
	<author>epiphani</author>
	<datestamp>1245057360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sounds pretty similar to the way I walk - I move my feet and the Earth rotates beneath me.  I'm planning on starting to fly instead, it's just maintaining altitude after lift-off.  But I won't let that small detail stop me from making travel plans - I'll work that out after jumping.</p></div><p>Oh that part is relatively simple:  Just throw yourself at the ground and miss.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds pretty similar to the way I walk - I move my feet and the Earth rotates beneath me .
I 'm planning on starting to fly instead , it 's just maintaining altitude after lift-off .
But I wo n't let that small detail stop me from making travel plans - I 'll work that out after jumping.Oh that part is relatively simple : Just throw yourself at the ground and miss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds pretty similar to the way I walk - I move my feet and the Earth rotates beneath me.
I'm planning on starting to fly instead, it's just maintaining altitude after lift-off.
But I won't let that small detail stop me from making travel plans - I'll work that out after jumping.Oh that part is relatively simple:  Just throw yourself at the ground and miss.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28343187</id>
	<title>Time Travel</title>
	<author>caller9</author>
	<datestamp>1245076380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If reverse time travel were possible it would have already happened in the future. Either we do not matter much to the inventors or they're too worried about changing their own past and vanishing, causing a global war, or preventing the invention of the sonic screwdriver.</p><p>So what I am wondering is: If you change the past, does the current time continue to happen in an alternate universe, or would it just change all of the events and update the same reality. Alternate universes would require an entire universe worth of energy to fork right? That has me leaning toward single reality updates. Unless that universe already existed and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... oh I've gone crosseyed.</p><p>Anyone read "The Dreaming Void?" Substitute universe with known-universe and you just need a gigantic simulator that eats galaxies when it needs to fork. They should've built in logrotate on that simulator BTW.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If reverse time travel were possible it would have already happened in the future .
Either we do not matter much to the inventors or they 're too worried about changing their own past and vanishing , causing a global war , or preventing the invention of the sonic screwdriver.So what I am wondering is : If you change the past , does the current time continue to happen in an alternate universe , or would it just change all of the events and update the same reality .
Alternate universes would require an entire universe worth of energy to fork right ?
That has me leaning toward single reality updates .
Unless that universe already existed and ... oh I 've gone crosseyed.Anyone read " The Dreaming Void ?
" Substitute universe with known-universe and you just need a gigantic simulator that eats galaxies when it needs to fork .
They should 've built in logrotate on that simulator BTW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If reverse time travel were possible it would have already happened in the future.
Either we do not matter much to the inventors or they're too worried about changing their own past and vanishing, causing a global war, or preventing the invention of the sonic screwdriver.So what I am wondering is: If you change the past, does the current time continue to happen in an alternate universe, or would it just change all of the events and update the same reality.
Alternate universes would require an entire universe worth of energy to fork right?
That has me leaning toward single reality updates.
Unless that universe already existed and ... oh I've gone crosseyed.Anyone read "The Dreaming Void?
" Substitute universe with known-universe and you just need a gigantic simulator that eats galaxies when it needs to fork.
They should've built in logrotate on that simulator BTW.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28342937</id>
	<title>Discover Magazine covered this</title>
	<author>IonOtter</author>
	<datestamp>1245074280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was several years ago, illustrated by <a href="http://www.larrygonick.com/" title="larrygonick.com">Larry Gonick</a> [larrygonick.com] in his cartoon science series, "Light Elements".  Same premise, same idea, but the biggest problem that was mentioned in the cartoon, has <i>not</i> been mentioned in this article?</p><p>You can start the compression in front of the ship, and also start the expansion behind the ship, which will get it moving.</p><p>However, once you've generated the compression/expansion wave, its self-sustaining.  That brings up the problem, just how do you get the forward compression to stop???  What sort of "signal" do you send <i>ahead</i> of the compression wave to nullify it and allow you to stop?  According to the Discover article, it "involved some sort of 'anti-gravity'.", which so far hasn't been invented yet.</p><p>So what you've got is a one-way, warp-speed trip around existence for all of eternity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was several years ago , illustrated by Larry Gonick [ larrygonick.com ] in his cartoon science series , " Light Elements " .
