<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_13_1826206</id>
	<title>The LHC, the Higgs Boson, and Fate</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1255459920000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Reader Maximum Prophet sends a piece from the NY Times by the usually reliable Dennis Overbye reporting on a "crazy" theory being worked up by a pair of "otherwise distinguished physicists": that the Large Hadron Collider's difficulties may be due to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/science/space/13lhc.html">the universe's reluctance to produce a Higgs boson</a>. Maximum Prophet adds, "This happened to the Superconducting Super Collider in the science fiction story <em>Einstein's Bridge</em>. Now Holger Bech Nielsen, of the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, and Masao Ninomiya of the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics in Kyoto, Japan, are theorizing that it's happening in real life." <i>"I'm talking about the notion that the troubled collider is being sabotaged by its own future. A pair of otherwise distinguished physicists have suggested that the hypothesized Higgs boson, which physicists hope to produce with the collider, might be so abhorrent to nature that its creation would ripple backward through time and stop the collider before it could make one, like a time traveler who goes back in time to kill his grandfather."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reader Maximum Prophet sends a piece from the NY Times by the usually reliable Dennis Overbye reporting on a " crazy " theory being worked up by a pair of " otherwise distinguished physicists " : that the Large Hadron Collider 's difficulties may be due to the universe 's reluctance to produce a Higgs boson .
Maximum Prophet adds , " This happened to the Superconducting Super Collider in the science fiction story Einstein 's Bridge .
Now Holger Bech Nielsen , of the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen , and Masao Ninomiya of the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics in Kyoto , Japan , are theorizing that it 's happening in real life .
" " I 'm talking about the notion that the troubled collider is being sabotaged by its own future .
A pair of otherwise distinguished physicists have suggested that the hypothesized Higgs boson , which physicists hope to produce with the collider , might be so abhorrent to nature that its creation would ripple backward through time and stop the collider before it could make one , like a time traveler who goes back in time to kill his grandfather .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reader Maximum Prophet sends a piece from the NY Times by the usually reliable Dennis Overbye reporting on a "crazy" theory being worked up by a pair of "otherwise distinguished physicists": that the Large Hadron Collider's difficulties may be due to the universe's reluctance to produce a Higgs boson.
Maximum Prophet adds, "This happened to the Superconducting Super Collider in the science fiction story Einstein's Bridge.
Now Holger Bech Nielsen, of the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, and Masao Ninomiya of the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics in Kyoto, Japan, are theorizing that it's happening in real life.
" "I'm talking about the notion that the troubled collider is being sabotaged by its own future.
A pair of otherwise distinguished physicists have suggested that the hypothesized Higgs boson, which physicists hope to produce with the collider, might be so abhorrent to nature that its creation would ripple backward through time and stop the collider before it could make one, like a time traveler who goes back in time to kill his grandfather.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735441</id>
	<title>Re:Almost...</title>
	<author>Verteiron</author>
	<datestamp>1255464900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it's just the guys running the simulation don't have any code to handle what we're doing with the LHC, so they keep tweaking things to break it while they work on a patch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it 's just the guys running the simulation do n't have any code to handle what we 're doing with the LHC , so they keep tweaking things to break it while they work on a patch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it's just the guys running the simulation don't have any code to handle what we're doing with the LHC, so they keep tweaking things to break it while they work on a patch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738497</id>
	<title>PS.</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1255433880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For example: weren't unbounded Higgs bosons last present in large numbers close to the time of rapid cosmic inflation / far greater dominance of dark energy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For example : were n't unbounded Higgs bosons last present in large numbers close to the time of rapid cosmic inflation / far greater dominance of dark energy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For example: weren't unbounded Higgs bosons last present in large numbers close to the time of rapid cosmic inflation / far greater dominance of dark energy?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29743177</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect...</title>
	<author>ooioioio</author>
	<datestamp>1255527360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But if his wife then see's that the &#252;berpoison she placed in his dinner has no effect on him, she well might think that he's the (... checking wikipedia for the correct spelling<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...)  Kwisatz Haderach.

Imagining what that would mean for us all<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... to you i leave.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But if his wife then see 's that the   berpoison she placed in his dinner has no effect on him , she well might think that he 's the ( ... checking wikipedia for the correct spelling ... ) Kwisatz Haderach .
Imagining what that would mean for us all ... to you i leave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But if his wife then see's that the überpoison she placed in his dinner has no effect on him, she well might think that he's the (... checking wikipedia for the correct spelling ...)  Kwisatz Haderach.
Imagining what that would mean for us all ... to you i leave.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735353</id>
	<title>Not crackpot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255464420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know anything about Ninomiya, but Nielsen is an established High Energy Theorist at a reputable institute (I've attended lectures given by him). I still think the theory is just too far out, but then again, I would have said the same about quantum mechanics (which at least has the advantage of being testable).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know anything about Ninomiya , but Nielsen is an established High Energy Theorist at a reputable institute ( I 've attended lectures given by him ) .
I still think the theory is just too far out , but then again , I would have said the same about quantum mechanics ( which at least has the advantage of being testable ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know anything about Ninomiya, but Nielsen is an established High Energy Theorist at a reputable institute (I've attended lectures given by him).
I still think the theory is just too far out, but then again, I would have said the same about quantum mechanics (which at least has the advantage of being testable).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29742141</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255512900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's the incorrect way out.</p><p>Insist you make dinner. Claim you've read an awesome recipe that you want to try and deliberately screw it up. Think half-burnt sauce stuck to the bottom of the pot (if done properly this makes the sauce look great and taste horrible), not slightly over-salted potatoes (should just be enough to make you gag slightly) and over-cooked vegetables (to make them soggy, squishy and mix the remaining taste). When she then complains that it's rubbish, order take-out.</p><p>Do it four or five times, each time insisting that you can do it properly, and she'll soon insist that SHE does the cooking.</p><p>The trick isn't to come up with an excuse - the trick is to be plausibly bad at it and make her suffer through your attempts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the incorrect way out.Insist you make dinner .
Claim you 've read an awesome recipe that you want to try and deliberately screw it up .
Think half-burnt sauce stuck to the bottom of the pot ( if done properly this makes the sauce look great and taste horrible ) , not slightly over-salted potatoes ( should just be enough to make you gag slightly ) and over-cooked vegetables ( to make them soggy , squishy and mix the remaining taste ) .
When she then complains that it 's rubbish , order take-out.Do it four or five times , each time insisting that you can do it properly , and she 'll soon insist that SHE does the cooking.The trick is n't to come up with an excuse - the trick is to be plausibly bad at it and make her suffer through your attempts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the incorrect way out.Insist you make dinner.
Claim you've read an awesome recipe that you want to try and deliberately screw it up.
Think half-burnt sauce stuck to the bottom of the pot (if done properly this makes the sauce look great and taste horrible), not slightly over-salted potatoes (should just be enough to make you gag slightly) and over-cooked vegetables (to make them soggy, squishy and mix the remaining taste).
When she then complains that it's rubbish, order take-out.Do it four or five times, each time insisting that you can do it properly, and she'll soon insist that SHE does the cooking.The trick isn't to come up with an excuse - the trick is to be plausibly bad at it and make her suffer through your attempts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29748391</id>
	<title>The Infinite Improbability Drive</title>
	<author>shambalagoon</author>
	<datestamp>1255550700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Could this be the research that spawns the Infinite Improbability Drive?<br>
<br>
If attempts to create the Higgs Boson result in something going wrong with the LHC, there is certainly energy involved in causing the breakdown. If that energy could somehow be harnessed and directed, say to a single failpoint - say a motor that consistently explodes when it fails - then the energy from that explosion could be used to drive the ship forward. Just keep attempting to create that abhorrent boson, and harness the explosions that result. Voila!<br>
<br>
Or, in the spirit of the original, remove all reasonable failpoints and let it create all kinds of weird effects.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could this be the research that spawns the Infinite Improbability Drive ?
If attempts to create the Higgs Boson result in something going wrong with the LHC , there is certainly energy involved in causing the breakdown .
If that energy could somehow be harnessed and directed , say to a single failpoint - say a motor that consistently explodes when it fails - then the energy from that explosion could be used to drive the ship forward .
Just keep attempting to create that abhorrent boson , and harness the explosions that result .
Voila ! Or , in the spirit of the original , remove all reasonable failpoints and let it create all kinds of weird effects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could this be the research that spawns the Infinite Improbability Drive?
If attempts to create the Higgs Boson result in something going wrong with the LHC, there is certainly energy involved in causing the breakdown.
If that energy could somehow be harnessed and directed, say to a single failpoint - say a motor that consistently explodes when it fails - then the energy from that explosion could be used to drive the ship forward.
Just keep attempting to create that abhorrent boson, and harness the explosions that result.
Voila!

Or, in the spirit of the original, remove all reasonable failpoints and let it create all kinds of weird effects.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739841</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect...</title>
	<author>Tenebrousedge</author>
	<datestamp>1255443180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's huge amounts of sexism in Geekdom; at least as much as anyplace else. The article was about Open Source, which is a hair more professional an environment than Slashdot. If you are around here for more than five minutes you will also note a significant amount of humor referring to negative male stereotypes of all kinds. One of the most popular is the idea of the fat, cheeto-eating virgin geek. Just as common are examples of actual racist, sexist, or otherwise ignorant and hateful drivel.</p><p>Welcome to the Internet. So far as it goes, this is probably one of the nicer sites you'll find. I do recommend a more relaxed sense of humor if you plan to stay, but at the very least you should not get too upset at what other people do find funny.</p><p>Insofar as the actual content of the comment goes, it was original in the sense that anything is, and sexist by inference only. If you're looking for demonstrable harm, you may want to find a better example.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's huge amounts of sexism in Geekdom ; at least as much as anyplace else .
The article was about Open Source , which is a hair more professional an environment than Slashdot .
If you are around here for more than five minutes you will also note a significant amount of humor referring to negative male stereotypes of all kinds .
One of the most popular is the idea of the fat , cheeto-eating virgin geek .
Just as common are examples of actual racist , sexist , or otherwise ignorant and hateful drivel.Welcome to the Internet .
So far as it goes , this is probably one of the nicer sites you 'll find .
I do recommend a more relaxed sense of humor if you plan to stay , but at the very least you should not get too upset at what other people do find funny.Insofar as the actual content of the comment goes , it was original in the sense that anything is , and sexist by inference only .
If you 're looking for demonstrable harm , you may want to find a better example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's huge amounts of sexism in Geekdom; at least as much as anyplace else.
The article was about Open Source, which is a hair more professional an environment than Slashdot.
If you are around here for more than five minutes you will also note a significant amount of humor referring to negative male stereotypes of all kinds.
One of the most popular is the idea of the fat, cheeto-eating virgin geek.
Just as common are examples of actual racist, sexist, or otherwise ignorant and hateful drivel.Welcome to the Internet.
So far as it goes, this is probably one of the nicer sites you'll find.
I do recommend a more relaxed sense of humor if you plan to stay, but at the very least you should not get too upset at what other people do find funny.Insofar as the actual content of the comment goes, it was original in the sense that anything is, and sexist by inference only.
If you're looking for demonstrable harm, you may want to find a better example.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739907</id>
	<title>Re:Back in high school creative writing class ...</title>
	<author>The\_mad\_linguist</author>
	<datestamp>1255443720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The universe is not deterministic.  If you got stuck in a loop like that, eventually you'd break out due to some crazy quantum coincidence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The universe is not deterministic .
If you got stuck in a loop like that , eventually you 'd break out due to some crazy quantum coincidence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The universe is not deterministic.
If you got stuck in a loop like that, eventually you'd break out due to some crazy quantum coincidence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738913</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736085</id>
	<title>The real reason</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1255467540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Matrix computer isn't powerful enough to handle the simulation of the LHC correctly. That's why the LHC failed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Matrix computer is n't powerful enough to handle the simulation of the LHC correctly .
That 's why the LHC failed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Matrix computer isn't powerful enough to handle the simulation of the LHC correctly.
That's why the LHC failed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737237</id>
	<title>Nature and Science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255428720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nature is trying to prevent discovery since they are going to publish about it in Science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nature is trying to prevent discovery since they are going to publish about it in Science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nature is trying to prevent discovery since they are going to publish about it in Science.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735673</id>
	<title>SF knew it before</title>
	<author>ChatHuant</author>
	<datestamp>1255465920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not a new idea; I read a short story (blanking on the title, sorry) written by the Russian SF authors <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkady\_and\_Boris\_Strugatsky" title="wikipedia.org">Arkady and Boris Strugatsky</a> [wikipedia.org] sometimes in the seventies. In the story, a physicist teetering on the brink of a major discovery that would change the Universe gets interrupted in his work by weirder and weirder occurences, including a gun-toting dwarf. After reflection he realizes it's a reaction from the Universe, which tends to conserve its state, under some kind of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le\_Ch\%C3\%A2telier's\_principle" title="wikipedia.org">Le Chtelier's</a> [wikipedia.org] principle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not a new idea ; I read a short story ( blanking on the title , sorry ) written by the Russian SF authors Arkady and Boris Strugatsky [ wikipedia.org ] sometimes in the seventies .
In the story , a physicist teetering on the brink of a major discovery that would change the Universe gets interrupted in his work by weirder and weirder occurences , including a gun-toting dwarf .
After reflection he realizes it 's a reaction from the Universe , which tends to conserve its state , under some kind of Le Chtelier 's [ wikipedia.org ] principle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not a new idea; I read a short story (blanking on the title, sorry) written by the Russian SF authors Arkady and Boris Strugatsky [wikipedia.org] sometimes in the seventies.
In the story, a physicist teetering on the brink of a major discovery that would change the Universe gets interrupted in his work by weirder and weirder occurences, including a gun-toting dwarf.
After reflection he realizes it's a reaction from the Universe, which tends to conserve its state, under some kind of Le Chtelier's [wikipedia.org] principle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29822177</id>
	<title>Speed of light is constant = zero</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256133480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have any one visited <a href="http://www.einsteingravity.com/" title="einsteingravity.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.einsteingravity.com/</a> [einsteingravity.com], a scientist also predicts another insane(to me) theory that "Speed of light is constant = zero" to the already existing theory (which is still insane to me) "Speed of light is constant = 3L kilometres/hour..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have any one visited http : //www.einsteingravity.com/ [ einsteingravity.com ] , a scientist also predicts another insane ( to me ) theory that " Speed of light is constant = zero " to the already existing theory ( which is still insane to me ) " Speed of light is constant = 3L kilometres/hour. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have any one visited http://www.einsteingravity.com/ [einsteingravity.com], a scientist also predicts another insane(to me) theory that "Speed of light is constant = zero" to the already existing theory (which is still insane to me) "Speed of light is constant = 3L kilometres/hour..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735699</id>
	<title>Re:Original concept from "Doomsday Device"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255466040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I also discussed this idea in the context of novel models of computation in my MIT Ph.D. thesis, <a href="http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/~bob/hearn-thesis-final.pdf" title="mit.edu" rel="nofollow">Games, Puzzles, and Computation</a> [mit.edu] (section 8.2; also published as a book by A.K. Peters). </p></div><p>OK, ok, you win. Blah blah MIT PhD thesis. Smart arse.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I also discussed this idea in the context of novel models of computation in my MIT Ph.D. thesis , Games , Puzzles , and Computation [ mit.edu ] ( section 8.2 ; also published as a book by A.K .
Peters ) . OK , ok , you win .
Blah blah MIT PhD thesis .
Smart arse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also discussed this idea in the context of novel models of computation in my MIT Ph.D. thesis, Games, Puzzles, and Computation [mit.edu] (section 8.2; also published as a book by A.K.
Peters). OK, ok, you win.
Blah blah MIT PhD thesis.
Smart arse.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737523</id>
	<title>Re:This theory is not to be taken seriously</title>
	<author>ElSupreme</author>
	<datestamp>1255429800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But then all we would have to do is put in some more parcitles. Fire it up. And then random e/m force fucking it up again?<br>
<br>
Magnents breaking might be more probable than double or n-times random e/m force.<br>
Also there is nothing saying we have to be observing the most probable outcome. We could be in a very improbable timeline.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But then all we would have to do is put in some more parcitles .
Fire it up .
And then random e/m force fucking it up again ?
Magnents breaking might be more probable than double or n-times random e/m force .
Also there is nothing saying we have to be observing the most probable outcome .
We could be in a very improbable timeline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But then all we would have to do is put in some more parcitles.
Fire it up.
And then random e/m force fucking it up again?
Magnents breaking might be more probable than double or n-times random e/m force.
Also there is nothing saying we have to be observing the most probable outcome.
We could be in a very improbable timeline.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739499</id>
	<title>Re:Einstein's Bridge</title>
	<author>igny</author>
	<datestamp>1255440720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder if <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitely\_Maybe\_(novel)" title="wikipedia.org">Definitely maybe</a> [wikipedia.org] was an inspiration to that story.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if Definitely maybe [ wikipedia.org ] was an inspiration to that story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if Definitely maybe [wikipedia.org] was an inspiration to that story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735163</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736173</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect...</title>
	<author>fastest fascist</author>
	<datestamp>1255424640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's better than that. You really CAN not cook dinner, it is impossible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's better than that .
You really CAN not cook dinner , it is impossible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's better than that.
You really CAN not cook dinner, it is impossible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737129</id>
	<title>Reminds me of "CERN and the Anthropic Principle"</title>
	<author>roguegramma</author>
	<datestamp>1255428360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This older writeup describes a similar idea:</p><p><a href="http://www.everything2.com/title/CERN+and+the+Anthropic+Principle" title="everything2.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.everything2.com/title/CERN+and+the+Anthropic+Principle</a> [everything2.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This older writeup describes a similar idea : http : //www.everything2.com/title/CERN + and + the + Anthropic + Principle [ everything2.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This older writeup describes a similar idea:http://www.everything2.com/title/CERN+and+the+Anthropic+Principle [everything2.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735389</id>
	<title>Thrice Upon A Time</title>
	<author>r0nc0</author>
	<datestamp>1255464660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A book by James P. Hogan. In the novel they built a large collider and produced microscopic black holes accidentally. Their future selves found a way to send a message back in time despite the noise degradation to tell their past selves not to turn the damned thing on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A book by James P. Hogan. In the novel they built a large collider and produced microscopic black holes accidentally .
Their future selves found a way to send a message back in time despite the noise degradation to tell their past selves not to turn the damned thing on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A book by James P. Hogan. In the novel they built a large collider and produced microscopic black holes accidentally.
Their future selves found a way to send a message back in time despite the noise degradation to tell their past selves not to turn the damned thing on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736803</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255427280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So since when do you know my wife?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So since when do you know my wife ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So since when do you know my wife?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736429</id>
	<title>I was going to comment on this...</title>
	<author>popo</author>
	<datestamp>1255425840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...but some mysterious force keeps on interrupting me in mid</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...but some mysterious force keeps on interrupting me in mid</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...but some mysterious force keeps on interrupting me in mid</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29742119</id>
	<title>Its not there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255512660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So instead of saying there is no evidence for its existance we say it exists but has the ability to go back to the future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So instead of saying there is no evidence for its existance we say it exists but has the ability to go back to the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So instead of saying there is no evidence for its existance we say it exists but has the ability to go back to the future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736077</id>
	<title>Re:Original concept from "Doomsday Device"</title>
	<author>Osurak</author>
	<datestamp>1255467480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I enjoyed your explanation of "doomsday computation." It sounds like something out of HHGTTG.</p><p>There are 5 references to "anthropic computation" on Google. It as well sounds like an interesting concept. Can you provide any references? Or is it better known as something else?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I enjoyed your explanation of " doomsday computation .
" It sounds like something out of HHGTTG.There are 5 references to " anthropic computation " on Google .
It as well sounds like an interesting concept .
Can you provide any references ?
Or is it better known as something else ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I enjoyed your explanation of "doomsday computation.
" It sounds like something out of HHGTTG.There are 5 references to "anthropic computation" on Google.
It as well sounds like an interesting concept.
Can you provide any references?
Or is it better known as something else?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737253</id>
	<title>Re:Back in high school creative writing class ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255428720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was a short story on this subject that I read just a while ago, but I can't remember who wrote it or its name.</p><p>The plot was based around the idea that the universe really didn't like something (closed timelike loops, IIRC, or similar). The fun part is that the universe wasn't at all picky about how to prevent it. So instead of the experimental apparatus malfunctioning, a nearby star might go supernova (or something similar) just a little before a civilization discovered how to create the unpleasant condition.</p><p>In the story, some wise-guy figures this out, and tries to use it as a weapon (two civilizations are at war): leak the secret technology to the opposing civilization; once they try to implement it for use in war, the universe should stop them. However, the universe just blows the wise-guy's home star...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a short story on this subject that I read just a while ago , but I ca n't remember who wrote it or its name.The plot was based around the idea that the universe really did n't like something ( closed timelike loops , IIRC , or similar ) .
The fun part is that the universe was n't at all picky about how to prevent it .
So instead of the experimental apparatus malfunctioning , a nearby star might go supernova ( or something similar ) just a little before a civilization discovered how to create the unpleasant condition.In the story , some wise-guy figures this out , and tries to use it as a weapon ( two civilizations are at war ) : leak the secret technology to the opposing civilization ; once they try to implement it for use in war , the universe should stop them .
However , the universe just blows the wise-guy 's home star.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a short story on this subject that I read just a while ago, but I can't remember who wrote it or its name.The plot was based around the idea that the universe really didn't like something (closed timelike loops, IIRC, or similar).
The fun part is that the universe wasn't at all picky about how to prevent it.
So instead of the experimental apparatus malfunctioning, a nearby star might go supernova (or something similar) just a little before a civilization discovered how to create the unpleasant condition.In the story, some wise-guy figures this out, and tries to use it as a weapon (two civilizations are at war): leak the secret technology to the opposing civilization; once they try to implement it for use in war, the universe should stop them.
However, the universe just blows the wise-guy's home star...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735869</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735747</id>
	<title>Schrodinger's Cookies</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1255466280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm talking about the notion that the troubled collider is being sabotaged by its own future.</p></div> </blockquote><p>As proof of this, the NY-Times article can only be read by some observers but not others.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm talking about the notion that the troubled collider is being sabotaged by its own future .
As proof of this , the NY-Times article can only be read by some observers but not others .
       </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm talking about the notion that the troubled collider is being sabotaged by its own future.
As proof of this, the NY-Times article can only be read by some observers but not others.
       