Same premise , same idea , but the biggest problem that was mentioned in the cartoon , has not been mentioned in this article ? You can start the compression in front of the ship , and also start the expansion behind the ship , which will get it moving.However , once you 've generated the compression/expansion wave , its self-sustaining .
That brings up the problem , just how do you get the forward compression to stop ? ? ?
What sort of " signal " do you send ahead of the compression wave to nullify it and allow you to stop ?
According to the Discover article , it " involved some sort of 'anti-gravity' .
" , which so far has n't been invented yet.So what you 've got is a one-way , warp-speed trip around existence for all of eternity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was several years ago, illustrated by Larry Gonick [larrygonick.com] in his cartoon science series, "Light Elements".
Same premise, same idea, but the biggest problem that was mentioned in the cartoon, has not been mentioned in this article?You can start the compression in front of the ship, and also start the expansion behind the ship, which will get it moving.However, once you've generated the compression/expansion wave, its self-sustaining.
That brings up the problem, just how do you get the forward compression to stop???
What sort of "signal" do you send ahead of the compression wave to nullify it and allow you to stop?
According to the Discover article, it "involved some sort of 'anti-gravity'.
", which so far hasn't been invented yet.So what you've got is a one-way, warp-speed trip around existence for all of eternity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28343023</id>
	<title>Gravity distortion field</title>
	<author>crafty.munchkin</author>
	<datestamp>1245074880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The 4th image reminds me of the description of the gravity distortion field generated by Edenist voidhawk and blackhawk space ships from the Night's Dawn trilogy...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The 4th image reminds me of the description of the gravity distortion field generated by Edenist voidhawk and blackhawk space ships from the Night 's Dawn trilogy.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 4th image reminds me of the description of the gravity distortion field generated by Edenist voidhawk and blackhawk space ships from the Night's Dawn trilogy...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28344681</id>
	<title>Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse</title>
	<author>ae1294</author>
	<datestamp>1245091140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And all the time he is wasting on laughing at us we will be hacking his networks, launching 500 Megaton nukes, charging our rail guns and unleashing our terrible hoards of nanobot assassins....</p><p>Looks are meaningless, it's what inside that kills.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And all the time he is wasting on laughing at us we will be hacking his networks , launching 500 Megaton nukes , charging our rail guns and unleashing our terrible hoards of nanobot assassins....Looks are meaningless , it 's what inside that kills .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And all the time he is wasting on laughing at us we will be hacking his networks, launching 500 Megaton nukes, charging our rail guns and unleashing our terrible hoards of nanobot assassins....Looks are meaningless, it's what inside that kills.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340435</id>
	<title>FTL paradoxes for dummies?</title>
	<author>steveha</author>
	<datestamp>1245059220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can anyone point me at a web site that explains why FTL travel violates causality?  My understanding is that it doesn't matter what technique you posit for FTL travel ("warp drive", "hyperspace", teleportation, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill,\_the\_Galactic\_Hero#The\_Bloater\_Drive" title="wikipedia.org">bloater drive</a> [wikipedia.org], etc.), none of them are possible because FTL travel would allow causality paradoxes.</p><p>As I understand it, the basic problem is that there isn't a single frame of reference for the whole universe, and for observers in different frames of reference, FTL travel would look like traveling back in time.  But I don't quite grok it.</p><p>I seem to recall that the physics permits a wormhole that connects two points in space <em>and</em> time, implying an instant travel from future to past; I think the handwavy explanation was that the math allows this but you would be destroyed by the wormhole if you tried to travel through it so there is no causality paradox.</p><p>I have also heard people point out that, if you stand on a rotating planet, it appears to you that distant galaxies are whirling around you at many times the speed of light, and given relativity, isn't it valid to say that from your frame of reference those galaxies are moving FTL?  As little as I know about physics, I'm not touching this.</p><p>steveha</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone point me at a web site that explains why FTL travel violates causality ?
My understanding is that it does n't matter what technique you posit for FTL travel ( " warp drive " , " hyperspace " , teleportation , bloater drive [ wikipedia.org ] , etc .
) , none of them are possible because FTL travel would allow causality paradoxes.As I understand it , the basic problem is that there is n't a single frame of reference for the whole universe , and for observers in different frames of reference , FTL travel would look like traveling back in time .
But I do n't quite grok it.I seem to recall that the physics permits a wormhole that connects two points in space and time , implying an instant travel from future to past ; I think the handwavy explanation was that the math allows this but you would be destroyed by the wormhole if you tried to travel through it so there is no causality paradox.I have also heard people point out that , if you stand on a rotating planet , it appears to you that distant galaxies are whirling around you at many times the speed of light , and given relativity , is n't it valid to say that from your frame of reference those galaxies are moving FTL ?
As little as I know about physics , I 'm not touching this.steveha</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anyone point me at a web site that explains why FTL travel violates causality?
My understanding is that it doesn't matter what technique you posit for FTL travel ("warp drive", "hyperspace", teleportation, bloater drive [wikipedia.org], etc.
), none of them are possible because FTL travel would allow causality paradoxes.As I understand it, the basic problem is that there isn't a single frame of reference for the whole universe, and for observers in different frames of reference, FTL travel would look like traveling back in time.
But I don't quite grok it.I seem to recall that the physics permits a wormhole that connects two points in space and time, implying an instant travel from future to past; I think the handwavy explanation was that the math allows this but you would be destroyed by the wormhole if you tried to travel through it so there is no causality paradox.I have also heard people point out that, if you stand on a rotating planet, it appears to you that distant galaxies are whirling around you at many times the speed of light, and given relativity, isn't it valid to say that from your frame of reference those galaxies are moving FTL?
As little as I know about physics, I'm not touching this.steveha</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339691</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245056400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OMG, the usual crap! So let me get this straight. The big bang did occur (to say otherwise is heresy). It was driven, faster than the speed of light, by dark matter - which scientists do not know anything about at all.</p><p>In the beginning was the word, and the word was... well, that is as scientific as the Big Bang Theory!</p><p>Why is this kind of rubbish on Slashdot?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OMG , the usual crap !
So let me get this straight .
The big bang did occur ( to say otherwise is heresy ) .
It was driven , faster than the speed of light , by dark matter - which scientists do not know anything about at all.In the beginning was the word , and the word was... well , that is as scientific as the Big Bang Theory ! Why is this kind of rubbish on Slashdot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OMG, the usual crap!
So let me get this straight.
The big bang did occur (to say otherwise is heresy).