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735523</id>
	<title>They got's to do something....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255465380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All these LHC physicist have essentially been out of a job for awhile.  They need to come up with something to keep them looking busy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All these LHC physicist have essentially been out of a job for awhile .
They need to come up with something to keep them looking busy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All these LHC physicist have essentially been out of a job for awhile.
They need to come up with something to keep them looking busy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736837</id>
	<title>It's Picard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255427400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's obvious that the troubles at the LHC are caused by Picard disregarding the Prime Directive to save us from ourselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's obvious that the troubles at the LHC are caused by Picard disregarding the Prime Directive to save us from ourselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's obvious that the troubles at the LHC are caused by Picard disregarding the Prime Directive to save us from ourselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736789</id>
	<title>Re:Back in high school creative writing class ...</title>
	<author>Stubtify</author>
	<datestamp>1255427280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Time\_Tunnel" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Time\_Tunnel</a> [wikipedia.org]

Great 60's show.  Not exactly what you wrote about, and yes, yours does sound like an interesting story, but it brought back this show to my mind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The \ _Time \ _Tunnel [ wikipedia.org ] Great 60 's show .
Not exactly what you wrote about , and yes , yours does sound like an interesting story , but it brought back this show to my mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Time\_Tunnel [wikipedia.org]

Great 60's show.
Not exactly what you wrote about, and yes, yours does sound like an interesting story, but it brought back this show to my mind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735869</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736461</id>
	<title>Re:Could happen</title>
	<author>jafiwam</author>
	<datestamp>1255426020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure you can.  You just repeat it, and if it says:<br><br>D.R.I.N.K. M.O.R.E. O.V.A.L.T.I.N.E.<br><br>You know it's probably a good signal.<br><br>Easy!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure you can .
You just repeat it , and if it says : D.R.I.N.K .
M.O.R.E. O.V.A.L.T.I.N.E.You know it 's probably a good signal.Easy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure you can.
You just repeat it, and if it says:D.R.I.N.K.
M.O.R.E. O.V.A.L.T.I.N.E.You know it's probably a good signal.Easy!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736659</id>
	<title>Re:Could happen</title>
	<author>CZakalwe</author>
	<datestamp>1255426800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow I never knew that Phillip K. Dickhead was so phallusophical</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow I never knew that Phillip K. Dickhead was so phallusophical</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow I never knew that Phillip K. Dickhead was so phallusophical</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737341</id>
	<title>Re:Quantum Suidice</title>
	<author>omuls are tasty</author>
	<datestamp>1255429020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually that was the very first thought that went through my mind after reading the summary.</p><p>But I have to confess that the idea is not mine; I remember reading about it around a year ago, on this very site, in a <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=974445&amp;cid=25139145" title="slashdot.org">comment</a> [slashdot.org] posted by the most prolific Slashdot member of all. For better or for worse, still no place like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually that was the very first thought that went through my mind after reading the summary.But I have to confess that the idea is not mine ; I remember reading about it around a year ago , on this very site , in a comment [ slashdot.org ] posted by the most prolific Slashdot member of all .
For better or for worse , still no place like / .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually that was the very first thought that went through my mind after reading the summary.But I have to confess that the idea is not mine; I remember reading about it around a year ago, on this very site, in a comment [slashdot.org] posted by the most prolific Slashdot member of all.
For better or for worse, still no place like /.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737287</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>TangoMargarine</author>
	<datestamp>1255428840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"...And it was widely regarded as a bad idea."</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...And it was widely regarded as a bad idea .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...And it was widely regarded as a bad idea.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29747601</id>
	<title>Then there is that Fermi paradox thingee</title>
	<author>Wardish</author>
	<datestamp>1255547460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All technological societies ( those that would expand across the galaxy being a subset ) would get to the point of building a device to generate a Higgs boson which would initiate destruction of sun/planet/solar system.  Thus no technological civilizations would never have a chance to expand and the Fermi paradox is solved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All technological societies ( those that would expand across the galaxy being a subset ) would get to the point of building a device to generate a Higgs boson which would initiate destruction of sun/planet/solar system .
Thus no technological civilizations would never have a chance to expand and the Fermi paradox is solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All technological societies ( those that would expand across the galaxy being a subset ) would get to the point of building a device to generate a Higgs boson which would initiate destruction of sun/planet/solar system.
Thus no technological civilizations would never have a chance to expand and the Fermi paradox is solved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735557</id>
	<title>Re:Almost...</title>
	<author>Anachragnome</author>
	<datestamp>1255465440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does it have to be Nature that comes back to sabotage the whole mess?</p><p>Maybe some Enterprising Scientist in the future saw the results of us fucking around with stuff beyond our comprehension or control and came back to sabotage the tool that led us to it in the first place, in such a way that it would forever preclude us from revisiting the whole scenario.</p><p>Like sabotaging things in such a way that the LHC becomes a smoking crater in the landscape with the corpses of millions ringing the periphery--a permanent reminder of The Folly of Fucking With Things We Have No Chance Of Being Able To Control.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...or maybe the technicians at LHC haven't done this before and maybe, just maybe, it might take a few tries before they get it right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does it have to be Nature that comes back to sabotage the whole mess ? Maybe some Enterprising Scientist in the future saw the results of us fucking around with stuff beyond our comprehension or control and came back to sabotage the tool that led us to it in the first place , in such a way that it would forever preclude us from revisiting the whole scenario.Like sabotaging things in such a way that the LHC becomes a smoking crater in the landscape with the corpses of millions ringing the periphery--a permanent reminder of The Folly of Fucking With Things We Have No Chance Of Being Able To Control .
...or maybe the technicians at LHC have n't done this before and maybe , just maybe , it might take a few tries before they get it right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does it have to be Nature that comes back to sabotage the whole mess?Maybe some Enterprising Scientist in the future saw the results of us fucking around with stuff beyond our comprehension or control and came back to sabotage the tool that led us to it in the first place, in such a way that it would forever preclude us from revisiting the whole scenario.Like sabotaging things in such a way that the LHC becomes a smoking crater in the landscape with the corpses of millions ringing the periphery--a permanent reminder of The Folly of Fucking With Things We Have No Chance Of Being Able To Control.
...or maybe the technicians at LHC haven't done this before and maybe, just maybe, it might take a few tries before they get it right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735753</id>
	<title>Re:Einstein's Bridge</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255466280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sliders!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sliders !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sliders!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735163</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735275</id>
	<title>Re:Could happen</title>
	<author>Philip K Dickhead</author>
	<datestamp>1255464180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference between theory and practice is that <i>nothing</i> in the universe actually conforms to your perceptions and everything you know is not even wrong.  You are not even really "you" in any sense beyond the illusory narrative created by the mind, to order its disparate sensations.</p><p>Black hole?  Maths say they exist -  but you will never really know, nor will it ever really matter - if you cannot even know your "self".</p><p>"In theory there's no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is". I paraphrase this as:</p><p>"To the imagination, it is identical with reality, when Reality is so totally comprehensive that all of imagination is an infinitesimal subset."</p><p>But the mind is a little thing - with such a limited set of tools and perceptions, on such a tiny scale.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference between theory and practice is that nothing in the universe actually conforms to your perceptions and everything you know is not even wrong .
You are not even really " you " in any sense beyond the illusory narrative created by the mind , to order its disparate sensations.Black hole ?
Maths say they exist - but you will never really know , nor will it ever really matter - if you can not even know your " self " .
" In theory there 's no difference between theory and practice , but in practice there is " .
I paraphrase this as : " To the imagination , it is identical with reality , when Reality is so totally comprehensive that all of imagination is an infinitesimal subset .
" But the mind is a little thing - with such a limited set of tools and perceptions , on such a tiny scale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference between theory and practice is that nothing in the universe actually conforms to your perceptions and everything you know is not even wrong.
You are not even really "you" in any sense beyond the illusory narrative created by the mind, to order its disparate sensations.Black hole?
Maths say they exist -  but you will never really know, nor will it ever really matter - if you cannot even know your "self".
"In theory there's no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is".
I paraphrase this as:"To the imagination, it is identical with reality, when Reality is so totally comprehensive that all of imagination is an infinitesimal subset.
"But the mind is a little thing - with such a limited set of tools and perceptions, on such a tiny scale.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29752607</id>
	<title>Not so fast</title>
	<author>SciBrad</author>
	<datestamp>1255532700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So after doing some digging it turns out that even the authors of the papers admit it is a somewhat shaky proposal.  Basically they assumed that something called the action, a quantity in physics usually taken to be real, maybe had an imaginary part and then played around with it a bit and assumed it would have a strong effect on a scalar field (such as the Higgs).  They found the imaginary part of the action had a strong dampening effect on actions even if they were minima (which are the usual ones we work with).  Basically from what I have read/gathered this imaginary part appears in the form of non-local effects in space-time by forcing a consideration upon an entire trajectory through time not just what is local.  So basically it would imply the universe as a whole could be on a trajectory where the Higgs just couldn't be created due to the dampening effects of the imaginary part of the action.  No backwards propagating signals or anything...just the way the universe is.

Of course the whole thing is pretty shaky (invoking at least two 'tooth faries') but it is fun nonetheless.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So after doing some digging it turns out that even the authors of the papers admit it is a somewhat shaky proposal .
Basically they assumed that something called the action , a quantity in physics usually taken to be real , maybe had an imaginary part and then played around with it a bit and assumed it would have a strong effect on a scalar field ( such as the Higgs ) .
They found the imaginary part of the action had a strong dampening effect on actions even if they were minima ( which are the usual ones we work with ) .
Basically from what I have read/gathered this imaginary part appears in the form of non-local effects in space-time by forcing a consideration upon an entire trajectory through time not just what is local .
So basically it would imply the universe as a whole could be on a trajectory where the Higgs just could n't be created due to the dampening effects of the imaginary part of the action .
No backwards propagating signals or anything...just the way the universe is .
Of course the whole thing is pretty shaky ( invoking at least two 'tooth faries ' ) but it is fun nonetheless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So after doing some digging it turns out that even the authors of the papers admit it is a somewhat shaky proposal.
Basically they assumed that something called the action, a quantity in physics usually taken to be real, maybe had an imaginary part and then played around with it a bit and assumed it would have a strong effect on a scalar field (such as the Higgs).
They found the imaginary part of the action had a strong dampening effect on actions even if they were minima (which are the usual ones we work with).
Basically from what I have read/gathered this imaginary part appears in the form of non-local effects in space-time by forcing a consideration upon an entire trajectory through time not just what is local.
So basically it would imply the universe as a whole could be on a trajectory where the Higgs just couldn't be created due to the dampening effects of the imaginary part of the action.
No backwards propagating signals or anything...just the way the universe is.
Of course the whole thing is pretty shaky (invoking at least two 'tooth faries') but it is fun nonetheless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29748343</id>
	<title>Occams Razor, anyone?</title>
	<author>bokmann</author>
	<datestamp>1255550520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, the Universe abhors the creation of the Higg's boson so much that if we ever create it, it will time travel back to destory the machine that created it.  Either that, or someone screwed up while assembling what might possibly be the most complicated machine ever built.</p><p>Whats that thing about simpler solutions?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , the Universe abhors the creation of the Higg 's boson so much that if we ever create it , it will time travel back to destory the machine that created it .
Either that , or someone screwed up while assembling what might possibly be the most complicated machine ever built.Whats that thing about simpler solutions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, the Universe abhors the creation of the Higg's boson so much that if we ever create it, it will time travel back to destory the machine that created it.
Either that, or someone screwed up while assembling what might possibly be the most complicated machine ever built.Whats that thing about simpler solutions?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735477</id>
	<title>I dunno</title>
	<author>should\_be\_linear</author>
	<datestamp>1255465140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did anyone tried to fix LHC by waterboarding main scientist? Today I was trained at my workplace to think outside the box.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did anyone tried to fix LHC by waterboarding main scientist ?
Today I was trained at my workplace to think outside the box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did anyone tried to fix LHC by waterboarding main scientist?
Today I was trained at my workplace to think outside the box.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736339</id>
	<title>Spoiler</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255425420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've read that one.  The universe decides that, if side A hadn't tried to convince side B to build a time machine, it wouldn't have been built - so it destroys side A.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've read that one .
The universe decides that , if side A had n't tried to convince side B to build a time machine , it would n't have been built - so it destroys side A .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've read that one.
The universe decides that, if side A hadn't tried to convince side B to build a time machine, it wouldn't have been built - so it destroys side A.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736627</id>
	<title>So in CS terms...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255426680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this something like saying the universe is written in Ada?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this something like saying the universe is written in Ada ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this something like saying the universe is written in Ada?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741611</id>
	<title>Re:I believe that would be Niven's Law...</title>
	<author>nyri</author>
	<datestamp>1255462500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I got a particular kick out of the phrase "<i>otherwise</i> distinguished physicists" in the summary.</p></div><p>Me too. But it was in the article. Maybe you should read it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I got a particular kick out of the phrase " otherwise distinguished physicists " in the summary.Me too .
But it was in the article .
Maybe you should read it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got a particular kick out of the phrase "otherwise distinguished physicists" in the summary.Me too.
But it was in the article.
Maybe you should read it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735397</id>
	<title>Re:To say...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255464720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's OK, the summary is only anthropomorphizing Nature, which doesn't mind being anthropomorphized at all.  It's mass-imparting, universe-annulling particles that Nature abhors.  Unless of course Nature IS a Higgs boson, in which case we should be very worried about living in a self-loathing, suicidal universe that is only kept intact by the fact that if it didn't stay intact, we wouldn't be here to notice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's OK , the summary is only anthropomorphizing Nature , which does n't mind being anthropomorphized at all .
It 's mass-imparting , universe-annulling particles that Nature abhors .
Unless of course Nature IS a Higgs boson , in which case we should be very worried about living in a self-loathing , suicidal universe that is only kept intact by the fact that if it did n't stay intact , we would n't be here to notice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's OK, the summary is only anthropomorphizing Nature, which doesn't mind being anthropomorphized at all.
It's mass-imparting, universe-annulling particles that Nature abhors.
Unless of course Nature IS a Higgs boson, in which case we should be very worried about living in a self-loathing, suicidal universe that is only kept intact by the fact that if it didn't stay intact, we wouldn't be here to notice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735267</id>
	<title>Quantum Suidice</title>
	<author>Sonic McTails</author>
	<datestamp>1255464180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dunno, the more I keep seeing the LHC fail and fail is that we may be experiencing quantum suicide. In each reality that the LHC properly starts up and smashs atoms, the world ends as we know it. We keep experiencing a version of reality where cirmstance is preventing the Hiigs Boson from being created. For those unfamiliar with the concept, here's the thought experiment behind the theory straight from Wikiepdia:</p><p>One example of the thought experiment is: a man sits down before a gun, which is pointed at his head. The gun is rigged to a machine that measures the spin of a quantum particle. Each time the trigger is pulled, the spin of the quantum particle is measured. Depending on the measurement, the gun will either fire, or it won't. If the quantum particle is measured as spinning in a clockwise motion, the gun will fire. If the particle is spinning counterclockwise, the gun won't discharge; there will only be a click.</p><p>The man now pulls the trigger. The gun clicks. He pulls the trigger again, with the same result. And again; the gun does not fire. The man will continue to pull the trigger again and again with the same result: The gun won't fire. Although it's functioning properly and loaded with bullets, no matter how many times he pulls the trigger, the gun will never seem to fire.</p><p>Go back in time to the beginning of the experiment. The man pulls the trigger for the very first time, and the particle is now measured as spinning clockwise. The gun fires. The man is dead.</p><p>But the problem arises; the man already pulled the trigger the first time &mdash; and an infinite amount of times following that &mdash; and we already know the gun didn't fire. How can the man be dead? The man is unaware, but he's both alive and dead. Each time he pulls the trigger, the universe is split in two. It will continue to split, again and again, each time the trigger is pulled.  This thought experiment is called 'quantum suicide'. It was first posed by theorist Max Tegmark in 1997. However, science fiction author Larry Niven originally proposed a fictional variant of quantum suicide in his short story All the Myriad Ways in which the protagonist's final action in the story kills/fails to kill him in myriad alternate realities.</p><p>With each run of the experiment there is a 50-50 chance that the gun will be triggered and the experimenter will die. According to the Copenhagen interpretation, the gun will (in all likelihood) eventually be triggered and the experimenter will die (assuming the experimenter allows the wavefunction/spinor of the particle to evolve back to its original state after each attempt). If the many-worlds interpretation is correct then at each run of the experiment, the experimenter will be split into one world in which he survives and another world in which he dies. After many runs of the experiment, there will be many worlds. In the worlds where the experimenter dies, he will cease to be a conscious entity.</p><p>However, from the point of view of the non-dead copies of the experimenter, the experiment will continue running without his ceasing to exist, because at each branch, he will only be able to observe the result in the world in which he survives, and if many-worlds is correct, the surviving copies of the experimenter will notice that he never seems to die, therefore "proving" himself to be invulnerable to the gun mechanism in question, from his own point of view.</p><p>If the many-worlds interpretation is true, the measure (given in M.W.I. by the squared norm of the wavefunction) of the surviving copies of the experimenter will decrease by 50\% with each run of the experiment, but will remain non-zero. So, if the surviving copies become experimenters, those copies will either die in the first shot, or survive creating duplicates of themselves (copies of copies, that will survive finitely or die).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dunno , the more I keep seeing the LHC fail and fail is that we may be experiencing quantum suicide .
In each reality that the LHC properly starts up and smashs atoms , the world ends as we know it .
We keep experiencing a version of reality where cirmstance is preventing the Hiigs Boson from being created .
For those unfamiliar with the concept , here 's the thought experiment behind the theory straight from Wikiepdia : One example of the thought experiment is : a man sits down before a gun , which is pointed at his head .
The gun is rigged to a machine that measures the spin of a quantum particle .
Each time the trigger is pulled , the spin of the quantum particle is measured .
Depending on the measurement , the gun will either fire , or it wo n't .
If the quantum particle is measured as spinning in a clockwise motion , the gun will fire .
If the particle is spinning counterclockwise , the gun wo n't discharge ; there will only be a click.The man now pulls the trigger .
The gun clicks .
He pulls the trigger again , with the same result .
And again ; the gun does not fire .
The man will continue to pull the trigger again and again with the same result : The gun wo n't fire .
Although it 's functioning properly and loaded with bullets , no matter how many times he pulls the trigger , the gun will never seem to fire.Go back in time to the beginning of the experiment .
The man pulls the trigger for the very first time , and the particle is now measured as spinning clockwise .
The gun fires .
The man is dead.But the problem arises ; the man already pulled the trigger the first time    and an infinite amount of times following that    and we already know the gun did n't fire .
How can the man be dead ?
The man is unaware , but he 's both alive and dead .
Each time he pulls the trigger , the universe is split in two .
It will continue to split , again and again , each time the trigger is pulled .
This thought experiment is called 'quantum suicide' .
It was first posed by theorist Max Tegmark in 1997 .
However , science fiction author Larry Niven originally proposed a fictional variant of quantum suicide in his short story All the Myriad Ways in which the protagonist 's final action in the story kills/fails to kill him in myriad alternate realities.With each run of the experiment there is a 50-50 chance that the gun will be triggered and the experimenter will die .
According to the Copenhagen interpretation , the gun will ( in all likelihood ) eventually be triggered and the experimenter will die ( assuming the experimenter allows the wavefunction/spinor of the particle to evolve back to its original state after each attempt ) .
If the many-worlds interpretation is correct then at each run of the experiment , the experimenter will be split into one world in which he survives and another world in which he dies .
After many runs of the experiment , there will be many worlds .
In the worlds where the experimenter dies , he will cease to be a conscious entity.However , from the point of view of the non-dead copies of the experimenter , the experiment will continue running without his ceasing to exist , because at each branch , he will only be able to observe the result in the world in which he survives , and if many-worlds is correct , the surviving copies of the experimenter will notice that he never seems to die , therefore " proving " himself to be invulnerable to the gun mechanism in question , from his own point of view.If the many-worlds interpretation is true , the measure ( given in M.W.I .
by the squared norm of the wavefunction ) of the surviving copies of the experimenter will decrease by 50 \ % with each run of the experiment , but will remain non-zero .
So , if the surviving copies become experimenters , those copies will either die in the first shot , or survive creating duplicates of themselves ( copies of copies , that will survive finitely or die ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dunno, the more I keep seeing the LHC fail and fail is that we may be experiencing quantum suicide.
In each reality that the LHC properly starts up and smashs atoms, the world ends as we know it.
We keep experiencing a version of reality where cirmstance is preventing the Hiigs Boson from being created.
For those unfamiliar with the concept, here's the thought experiment behind the theory straight from Wikiepdia:One example of the thought experiment is: a man sits down before a gun, which is pointed at his head.
The gun is rigged to a machine that measures the spin of a quantum particle.
Each time the trigger is pulled, the spin of the quantum particle is measured.
Depending on the measurement, the gun will either fire, or it won't.
If the quantum particle is measured as spinning in a clockwise motion, the gun will fire.
If the particle is spinning counterclockwise, the gun won't discharge; there will only be a click.The man now pulls the trigger.
The gun clicks.
He pulls the trigger again, with the same result.
And again; the gun does not fire.
The man will continue to pull the trigger again and again with the same result: The gun won't fire.
Although it's functioning properly and loaded with bullets, no matter how many times he pulls the trigger, the gun will never seem to fire.Go back in time to the beginning of the experiment.
The man pulls the trigger for the very first time, and the particle is now measured as spinning clockwise.
The gun fires.
The man is dead.But the problem arises; the man already pulled the trigger the first time — and an infinite amount of times following that — and we already know the gun didn't fire.
How can the man be dead?
The man is unaware, but he's both alive and dead.
Each time he pulls the trigger, the universe is split in two.
It will continue to split, again and again, each time the trigger is pulled.
This thought experiment is called 'quantum suicide'.
It was first posed by theorist Max Tegmark in 1997.
However, science fiction author Larry Niven originally proposed a fictional variant of quantum suicide in his short story All the Myriad Ways in which the protagonist's final action in the story kills/fails to kill him in myriad alternate realities.With each run of the experiment there is a 50-50 chance that the gun will be triggered and the experimenter will die.
According to the Copenhagen interpretation, the gun will (in all likelihood) eventually be triggered and the experimenter will die (assuming the experimenter allows the wavefunction/spinor of the particle to evolve back to its original state after each attempt).
If the many-worlds interpretation is correct then at each run of the experiment, the experimenter will be split into one world in which he survives and another world in which he dies.
After many runs of the experiment, there will be many worlds.
In the worlds where the experimenter dies, he will cease to be a conscious entity.However, from the point of view of the non-dead copies of the experimenter, the experiment will continue running without his ceasing to exist, because at each branch, he will only be able to observe the result in the world in which he survives, and if many-worlds is correct, the surviving copies of the experimenter will notice that he never seems to die, therefore "proving" himself to be invulnerable to the gun mechanism in question, from his own point of view.If the many-worlds interpretation is true, the measure (given in M.W.I.
by the squared norm of the wavefunction) of the surviving copies of the experimenter will decrease by 50\% with each run of the experiment, but will remain non-zero.
So, if the surviving copies become experimenters, those copies will either die in the first shot, or survive creating duplicates of themselves (copies of copies, that will survive finitely or die).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735347</id>
	<title>Not Harry Potter-esque...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255464420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>as stated in the article.  I think it is very much a part of "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>as stated in the article .
I think it is very much a part of " The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as stated in the article.
I think it is very much a part of "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29742999</id>
	<title>Re:Higgs is everywhere.</title>
	<author>nagaicho</author>
	<datestamp>1255525320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> we are swimming in an invisible soup of Higgs particles at each moment.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</p></div><p>Ew?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>we are swimming in an invisible soup of Higgs particles at each moment .
.Ew ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> we are swimming in an invisible soup of Higgs particles at each moment.
.Ew?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738639</id>
	<title>these guys cannot handle the truth</title>
	<author>sittingQuietly</author>
	<datestamp>1255434660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A few years ago, during the construction, one of the LHC bigwigs gave a speech (which I later read). At the end he said (paraphrased)<br><br>
&nbsp; "if the Higgs boson does not exist, we will have to invent it".<br><br>He was half-joking I suppose, but that is what they are trying now, basically<br><br>I have thought for years, partly via observation of their psychology, that the underlying theory must have serious holes. I suspect the truth is:<br><br>1 the Higgs boson does not exist.<br>2 "dark matter" is BS<br>3 the Big Bang theory is wrong.<br><br>[btw, the Big Bang theory has an amazing number of failed predictions]</htmltext>
<tokenext>A few years ago , during the construction , one of the LHC bigwigs gave a speech ( which I later read ) .
At the end he said ( paraphrased )   " if the Higgs boson does not exist , we will have to invent it " .He was half-joking I suppose , but that is what they are trying now , basicallyI have thought for years , partly via observation of their psychology , that the underlying theory must have serious holes .
I suspect the truth is : 1 the Higgs boson does not exist.2 " dark matter " is BS3 the Big Bang theory is wrong .
[ btw , the Big Bang theory has an amazing number of failed predictions ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A few years ago, during the construction, one of the LHC bigwigs gave a speech (which I later read).
At the end he said (paraphrased)
  "if the Higgs boson does not exist, we will have to invent it".He was half-joking I suppose, but that is what they are trying now, basicallyI have thought for years, partly via observation of their psychology, that the underlying theory must have serious holes.
I suspect the truth is:1 the Higgs boson does not exist.2 "dark matter" is BS3 the Big Bang theory is wrong.
[btw, the Big Bang theory has an amazing number of failed predictions]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737609</id>
	<title>...descendants would just be so abhorrent ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255430040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering the demographic this is actually pretty likely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering the demographic this is actually pretty likely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering the demographic this is actually pretty likely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29756037</id>
	<title>Re:I dunno</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255615980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not funny.<br>What's funny is that after having all of these technical hitches, the French government recently arrested someone working at a low level position at the accelerator on terrorism charges.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not funny.What 's funny is that after having all of these technical hitches , the French government recently arrested someone working at a low level position at the accelerator on terrorism charges .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not funny.What's funny is that after having all of these technical hitches, the French government recently arrested someone working at a low level position at the accelerator on terrorism charges.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29746005</id>
	<title>Re:To say...</title>
	<author>Arthur Grumbine</author>
	<datestamp>1255540260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... a self-loathing, suicidal universe that is only kept intact by the fact that if it didn't stay intact, we wouldn't be here to notice.</p></div><p>I know that this is an allusion to some celebrity, I just don't know which one. So many seem to fit the bill!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... a self-loathing , suicidal universe that is only kept intact by the fact that if it did n't stay intact , we would n't be here to notice.I know that this is an allusion to some celebrity , I just do n't know which one .
So many seem to fit the bill !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... a self-loathing, suicidal universe that is only kept intact by the fact that if it didn't stay intact, we wouldn't be here to notice.I know that this is an allusion to some celebrity, I just don't know which one.
So many seem to fit the bill!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735625</id>
	<title>Re:Almost...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255465680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of these cool and magical things from sci-fi already is impossible according to our established laws of physics. That doesn't mean these laws are correct or complete or anything... just that a lot of what we already know would have to change to make these magical things possible. Then there are possible ways to "bend" the rules as well, like traveling faster than light by warping spacetime around you instead of moving through space (which would also require some changes to our existing theories, but possibly less than a way for things to be allowed to actually travel at speeds faster than c).</p><p>The universe may also turn out to be much simpler than we think. If a working theory of quantum gravity (a "theory of everything") can be established to combine the four fundamental forces, maybe the answer would actually be really simple. Maybe someday we'll find out, or maybe not.</p><p>I'm not saying that our existing theories and laws of physics are set in stone or 100\% correct, but I'd like to think there's *something* right about them, considering all the technology and other practical uses of these theories that we've built our world upon actually WORK. Newton's theory of gravity wasn't the whole story, but he was on the right track. Einstein's theory of general relativity was a huge refinement and more complete theory of gravity. I'd like to think that whatever we discover in the future will continue to build upon and refine our existing theories.</p><p>But in the end... who really knows? And only time will tell. It's all very interesting stuff to think about either way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of these cool and magical things from sci-fi already is impossible according to our established laws of physics .
That does n't mean these laws are correct or complete or anything... just that a lot of what we already know would have to change to make these magical things possible .
Then there are possible ways to " bend " the rules as well , like traveling faster than light by warping spacetime around you instead of moving through space ( which would also require some changes to our existing theories , but possibly less than a way for things to be allowed to actually travel at speeds faster than c ) .The universe may also turn out to be much simpler than we think .
If a working theory of quantum gravity ( a " theory of everything " ) can be established to combine the four fundamental forces , maybe the answer would actually be really simple .
Maybe someday we 'll find out , or maybe not.I 'm not saying that our existing theories and laws of physics are set in stone or 100 \ % correct , but I 'd like to think there 's * something * right about them , considering all the technology and other practical uses of these theories that we 've built our world upon actually WORK .
Newton 's theory of gravity was n't the whole story , but he was on the right track .
Einstein 's theory of general relativity was a huge refinement and more complete theory of gravity .
I 'd like to think that whatever we discover in the future will continue to build upon and refine our existing theories.But in the end... who really knows ?
And only time will tell .
It 's all very interesting stuff to think about either way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of these cool and magical things from sci-fi already is impossible according to our established laws of physics.
That doesn't mean these laws are correct or complete or anything... just that a lot of what we already know would have to change to make these magical things possible.
Then there are possible ways to "bend" the rules as well, like traveling faster than light by warping spacetime around you instead of moving through space (which would also require some changes to our existing theories, but possibly less than a way for things to be allowed to actually travel at speeds faster than c).The universe may also turn out to be much simpler than we think.
If a working theory of quantum gravity (a "theory of everything") can be established to combine the four fundamental forces, maybe the answer would actually be really simple.
Maybe someday we'll find out, or maybe not.I'm not saying that our existing theories and laws of physics are set in stone or 100\% correct, but I'd like to think there's *something* right about them, considering all the technology and other practical uses of these theories that we've built our world upon actually WORK.
Newton's theory of gravity wasn't the whole story, but he was on the right track.
Einstein's theory of general relativity was a huge refinement and more complete theory of gravity.
I'd like to think that whatever we discover in the future will continue to build upon and refine our existing theories.But in the end... who really knows?
And only time will tell.
It's all very interesting stuff to think about either way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735305</id>
	<title>Other theories with backward causality</title>
	<author>tylersoze</author>
	<datestamp>1255464300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional\_interpretation" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional\_interpretation</a> [wikipedia.org]<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler</a> [wikipedia.org]&ndash;Feynman\_absorber\_theory</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional \ _interpretation [ wikipedia.org ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler [ wikipedia.org ]    Feynman \ _absorber \ _theory</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional\_interpretation [wikipedia.org]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler [wikipedia.org]–Feynman\_absorber\_theory</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29740863</id>
	<title>Re:Quantum Suidice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255452240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd hate to be the college student that has to volunteer for that experiment. A credit hour isn't worth that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd hate to be the college student that has to volunteer for that experiment .
A credit hour is n't worth that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd hate to be the college student that has to volunteer for that experiment.
A credit hour isn't worth that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736525</id>
	<title>Why would the universe go to so much trouble?</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1255426200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When it could simply give a small nudge to any proton in the collider beam that would otherwise have participated in a Higgs-producing collision?  Or cause an alpha particle to flip a bit somewhere in the LHC electronics such that the Higgs event goes unnoticed?  Or one of any number of other ways to render the Higgs unobserved with minimal effort?  After all, there is a small but significant probability of the Higgs existing at the expected energy level and yet being missed by the planned experiment through sheer chance.  Why would the universe simply arrange for that to happen rather than making massive interventions?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When it could simply give a small nudge to any proton in the collider beam that would otherwise have participated in a Higgs-producing collision ?
Or cause an alpha particle to flip a bit somewhere in the LHC electronics such that the Higgs event goes unnoticed ?
Or one of any number of other ways to render the Higgs unobserved with minimal effort ?
After all , there is a small but significant probability of the Higgs existing at the expected energy level and yet being missed by the planned experiment through sheer chance .
Why would the universe simply arrange for that to happen rather than making massive interventions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When it could simply give a small nudge to any proton in the collider beam that would otherwise have participated in a Higgs-producing collision?
Or cause an alpha particle to flip a bit somewhere in the LHC electronics such that the Higgs event goes unnoticed?
Or one of any number of other ways to render the Higgs unobserved with minimal effort?
After all, there is a small but significant probability of the Higgs existing at the expected energy level and yet being missed by the planned experiment through sheer chance.
Why would the universe simply arrange for that to happen rather than making massive interventions?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29740019</id>
	<title>Re:To say...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255444680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>actually that explains a lot about the universe</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>actually that explains a lot about the universe</tokentext>
<sentencetext>actually that explains a lot about the universe</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739357</id>
	<title>Re:Back in high school creative writing class ...</title>
	<author>lewiscr</author>
	<datestamp>1255439520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds like somebody has been reading <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Outliers-Story-Success-Malcolm-Gladwell/dp/0316017922/" title="amazon.com">Outliers</a> [amazon.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like somebody has been reading Outliers [ amazon.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like somebody has been reading Outliers [amazon.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737153</id>
	<title>Fortunately it does not matter...</title>
	<author>Roger W Moore</author>
	<datestamp>1255428420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As has recently been demonstrated we don't actually need to find the Higgs to get a Nobel prize, we just need to show some promise that we might find it....</htmltext>
<tokenext>As has recently been demonstrated we do n't actually need to find the Higgs to get a Nobel prize , we just need to show some promise that we might find it... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As has recently been demonstrated we don't actually need to find the Higgs to get a Nobel prize, we just need to show some promise that we might find it....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29744485</id>
	<title>Re:Could happen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255534140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm feeding the troll, I know, but come on! He's at Score 4: Interesting!</p><p>This is ironic coming from "Phillip K. Dickhead", a parody on a writer well known because of its grandiloquent philosophical discourses which, ultimately, don't matter because they were <b>irrefutable</b> nonsense. As much of philosophy, if not all.</p><p>Physics observe patterns, which are shown to repeat according to some universal rules (or they are not, and then the theory is changed). If that's not real, nothing can be. The bit about black holes is ridiculous; We know light is attracted by gravity, as shown by experiment. Mathematics say they can exist, which is perfectly reasonable; mathematics don't say "they exist" because maths is not observation.</p><p>And, just curious, if I'm not really "me", who is "really me"? Nonsense. Get real, and do some science if you are interested by those questions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm feeding the troll , I know , but come on !
He 's at Score 4 : Interesting ! This is ironic coming from " Phillip K. Dickhead " , a parody on a writer well known because of its grandiloquent philosophical discourses which , ultimately , do n't matter because they were irrefutable nonsense .
As much of philosophy , if not all.Physics observe patterns , which are shown to repeat according to some universal rules ( or they are not , and then the theory is changed ) .
If that 's not real , nothing can be .
The bit about black holes is ridiculous ; We know light is attracted by gravity , as shown by experiment .
Mathematics say they can exist , which is perfectly reasonable ; mathematics do n't say " they exist " because maths is not observation.And , just curious , if I 'm not really " me " , who is " really me " ?
Nonsense. Get real , and do some science if you are interested by those questions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm feeding the troll, I know, but come on!
He's at Score 4: Interesting!This is ironic coming from "Phillip K. Dickhead", a parody on a writer well known because of its grandiloquent philosophical discourses which, ultimately, don't matter because they were irrefutable nonsense.
As much of philosophy, if not all.Physics observe patterns, which are shown to repeat according to some universal rules (or they are not, and then the theory is changed).
If that's not real, nothing can be.
The bit about black holes is ridiculous; We know light is attracted by gravity, as shown by experiment.
Mathematics say they can exist, which is perfectly reasonable; mathematics don't say "they exist" because maths is not observation.And, just curious, if I'm not really "me", who is "really me"?
Nonsense. Get real, and do some science if you are interested by those questions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735887</id>
	<title>Re:pull the other one</title>
	<author>TheRealMindChild</author>
	<datestamp>1255466820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>False Dichotomy.<br> <br>More than those options exist. Sabatoge. Bad supplier of materials. Incorrect engineering. Sylar...</htmltext>
<tokenext>False Dichotomy .
More than those options exist .
Sabatoge. Bad supplier of materials .
Incorrect engineering .
Sylar.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>False Dichotomy.
More than those options exist.
Sabatoge. Bad supplier of materials.
Incorrect engineering.
Sylar...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735517</id>
	<title>LHC, more like lots of THC sounds like</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255465320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Conversely, with the same premise you could draw a different conclusion, that no where in the future is a particle discovered that is so awesome that ripples in time space must confer that awesomeness on those prior eras that lacked it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Conversely , with the same premise you could draw a different conclusion , that no where in the future is a particle discovered that is so awesome that ripples in time space must confer that awesomeness on those prior eras that lacked it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Conversely, with the same premise you could draw a different conclusion, that no where in the future is a particle discovered that is so awesome that ripples in time space must confer that awesomeness on those prior eras that lacked it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29742873</id>
	<title>Then why can't I win the Lotto?</title>
	<author>woolio</author>
	<datestamp>1255524000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am also finding that there is a very high correlation between the multiverses where the LHC doesn't work and those in which I do not win the Lotto and become a billionaire.</p><p>While correlation is not causation, I have to wonder... Do I only win the Lotto in the multiverses where the LHC works correctly?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am also finding that there is a very high correlation between the multiverses where the LHC does n't work and those in which I do not win the Lotto and become a billionaire.While correlation is not causation , I have to wonder... Do I only win the Lotto in the multiverses where the LHC works correctly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am also finding that there is a very high correlation between the multiverses where the LHC doesn't work and those in which I do not win the Lotto and become a billionaire.While correlation is not causation, I have to wonder... Do I only win the Lotto in the multiverses where the LHC works correctly?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736259</id>
	<title>Weird.</title>
	<author>FiloEleven</author>
	<datestamp>1255425000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I made a <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1399857&amp;cid=29711623" title="slashdot.org">joke</a> [slashdot.org] about something like that here the other day.  I don't put any stock in the belief, but it is interesting to think about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I made a joke [ slashdot.org ] about something like that here the other day .
I do n't put any stock in the belief , but it is interesting to think about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I made a joke [slashdot.org] about something like that here the other day.
I don't put any stock in the belief, but it is interesting to think about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29742001</id>
	<title>Real reason</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255511640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Allright, is no one thinking of the real cause? Please! The abominable Dr. Higges!</p><p>*ducks*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Allright , is no one thinking of the real cause ?
Please ! The abominable Dr .
Higges ! * ducks *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Allright, is no one thinking of the real cause?
Please! The abominable Dr.
Higges!*ducks*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735175</id>
	<title>Perfect...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255463760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>So I can tell my wife that I cannot cook dinner tonight because the result would be so abhorrent that nature might send an agent back in time to destroy me before I can create it.  Ergo, any movement toward making dinner could very well result in my demise...so let that be on her conscience.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I can tell my wife that I can not cook dinner tonight because the result would be so abhorrent that nature might send an agent back in time to destroy me before I can create it .
Ergo , any movement toward making dinner could very well result in my demise...so let that be on her conscience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I can tell my wife that I cannot cook dinner tonight because the result would be so abhorrent that nature might send an agent back in time to destroy me before I can create it.
Ergo, any movement toward making dinner could very well result in my demise...so let that be on her conscience.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29752025</id>
	<title>Re:Could happen</title>
	<author>arminw</author>
	<datestamp>1255528320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>....I can know that black holes exist....</p><p>except that nobody has ever observed one anywhere. Science, especially cosmology has lost its way. Originally, modern science got started, when somebody we now call a scientist observed something about nature. As part of trying to explain and make sense of the observations, mathematics is used as a tool that has been extremely helpful.</p><p>Lately though, especially with the advent of modern computers, mathematical modeling computations have taken precedence and a life of their own over simple observation. Yes, the mathematics says that black holes should exist, but the sad FACT is, that nobody has ever observed one. The same goes for dark matter and energy as well as gravitational waves. Just because a computer model or theory says something should exist or be so, doesn't mean it actually is. A singularity, such as theorized as being at the center of a black hole, is a mathematical fiction, but no such thing exists physically. Mathematics must be the servant of science, not its master.</p><p>If the earth had an opaque atmosphere, such as Venus, how would we ever know about the existence of the sun? Could we ever know anything about planets and stars? Mathematical models and theory tell us there must be a black hole at the center of our galaxy, but nobody has ever directly observed or measured it. Current theories and mathematical models concerning the motion of galaxies and the stars within them, combined with our limited understanding of the force of gravity, makes it necessary to invent constructs such as dark matter and energy. Maybe the mathematical Emperor really doesn't have any clothes.</p><p>Despite spending millions of dollars on incredibly sophisticated detectors, no one has ever really detected gravity waves. We experience time and gravity everyday of our lives, yet both of them are in essence is still very mysterious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>....I can know that black holes exist....except that nobody has ever observed one anywhere .
Science , especially cosmology has lost its way .
Originally , modern science got started , when somebody we now call a scientist observed something about nature .
As part of trying to explain and make sense of the observations , mathematics is used as a tool that has been extremely helpful.Lately though , especially with the advent of modern computers , mathematical modeling computations have taken precedence and a life of their own over simple observation .
Yes , the mathematics says that black holes should exist , but the sad FACT is , that nobody has ever observed one .
The same goes for dark matter and energy as well as gravitational waves .
Just because a computer model or theory says something should exist or be so , does n't mean it actually is .
A singularity , such as theorized as being at the center of a black hole , is a mathematical fiction , but no such thing exists physically .
Mathematics must be the servant of science , not its master.If the earth had an opaque atmosphere , such as Venus , how would we ever know about the existence of the sun ?
Could we ever know anything about planets and stars ?
Mathematical models and theory tell us there must be a black hole at the center of our galaxy , but nobody has ever directly observed or measured it .
Current theories and mathematical models concerning the motion of galaxies and the stars within them , combined with our limited understanding of the force of gravity , makes it necessary to invent constructs such as dark matter and energy .
Maybe the mathematical Emperor really does n't have any clothes.Despite spending millions of dollars on incredibly sophisticated detectors , no one has ever really detected gravity waves .
We experience time and gravity everyday of our lives , yet both of them are in essence is still very mysterious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....I can know that black holes exist....except that nobody has ever observed one anywhere.
Science, especially cosmology has lost its way.
Originally, modern science got started, when somebody we now call a scientist observed something about nature.
As part of trying to explain and make sense of the observations, mathematics is used as a tool that has been extremely helpful.Lately though, especially with the advent of modern computers, mathematical modeling computations have taken precedence and a life of their own over simple observation.
Yes, the mathematics says that black holes should exist, but the sad FACT is, that nobody has ever observed one.
The same goes for dark matter and energy as well as gravitational waves.
Just because a computer model or theory says something should exist or be so, doesn't mean it actually is.
A singularity, such as theorized as being at the center of a black hole, is a mathematical fiction, but no such thing exists physically.
Mathematics must be the servant of science, not its master.If the earth had an opaque atmosphere, such as Venus, how would we ever know about the existence of the sun?
Could we ever know anything about planets and stars?
Mathematical models and theory tell us there must be a black hole at the center of our galaxy, but nobody has ever directly observed or measured it.
Current theories and mathematical models concerning the motion of galaxies and the stars within them, combined with our limited understanding of the force of gravity, makes it necessary to invent constructs such as dark matter and energy.
Maybe the mathematical Emperor really doesn't have any clothes.Despite spending millions of dollars on incredibly sophisticated detectors, no one has ever really detected gravity waves.
We experience time and gravity everyday of our lives, yet both of them are in essence is still very mysterious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741273</id>
	<title>Re:Back in high school creative writing class ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255457400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there is a tv show with the same type of device it is called 7 days time machine limits of fuel supply and amount of energy they can produce prevent longer jumps... paradox prevented by the device and pilot dissappearing when ever a jump occurs... same matter literaly cant exist at the same time in the same place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there is a tv show with the same type of device it is called 7 days time machine limits of fuel supply and amount of energy they can produce prevent longer jumps... paradox prevented by the device and pilot dissappearing when ever a jump occurs... same matter literaly cant exist at the same time in the same place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there is a tv show with the same type of device it is called 7 days time machine limits of fuel supply and amount of energy they can produce prevent longer jumps... paradox prevented by the device and pilot dissappearing when ever a jump occurs... same matter literaly cant exist at the same time in the same place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735869</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741833</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect...</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1255552200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not getting at you, so please don't take it that way, but does anyone remember yesterday's discussion of how open source just wasn't sexist and everybody was welcome on merit and so on and so forth?  Your post is kinda the point: this low-level stuff drives intelligent, would-be contributors away pretty quickly, as a rule.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not getting at you , so please do n't take it that way , but does anyone remember yesterday 's discussion of how open source just was n't sexist and everybody was welcome on merit and so on and so forth ?
Your post is kinda the point : this low-level stuff drives intelligent , would-be contributors away pretty quickly , as a rule .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not getting at you, so please don't take it that way, but does anyone remember yesterday's discussion of how open source just wasn't sexist and everybody was welcome on merit and so on and so forth?
Your post is kinda the point: this low-level stuff drives intelligent, would-be contributors away pretty quickly, as a rule.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736003</id>
	<title>Re:This theory is not to be taken seriously</title>
	<author>mpoulton</author>
	<datestamp>1255467300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>That misinterprets the theory, by falling for the news author's anthropomorphism on the universe.  The theory isn't that the universe is actually a conscious being that throws a wrench in the works and makes the LHC break just in the nick of time.  The theory really is that in every multiverse where the LHC works correctly, the multiverse is destroyed by the abominable bosons.  We are all riding through a series of universes in which the LHC repeatedly fails to work.  At each point where a quantum event occurs which eventually leads to the LHC either working or failing, the universe splits and our consciousness follows the branch where the LHC fails, because existence is extinguished in the other branch.  Is this somehow more solidly believable than the author's "sentient universe messing with stuff" explanation?  Probably not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That misinterprets the theory , by falling for the news author 's anthropomorphism on the universe .
The theory is n't that the universe is actually a conscious being that throws a wrench in the works and makes the LHC break just in the nick of time .
The theory really is that in every multiverse where the LHC works correctly , the multiverse is destroyed by the abominable bosons .
We are all riding through a series of universes in which the LHC repeatedly fails to work .
At each point where a quantum event occurs which eventually leads to the LHC either working or failing , the universe splits and our consciousness follows the branch where the LHC fails , because existence is extinguished in the other branch .
Is this somehow more solidly believable than the author 's " sentient universe messing with stuff " explanation ?
Probably not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That misinterprets the theory, by falling for the news author's anthropomorphism on the universe.
The theory isn't that the universe is actually a conscious being that throws a wrench in the works and makes the LHC break just in the nick of time.
The theory really is that in every multiverse where the LHC works correctly, the multiverse is destroyed by the abominable bosons.
We are all riding through a series of universes in which the LHC repeatedly fails to work.
At each point where a quantum event occurs which eventually leads to the LHC either working or failing, the universe splits and our consciousness follows the branch where the LHC fails, because existence is extinguished in the other branch.
Is this somehow more solidly believable than the author's "sentient universe messing with stuff" explanation?
Probably not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29742143</id>
	<title>Tongue in cheek</title>
	<author>jandersen</author>
	<datestamp>1255512960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this is a sort of in-joke; or at least I hope it is. I prefer to believe that no scientist would seriously consider this valid.</p><p>However, it does raise a couple of interesting points - one is the question of the nature of time; it has never been satisfyingly explained why time is the way it is (if it is). Why is it 1-dimensional and directed? To me, at least, it seems reasonable that the apparent direction of time is connected with the idea that cause comes before  effect; so the idea of "effects from the future" would simply be absurd.</p><p>The other point is that science is not so much about seeking out the trust, but rather about eliminating un-truths, which is a slightly different enterprise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is a sort of in-joke ; or at least I hope it is .
I prefer to believe that no scientist would seriously consider this valid.However , it does raise a couple of interesting points - one is the question of the nature of time ; it has never been satisfyingly explained why time is the way it is ( if it is ) .
Why is it 1-dimensional and directed ?
To me , at least , it seems reasonable that the apparent direction of time is connected with the idea that cause comes before effect ; so the idea of " effects from the future " would simply be absurd.The other point is that science is not so much about seeking out the trust , but rather about eliminating un-truths , which is a slightly different enterprise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is a sort of in-joke; or at least I hope it is.
I prefer to believe that no scientist would seriously consider this valid.However, it does raise a couple of interesting points - one is the question of the nature of time; it has never been satisfyingly explained why time is the way it is (if it is).
Why is it 1-dimensional and directed?
To me, at least, it seems reasonable that the apparent direction of time is connected with the idea that cause comes before  effect; so the idea of "effects from the future" would simply be absurd.The other point is that science is not so much about seeking out the trust, but rather about eliminating un-truths, which is a slightly different enterprise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735225</id>
	<title>can be falsified?</title>
	<author>ShadowXOmega</author>
	<datestamp>1255463940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the event A produces the effect B and that effect B changes the event A to event A1, so, in principle, the event A never ocurred, unless there is a way to observer simultaneously event A and A1.
<br>
or im wrong?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the event A produces the effect B and that effect B changes the event A to event A1 , so , in principle , the event A never ocurred , unless there is a way to observer simultaneously event A and A1 .
or im wrong ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the event A produces the effect B and that effect B changes the event A to event A1, so, in principle, the event A never ocurred, unless there is a way to observer simultaneously event A and A1.
or im wrong?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737845</id>
	<title>This explains life for slashdotters</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255431060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you had sex with a steamingly hot and stunningly intelligent woman, it is possible that your children would rally the financial support to construct the biggest collider known to man. The universe conspires to prevent this from happening.</p><p><i>It is not me, it is the universe!!!</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you had sex with a steamingly hot and stunningly intelligent woman , it is possible that your children would rally the financial support to construct the biggest collider known to man .
The universe conspires to prevent this from happening.It is not me , it is the universe ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you had sex with a steamingly hot and stunningly intelligent woman, it is possible that your children would rally the financial support to construct the biggest collider known to man.
The universe conspires to prevent this from happening.It is not me, it is the universe!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29744939</id>
	<title>Nickeback</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255536000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One might also think that Nickelback would be so abhorrent to nature that their music would ripple backward through time and stop them before they started recording music.  Yet here we are, stuck in a world with Nickelback.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One might also think that Nickelback would be so abhorrent to nature that their music would ripple backward through time and stop them before they started recording music .
Yet here we are , stuck in a world with Nickelback .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One might also think that Nickelback would be so abhorrent to nature that their music would ripple backward through time and stop them before they started recording music.
Yet here we are, stuck in a world with Nickelback.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736991</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect...</title>
	<author>machine321</author>
	<datestamp>1255428060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait, I thought we already did the sexist thread today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , I thought we already did the sexist thread today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, I thought we already did the sexist thread today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736489</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255426080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a coincidence! How do you know my wife? She doesn't even have a Slashdot account.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a coincidence !
How do you know my wife ?
She does n't even have a Slashdot account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a coincidence!
How do you know my wife?
She doesn't even have a Slashdot account.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29740235</id>
	<title>Re:Could happen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255446720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find your theories fascinating and would like to subscribe to your newsletter...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find your theories fascinating and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find your theories fascinating and would like to subscribe to your newsletter...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737567</id>
	<title>Re:Original concept from "Doomsday Device"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255429980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is that related to the quantum bogosort?</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogosort#Quantum\_Bogosort</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that related to the quantum bogosort ? http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogosort # Quantum \ _Bogosort</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that related to the quantum bogosort?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogosort#Quantum\_Bogosort</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736847</id>
	<title>Nice gadget but flawed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255427460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To few buttons, touch screen letters smaller than fingers and
no styless holder. Small Screen and only black and white.
Since wikipedia is free, in theory, anyone can package it
up to fit on any system. You course if got internet access
you don't need to do that.
<p>
----
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/blogs/Tablet\%20PCs/feed.html" title="feeddistiller.com">Tablet PCs</a> [feeddistiller.com] @ <a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/" title="feeddistiller.com">Feed Distiller</a> [feeddistiller.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To few buttons , touch screen letters smaller than fingers and no styless holder .
Small Screen and only black and white .
Since wikipedia is free , in theory , anyone can package it up to fit on any system .
You course if got internet access you do n't need to do that .
---- Tablet PCs [ feeddistiller.com ] @ Feed Distiller [ feeddistiller.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To few buttons, touch screen letters smaller than fingers and
no styless holder.
Small Screen and only black and white.
Since wikipedia is free, in theory, anyone can package it
up to fit on any system.
You course if got internet access
you don't need to do that.
----