It was driven, faster than the speed of light, by dark matter - which scientists do not know anything about at all.In the beginning was the word, and the word was... well, that is as scientific as the Big Bang Theory!Why is this kind of rubbish on Slashdot?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28345531</id>
	<title>The author claims to have made actual calculations</title>
	<author>plasmacutter</author>
	<datestamp>1245146460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suspect the paper is much more mathematically in depth than this, since the conversation detailed a couple links in indicates actual energy calculations have been made, indicating much less energy would be required than previously thought.</p><p>Keep in mind this has been simplified for the "average high school audience" for whom the major news outlets write.</p><p>I'd love to see the actual writeup, but think that would be too far to the other extreme of the qualification spectrum for me to understand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect the paper is much more mathematically in depth than this , since the conversation detailed a couple links in indicates actual energy calculations have been made , indicating much less energy would be required than previously thought.Keep in mind this has been simplified for the " average high school audience " for whom the major news outlets write.I 'd love to see the actual writeup , but think that would be too far to the other extreme of the qualification spectrum for me to understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect the paper is much more mathematically in depth than this, since the conversation detailed a couple links in indicates actual energy calculations have been made, indicating much less energy would be required than previously thought.Keep in mind this has been simplified for the "average high school audience" for whom the major news outlets write.I'd love to see the actual writeup, but think that would be too far to the other extreme of the qualification spectrum for me to understand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28346475</id>
	<title>Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse</title>
	<author>JasterBobaMereel</author>
	<datestamp>1245160140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He is proposing the design of a ship, using technology that has not been invented yet, to manipulate matter/energy that might not exist, and even if it does we do not know the properties of,  based on several possibly contradictory theories that might be wrong (and in some of which probably are)</p><p>On another unrelated topic I have a design for a car to drive between m-branes, I don't know what I need to build one, or if m-branes exist, or which of the theories of them is the correct one, or how to manipulate the energy they are made of, but I have a design<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He is proposing the design of a ship , using technology that has not been invented yet , to manipulate matter/energy that might not exist , and even if it does we do not know the properties of , based on several possibly contradictory theories that might be wrong ( and in some of which probably are ) On another unrelated topic I have a design for a car to drive between m-branes , I do n't know what I need to build one , or if m-branes exist , or which of the theories of them is the correct one , or how to manipulate the energy they are made of , but I have a design ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He is proposing the design of a ship, using technology that has not been invented yet, to manipulate matter/energy that might not exist, and even if it does we do not know the properties of,  based on several possibly contradictory theories that might be wrong (and in some of which probably are)On another unrelated topic I have a design for a car to drive between m-branes, I don't know what I need to build one, or if m-branes exist, or which of the theories of them is the correct one, or how to manipulate the energy they are made of, but I have a design ....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339671</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339759</id>
	<title>love the graphics</title>
	<author>spidercoz</author>
	<datestamp>1245056640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>is that a Cardassian ship I see?</htmltext>
<tokenext>is that a Cardassian ship I see ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is that a Cardassian ship I see?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28342771</id>
	<title>Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245072900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually that is a pretty good explanation for how satellites keep orbiting the earth. They are constantly falling, but due to their horizontal velocity they keep missing the ground.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually that is a pretty good explanation for how satellites keep orbiting the earth .
They are constantly falling , but due to their horizontal velocity they keep missing the ground .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually that is a pretty good explanation for how satellites keep orbiting the earth.
They are constantly falling, but due to their horizontal velocity they keep missing the ground.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339947</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28354027</id>
	<title>Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse</title>
	<author>Requiem18th</author>
	<datestamp>1245148500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some how I don't think that's the way man learned to fly. We probably started with the concept of the wing right away by observation of birds and insects.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some how I do n't think that 's the way man learned to fly .
We probably started with the concept of the wing right away by observation of birds and insects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some how I don't think that's the way man learned to fly.
We probably started with the concept of the wing right away by observation of birds and insects.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28345679</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28343475</id>
	<title>Re:Something about that...</title>
	<author>WolfWithoutAClause</author>
	<datestamp>1245078840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One interesting problem with the theory of faster than light travel, is that in conjunction with special relativity theory (FWIW unlike these weird space bubble theories, SRT is checked literally billions of times every day in particle accelerators), it is possible to build a telephone that you can phone yesterday with.</p><p>Needless to say, that causes major problems with causality- you can phone order a hit on yourself yesterday, which would preclude you from making the phone call...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One interesting problem with the theory of faster than light travel , is that in conjunction with special relativity theory ( FWIW unlike these weird space bubble theories , SRT is checked literally billions of times every day in particle accelerators ) , it is possible to build a telephone that you can phone yesterday with.Needless to say , that causes major problems with causality- you can phone order a hit on yourself yesterday , which would preclude you from making the phone call.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One interesting problem with the theory of faster than light travel, is that in conjunction with special relativity theory (FWIW unlike these weird space bubble theories, SRT is checked literally billions of times every day in particle accelerators), it is possible to build a telephone that you can phone yesterday with.Needless to say, that causes major problems with causality- you can phone order a hit on yourself yesterday, which would preclude you from making the phone call...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340013</id>
	<title>Re:Only solving half the problem...</title>
	<author>e4g4</author>
	<datestamp>1245057660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Causality-Shmausality.  I dropped a glass because I found it in pieces on the floor just this afternoon...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Causality-Shmausality .