Tablet PCs [feeddistiller.com] @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737525</id>
	<title>Re:Almost...</title>
	<author>lgw</author>
	<datestamp>1255429800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nah, that's silly (and the people who think we could determine whether we're in an "ancestor simulation" are more so, since they're somewhat serious in intent).</p><p>The guys running the simulation don't have to make <i>anything</i> happen inside the LHC, they just need to mess with the instrumentation.  Why simulate the actual reaction chamber at all?   Just simulate the result.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nah , that 's silly ( and the people who think we could determine whether we 're in an " ancestor simulation " are more so , since they 're somewhat serious in intent ) .The guys running the simulation do n't have to make anything happen inside the LHC , they just need to mess with the instrumentation .
Why simulate the actual reaction chamber at all ?
Just simulate the result .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nah, that's silly (and the people who think we could determine whether we're in an "ancestor simulation" are more so, since they're somewhat serious in intent).The guys running the simulation don't have to make anything happen inside the LHC, they just need to mess with the instrumentation.
Why simulate the actual reaction chamber at all?
Just simulate the result.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735241</id>
	<title>To say...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255464060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that the Higgs boson is abhorrent to Nature is ridiculous.</p><p>Please don't anthropomorphize particles.  They don't like when you do that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that the Higgs boson is abhorrent to Nature is ridiculous.Please do n't anthropomorphize particles .
They do n't like when you do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that the Higgs boson is abhorrent to Nature is ridiculous.Please don't anthropomorphize particles.
They don't like when you do that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736093</id>
	<title>Re:pull the other one</title>
	<author>Tarsir</author>
	<datestamp>1255467540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Occam's Razor does <b>not</b> mean that the simplest explanation is true, or even likely to be true. Occam's Razor is about parsimony of belief. Given two theories:
<br> <br>
1. LHC doesn't work because some of it's many many components malfunction
<br>
2. LHC doesn't work because some of it's many many components malfunction because its future is reaching back in time, causing it to malfunction
<br> <br>
We choose to belief the first, rather than the second, because the second theory introduces an additional term that adds nothing to the theory. Put another way, at the moment we have evidence that the LHC is malfunctioning, but no evidence that it is malfunctioning due to bizarre backwards causality.
<br> <br>
The formulation of Occam's Razor with which you are familiar, no doubt from watching (or reading) Contact, is "All things being equal, the simplest solution is explanation tends to be right". In this case, simpler means 'having no unnecessary terms'. It does <b>not</b> refer to how credible <b>you</b> find one explanation or another.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Occam 's Razor does not mean that the simplest explanation is true , or even likely to be true .
Occam 's Razor is about parsimony of belief .
Given two theories : 1 .
LHC does n't work because some of it 's many many components malfunction 2 .
LHC does n't work because some of it 's many many components malfunction because its future is reaching back in time , causing it to malfunction We choose to belief the first , rather than the second , because the second theory introduces an additional term that adds nothing to the theory .
Put another way , at the moment we have evidence that the LHC is malfunctioning , but no evidence that it is malfunctioning due to bizarre backwards causality .
The formulation of Occam 's Razor with which you are familiar , no doubt from watching ( or reading ) Contact , is " All things being equal , the simplest solution is explanation tends to be right " .
In this case , simpler means 'having no unnecessary terms' .
It does not refer to how credible you find one explanation or another .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Occam's Razor does not mean that the simplest explanation is true, or even likely to be true.
Occam's Razor is about parsimony of belief.
Given two theories:
 
1.
LHC doesn't work because some of it's many many components malfunction

2.
LHC doesn't work because some of it's many many components malfunction because its future is reaching back in time, causing it to malfunction
 