I dropped a glass because I found it in pieces on the floor just this afternoon.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Causality-Shmausality.
I dropped a glass because I found it in pieces on the floor just this afternoon...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28342611</id>
	<title>If we...</title>
	<author>MJMullinII</author>
	<datestamp>1245071520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>could somehow...harness this power...channel it,...into the Casimir Warp Drive...it just might work!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>could somehow...harness this power...channel it,...into the Casimir Warp Drive...it just might work !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>could somehow...harness this power...channel it,...into the Casimir Warp Drive...it just might work!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339725</id>
	<title>Better than the Enterprise</title>
	<author>newcastlejon</author>
	<datestamp>1245056520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It puts me in mind of an Outsider ship, which is odd when you consider how they prefer travelling at sub-light speeds.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It puts me in mind of an Outsider ship , which is odd when you consider how they prefer travelling at sub-light speeds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It puts me in mind of an Outsider ship, which is odd when you consider how they prefer travelling at sub-light speeds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341101</id>
	<title>Didn't this end up turning into a alternative real</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1245062340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't this end up turning into a alternative reality drive and this trun in to a hard to shout down one that can draw power from the other side.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't this end up turning into a alternative reality drive and this trun in to a hard to shout down one that can draw power from the other side .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't this end up turning into a alternative reality drive and this trun in to a hard to shout down one that can draw power from the other side.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339751</id>
	<title>Investors?</title>
	<author>drunken\_boxer777</author>
	<datestamp>1245056580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't see this venture returning capital on anything that remotely resembles "short term". As such, I envision only government entities or wealthy individuals uninterested in ROI funding a project such as this.</p><p>Honestly, what kind of question could there be about investors in this type of technology? I didn't see anything remotely relevant to a business plan in any of the links.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't see this venture returning capital on anything that remotely resembles " short term " .
As such , I envision only government entities or wealthy individuals uninterested in ROI funding a project such as this.Honestly , what kind of question could there be about investors in this type of technology ?
I did n't see anything remotely relevant to a business plan in any of the links .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't see this venture returning capital on anything that remotely resembles "short term".
As such, I envision only government entities or wealthy individuals uninterested in ROI funding a project such as this.Honestly, what kind of question could there be about investors in this type of technology?
I didn't see anything remotely relevant to a business plan in any of the links.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339701</id>
	<title>All characters, no gameplay</title>
	<author>Itninja</author>
	<datestamp>1245056460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Reminds me of my preteen years making dozens and dozens of D&amp;D characters, even though I had no idea (at the time) how to play the game. But man, making those characters sure was fun....let's just do that! What's 'psyche'? I don't know, but let's roll a d20 for it! WHEE!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds me of my preteen years making dozens and dozens of D&amp;D characters , even though I had no idea ( at the time ) how to play the game .
But man , making those characters sure was fun....let 's just do that !
What 's 'psyche ' ?
I do n't know , but let 's roll a d20 for it !
WHEE !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds me of my preteen years making dozens and dozens of D&amp;D characters, even though I had no idea (at the time) how to play the game.
But man, making those characters sure was fun....let's just do that!
What's 'psyche'?
I don't know, but let's roll a d20 for it!
WHEE!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340047</id>
	<title>Re:Only solving half the problem...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245057780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't Novikov <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novikov\_self-consistency\_principle" title="wikipedia.org">solve that problem</a> [wikipedia.org]?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't Novikov solve that problem [ wikipedia.org ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't Novikov solve that problem [wikipedia.org]?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339663</id>
	<title>Only solving half the problem...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245099480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You still end up with global causality violation if an object can communicate outside its light cone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You still end up with global causality violation if an object can communicate outside its light cone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You still end up with global causality violation if an object can communicate outside its light cone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341459</id>
	<title>Warp speed, Bah.</title>
	<author>Khyber</author>
	<datestamp>1245064440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me know when Lint Speed is available.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me know when Lint Speed is available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me know when Lint Speed is available.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28350769</id>
	<title>Warp?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245178920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds very Event Horizon to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds very Event Horizon to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds very Event Horizon to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340523</id>
	<title>Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse</title>
	<author>Gilmoure</author>
	<datestamp>1245059580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Write up the button pushing process part of it, get that filed and then claim prior art?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Write up the button pushing process part of it , get that filed and then claim prior art ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Write up the button pushing process part of it, get that filed and then claim prior art?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340723</id>
	<title>Practical Issues</title>
	<author>maino82</author>
	<datestamp>1245060300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"...there will be some practical issues to overcome, such as preventing the creation of artificial black holes, as well as catastrophic warp bubble collapse when the power is switched off."</i>

<br> <br>Best practical issues to overcome EVER! Man, I wish <i>my</i> day job involved figuring out how to overcome the creation of artificial black holes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...there will be some practical issues to overcome , such as preventing the creation of artificial black holes , as well as catastrophic warp bubble collapse when the power is switched off .
" Best practical issues to overcome EVER !
Man , I wish my day job involved figuring out how to overcome the creation of artificial black holes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...there will be some practical issues to overcome, such as preventing the creation of artificial black holes, as well as catastrophic warp bubble collapse when the power is switched off.
"

 Best practical issues to overcome EVER!
Man, I wish my day job involved figuring out how to overcome the creation of artificial black holes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28343317</id>
	<title>Sounds like ...</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1245077460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... another one of those sales pitches at the Ferengi used starship lot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... another one of those sales pitches at the Ferengi used starship lot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... another one of those sales pitches at the Ferengi used starship lot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28344295</id>
	<title>Re:love the graphics</title>
	<author>LordDragoon</author>
	<datestamp>1245086880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No I think it's based on a Tom Swift book I read in Elementary school, this one: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Tom-Swift-Race-Moon-Adventure/dp/B0007E816Y/ref=sr\_1\_15?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1245126163&amp;sr=1-15" title="amazon.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/Tom-Swift-Race-Moon-Adventure/dp/B0007E816Y/ref=sr\_1\_15?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1245126163&amp;sr=1-15</a> [amazon.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>No I think it 's based on a Tom Swift book I read in Elementary school , this one : http : //www.amazon.com/Tom-Swift-Race-Moon-Adventure/dp/B0007E816Y/ref = sr \ _1 \ _15 ? ie = UTF8&amp;s = books&amp;qid = 1245126163&amp;sr = 1-15 [ amazon.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No I think it's based on a Tom Swift book I read in Elementary school, this one: http://www.amazon.com/Tom-Swift-Race-Moon-Adventure/dp/B0007E816Y/ref=sr\_1\_15?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1245126163&amp;sr=1-15 [amazon.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28344385</id>
	<title>Re:Let's not put the cart before the horse</title>
	<author>Tolkien</author>
	<datestamp>1245088080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Damned relativity!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Damned relativity !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damned relativity!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339947</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28346041</id>
	<title>Re:Discover Magazine covered this</title>
	<author>master\_p</author>
	<datestamp>1245154920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently (according to the article), the cosmological constant can be altered at will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently ( according to the article ) , the cosmological constant can be altered at will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently (according to the article), the cosmological constant can be altered at will.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28342937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28343983</id>
	<title>Re:Can't they get anything right?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245083520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*golf clap*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* golf clap *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*golf clap*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28347345</id>
	<title>By Neruos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245166020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry but fail. Most new sciences has to go thru alot of chalk or 3d modeling before anything is made up in the real world. Old science is much about emulating nature, new science is about creating or manipulating nature.</p><p>Comparing the action of jumping up and down to warp drive is completely moronic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry but fail .