We choose to belief the first, rather than the second, because the second theory introduces an additional term that adds nothing to the theory.
Put another way, at the moment we have evidence that the LHC is malfunctioning, but no evidence that it is malfunctioning due to bizarre backwards causality.
The formulation of Occam's Razor with which you are familiar, no doubt from watching (or reading) Contact, is "All things being equal, the simplest solution is explanation tends to be right".
In this case, simpler means 'having no unnecessary terms'.
It does not refer to how credible you find one explanation or another.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29745211</id>
	<title>Re:Original concept from "Doomsday Device"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255537140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Then a physicist realizes that if it were to work, it would effectively destroy the entire universe, by initiating a transition from a cosmological false vacuum state to a lower-energy vacuum state.</p><p>Also blatantly ripped off in "Callahan's Key", by Spyder Robinson.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Then a physicist realizes that if it were to work , it would effectively destroy the entire universe , by initiating a transition from a cosmological false vacuum state to a lower-energy vacuum state.Also blatantly ripped off in " Callahan 's Key " , by Spyder Robinson .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Then a physicist realizes that if it were to work, it would effectively destroy the entire universe, by initiating a transition from a cosmological false vacuum state to a lower-energy vacuum state.Also blatantly ripped off in "Callahan's Key", by Spyder Robinson.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735763</id>
	<title>Re:FSM did it</title>
	<author>Red Flayer</author>
	<datestamp>1255466340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm <b>thinking</b> noodly appendages are involved.</p></div></blockquote><p>There is no need to think, for the faith in He of the Tangled Forkful answers all questions.<br> <br>As was revealed by Him unto Mario and Luigi in the Antipasti Course of the Second Dinner:</p><blockquote><div><p>Heed ye, all matter is composed of meatballs, and those meatballs shall only be composed of veal, pork, and beef; for these are the building blocks of all matter that matters.  Those that believe in fundamental particles other than these shall be dismissed from the Table, and cast out from my house, as heretics of the first degree.<br> <br>Lest ye of little faith doubt my powers, I shall rain used pasta water upon these enemies and drown their works in failure.  Verily, this is the Truth.</p></div></blockquote><p>Ramen.<br> <br>Clearly "rain used pasta water upon these enemies" is a metaphor for his sabotage of both the supercollider in the US and the supercollider at CERN.  It can't really be any clearer than that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm thinking noodly appendages are involved.There is no need to think , for the faith in He of the Tangled Forkful answers all questions .
As was revealed by Him unto Mario and Luigi in the Antipasti Course of the Second Dinner : Heed ye , all matter is composed of meatballs , and those meatballs shall only be composed of veal , pork , and beef ; for these are the building blocks of all matter that matters .
Those that believe in fundamental particles other than these shall be dismissed from the Table , and cast out from my house , as heretics of the first degree .
Lest ye of little faith doubt my powers , I shall rain used pasta water upon these enemies and drown their works in failure .
Verily , this is the Truth.Ramen .
Clearly " rain used pasta water upon these enemies " is a metaphor for his sabotage of both the supercollider in the US and the supercollider at CERN .
It ca n't really be any clearer than that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm thinking noodly appendages are involved.There is no need to think, for the faith in He of the Tangled Forkful answers all questions.
As was revealed by Him unto Mario and Luigi in the Antipasti Course of the Second Dinner:Heed ye, all matter is composed of meatballs, and those meatballs shall only be composed of veal, pork, and beef; for these are the building blocks of all matter that matters.
Those that believe in fundamental particles other than these shall be dismissed from the Table, and cast out from my house, as heretics of the first degree.
Lest ye of little faith doubt my powers, I shall rain used pasta water upon these enemies and drown their works in failure.
Verily, this is the Truth.Ramen.
Clearly "rain used pasta water upon these enemies" is a metaphor for his sabotage of both the supercollider in the US and the supercollider at CERN.
It can't really be any clearer than that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735203</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736805</id>
	<title>Re:Original concept from "Doomsday Device"</title>
	<author>skastrik</author>
	<datestamp>1255427280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>IANATP, but assuming a many-worlds interpretation, and assuming that the given particle accelerator will <em>never</em> cause the annihilation of the universe, then it seems to me that all worlds would continue to contain observers, irrespective of accelerator failure or not. Being observers, I don't see how we could tell the difference.
<br>Then again, I did not RTFA so this may have no relation to what the two gentlemen are theorizing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IANATP , but assuming a many-worlds interpretation , and assuming that the given particle accelerator will never cause the annihilation of the universe , then it seems to me that all worlds would continue to contain observers , irrespective of accelerator failure or not .
Being observers , I do n't see how we could tell the difference .
Then again , I did not RTFA so this may have no relation to what the two gentlemen are theorizing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANATP, but assuming a many-worlds interpretation, and assuming that the given particle accelerator will never cause the annihilation of the universe, then it seems to me that all worlds would continue to contain observers, irrespective of accelerator failure or not.
Being observers, I don't see how we could tell the difference.
Then again, I did not RTFA so this may have no relation to what the two gentlemen are theorizing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741565</id>
	<title>Re:Could happen</title>
	<author>Civil\_Disobedient</author>
	<datestamp>1255461720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Black hole? Maths say they exist - but you will never really know, nor will it ever really matter - if you cannot even know your "self".</i></p><p>Like arguing with a train from the tracks.</p><p>It's all theoretical until it isn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Black hole ?
Maths say they exist - but you will never really know , nor will it ever really matter - if you can not even know your " self " .Like arguing with a train from the tracks.It 's all theoretical until it is n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Black hole?
Maths say they exist - but you will never really know, nor will it ever really matter - if you cannot even know your "self".Like arguing with a train from the tracks.It's all theoretical until it isn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738925</id>
	<title>Re:This theory is not to be taken seriously</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255436400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perturbing the EM field is a quantum event, not a conscious correction.   All it requires is for some virtual photons to exist in the right place at the right time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perturbing the EM field is a quantum event , not a conscious correction .
All it requires is for some virtual photons to exist in the right place at the right time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perturbing the EM field is a quantum event, not a conscious correction.
All it requires is for some virtual photons to exist in the right place at the right time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737385</id>
	<title>Re:pull the other one</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1255429200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Occam's razor isn't sharp enough to apply to quantum mechanics.</p><p>I mean, I don't think it's true, but I don't thing there isn't anything preventing quantum effects from traveling backwards in time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Occam 's razor is n't sharp enough to apply to quantum mechanics.I mean , I do n't think it 's true , but I do n't thing there is n't anything preventing quantum effects from traveling backwards in time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Occam's razor isn't sharp enough to apply to quantum mechanics.I mean, I don't think it's true, but I don't thing there isn't anything preventing quantum effects from traveling backwards in time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29742641</id>
	<title>Authority self-defence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255519980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As no one in the science community would dare to admit that the Higgs boson cannot be detected simply because it just doesn't exist, they could simply declare it as we wouldn't be able to verify it anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As no one in the science community would dare to admit that the Higgs boson can not be detected simply because it just does n't exist , they could simply declare it as we would n't be able to verify it anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As no one in the science community would dare to admit that the Higgs boson cannot be detected simply because it just doesn't exist, they could simply declare it as we wouldn't be able to verify it anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735525</id>
	<title>Superstition</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255465380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to point out that this is merely superstitious thought; there is no evidence to indicate that this is the reason why the collider failed, and while the theory *is* possible, it defies rationality.  The simplest/most obvious explanation is the the collider simply failed due to technical reasons due to flaws in design or construction.  Anyone could tell you that.  Saying that it didn't happen because the Universe simply didn't allow it is the same as if you just substituted "God" for the word "Universe."  Why didn't X happen?  God didn't allow it.  Why did Y happen?  God made it happen.  I'm not saying that it's wrong to believe in God, but these "explanations" are really non-explanations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to point out that this is merely superstitious thought ; there is no evidence to indicate that this is the reason why the collider failed , and while the theory * is * possible , it defies rationality .
The simplest/most obvious explanation is the the collider simply failed due to technical reasons due to flaws in design or construction .
Anyone could tell you that .
Saying that it did n't happen because the Universe simply did n't allow it is the same as if you just substituted " God " for the word " Universe .
" Why did n't X happen ?
God did n't allow it .
Why did Y happen ?
God made it happen .
I 'm not saying that it 's wrong to believe in God , but these " explanations " are really non-explanations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to point out that this is merely superstitious thought; there is no evidence to indicate that this is the reason why the collider failed, and while the theory *is* possible, it defies rationality.
The simplest/most obvious explanation is the the collider simply failed due to technical reasons due to flaws in design or construction.
Anyone could tell you that.
Saying that it didn't happen because the Universe simply didn't allow it is the same as if you just substituted "God" for the word "Universe.
"  Why didn't X happen?
God didn't allow it.
Why did Y happen?
God made it happen.
I'm not saying that it's wrong to believe in God, but these "explanations" are really non-explanations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29745437</id>
	<title>Thiotimoline forever (one way or another)</title>
	<author>david\_thornley</author>
	<datestamp>1255537980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is no one aware of the previous work of I. Asimov on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiotimoline" title="wikipedia.org">Thiotimoline</a> [wikipedia.org] in the late 1940s?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is no one aware of the previous work of I. Asimov on Thiotimoline [ wikipedia.org ] in the late 1940s ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is no one aware of the previous work of I. Asimov on Thiotimoline [wikipedia.org] in the late 1940s?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741945</id>
	<title>Primer</title>
	<author>cyclomedia</author>
	<datestamp>1255510980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Someone reversing the odd circuit? Planning to start taking things out?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone reversing the odd circuit ?
Planning to start taking things out ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone reversing the odd circuit?
Planning to start taking things out?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736685</id>
	<title>Not unlike "To Say Nothing of the Dog"</title>
	<author>dr2chase</author>
	<datestamp>1255426920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>by Connie Willis.  (A book I like very much).  Time travel to the past is fine, but you can't change the past in ways that would change history.</htmltext>
<tokenext>by Connie Willis .
( A book I like very much ) .
Time travel to the past is fine , but you ca n't change the past in ways that would change history .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>by Connie Willis.
(A book I like very much).
Time travel to the past is fine, but you can't change the past in ways that would change history.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29752247</id>
	<title>Re:Could happen</title>
	<author>arminw</author>
	<datestamp>1255529820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>....because maths is not observation....</p><p>It used to be that science was about observation and then scientists use mathematics as a way of quantifying and explaining the observations. Now, with computer modeling we have turned that on its head. Scientists make a computer model, where they usually make certain assumptions, and then try to observe what the computer puts out. That is why millions of dollars are being spent on searching for black holes, dark matter and energy, gravity waves and other mathematical fictions. We are told that the universe started with a singularity, which of course is a mathematical fiction, out of which came the so-called Big Bang. Mathematics has become the master of science rather than its servant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>....because maths is not observation....It used to be that science was about observation and then scientists use mathematics as a way of quantifying and explaining the observations .
Now , with computer modeling we have turned that on its head .
Scientists make a computer model , where they usually make certain assumptions , and then try to observe what the computer puts out .
That is why millions of dollars are being spent on searching for black holes , dark matter and energy , gravity waves and other mathematical fictions .
We are told that the universe started with a singularity , which of course is a mathematical fiction , out of which came the so-called Big Bang .
Mathematics has become the master of science rather than its servant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....because maths is not observation....It used to be that science was about observation and then scientists use mathematics as a way of quantifying and explaining the observations.
Now, with computer modeling we have turned that on its head.
Scientists make a computer model, where they usually make certain assumptions, and then try to observe what the computer puts out.
That is why millions of dollars are being spent on searching for black holes, dark matter and energy, gravity waves and other mathematical fictions.
We are told that the universe started with a singularity, which of course is a mathematical fiction, out of which came the so-called Big Bang.
Mathematics has become the master of science rather than its servant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29744485</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29742815</id>
	<title>What is cooler?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255523100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is cooler? Large Hadron Collider or 600 MPH Pumpkin Cannon. Please vote: http://is.gd/4j4Hp</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is cooler ?
Large Hadron Collider or 600 MPH Pumpkin Cannon .
Please vote : http : //is.gd/4j4Hp</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is cooler?
Large Hadron Collider or 600 MPH Pumpkin Cannon.
Please vote: http://is.gd/4j4Hp</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737147</id>
	<title>Re:Quantum Suidice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255428420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So does anyone else like to be a dick and overload existence with many universes by making loads of decisions?<br>It's kind of like a DoS attack, but on a existence-wide scale.</p><p>Slashdot should totally try and slashdot existence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So does anyone else like to be a dick and overload existence with many universes by making loads of decisions ? It 's kind of like a DoS attack , but on a existence-wide scale.Slashdot should totally try and slashdot existence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So does anyone else like to be a dick and overload existence with many universes by making loads of decisions?It's kind of like a DoS attack, but on a existence-wide scale.Slashdot should totally try and slashdot existence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736037</id>
	<title>Memo to all LHC Staff</title>
	<author>LifesABeach</author>
	<datestamp>1255467360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Get back to work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Get back to work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get back to work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737017</id>
	<title>Science? Really?</title>
	<author>Roger W Moore</author>
	<datestamp>1255428060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does it explain why, if the Universe is so loath to produce a Higgs boson, it bombards our atmosphere when enormously high energy particles that can create Higgs bosons if they exist? Why hasn't it propagated back in time to stop cosmic rays? It sounds far more like fiction, and inconsistent fiction at that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does it explain why , if the Universe is so loath to produce a Higgs boson , it bombards our atmosphere when enormously high energy particles that can create Higgs bosons if they exist ?
Why has n't it propagated back in time to stop cosmic rays ?
It sounds far more like fiction , and inconsistent fiction at that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does it explain why, if the Universe is so loath to produce a Higgs boson, it bombards our atmosphere when enormously high energy particles that can create Higgs bosons if they exist?
Why hasn't it propagated back in time to stop cosmic rays?
It sounds far more like fiction, and inconsistent fiction at that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735163</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739287</id>
	<title>Superconducting Super Collider</title>
	<author>Samah</author>
	<datestamp>1255438920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did anyone else immediately think:<br>
"1500 Megawatt Aperture Science Heavy-Duty Supercolliding Super Button"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did anyone else immediately think : " 1500 Megawatt Aperture Science Heavy-Duty Supercolliding Super Button "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did anyone else immediately think:
"1500 Megawatt Aperture Science Heavy-Duty Supercolliding Super Button"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741519</id>
	<title>Re:Superstition</title>
	<author>craagz</author>
	<datestamp>1255460820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree with you. All the while they are talking about universe and anthropic nature, I believe you can substitute it with God. What I think is, if God/Universe/Nature did not want the Higgs Boson to be created by humans, there would not be a way to create it, no matter how hard we try. End of discussion.<br> <br> Rest all is conjecture.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you .
All the while they are talking about universe and anthropic nature , I believe you can substitute it with God .
What I think is , if God/Universe/Nature did not want the Higgs Boson to be created by humans , there would not be a way to create it , no matter how hard we try .
End of discussion .
Rest all is conjecture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you.
All the while they are talking about universe and anthropic nature, I believe you can substitute it with God.
What I think is, if God/Universe/Nature did not want the Higgs Boson to be created by humans, there would not be a way to create it, no matter how hard we try.
End of discussion.
Rest all is conjecture.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736577</id>
	<title>Emmet Brown, Attorney at Law</title>
	<author>istartedi</author>
	<datestamp>1255426440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a letter held in trust since 1905 at the firm
of Brown, Ellison and Parker.  They told Einstein to do this,
and now we are delivering this letter to you.  We have kept
it sealed since then, and were told to deliver it to this address
at this date.  Please sign here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a letter held in trust since 1905 at the firm of Brown , Ellison and Parker .
They told Einstein to do this , and now we are delivering this letter to you .
We have kept it sealed since then , and were told to deliver it to this address at this date .
Please sign here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a letter held in trust since 1905 at the firm
of Brown, Ellison and Parker.
They told Einstein to do this,
and now we are delivering this letter to you.
We have kept
it sealed since then, and were told to deliver it to this address
at this date.
Please sign here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737575</id>
	<title>Templeton price</title>
	<author>Requiem18th</author>
	<datestamp>1255429980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...someone seem to want to get it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...someone seem to want to get it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...someone seem to want to get it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735411</id>
	<title>Cue the humorbot joke...</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1255464780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Supercollider? I just met her!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Supercollider ?
I just met her !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Supercollider?
I just met her!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735927</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255467000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.multivax.com/last\_question.html</p><p>Relevant</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.multivax.com/last \ _question.htmlRelevant</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.multivax.com/last\_question.htmlRelevant</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736603</id>
	<title>Re:Back in high school creative writing class ...</title>
	<author>jerfgoke</author>
	<datestamp>1255426620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This was fantastic. I'd really enjoy reading the full version if you still have it around somewhere.</p><p>The catch that "it ALWAYS appears that things have miraculously gone so well that they haven't needed it" reminds me of a thought I once had about people like Warren Buffett.</p><p>Probability theory tells us that in a long enough string of events we'll find a certain number of outliers-- landing on heads 100 times in a row on coin toss, for instance, is very unlikely but is bound to happen given enough trials.</p><p>What if certain "extraordinary" people are merely beneficiaries of dumb luck? What if Warren Buffett has no actual investiment skill, but appears so because we never put him in the context of the many thousands of similar individuals who eventually "landed on tails", so to speak?</p><p>Getting even further out there-- What if Jesus or other prophets were similar "outliers"? What if their miracles were the one in a million chance, while the other 999,999 times people tried to walk on water, they failed? An extreme example, I know, but it's an interesting thought experiment, I think.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This was fantastic .
I 'd really enjoy reading the full version if you still have it around somewhere.The catch that " it ALWAYS appears that things have miraculously gone so well that they have n't needed it " reminds me of a thought I once had about people like Warren Buffett.Probability theory tells us that in a long enough string of events we 'll find a certain number of outliers-- landing on heads 100 times in a row on coin toss , for instance , is very unlikely but is bound to happen given enough trials.What if certain " extraordinary " people are merely beneficiaries of dumb luck ?
What if Warren Buffett has no actual investiment skill , but appears so because we never put him in the context of the many thousands of similar individuals who eventually " landed on tails " , so to speak ? Getting even further out there-- What if Jesus or other prophets were similar " outliers " ?
What if their miracles were the one in a million chance , while the other 999,999 times people tried to walk on water , they failed ?
An extreme example , I know , but it 's an interesting thought experiment , I think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was fantastic.
I'd really enjoy reading the full version if you still have it around somewhere.The catch that "it ALWAYS appears that things have miraculously gone so well that they haven't needed it" reminds me of a thought I once had about people like Warren Buffett.Probability theory tells us that in a long enough string of events we'll find a certain number of outliers-- landing on heads 100 times in a row on coin toss, for instance, is very unlikely but is bound to happen given enough trials.What if certain "extraordinary" people are merely beneficiaries of dumb luck?
What if Warren Buffett has no actual investiment skill, but appears so because we never put him in the context of the many thousands of similar individuals who eventually "landed on tails", so to speak?Getting even further out there-- What if Jesus or other prophets were similar "outliers"?
What if their miracles were the one in a million chance, while the other 999,999 times people tried to walk on water, they failed?
An extreme example, I know, but it's an interesting thought experiment, I think.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735869</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735437</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect...</title>
	<author>DdJ</author>
	<datestamp>1255464900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, if you go ahead and tell your wife that, it may just be that one of your descendants would just be so abhorrent that the universe decided you should not be allowed to breed, and this is the method it's using to enforce that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , if you go ahead and tell your wife that , it may just be that one of your descendants would just be so abhorrent that the universe decided you should not be allowed to breed , and this is the method it 's using to enforce that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, if you go ahead and tell your wife that, it may just be that one of your descendants would just be so abhorrent that the universe decided you should not be allowed to breed, and this is the method it's using to enforce that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736405</id>
	<title>God's particle</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1255425720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is truly almighty, can even change past to make humanity could only have faith in it, not science to prove that it exist.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is truly almighty , can even change past to make humanity could only have faith in it , not science to prove that it exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is truly almighty, can even change past to make humanity could only have faith in it, not science to prove that it exist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737139</id>
	<title>Sabotage...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255428360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I could far easier believe that if anything continued to go wrong with the LHC, it would be some workers on the project that are in fear of it destroying the world, or going against God's will, or who knows what reason; would sabotage the LHC to keep it from operation.  Given the large number of people working on the project, I'm guessing it not hard to imagine that at least a few people there have doubts.  Or even took the job in order to cause problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could far easier believe that if anything continued to go wrong with the LHC , it would be some workers on the project that are in fear of it destroying the world , or going against God 's will , or who knows what reason ; would sabotage the LHC to keep it from operation .
Given the large number of people working on the project , I 'm guessing it not hard to imagine that at least a few people there have doubts .
Or even took the job in order to cause problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could far easier believe that if anything continued to go wrong with the LHC, it would be some workers on the project that are in fear of it destroying the world, or going against God's will, or who knows what reason; would sabotage the LHC to keep it from operation.
Given the large number of people working on the project, I'm guessing it not hard to imagine that at least a few people there have doubts.
Or even took the job in order to cause problems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29745593</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect...</title>
	<author>camazotz</author>
	<datestamp>1255538640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, you are right. And this is vital wisdom that I shall impart to my own wife tonight, as well. It's for the security of the futurity and my own safety that dinner shall not come to pass.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , you are right .
And this is vital wisdom that I shall impart to my own wife tonight , as well .
It 's for the security of the futurity and my own safety that dinner shall not come to pass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, you are right.
And this is vital wisdom that I shall impart to my own wife tonight, as well.
It's for the security of the futurity and my own safety that dinner shall not come to pass.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739161</id>
	<title>Time Stop</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255438020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We the prophets know when is the LHC going to work again...</p><p>it will be 12/12/2012</p><p>we told you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We the prophets know when is the LHC going to work again...it will be 12/12/2012we told you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We the prophets know when is the LHC going to work again...it will be 12/12/2012we told you!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735399</id>
	<title>Wait .. I've played this game before</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255464720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It was Chrono<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Chrono something.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was Chrono ... Chrono something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was Chrono ... Chrono something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29753377</id>
	<title>Re:Could happen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255541220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's fairly certain that black holes exist. Whats uncertain is what is on the other side of the event horizon. Does matter really compress to a singularity, stop as Bose&ndash;Einstein condensate, exit this universe and enter another though a "white hole", or something we haven't even imagined yet.<br>Mass Charge and Spin is all we can ever know about them though. Cosmic Censorship: all singularities must be decently clothed by an event horizon.<br>What happens when a black hole evaporates? Does it leave a naked singularity?<br>The lifetime of a black hole is t=10 ^-28 M^3<br>Had a table to put here but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. lameness filters got me.<br>Galactic sized black holes might have a low enough tide to avoid spaghettification. but the information can never get back out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's fairly certain that black holes exist .
Whats uncertain is what is on the other side of the event horizon .
Does matter really compress to a singularity , stop as Bose    Einstein condensate , exit this universe and enter another though a " white hole " , or something we have n't even imagined yet.Mass Charge and Spin is all we can ever know about them though .
Cosmic Censorship : all singularities must be decently clothed by an event horizon.What happens when a black hole evaporates ?
Does it leave a naked singularity ? The lifetime of a black hole is t = 10 ^ -28 M ^ 3Had a table to put here but / .
lameness filters got me.Galactic sized black holes might have a low enough tide to avoid spaghettification .
but the information can never get back out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's fairly certain that black holes exist.
Whats uncertain is what is on the other side of the event horizon.
Does matter really compress to a singularity, stop as Bose–Einstein condensate, exit this universe and enter another though a "white hole", or something we haven't even imagined yet.Mass Charge and Spin is all we can ever know about them though.
Cosmic Censorship: all singularities must be decently clothed by an event horizon.What happens when a black hole evaporates?
Does it leave a naked singularity?The lifetime of a black hole is t=10 ^-28 M^3Had a table to put here but /.
lameness filters got me.Galactic sized black holes might have a low enough tide to avoid spaghettification.
but the information can never get back out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735219</id>
	<title>This is a stupid theory</title>
	<author>eln</author>
	<datestamp>1255463940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everyone knows the time traveler's objective in going back in time is not to kill his own grandfather, but rather to BECOME his own grandfather.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone knows the time traveler 's objective in going back in time is not to kill his own grandfather , but rather to BECOME his own grandfather .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone knows the time traveler's objective in going back in time is not to kill his own grandfather, but rather to BECOME his own grandfather.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741753</id>
	<title>Time now...</title>
	<author>P. Legba</author>
	<datestamp>1255551060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...for these guys to switch over and become Religion professors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...for these guys to switch over and become Religion professors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...for these guys to switch over and become Religion professors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736813</id>
	<title>If you like this story...</title>
	<author>psYchotic87</author>
	<datestamp>1255427340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>[...] its creation would ripple backward through time and stop the collider before it could make one, <strong>like a time traveler who goes back in time to kill his grandfather</strong>.</p></div><p>Well, then I recommend you read <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Rant-Oral-Biography-Buster-Casey/dp/0307275833/ref=sr\_1\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1255466794&amp;sr=8-1" title="amazon.com" rel="nofollow">Rant</a> [amazon.com] by Chuck Palahniuk.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ ... ] its creation would ripple backward through time and stop the collider before it could make one , like a time traveler who goes back in time to kill his grandfather.Well , then I recommend you read Rant [ amazon.com ] by Chuck Palahniuk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[...] its creation would ripple backward through time and stop the collider before it could make one, like a time traveler who goes back in time to kill his grandfather.Well, then I recommend you read Rant [amazon.com] by Chuck Palahniuk.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736765</id>
	<title>Standard Science Fiction Plot</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1255427220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The idea that the universe somehow doesn't want something to happen, and so causes various improbable events to occur on the macro-level to prevent that thing to happen, is a fairly common SF plot.  I even recall an SF-detective variant where the universe was arranging to kill scientists who would discover its secrets (eventually stopped when the detective demonstrated that leaving a trail of bodies is a poor way to hide anything).</p><p>It's hard to see a real physicist taking it seriously, except out of pure frustration or inebriation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea that the universe somehow does n't want something to happen , and so causes various improbable events to occur on the macro-level to prevent that thing to happen , is a fairly common SF plot .
I even recall an SF-detective variant where the universe was arranging to kill scientists who would discover its secrets ( eventually stopped when the detective demonstrated that leaving a trail of bodies is a poor way to hide anything ) .It 's hard to see a real physicist taking it seriously , except out of pure frustration or inebriation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea that the universe somehow doesn't want something to happen, and so causes various improbable events to occur on the macro-level to prevent that thing to happen, is a fairly common SF plot.
I even recall an SF-detective variant where the universe was arranging to kill scientists who would discover its secrets (eventually stopped when the detective demonstrated that leaving a trail of bodies is a poor way to hide anything).It's hard to see a real physicist taking it seriously, except out of pure frustration or inebriation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735495</id>
	<title>if only</title>
	<author>chdig</author>
	<datestamp>1255465200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So the formation of the Higgs comes back from the future to stop its own creation...<br> <br>
If only the destruction of these physicist's careers could have come back from the future and saved themselves from it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So the formation of the Higgs comes back from the future to stop its own creation.. . If only the destruction of these physicist 's careers could have come back from the future and saved themselves from it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the formation of the Higgs comes back from the future to stop its own creation... 
If only the destruction of these physicist's careers could have come back from the future and saved themselves from it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741993</id>
	<title>Re:I dunno</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1255511520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps that means you should be thinking outside the box, and the scientist should be in the box... "Bring out the Gimp" indeed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps that means you should be thinking outside the box , and the scientist should be in the box... " Bring out the Gimp " indeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps that means you should be thinking outside the box, and the scientist should be in the box... "Bring out the Gimp" indeed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741817</id>
	<title>Re:Could happen</title>
	<author>cazzazullu</author>
	<datestamp>1255551900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But the mind is a little thing - with such a limited set of tools and perceptions, on such a tiny scale.</p></div><p>Borg queen, is that you?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But the mind is a little thing - with such a limited set of tools and perceptions , on such a tiny scale.Borg queen , is that you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the mind is a little thing - with such a limited set of tools and perceptions, on such a tiny scale.Borg queen, is that you?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736809</id>
	<title>Re:This theory is not to be taken seriously</title>
	<author>CopaceticOpus</author>
	<datestamp>1255427280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the universe is going to prevent this machine from working, it's going to do it in the way that requires the least "effort" from the universe's perspective. This is probably something much different than what would seem to be the simplest and easiest from a human perspective.</p><p>The universe doesn't have limbs. It doesn't act with muscle. Fundamentally, it acts with probabilities. The universe is also the master of time, not the slave of time as humans are.</p><p>To generate a spontaneous e/m force when the beam is switched on is possible, but it would require a large number of improbabilities coming together in an instant. Similarly, it is possible for the atoms in your can of soda to spontaneously jump two feet to the left. However, this is vastly improbable, and the universe tends not to act this way.</p><p>It may be that by causing a few minor shifts in events months or years in advance, the universe can steer us towards a failed LHC with very little forced improbability. For example, simply aligning the spins of a few atoms in a researcher's brain might cause that person to make a critical decision leading to the failure of the magnets. It's a convoluted approach in human terms, but the essence of simplicity in quantum mechanical terms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the universe is going to prevent this machine from working , it 's going to do it in the way that requires the least " effort " from the universe 's perspective .
This is probably something much different than what would seem to be the simplest and easiest from a human perspective.The universe does n't have limbs .
It does n't act with muscle .
Fundamentally , it acts with probabilities .
The universe is also the master of time , not the slave of time as humans are.To generate a spontaneous e/m force when the beam is switched on is possible , but it would require a large number of improbabilities coming together in an instant .
Similarly , it is possible for the atoms in your can of soda to spontaneously jump two feet to the left .
However , this is vastly improbable , and the universe tends not to act this way.It may be that by causing a few minor shifts in events months or years in advance , the universe can steer us towards a failed LHC with very little forced improbability .
For example , simply aligning the spins of a few atoms in a researcher 's brain might cause that person to make a critical decision leading to the failure of the magnets .
It 's a convoluted approach in human terms , but the essence of simplicity in quantum mechanical terms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the universe is going to prevent this machine from working, it's going to do it in the way that requires the least "effort" from the universe's perspective.
This is probably something much different than what would seem to be the simplest and easiest from a human perspective.The universe doesn't have limbs.
It doesn't act with muscle.
Fundamentally, it acts with probabilities.
The universe is also the master of time, not the slave of time as humans are.To generate a spontaneous e/m force when the beam is switched on is possible, but it would require a large number of improbabilities coming together in an instant.
Similarly, it is possible for the atoms in your can of soda to spontaneously jump two feet to the left.
However, this is vastly improbable, and the universe tends not to act this way.It may be that by causing a few minor shifts in events months or years in advance, the universe can steer us towards a failed LHC with very little forced improbability.
For example, simply aligning the spins of a few atoms in a researcher's brain might cause that person to make a critical decision leading to the failure of the magnets.
It's a convoluted approach in human terms, but the essence of simplicity in quantum mechanical terms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735381</id>
	<title>Anti-scienctific sentiment (but it's okay)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255464600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reading TFA, Nielsen sounds like a reasonable guy, and this sounds like little more than idle speculation from a scientist who does real science.  And he welcomes skepticism to his idea.   It's still interesting to me that this sounds patently anti-scientific.  Science is founded on the idea that our universe is predictable and that we can understand it.  Saying "we might not be able to find this out because it's fate" seems closer to "We can never understand our own origins because a mysterious intelligent designer created us" in spirit than I would be comfortable with if I were the scientist who said it.</p><p>Don't take this as saying this guy is in the same category as an IDer, that's not at all what I mean.  Dr. Nielsen isn't saying we shouldn't try this anyway, wheras IDers do discourage inquiry into evolutionary biology, and more importantly Dr. Nielsen is suggesting an explanation to a phenomena wheras IDers are just trying to convince people to join their church.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reading TFA , Nielsen sounds like a reasonable guy , and this sounds like little more than idle speculation from a scientist who does real science .
And he welcomes skepticism to his idea .
It 's still interesting to me that this sounds patently anti-scientific .
Science is founded on the idea that our universe is predictable and that we can understand it .
Saying " we might not be able to find this out because it 's fate " seems closer to " We can never understand our own origins because a mysterious intelligent designer created us " in spirit than I would be comfortable with if I were the scientist who said it.Do n't take this as saying this guy is in the same category as an IDer , that 's not at all what I mean .
Dr. Nielsen is n't saying we should n't try this anyway , wheras IDers do discourage inquiry into evolutionary biology , and more importantly Dr. Nielsen is suggesting an explanation to a phenomena wheras IDers are just trying to convince people to join their church .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reading TFA, Nielsen sounds like a reasonable guy, and this sounds like little more than idle speculation from a scientist who does real science.
And he welcomes skepticism to his idea.
It's still interesting to me that this sounds patently anti-scientific.
Science is founded on the idea that our universe is predictable and that we can understand it.
Saying "we might not be able to find this out because it's fate" seems closer to "We can never understand our own origins because a mysterious intelligent designer created us" in spirit than I would be comfortable with if I were the scientist who said it.Don't take this as saying this guy is in the same category as an IDer, that's not at all what I mean.
Dr. Nielsen isn't saying we shouldn't try this anyway, wheras IDers do discourage inquiry into evolutionary biology, and more importantly Dr. Nielsen is suggesting an explanation to a phenomena wheras IDers are just trying to convince people to join their church.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735403</id>
	<title>Whenever Something Doesn't Work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255464780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's because it would have lead to time travel:

<ul> <li>Duke Nukem Forever: A brilliant physicist spending his days masturbating pauses to download the latest copy of Duke Nukem Forever only to realize it's the worst game ever made.  Unable to 'unplay' the game, he sets his mind to developing a way to travel back in time in order to prevent himself from playing the game and instead spend his time doing better things (like masturbating).  Unless Duke Nukem Forever can never be released due to unexplainable problems!</li><li>Hurd: A revolutionizing operating system is delivered to MIT's labs only to allow the physicists 100\% computational up time and serious efficiency.  Unplagued by BSODs and kernel panics, the lab flourishes to the point of developing a way to time travel.  Unless Hurd is development is never completed!</li><li>Steorn's Free Energy: Currently a large hurtle in faster than light travel is the energy required to move the tiniest amount of mass at that speed.  Steorn's perpetual motion machine would have provided that energy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... unless their debut in London fantastically flopped and stymied them resulting in an international laughing stock.  </li><li>ReiserFS: Had nothing to do with potential time travel, Hans just got out of control and killed his wife.</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's because it would have lead to time travel : Duke Nukem Forever : A brilliant physicist spending his days masturbating pauses to download the latest copy of Duke Nukem Forever only to realize it 's the worst game ever made .
Unable to 'unplay ' the game , he sets his mind to developing a way to travel back in time in order to prevent himself from playing the game and instead spend his time doing better things ( like masturbating ) .
Unless Duke Nukem Forever can never be released due to unexplainable problems ! Hurd : A revolutionizing operating system is delivered to MIT 's labs only to allow the physicists 100 \ % computational up time and serious efficiency .
Unplagued by BSODs and kernel panics , the lab flourishes to the point of developing a way to time travel .
Unless Hurd is development is never completed ! Steorn 's Free Energy : Currently a large hurtle in faster than light travel is the energy required to move the tiniest amount of mass at that speed .
Steorn 's perpetual motion machine would have provided that energy ... unless their debut in London fantastically flopped and stymied them resulting in an international laughing stock .
ReiserFS : Had nothing to do with potential time travel , Hans just got out of control and killed his wife .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's because it would have lead to time travel:

 Duke Nukem Forever: A brilliant physicist spending his days masturbating pauses to download the latest copy of Duke Nukem Forever only to realize it's the worst game ever made.
Unable to 'unplay' the game, he sets his mind to developing a way to travel back in time in order to prevent himself from playing the game and instead spend his time doing better things (like masturbating).
Unless Duke Nukem Forever can never be released due to unexplainable problems!Hurd: A revolutionizing operating system is delivered to MIT's labs only to allow the physicists 100\% computational up time and serious efficiency.
Unplagued by BSODs and kernel panics, the lab flourishes to the point of developing a way to time travel.
Unless Hurd is development is never completed!Steorn's Free Energy: Currently a large hurtle in faster than light travel is the energy required to move the tiniest amount of mass at that speed.
Steorn's perpetual motion machine would have provided that energy ... unless their debut in London fantastically flopped and stymied them resulting in an international laughing stock.
ReiserFS: Had nothing to do with potential time travel, Hans just got out of control and killed his wife.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735307</id>
	<title>pull the other one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255464300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[quote]the Large Hadron Collider's difficulties may be due to the universe's reluctance to produce a Higgs boson[/quote]</p><p>Let's apply Occam's Razor. One of two cases must be true, either:<br>(a) "the Large Hadron Collider's difficulties may be due to the universe's reluctance to produce a Higgs boson"<br>or<br>(b) building a machine like this is rather complicated and it might take a few goes before they get it right.</p><p>Of course, there could be an option (c) they really suck. I'll try that on my boss the next time I fuck something up. "No, see, it's not that I'm not any good at my job, it's that the universe is conspiring against the proper completion of the project. Have I ever mentioned Schroedinger's Cat?"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ quote ] the Large Hadron Collider 's difficulties may be due to the universe 's reluctance to produce a Higgs boson [ /quote ] Let 's apply Occam 's Razor .
One of two cases must be true , either : ( a ) " the Large Hadron Collider 's difficulties may be due to the universe 's reluctance to produce a Higgs boson " or ( b ) building a machine like this is rather complicated and it might take a few goes before they get it right.Of course , there could be an option ( c ) they really suck .
I 'll try that on my boss the next time I fuck something up .
" No , see , it 's not that I 'm not any good at my job , it 's that the universe is conspiring against the proper completion of the project .
Have I ever mentioned Schroedinger 's Cat ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[quote]the Large Hadron Collider's difficulties may be due to the universe's reluctance to produce a Higgs boson[/quote]Let's apply Occam's Razor.
One of two cases must be true, either:(a) "the Large Hadron Collider's difficulties may be due to the universe's reluctance to produce a Higgs boson"or(b) building a machine like this is rather complicated and it might take a few goes before they get it right.Of course, there could be an option (c) they really suck.
I'll try that on my boss the next time I fuck something up.
"No, see, it's not that I'm not any good at my job, it's that the universe is conspiring against the proper completion of the project.
Have I ever mentioned Schroedinger's Cat?
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735453</id>
	<title>Same with Bigfoot, Loch Ness, Ghosts and Aliens</title>
	<author>mswhippingboy</author>
	<datestamp>1255465020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>These scientists obviously never heard of Ockham's Razor. The fact that these particles have not been found could not be because they don't exist... no, it must be that they're are conspiring with the universe to deny us knowledge of their existence!