Most new sciences has to go thru alot of chalk or 3d modeling before anything is made up in the real world .
Old science is much about emulating nature , new science is about creating or manipulating nature.Comparing the action of jumping up and down to warp drive is completely moronic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry but fail.
Most new sciences has to go thru alot of chalk or 3d modeling before anything is made up in the real world.
Old science is much about emulating nature, new science is about creating or manipulating nature.Comparing the action of jumping up and down to warp drive is completely moronic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28346417</id>
	<title>Patent Issue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245159660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Paramount already holds the patent on faster than light travel through warp drive propulsion as well as the patent on the warp drive itself.</p><p>This guy had better have already built a functioning warp drive if he wants to stand a chance of raising enough money to fight off the lawyers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Paramount already holds the patent on faster than light travel through warp drive propulsion as well as the patent on the warp drive itself.This guy had better have already built a functioning warp drive if he wants to stand a chance of raising enough money to fight off the lawyers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Paramount already holds the patent on faster than light travel through warp drive propulsion as well as the patent on the warp drive itself.This guy had better have already built a functioning warp drive if he wants to stand a chance of raising enough money to fight off the lawyers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28346055</id>
	<title>Too Slow</title>
	<author>daveime</author>
	<datestamp>1245155040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Warp Drive is soooo slow<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(</p><p>Stargates FTW.</p><p>(Sorry, just got a 14 day EVE trial and getting a bit too immersed).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Warp Drive is soooo slow : - ( Stargates FTW .
( Sorry , just got a 14 day EVE trial and getting a bit too immersed ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Warp Drive is soooo slow :-(Stargates FTW.
(Sorry, just got a 14 day EVE trial and getting a bit too immersed).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28342361</id>
	<title>A strain on warp</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245069840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what happens to the space that expands behind the warpship? Technically you would have a line of expanded space behind the spaceship as it travels the light years, and if you travel the same path multiple times, does warp drive stop working when you strain the expanded space-time to much??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what happens to the space that expands behind the warpship ?
Technically you would have a line of expanded space behind the spaceship as it travels the light years , and if you travel the same path multiple times , does warp drive stop working when you strain the expanded space-time to much ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what happens to the space that expands behind the warpship?
Technically you would have a line of expanded space behind the spaceship as it travels the light years, and if you travel the same path multiple times, does warp drive stop working when you strain the expanded space-time to much?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340167</id>
	<title>Re:Only solving half the problem...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245058140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>is that like a universal 404 error?</htmltext>
<tokenext>is that like a universal 404 error ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is that like a universal 404 error?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339819</id>
	<title>Not exactly a Dr. Richard Daystrom, but will</title>
	<author>davidsyes</author>
	<datestamp>1245056820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we see "Obousy" Collectors? hehehe They won't exactly be "Broussard Collectors".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we see " Obousy " Collectors ?
hehehe They wo n't exactly be " Broussard Collectors " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we see "Obousy" Collectors?
hehehe They won't exactly be "Broussard Collectors".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28344159</id>
	<title>Riding the wave off of a pot whole of space</title>
	<author>itsybitsy</author>
	<datestamp>1245085320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A pot whole of good BC bud makes surfing those waves much easier as time slips into the future, into the future...</p><p>Slip sliding away.... slip sliding away....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A pot whole of good BC bud makes surfing those waves much easier as time slips into the future , into the future...Slip sliding away.... slip sliding away... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A pot whole of good BC bud makes surfing those waves much easier as time slips into the future, into the future...Slip sliding away.... slip sliding away....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28342331</id>
	<title>Damn...Got the title wrong</title>
	<author>neural.disruption</author>
	<datestamp>1245069720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Damn I read it as "Introducing the Warship", that would be funnier who knows what lurks beyond the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kupier\_belt" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Kupier Belt</a> [wikipedia.org]
<br> <br>
Anyway the ship looks nice, its a shame that warp drives or something like a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holtzman\_effect#Holtzman\_drive" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Holtzman Drive</a> [wikipedia.org] are not going to be a reality in any predictable near future... in despite of that I also recall that in the nineteen century humans flying was still something absurd for most people... so maybe not so unpredictable.<br> <br>

Anyway I really would like to pay a visit to our Insect Overlords from outer space... <br>
So never wondered why there are thousands of insect species on earth? Insectoid Overlords That's Why!
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn I read it as " Introducing the Warship " , that would be funnier who knows what lurks beyond the Kupier Belt [ wikipedia.org ] Anyway the ship looks nice , its a shame that warp drives or something like a Holtzman Drive [ wikipedia.org ] are not going to be a reality in any predictable near future... in despite of that I also recall that in the nineteen century humans flying was still something absurd for most people... so maybe not so unpredictable .
Anyway I really would like to pay a visit to our Insect Overlords from outer space.. . So never wondered why there are thousands of insect species on earth ?
Insectoid Overlords That 's Why !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn I read it as "Introducing the Warship", that would be funnier who knows what lurks beyond the Kupier Belt [wikipedia.org]
 
Anyway the ship looks nice, its a shame that warp drives or something like a Holtzman Drive [wikipedia.org] are not going to be a reality in any predictable near future... in despite of that I also recall that in the nineteen century humans flying was still something absurd for most people... so maybe not so unpredictable.
Anyway I really would like to pay a visit to our Insect Overlords from outer space... 
So never wondered why there are thousands of insect species on earth?
Insectoid Overlords That's Why!
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340709</id>
	<title>Re:Only solving half the problem...</title>
	<author>NotQuiteReal</author>
	<datestamp>1245060180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Could I interest you in some causality insurance? In the event nothing happens anymore, you can make a claim.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could I interest you in some causality insurance ?
In the event nothing happens anymore , you can make a claim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could I interest you in some causality insurance?
In the event nothing happens anymore, you can make a claim.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340013</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28343013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28370261
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28342937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28346041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28345997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28346475
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339947
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28342147
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28343563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339947
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341769
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339947
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28344385
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339957
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28344405
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339769
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340709
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340311
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28345513
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340941
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28346027
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28343475
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28345855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28343873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28346631
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341251
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28346731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339947
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28345679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28354027
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28343397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28345183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28349921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28343983
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339947
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28344869
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341385
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28345431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28345531
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340343
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28342171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339947
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28342771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28344295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28344681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28342487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28345987
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28342235
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1658255_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28348661
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1658255.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28342123
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1658255.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339691
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341251
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28342487
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1658255.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28342361
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1658255.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339681
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339841
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1658255.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339561
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339769
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339935
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340523
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339641
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28348661
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339639
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28343397
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341641
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28344681
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341803
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28344405
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340173
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28343013
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28342235
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339671
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340343
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28346475
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340527
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28345513
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341743
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340225
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340925
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28345679
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28354027
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339947
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341769
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28344385
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28344869
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28342771
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340431
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28342147
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340311
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1658255.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28343201
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1658255.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339663
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340079
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341589
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28345855
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28349921
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28346027
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340685
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341951
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28343563
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339957
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28345987
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340013
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340709
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28345431
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340941
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340047
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28345997
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341375
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340375
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340167
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341385
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28346631
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1658255.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339759
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28344295
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1658255.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339707
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340689
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1658255.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341209
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1658255.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339701
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1658255.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340737
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1658255.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339905
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28345531
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28343475
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1658255.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339949
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1658255.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341359
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1658255.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28346731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28345183
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1658255.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341061
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1658255.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28340337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28342171
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1658255.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339751
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1658255.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339819
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1658255.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28341245
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1658255.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28342937
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28346041
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1658255.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28339965
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28370261
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28343873
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1658255.28343983
</commentlist>
</conversation>