I think they watched the Wizard of Oz just a few times to many. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...</htmltext>
<tokenext>These scientists obviously never heard of Ockham 's Razor .
The fact that these particles have not been found could not be because they do n't exist... no , it must be that they 're are conspiring with the universe to deny us knowledge of their existence !
I think they watched the Wizard of Oz just a few times to many .
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These scientists obviously never heard of Ockham's Razor.
The fact that these particles have not been found could not be because they don't exist... no, it must be that they're are conspiring with the universe to deny us knowledge of their existence!
I think they watched the Wizard of Oz just a few times to many.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29743235</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect...</title>
	<author>Coren22</author>
	<datestamp>1255527840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is so disturbingly accurate...you must be married.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is so disturbingly accurate...you must be married .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is so disturbingly accurate...you must be married.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29745099</id>
	<title>Occams Razor</title>
	<author>Ponder</author>
	<datestamp>1255536600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rips this argument to pieces.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rips this argument to pieces .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rips this argument to pieces.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29750641</id>
	<title>Re:Back in high school creative writing class ...</title>
	<author>omnichad</author>
	<datestamp>1255518480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah...they activated it on Groundhog Day, 1993.  It didn't go well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah...they activated it on Groundhog Day , 1993 .
It did n't go well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah...they activated it on Groundhog Day, 1993.
It didn't go well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735869</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735519</id>
	<title>Re:pull the other one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255465320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In polycosmic theory a) and b) are the same thing, that is there simply isn't a worldtrack that leads to discovering the Higgs Boson, and thus the path is constrained to a set of worldtracks in which b) is always true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In polycosmic theory a ) and b ) are the same thing , that is there simply is n't a worldtrack that leads to discovering the Higgs Boson , and thus the path is constrained to a set of worldtracks in which b ) is always true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In polycosmic theory a) and b) are the same thing, that is there simply isn't a worldtrack that leads to discovering the Higgs Boson, and thus the path is constrained to a set of worldtracks in which b) is always true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29747559</id>
	<title>Re:This theory is not to be taken seriously</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255547220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nice try... but I don't buy it in the slightest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice try... but I do n't buy it in the slightest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice try... but I don't buy it in the slightest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736153</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735731</id>
	<title>Re:FSM did it</title>
	<author>JonTurner</author>
	<datestamp>1255466220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally, I blame the turtle, the one all the way down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I blame the turtle , the one all the way down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I blame the turtle, the one all the way down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735203</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735487</id>
	<title>This theory is not to be taken seriously</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255465140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It has a serious, and might I saw, rather obvious flaw</p><p>If the activation of the LHC created some kind of cataclysmic event which would some fuck up time to the extent of violating causality, and if the universe does indeed have causality as a boundary condition, then there are far more probable ways of averting the fatal collision than screwing up several tonnes of magnet months before the high energy firings were scheduled to take place.</p><p>The universe could simply induce a sufficient e/m force to stop the proton beams colliding. It wouldn't take much, on a cosmic scale, and would be a far more likely outcome than an entire macroscopic object being foobared just to protect the continuity of the universe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has a serious , and might I saw , rather obvious flawIf the activation of the LHC created some kind of cataclysmic event which would some fuck up time to the extent of violating causality , and if the universe does indeed have causality as a boundary condition , then there are far more probable ways of averting the fatal collision than screwing up several tonnes of magnet months before the high energy firings were scheduled to take place.The universe could simply induce a sufficient e/m force to stop the proton beams colliding .
It would n't take much , on a cosmic scale , and would be a far more likely outcome than an entire macroscopic object being foobared just to protect the continuity of the universe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has a serious, and might I saw, rather obvious flawIf the activation of the LHC created some kind of cataclysmic event which would some fuck up time to the extent of violating causality, and if the universe does indeed have causality as a boundary condition, then there are far more probable ways of averting the fatal collision than screwing up several tonnes of magnet months before the high energy firings were scheduled to take place.The universe could simply induce a sufficient e/m force to stop the proton beams colliding.
It wouldn't take much, on a cosmic scale, and would be a far more likely outcome than an entire macroscopic object being foobared just to protect the continuity of the universe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29740005</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1255444560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just hope that's not what she wants in the first place.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just hope that 's not what she wants in the first place .
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just hope that's not what she wants in the first place.
:P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739557</id>
	<title>The Higgs Boson</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1255441260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we are trying to detect it using 3D technology. What if the Higgs Boson is more than three dimensional? Remember M-Theory aka Super String Theory, the Universe is made up of many dimensions. Some of those dimensions are so small we cannot see them, and others are so large that they host parallel universes we cannot see nor detect.</p><p>Einstein said that time is the fourth dimension and space is the fifth dimension and warped. What if the Higgs Boson exists out of space/time, we'd never be able to see it even if we caused one to be made. What if like the Hawking Paradox with black holes evaporating the mini-black holes caused by the LHC evaporate the Higgs Boson? Maybe sending it somewhere via space/time or a parallel universe or small dimension? Maybe Black Holes and Higgs Bosons travel so far back in space/time that they send matter and energy into the Big Bang event that created the universe, or creates a parallel universe in another dimension?</p><p>The explanation that the universe cannot make a Higgs boson because it travels back in time and stops itself from being formed sounds rather silly. I supposed it would be just as silly to say Time Lords exist and Doctor Who used his sonic screwdriver on the LHC so it wouldn't make a Higgs boson so Human Beings would never learn the secret to time travel?</p><p>The idea that the Higgs boson would destroy the universe if made, was the same illogical thinking that nuclear scientists had when developing the atomic bomb that smashing atoms would destroy the universe. Think about it, the universe is large and full of matter and energy, and if a nuclear explosion didn't create a chain-reaction that destroyed the universe, then the Higgs boson most likely won't create a chain-reaction to destroy the universe. Physics doesn't work like that and you have to figure in the law of conservation and entropy that limits the effects of matter and energy so that energy is wasted and lost, and thus you couldn't have an infinite series of chain reactions to destroy the universe. Only the area near the LHC would be destroyed if there was an explosion caused by the Higgs boson, not the whole of Europe, not the Earth, not the Solar System, not the Galaxy, and certainly not the universe. We would have discovered a new way of destroying stuff, and life goes on. But I would rather like to think of the positive in which the Higgs boson is discovered and develops a new form of energy that helps humankind get off of fossil fuels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we are trying to detect it using 3D technology .
What if the Higgs Boson is more than three dimensional ?
Remember M-Theory aka Super String Theory , the Universe is made up of many dimensions .
Some of those dimensions are so small we can not see them , and others are so large that they host parallel universes we can not see nor detect.Einstein said that time is the fourth dimension and space is the fifth dimension and warped .
What if the Higgs Boson exists out of space/time , we 'd never be able to see it even if we caused one to be made .
What if like the Hawking Paradox with black holes evaporating the mini-black holes caused by the LHC evaporate the Higgs Boson ?
Maybe sending it somewhere via space/time or a parallel universe or small dimension ?
Maybe Black Holes and Higgs Bosons travel so far back in space/time that they send matter and energy into the Big Bang event that created the universe , or creates a parallel universe in another dimension ? The explanation that the universe can not make a Higgs boson because it travels back in time and stops itself from being formed sounds rather silly .
I supposed it would be just as silly to say Time Lords exist and Doctor Who used his sonic screwdriver on the LHC so it would n't make a Higgs boson so Human Beings would never learn the secret to time travel ? The idea that the Higgs boson would destroy the universe if made , was the same illogical thinking that nuclear scientists had when developing the atomic bomb that smashing atoms would destroy the universe .
Think about it , the universe is large and full of matter and energy , and if a nuclear explosion did n't create a chain-reaction that destroyed the universe , then the Higgs boson most likely wo n't create a chain-reaction to destroy the universe .
Physics does n't work like that and you have to figure in the law of conservation and entropy that limits the effects of matter and energy so that energy is wasted and lost , and thus you could n't have an infinite series of chain reactions to destroy the universe .
Only the area near the LHC would be destroyed if there was an explosion caused by the Higgs boson , not the whole of Europe , not the Earth , not the Solar System , not the Galaxy , and certainly not the universe .
We would have discovered a new way of destroying stuff , and life goes on .
But I would rather like to think of the positive in which the Higgs boson is discovered and develops a new form of energy that helps humankind get off of fossil fuels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we are trying to detect it using 3D technology.
What if the Higgs Boson is more than three dimensional?
Remember M-Theory aka Super String Theory, the Universe is made up of many dimensions.
Some of those dimensions are so small we cannot see them, and others are so large that they host parallel universes we cannot see nor detect.Einstein said that time is the fourth dimension and space is the fifth dimension and warped.
What if the Higgs Boson exists out of space/time, we'd never be able to see it even if we caused one to be made.
What if like the Hawking Paradox with black holes evaporating the mini-black holes caused by the LHC evaporate the Higgs Boson?
Maybe sending it somewhere via space/time or a parallel universe or small dimension?
Maybe Black Holes and Higgs Bosons travel so far back in space/time that they send matter and energy into the Big Bang event that created the universe, or creates a parallel universe in another dimension?The explanation that the universe cannot make a Higgs boson because it travels back in time and stops itself from being formed sounds rather silly.
I supposed it would be just as silly to say Time Lords exist and Doctor Who used his sonic screwdriver on the LHC so it wouldn't make a Higgs boson so Human Beings would never learn the secret to time travel?The idea that the Higgs boson would destroy the universe if made, was the same illogical thinking that nuclear scientists had when developing the atomic bomb that smashing atoms would destroy the universe.
Think about it, the universe is large and full of matter and energy, and if a nuclear explosion didn't create a chain-reaction that destroyed the universe, then the Higgs boson most likely won't create a chain-reaction to destroy the universe.
Physics doesn't work like that and you have to figure in the law of conservation and entropy that limits the effects of matter and energy so that energy is wasted and lost, and thus you couldn't have an infinite series of chain reactions to destroy the universe.
Only the area near the LHC would be destroyed if there was an explosion caused by the Higgs boson, not the whole of Europe, not the Earth, not the Solar System, not the Galaxy, and certainly not the universe.
We would have discovered a new way of destroying stuff, and life goes on.
But I would rather like to think of the positive in which the Higgs boson is discovered and develops a new form of energy that helps humankind get off of fossil fuels.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736219</id>
	<title>Or it's an extra-universal intelligence</title>
	<author>kill-1</author>
	<datestamp>1255424880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe our universe is just an experiment of an extra-universal intelligence that doesn't want us to find out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe our universe is just an experiment of an extra-universal intelligence that does n't want us to find out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe our universe is just an experiment of an extra-universal intelligence that doesn't want us to find out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736543</id>
	<title>Re:Quantum Suidice</title>
	<author>CopaceticOpus</author>
	<datestamp>1255426260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I found the Larry Niven story here:</p><p><a href="https://www.bundy223.net/~andyb/prose/myriad.html" title="bundy223.net">All the Myriad Ways</a> [bundy223.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I found the Larry Niven story here : All the Myriad Ways [ bundy223.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I found the Larry Niven story here:All the Myriad Ways [bundy223.net]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736413</id>
	<title>Re:Quantum Suidice</title>
	<author>citizenr</author>
	<datestamp>1255425780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the many-worlds interpretation is correct then at each run of the experiment, the experimenter will be split into one world in which he survives and another world in which he dies.</p></div><p>Yes, because life is somehow magical and whole cosmos revolves around living creatures, oh wait, i meant Humans, other life is non important. You forgot to throw religion in there somewhere, it would suit nicely with its 1500 years of Earth centered universe..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the many-worlds interpretation is correct then at each run of the experiment , the experimenter will be split into one world in which he survives and another world in which he dies.Yes , because life is somehow magical and whole cosmos revolves around living creatures , oh wait , i meant Humans , other life is non important .
You forgot to throw religion in there somewhere , it would suit nicely with its 1500 years of Earth centered universe. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the many-worlds interpretation is correct then at each run of the experiment, the experimenter will be split into one world in which he survives and another world in which he dies.Yes, because life is somehow magical and whole cosmos revolves around living creatures, oh wait, i meant Humans, other life is non important.
You forgot to throw religion in there somewhere, it would suit nicely with its 1500 years of Earth centered universe..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736331</id>
	<title>Re:Einstein's Bridge</title>
	<author>hawkfish</author>
	<datestamp>1255425360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now THAT is a book I'd like to see made into a movie.  Put some of the "science" back in Science Fiction.</p></div><p>You have got to be kidding me.  I love his physical theories, but as a writer he is appalling.  Wooden characters and smug self-righteousness.  Bleh.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now THAT is a book I 'd like to see made into a movie .
Put some of the " science " back in Science Fiction.You have got to be kidding me .
I love his physical theories , but as a writer he is appalling .
Wooden characters and smug self-righteousness .
Bleh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now THAT is a book I'd like to see made into a movie.
Put some of the "science" back in Science Fiction.You have got to be kidding me.
I love his physical theories, but as a writer he is appalling.
Wooden characters and smug self-righteousness.
Bleh.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735163</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29740815</id>
	<title>Re:Could happen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255451580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Current theory allows energy to escape black holes.  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking\_radiation" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">hawking radiation</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Current theory allows energy to escape black holes .
hawking radiation [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Current theory allows energy to escape black holes.
hawking radiation [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29742891</id>
	<title>Indeed</title>
	<author>woolio</author>
	<datestamp>1255524120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>It seems to me that we are refining our understanding of reality, but the subset which we do understand, we understand fairly well. It has been a very long time since we've been truly and profoundly wrong -- and even then, we weren't.</b></p><p>Indeed. There are many things that we know to the true. There are some things that which we know we don't know. And there are a few things that we don't know that we don't know them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me that we are refining our understanding of reality , but the subset which we do understand , we understand fairly well .
It has been a very long time since we 've been truly and profoundly wrong -- and even then , we were n't.Indeed .
There are many things that we know to the true .
There are some things that which we know we do n't know .
And there are a few things that we do n't know that we do n't know them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me that we are refining our understanding of reality, but the subset which we do understand, we understand fairly well.
It has been a very long time since we've been truly and profoundly wrong -- and even then, we weren't.Indeed.
There are many things that we know to the true.
There are some things that which we know we don't know.
And there are a few things that we don't know that we don't know them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735601</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect...</title>
	<author>StikyPad</author>
	<datestamp>1255465560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can tell her, but she'll probably stop listening after "because," at which point she'll begin recalling everything you've ever done wrong, and start reeling them off in a run on sentence not unlike this one, taking the collective, including your most recent attempt to get out of making dinner, to mean that you don't love her, which raises the question of why you're even together, except that you obviously just want your needs satisfied while she does EVERYTHING, and you don't even care.</p><p>Either that or she'll just start making dinner without saying anything, in which case you're in *real* trouble.  If so, DO NOT EAT THE FOOD, because it's probably poisoned, but also don't let her know that you're not eating the food, because it will only be taken as an insult to her cooking and further enrage her.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can tell her , but she 'll probably stop listening after " because , " at which point she 'll begin recalling everything you 've ever done wrong , and start reeling them off in a run on sentence not unlike this one , taking the collective , including your most recent attempt to get out of making dinner , to mean that you do n't love her , which raises the question of why you 're even together , except that you obviously just want your needs satisfied while she does EVERYTHING , and you do n't even care.Either that or she 'll just start making dinner without saying anything , in which case you 're in * real * trouble .
If so , DO NOT EAT THE FOOD , because it 's probably poisoned , but also do n't let her know that you 're not eating the food , because it will only be taken as an insult to her cooking and further enrage her .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can tell her, but she'll probably stop listening after "because," at which point she'll begin recalling everything you've ever done wrong, and start reeling them off in a run on sentence not unlike this one, taking the collective, including your most recent attempt to get out of making dinner, to mean that you don't love her, which raises the question of why you're even together, except that you obviously just want your needs satisfied while she does EVERYTHING, and you don't even care.Either that or she'll just start making dinner without saying anything, in which case you're in *real* trouble.
If so, DO NOT EAT THE FOOD, because it's probably poisoned, but also don't let her know that you're not eating the food, because it will only be taken as an insult to her cooking and further enrage her.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735989</id>
	<title>Re:This theory is not to be taken seriously</title>
	<author>mbkennel</author>
	<datestamp>1255467240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that some of the theory may be taken seriously but I agree with you, "causality", or any other law-of-physics-violating principle doesn't necessarily create large macroscopic effects.  Things can just not happen which would otherwise happen.</p><p>This isn't too obscure, it's part of the laws of physics.</p><p>After all, why do we have to generate a certain beam energy to make certain particles (non-virtually)?   Because if you don't then you violate a mass-energy condition.</p><p>And what about particles coming out "here, in this direction" but none coming out "there, in that direction"?   Conservation of momentum rule.</p><p>Then other transitions ("matrix elements") can be forbidden because, e.g. they don't conserve charge*spin*time invariance or something like that.</p><p>When you don't observe particles that would violate it, does it happen because all the detectors on that axis blow their tubes?  No, the particles simply fail to come out in that configuration and fail to cause a signal.</p><p>One also has to consider the statistical mechanics.  Consider all the potential states of the wavefunctions which uphold state-transition-forbidding-law-Z (the proposed theory is an unusual one of these).  Which are thermodynamically most probable?  The human-scale catastrophic outcomes written about require immense statistical-mechanical coincidences, even if they are technically valid solutions to the state-transition-forbidding-law-Z.</p><p>If the theory has some validity, it seems that the observations will turn out to work the way all other similar particle physics experiments work: no direct isolated particles come out at the energy that we'd expect them too, even though other relationships &amp; statistics of stuff we do observe suggests a mass-energy which is obtainable.</p><p>Other laws of physics appear to prevent unbound quarks from shooting off.  When people tried to make a quark-generating machine, did Nature arrange it so that it blew up?  No, instead we got mesons and other quark-containing stuff flying off---but no free quarks, even though we have evidence indirectly that there are quarks with certain mass, charge and other quantum numbers.</p><p>I think it's pretty likely the original authors (who are actual serious scientists and not cranks) thought of this. It could be a good trick, to make romantically outlandish predictions. The consequences are then that their particle theory gets put near the top of the (very, very long list) for being<br>tested when the LHC data finally start streaming in.</p><p>In Slashdot notation:</p><p>Problem: you have a radical particle theory.  But so does every other string and particle theorist out there, so almost all will get ignored and never tested.</p><p>1.  Propose science-fiction-style consequences and make outlandishly provocative predictions, like failure of LHC.<br>2.  LHC scientists get offended, run LHC successfully and test the boring computations that THEY did on your stupid theory to show that LHC won't blow up.<br>3.  It's true! Relativistic causality issues in Higgs interactions results in newly confirmed conservation law!<br>4.  Win Nobel Prize!<br>5.  Profit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that some of the theory may be taken seriously but I agree with you , " causality " , or any other law-of-physics-violating principle does n't necessarily create large macroscopic effects .
Things can just not happen which would otherwise happen.This is n't too obscure , it 's part of the laws of physics.After all , why do we have to generate a certain beam energy to make certain particles ( non-virtually ) ?
Because if you do n't then you violate a mass-energy condition.And what about particles coming out " here , in this direction " but none coming out " there , in that direction " ?
Conservation of momentum rule.Then other transitions ( " matrix elements " ) can be forbidden because , e.g .
they do n't conserve charge * spin * time invariance or something like that.When you do n't observe particles that would violate it , does it happen because all the detectors on that axis blow their tubes ?
No , the particles simply fail to come out in that configuration and fail to cause a signal.One also has to consider the statistical mechanics .
Consider all the potential states of the wavefunctions which uphold state-transition-forbidding-law-Z ( the proposed theory is an unusual one of these ) .
Which are thermodynamically most probable ?
The human-scale catastrophic outcomes written about require immense statistical-mechanical coincidences , even if they are technically valid solutions to the state-transition-forbidding-law-Z.If the theory has some validity , it seems that the observations will turn out to work the way all other similar particle physics experiments work : no direct isolated particles come out at the energy that we 'd expect them too , even though other relationships &amp; statistics of stuff we do observe suggests a mass-energy which is obtainable.Other laws of physics appear to prevent unbound quarks from shooting off .
When people tried to make a quark-generating machine , did Nature arrange it so that it blew up ?
No , instead we got mesons and other quark-containing stuff flying off---but no free quarks , even though we have evidence indirectly that there are quarks with certain mass , charge and other quantum numbers.I think it 's pretty likely the original authors ( who are actual serious scientists and not cranks ) thought of this .
It could be a good trick , to make romantically outlandish predictions .
The consequences are then that their particle theory gets put near the top of the ( very , very long list ) for beingtested when the LHC data finally start streaming in.In Slashdot notation : Problem : you have a radical particle theory .
But so does every other string and particle theorist out there , so almost all will get ignored and never tested.1 .
Propose science-fiction-style consequences and make outlandishly provocative predictions , like failure of LHC.2 .
LHC scientists get offended , run LHC successfully and test the boring computations that THEY did on your stupid theory to show that LHC wo n't blow up.3 .
It 's true !
Relativistic causality issues in Higgs interactions results in newly confirmed conservation law ! 4 .
Win Nobel Prize ! 5 .
Profit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that some of the theory may be taken seriously but I agree with you, "causality", or any other law-of-physics-violating principle doesn't necessarily create large macroscopic effects.
Things can just not happen which would otherwise happen.This isn't too obscure, it's part of the laws of physics.After all, why do we have to generate a certain beam energy to make certain particles (non-virtually)?
Because if you don't then you violate a mass-energy condition.And what about particles coming out "here, in this direction" but none coming out "there, in that direction"?
Conservation of momentum rule.Then other transitions ("matrix elements") can be forbidden because, e.g.
they don't conserve charge*spin*time invariance or something like that.When you don't observe particles that would violate it, does it happen because all the detectors on that axis blow their tubes?
No, the particles simply fail to come out in that configuration and fail to cause a signal.One also has to consider the statistical mechanics.
Consider all the potential states of the wavefunctions which uphold state-transition-forbidding-law-Z (the proposed theory is an unusual one of these).
Which are thermodynamically most probable?
The human-scale catastrophic outcomes written about require immense statistical-mechanical coincidences, even if they are technically valid solutions to the state-transition-forbidding-law-Z.If the theory has some validity, it seems that the observations will turn out to work the way all other similar particle physics experiments work: no direct isolated particles come out at the energy that we'd expect them too, even though other relationships &amp; statistics of stuff we do observe suggests a mass-energy which is obtainable.Other laws of physics appear to prevent unbound quarks from shooting off.
When people tried to make a quark-generating machine, did Nature arrange it so that it blew up?
No, instead we got mesons and other quark-containing stuff flying off---but no free quarks, even though we have evidence indirectly that there are quarks with certain mass, charge and other quantum numbers.I think it's pretty likely the original authors (who are actual serious scientists and not cranks) thought of this.
It could be a good trick, to make romantically outlandish predictions.
The consequences are then that their particle theory gets put near the top of the (very, very long list) for beingtested when the LHC data finally start streaming in.In Slashdot notation:Problem: you have a radical particle theory.
But so does every other string and particle theorist out there, so almost all will get ignored and never tested.1.
Propose science-fiction-style consequences and make outlandishly provocative predictions, like failure of LHC.2.
LHC scientists get offended, run LHC successfully and test the boring computations that THEY did on your stupid theory to show that LHC won't blow up.3.
It's true!
Relativistic causality issues in Higgs interactions results in newly confirmed conservation law!4.
Win Nobel Prize!5.
Profit!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739025</id>
	<title>Re:Superstition</title>
	<author>Aristos Mazer</author>
	<datestamp>1255437060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not the same as saying "God doesn't allow it." It could simply be "under the laws of physics, no such machine can ever be constructed successfully." The theory doesn't require any active player in the game pushing back on the LHC. The theory is just suggesting a pressure, if you'll allow the analogy, that holds back any such particle generation, and if you "compress" the probability of success enough, it pops back forcefully. What the theory is suggesting is that no amount of good design can make this work, in the same way that no amount of jumping is going to launch a person into Earth orbit -- the universe doesn't allow it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not the same as saying " God does n't allow it .
" It could simply be " under the laws of physics , no such machine can ever be constructed successfully .
" The theory does n't require any active player in the game pushing back on the LHC .
The theory is just suggesting a pressure , if you 'll allow the analogy , that holds back any such particle generation , and if you " compress " the probability of success enough , it pops back forcefully .
What the theory is suggesting is that no amount of good design can make this work , in the same way that no amount of jumping is going to launch a person into Earth orbit -- the universe does n't allow it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not the same as saying "God doesn't allow it.
" It could simply be "under the laws of physics, no such machine can ever be constructed successfully.
" The theory doesn't require any active player in the game pushing back on the LHC.
The theory is just suggesting a pressure, if you'll allow the analogy, that holds back any such particle generation, and if you "compress" the probability of success enough, it pops back forcefully.
What the theory is suggesting is that no amount of good design can make this work, in the same way that no amount of jumping is going to launch a person into Earth orbit -- the universe doesn't allow it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735591</id>
	<title>Higgs is everywhere.</title>
	<author>ianm.phil</author>
	<datestamp>1255465560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is ridiculous and not worthy of any publication, let alone the NYT (and should not be propagated on slashdot, imho).</p><p>In short, the Higgs boson (if theories are correct) is a scalar that provides mass to all particles. That means it is present at all times everywhere. So, although it is tongue in cheek, we are swimming in an invisible soup of Higgs particles at each moment. To say that universe doesn't want us to create one is like saying people are born blind because the universe didn't want us to experience light.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is ridiculous and not worthy of any publication , let alone the NYT ( and should not be propagated on slashdot , imho ) .In short , the Higgs boson ( if theories are correct ) is a scalar that provides mass to all particles .
That means it is present at all times everywhere .
So , although it is tongue in cheek , we are swimming in an invisible soup of Higgs particles at each moment .
To say that universe does n't want us to create one is like saying people are born blind because the universe did n't want us to experience light .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is ridiculous and not worthy of any publication, let alone the NYT (and should not be propagated on slashdot, imho).In short, the Higgs boson (if theories are correct) is a scalar that provides mass to all particles.
That means it is present at all times everywhere.
So, although it is tongue in cheek, we are swimming in an invisible soup of Higgs particles at each moment.
To say that universe doesn't want us to create one is like saying people are born blind because the universe didn't want us to experience light.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738375</id>
	<title>Re:Larry Niven took it one step further.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255433220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wasn't that ultimately what became of Farscape?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was n't that ultimately what became of Farscape ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasn't that ultimately what became of Farscape?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738711</id>
	<title>Roh noes!</title>
	<author>Phantom\_of\_the\_Opera</author>
	<datestamp>1255435020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First we have furries. Now we'll have bosies!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First we have furries .
Now we 'll have bosies !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First we have furries.
Now we'll have bosies!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29747425</id>
	<title>Re:This is a stupid theory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255546740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh man think about the paradox to that one! You travel back in time do your grandmother and knock her up. She gives birth to your dad, who in turn does your mom and knocks her up. Your mom gives birth to you, by this time you are the product of two generations of incest. At which point you arrive at the time where you go back in time to do your grandmother again. So by the time you are born you are the product of a fourth generation of incest and so on until genetics make your birth impossible because you are too genetically alike to your grandmother or your mental capacity to reproduce is genetically corrupt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh man think about the paradox to that one !
You travel back in time do your grandmother and knock her up .
She gives birth to your dad , who in turn does your mom and knocks her up .
Your mom gives birth to you , by this time you are the product of two generations of incest .
At which point you arrive at the time where you go back in time to do your grandmother again .
So by the time you are born you are the product of a fourth generation of incest and so on until genetics make your birth impossible because you are too genetically alike to your grandmother or your mental capacity to reproduce is genetically corrupt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh man think about the paradox to that one!
You travel back in time do your grandmother and knock her up.
She gives birth to your dad, who in turn does your mom and knocks her up.
Your mom gives birth to you, by this time you are the product of two generations of incest.
At which point you arrive at the time where you go back in time to do your grandmother again.
So by the time you are born you are the product of a fourth generation of incest and so on until genetics make your birth impossible because you are too genetically alike to your grandmother or your mental capacity to reproduce is genetically corrupt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29742779</id>
	<title>"Producing" a Higgs in this sense only means</title>
	<author>rogerdr</author>
	<datestamp>1255522680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Producing" a Higgs in this sense only means detecting its presence (in)directly. Higgs, if it exists, is ubiquitous in the universe already, saying that its presence is abhorrent to nature is like saying an electron is. Nature is quite comfortable with the presence of all of its particles, and doesn't give a rat's ass if we ever see any of them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Producing " a Higgs in this sense only means detecting its presence ( in ) directly .
Higgs , if it exists , is ubiquitous in the universe already , saying that its presence is abhorrent to nature is like saying an electron is .
Nature is quite comfortable with the presence of all of its particles , and does n't give a rat 's ass if we ever see any of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Producing" a Higgs in this sense only means detecting its presence (in)directly.
Higgs, if it exists, is ubiquitous in the universe already, saying that its presence is abhorrent to nature is like saying an electron is.
Nature is quite comfortable with the presence of all of its particles, and doesn't give a rat's ass if we ever see any of them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29819911</id>
	<title>Re:I believe that would be Niven's Law...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256065380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Otherwise distinguished physicists" should not exist, neither should "distinguished physicists", neither should LHS or Englert or Brout. When does nature exactly gets going on abhorring an idea? There must be  something about financial markets it does not like. If only I knew, maybe then I could control it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Otherwise distinguished physicists " should not exist , neither should " distinguished physicists " , neither should LHS or Englert or Brout .
When does nature exactly gets going on abhorring an idea ?
There must be something about financial markets it does not like .
If only I knew , maybe then I could control it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Otherwise distinguished physicists" should not exist, neither should "distinguished physicists", neither should LHS or Englert or Brout.
When does nature exactly gets going on abhorring an idea?
There must be  something about financial markets it does not like.
If only I knew, maybe then I could control it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737585</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255429980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, a blatantly sexist* comment is +5 funny, but there's no problem with sexism in Geekdom... right...</p><p>*and, dare I say, unfunny and unoriginal</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , a blatantly sexist * comment is + 5 funny , but there 's no problem with sexism in Geekdom... right... * and , dare I say , unfunny and unoriginal</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, a blatantly sexist* comment is +5 funny, but there's no problem with sexism in Geekdom... right...*and, dare I say, unfunny and unoriginal</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737195</id>
	<title>Re:Back in high school creative writing class ...</title>
	<author>TangoMargarine</author>
	<datestamp>1255428540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Epic win. I love time travel paradoxes. If I had mod points, I would be modding you up like nobody's business.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Epic win .
I love time travel paradoxes .
If I had mod points , I would be modding you up like nobody 's business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Epic win.
I love time travel paradoxes.
If I had mod points, I would be modding you up like nobody's business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735869</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29745735</id>
	<title>Quantum Immortality</title>
	<author>kalirion</author>
	<datestamp>1255539180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I say this is just the universe's version of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum\_suicide\_and\_immortality" title="wikipedia.org">Quantum Immortality</a> [wikipedia.org].  Every universe where the LHC is successfully run immediately undergoes a new Big Bang, so the only surviving universes are those where the experiment keeps having problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I say this is just the universe 's version of Quantum Immortality [ wikipedia.org ] .
Every universe where the LHC is successfully run immediately undergoes a new Big Bang , so the only surviving universes are those where the experiment keeps having problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I say this is just the universe's version of Quantum Immortality [wikipedia.org].
Every universe where the LHC is successfully run immediately undergoes a new Big Bang, so the only surviving universes are those where the experiment keeps having problems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739059</id>
	<title>Re:Could happen</title>
	<author>buttersnout</author>
	<datestamp>1255437240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They'll never find the higgs boson.  Once we couldn't explain light so we invented the ether.  We described how light particles interacted with the ether and based all of physics around it.  We justified it by saying all other physics has some analogy to the ether.  Now we can't explain matter so we invent a higgs field.   We describe how matter particles interact with the higgs field and justify it by saying all other physics has some analogy to the higgs boson.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 'll never find the higgs boson .
Once we could n't explain light so we invented the ether .
We described how light particles interacted with the ether and based all of physics around it .
We justified it by saying all other physics has some analogy to the ether .
Now we ca n't explain matter so we invent a higgs field .
We describe how matter particles interact with the higgs field and justify it by saying all other physics has some analogy to the higgs boson .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They'll never find the higgs boson.
Once we couldn't explain light so we invented the ether.
We described how light particles interacted with the ether and based all of physics around it.
We justified it by saying all other physics has some analogy to the ether.
Now we can't explain matter so we invent a higgs field.
We describe how matter particles interact with the higgs field and justify it by saying all other physics has some analogy to the higgs boson.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29748695</id>
	<title>So it's ladders, broken mirrors</title>
	<author>keyboarderror</author>
	<datestamp>1255552080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>cracks, black cats, and higgs bosons? Got it. Honestly, I'd say it's being suggested CERN integrate a project like Princeton's. Sorting large amounts of random numbers looking for periods of non-randomness.
<a href="http://noosphere.princeton.edu/" title="princeton.edu" rel="nofollow">http://noosphere.princeton.edu/</a> [princeton.edu]</htmltext>
<tokenext>cracks , black cats , and higgs bosons ?
Got it .
Honestly , I 'd say it 's being suggested CERN integrate a project like Princeton 's .
Sorting large amounts of random numbers looking for periods of non-randomness .
http : //noosphere.princeton.edu/ [ princeton.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cracks, black cats, and higgs bosons?
Got it.
Honestly, I'd say it's being suggested CERN integrate a project like Princeton's.
Sorting large amounts of random numbers looking for periods of non-randomness.
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/ [princeton.edu]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735963</id>
	<title>Not a Theory, yet...</title>
	<author>Balrogg</author>
	<datestamp>1255467120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; "are theorizing that it's happening"</p><p>Get the terminology right!  Remember the whole Evolution is "just a theory" thing?  Theories must be supported by factual evidence, and be subjected to peer review.<br>As it stands, these guys are "hypothesizing."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; " are theorizing that it 's happening " Get the terminology right !
Remember the whole Evolution is " just a theory " thing ?
Theories must be supported by factual evidence , and be subjected to peer review.As it stands , these guys are " hypothesizing .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; "are theorizing that it's happening"Get the terminology right!
Remember the whole Evolution is "just a theory" thing?
Theories must be supported by factual evidence, and be subjected to peer review.As it stands, these guys are "hypothesizing.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29749929</id>
	<title>Re:pull the other one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255514520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Option (d) "There is no Higgs boson"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Option ( d ) " There is no Higgs boson "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Option (d) "There is no Higgs boson"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736687</id>
	<title>Stating the Obvious</title>
	<author>Sitnalta</author>
	<datestamp>1255426920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...or maybe it's because the LHC is a extremely complex machine that is unprecedented in human history with millions of parts that must work together within very narrow parameters.</p><p>Just because a few experimental rockets blew up doesn't mean the universe didn't want us to go into space. Just because a few experimental planes crashed doesn't mean the universe didn't want us to break the sound barrier. These physicists should get off the ganga and give each other 14TeV dope slaps for coming up with such a retarded idea.</p><p>Plus maybe a slightly smaller dope slap to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. for putting crazy in quotation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...or maybe it 's because the LHC is a extremely complex machine that is unprecedented in human history with millions of parts that must work together within very narrow parameters.Just because a few experimental rockets blew up does n't mean the universe did n't want us to go into space .
Just because a few experimental planes crashed does n't mean the universe did n't want us to break the sound barrier .
These physicists should get off the ganga and give each other 14TeV dope slaps for coming up with such a retarded idea.Plus maybe a slightly smaller dope slap to / .
for putting crazy in quotation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...or maybe it's because the LHC is a extremely complex machine that is unprecedented in human history with millions of parts that must work together within very narrow parameters.Just because a few experimental rockets blew up doesn't mean the universe didn't want us to go into space.
Just because a few experimental planes crashed doesn't mean the universe didn't want us to break the sound barrier.
These physicists should get off the ganga and give each other 14TeV dope slaps for coming up with such a retarded idea.Plus maybe a slightly smaller dope slap to /.
for putting crazy in quotation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737215</id>
	<title>Re:Superstition</title>
	<author>crazybit</author>
	<datestamp>1255428600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There might be evidence but we are still not aware of it. Humans where surrounded by evidence of gravitational force, but it was not until Newton that we became aware of it. Same happened with other scientific discoveries, they began with a strange idea that lead to a more detailed observation, then hypothesis, etc.<br> <br>This might (or might not) be the first step in becoming aware of a phenomena strange to us, discarding the idea before we try to observe it closely will be shooting ourselves on the foot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There might be evidence but we are still not aware of it .
Humans where surrounded by evidence of gravitational force , but it was not until Newton that we became aware of it .
Same happened with other scientific discoveries , they began with a strange idea that lead to a more detailed observation , then hypothesis , etc .
This might ( or might not ) be the first step in becoming aware of a phenomena strange to us , discarding the idea before we try to observe it closely will be shooting ourselves on the foot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There might be evidence but we are still not aware of it.
Humans where surrounded by evidence of gravitational force, but it was not until Newton that we became aware of it.
Same happened with other scientific discoveries, they began with a strange idea that lead to a more detailed observation, then hypothesis, etc.
This might (or might not) be the first step in becoming aware of a phenomena strange to us, discarding the idea before we try to observe it closely will be shooting ourselves on the foot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738435</id>
	<title>Re:Higgs is everywhere.</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1255433460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Though one can ask (and I know too little of advanced physics to seriously contemplate the answer):</p><p>can unboound Higgs boson influence the Universe differently?</p><p>PS. Anyway, we don't have a reason to worry; LHC is just about putting in a controlled environment, with lots of detectors, collisions that are happening all the time. And aren't really that close to really energetic ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Though one can ask ( and I know too little of advanced physics to seriously contemplate the answer ) : can unboound Higgs boson influence the Universe differently ? PS .
Anyway , we do n't have a reason to worry ; LHC is just about putting in a controlled environment , with lots of detectors , collisions that are happening all the time .
And are n't really that close to really energetic ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though one can ask (and I know too little of advanced physics to seriously contemplate the answer):can unboound Higgs boson influence the Universe differently?PS.
Anyway, we don't have a reason to worry; LHC is just about putting in a controlled environment, with lots of detectors, collisions that are happening all the time.
And aren't really that close to really energetic ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735921</id>
	<title>Re:Anti-scienctific sentiment (but it's okay)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255467000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Science is founded on the idea that our universe is predictable and that we can understand it.</p><p>Incorrect.</p><p>Science is founded on observation.  We observe something, we question it, we observe it again and ask better questions.  We make models, and while we want these models to make predictions, we do not expect them to exactly describe the world around us.  Not all scientists need to believe that everything is predictable.</p><p>At the risk of sounding hokey I'll end by claiming that this is the problem with science students today.  They think science is an answer. Science is not an answer, it is a question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Science is founded on the idea that our universe is predictable and that we can understand it.Incorrect.Science is founded on observation .
We observe something , we question it , we observe it again and ask better questions .
We make models , and while we want these models to make predictions , we do not expect them to exactly describe the world around us .
Not all scientists need to believe that everything is predictable.At the risk of sounding hokey I 'll end by claiming that this is the problem with science students today .
They think science is an answer .
Science is not an answer , it is a question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Science is founded on the idea that our universe is predictable and that we can understand it.Incorrect.Science is founded on observation.
We observe something, we question it, we observe it again and ask better questions.
We make models, and while we want these models to make predictions, we do not expect them to exactly describe the world around us.
Not all scientists need to believe that everything is predictable.At the risk of sounding hokey I'll end by claiming that this is the problem with science students today.
They think science is an answer.
Science is not an answer, it is a question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735651</id>
	<title>Re:To say...</title>
	<author>Rhacman</author>
	<datestamp>1255465800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>hmm... not to change the topic or anything, but which chan should I post a rule34 challenge on regarding an anthropomorphized Higgs boson?</htmltext>
<tokenext>hmm... not to change the topic or anything , but which chan should I post a rule34 challenge on regarding an anthropomorphized Higgs boson ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hmm... not to change the topic or anything, but which chan should I post a rule34 challenge on regarding an anthropomorphized Higgs boson?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736499</id>
	<title>Larry Niven did it first...</title>
	<author>Ktistec Machine</author>
	<datestamp>1255426080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...in "Rotating Cylinders and the Possibility of Global Causality Violation", in 1977:</p><p><a href="http://authors.wizards.pro/books/titles/50243/rotating-cylinders-and-the-possibility-of-global-causality-violation" title="wizards.pro">http://authors.wizards.pro/books/titles/50243/rotating-cylinders-and-the-possibility-of-global-causality-violation</a> [wizards.pro]</p><p>"Einstein's Bridge" seems to be twenty years later.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...in " Rotating Cylinders and the Possibility of Global Causality Violation " , in 1977 : http : //authors.wizards.pro/books/titles/50243/rotating-cylinders-and-the-possibility-of-global-causality-violation [ wizards.pro ] " Einstein 's Bridge " seems to be twenty years later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...in "Rotating Cylinders and the Possibility of Global Causality Violation", in 1977:http://authors.wizards.pro/books/titles/50243/rotating-cylinders-and-the-possibility-of-global-causality-violation [wizards.pro]"Einstein's Bridge" seems to be twenty years later.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29745031</id>
	<title>Re:Imagination is a fine thing...</title>
	<author>cgenman</author>
	<datestamp>1255536360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And how was such a conjecture published without data or peer review?</i></p><p>Because it was published as conjecture?  You know, the first step before developing or dismissing a theory?</p><p>It is an interesting brainstorm, especially when developing particles that are potentially capable of traveling in time.  Quite frankly it's no more insane a conjecture than Heisenberg smearing in time.  And we've *proven* that.</p><p>And yes, it's 99.99\% likely to be wrong.  But that 0.01\% of the time that it isn't...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And how was such a conjecture published without data or peer review ? Because it was published as conjecture ?
You know , the first step before developing or dismissing a theory ? It is an interesting brainstorm , especially when developing particles that are potentially capable of traveling in time .
Quite frankly it 's no more insane a conjecture than Heisenberg smearing in time .
And we 've * proven * that.And yes , it 's 99.99 \ % likely to be wrong .
But that 0.01 \ % of the time that it is n't.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And how was such a conjecture published without data or peer review?Because it was published as conjecture?
You know, the first step before developing or dismissing a theory?It is an interesting brainstorm, especially when developing particles that are potentially capable of traveling in time.
Quite frankly it's no more insane a conjecture than Heisenberg smearing in time.
And we've *proven* that.And yes, it's 99.99\% likely to be wrong.
But that 0.01\% of the time that it isn't...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736579</id>
	<title>Re:To say...</title>
	<author>Zen\_Sorcere</author>
	<datestamp>1255426440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Touche, sir.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Touche , sir .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Touche, sir.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736101</id>
	<title>Obligatory Futurama Reference.....</title>
	<author>IHC Navistar</author>
	<datestamp>1255424400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...like a time traveler who goes back in time to kill his grandfather."</p><p>-You mean, like the time Fry went back and killed his grandfather, and then "Did the nasty in the past-y"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...like a time traveler who goes back in time to kill his grandfather .
" -You mean , like the time Fry went back and killed his grandfather , and then " Did the nasty in the past-y " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...like a time traveler who goes back in time to kill his grandfather.
"-You mean, like the time Fry went back and killed his grandfather, and then "Did the nasty in the past-y"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737163</id>
	<title>Just for the record...</title>
	<author>ZarathustraDK</author>
	<datestamp>1255428480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Holger Bech Nielsen is awesome, really the most geeky of geeks oblivious to his surroundings.<br> <br>

Saw this tv-report once, he was going to meet the queen of Denmark to be knighted or some of the kind. He couldn't put on a tuxedo himself. After his wife had helped him put on the tuxedo and he was all fancy he went out wearing his winter-hood (it was cold outside). After he came out from meeting the queen he reached into his pocket because he felt something strange, and pulled out a pair of gloves (when you meet the queen it's customary to wear gloves when you shake her hand), to which he with a heureka-surprise-kinda-expression on his face announced "OH LOOK GLOVES!".<br> <br>

He has a funny voice to and is enthusiastic about what he does, gotta love him. He attended Mensa-Denmarks 40-year anniversary as a guest-speaker. After 25 minutes we were all simultaneously intrigued and at the same time cracking up because of his character. It was awesome.<br> <br>

I'm conflicted though as to whether I have to hand in my geek-card or not. Got a picture where I'm sitting next to him, and what am I doing? I'm talking with the blonde across the table -.-'</htmltext>
<tokenext>Holger Bech Nielsen is awesome , really the most geeky of geeks oblivious to his surroundings .
Saw this tv-report once , he was going to meet the queen of Denmark to be knighted or some of the kind .
He could n't put on a tuxedo himself .
After his wife had helped him put on the tuxedo and he was all fancy he went out wearing his winter-hood ( it was cold outside ) .
After he came out from meeting the queen he reached into his pocket because he felt something strange , and pulled out a pair of gloves ( when you meet the queen it 's customary to wear gloves when you shake her hand ) , to which he with a heureka-surprise-kinda-expression on his face announced " OH LOOK GLOVES ! " .
He has a funny voice to and is enthusiastic about what he does , got ta love him .
He attended Mensa-Denmarks 40-year anniversary as a guest-speaker .
After 25 minutes we were all simultaneously intrigued and at the same time cracking up because of his character .
It was awesome .
I 'm conflicted though as to whether I have to hand in my geek-card or not .
Got a picture where I 'm sitting next to him , and what am I doing ?
I 'm talking with the blonde across the table -.-'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Holger Bech Nielsen is awesome, really the most geeky of geeks oblivious to his surroundings.
Saw this tv-report once, he was going to meet the queen of Denmark to be knighted or some of the kind.
He couldn't put on a tuxedo himself.
After his wife had helped him put on the tuxedo and he was all fancy he went out wearing his winter-hood (it was cold outside).
After he came out from meeting the queen he reached into his pocket because he felt something strange, and pulled out a pair of gloves (when you meet the queen it's customary to wear gloves when you shake her hand), to which he with a heureka-surprise-kinda-expression on his face announced "OH LOOK GLOVES!".
He has a funny voice to and is enthusiastic about what he does, gotta love him.
He attended Mensa-Denmarks 40-year anniversary as a guest-speaker.
After 25 minutes we were all simultaneously intrigued and at the same time cracking up because of his character.
It was awesome.
I'm conflicted though as to whether I have to hand in my geek-card or not.
Got a picture where I'm sitting next to him, and what am I doing?
I'm talking with the blonde across the table -.-'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738187</id>
	<title>Re:Could happen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255432500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"In theory there's no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is".</p></div><p>Sure, in theory.</p><p>Your move.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" In theory there 's no difference between theory and practice , but in practice there is " .Sure , in theory.Your move .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In theory there's no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is".Sure, in theory.Your move.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736151</id>
	<title>Re:This is a stupid theory</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1255424580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ohh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. "I'm My Own Grandfather"!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ohh , a lesson in not changing history from Mr. " I 'm My Own Grandfather " !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ohh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. "I'm My Own Grandfather"!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738943</id>
	<title>Did they have to include the spoiler?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255436520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TFA included a spoiler about the ending of Sirens of Titan. Probably 98\% of Slashdotters read that one long ago, but think of the poor soul who is just about to start reading it for the first time and stumbles on this article...</p><p>Of course, years before I ever watched Citizen Kane, I already knew the ending. But Sirens is a much better story, so I think the spoiler matters more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA included a spoiler about the ending of Sirens of Titan .
Probably 98 \ % of Slashdotters read that one long ago , but think of the poor soul who is just about to start reading it for the first time and stumbles on this article...Of course , years before I ever watched Citizen Kane , I already knew the ending .
But Sirens is a much better story , so I think the spoiler matters more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA included a spoiler about the ending of Sirens of Titan.
Probably 98\% of Slashdotters read that one long ago, but think of the poor soul who is just about to start reading it for the first time and stumbles on this article...Of course, years before I ever watched Citizen Kane, I already knew the ending.
But Sirens is a much better story, so I think the spoiler matters more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735637</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>darien</author>
	<datestamp>1255465740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it pleasingly apt that the signature beneath this unparsable phrase is a description of a syntax...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it pleasingly apt that the signature beneath this unparsable phrase is a description of a syntax.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it pleasingly apt that the signature beneath this unparsable phrase is a description of a syntax...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737535</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1255429800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>... (some time between fall '63 and spring '65) I wrote a short story with a similar premise:The government's physicists had identified a way to create such a "bounce" situation by a nuclear mumbo-jumbo that starts with putting together a dense enough energy packet.  This backs the universe up a bit and it takes another alternative timeline.  Humans have just enough psi to make different decisions.  The more energy you use to start the process, the farther back the "time bounce" to the fork.  Or at least that's the theory.The government has taken advantage of this by creating a secret project:  They are collecting and storing a LOT of energy using a solar power satellite.  (The downlink is a laser and the ground-based collector and energy storage tech, like the details of the bounce device, are unspecified.)  Accumulation of energy is ongoing, so they continue to have enough to bounce back at least to the time when the project was initiated.  (Going farther risks taking a fork on which the device is not made.)This is used by the diplomats as a way to correct mistakes:  If things got too bad diplomatically they could go back and try something different.  (Unlike a doomsday device you WANT to keep this one secret - and for there to be only one.)Since the project went online, though there have been many conflicts and near-misses on situations with the potential to degenerate into something that would make WW II or a comet impact look tame, things have always worked out for the government in question.  Sometimes by smart diplomacy, sometimes by smart battle strategy in small conflicts heading off large ones, sometimes by seemingly amazing coincidences and blind luck.  Starting as one country on Earth (where the device is still sited) the government has (mostly peaceably) unified/absorbed/explored/grown into a multi-solar-system empire.The kicker is that, from the viewpoint of the operators (from which it is was written) EVERY use is the FIRST use.  It ALWAYS appears that things have miraculously gone so well that they haven't needed it - until JUST NOW.  Maybe the thing really doesn't work - in which case it will destroy the planet and life on most of the spiral arm.  Maybe it does work - but from the viewpoint of the current timeline it's just the end of the universe.  Maybe the diplomats and generals, knowing this is a possibility, have gone to heroic efforts and pulled out heroic saves - until JUST NOW.  But now it's finally hit the fan and the viewpoint characters have been ordered to set it off<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...One of the others in that class was the guy who was the model for Aahz in Asprin's books.  Ran into him a decade or two later.  He brought up the story and said it had haunted him ever since.  B-)</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>... ( some time between fall '63 and spring '65 ) I wrote a short story with a similar premise : The government 's physicists had identified a way to create such a " bounce " situation by a nuclear mumbo-jumbo that starts with putting together a dense enough energy packet .
This backs the universe up a bit and it takes another alternative timeline .
Humans have just enough psi to make different decisions .
The more energy you use to start the process , the farther back the " time bounce " to the fork .
Or at least that 's the theory.The government has taken advantage of this by creating a secret project : They are collecting and storing a LOT of energy using a solar power satellite .
( The downlink is a laser and the ground-based collector and energy storage tech , like the details of the bounce device , are unspecified .
) Accumulation of energy is ongoing , so they continue to have enough to bounce back at least to the time when the project was initiated .
( Going farther risks taking a fork on which the device is not made .
) This is used by the diplomats as a way to correct mistakes : If things got too bad diplomatically they could go back and try something different .
( Unlike a doomsday device you WANT to keep this one secret - and for there to be only one .
) Since the project went online , though there have been many conflicts and near-misses on situations with the potential to degenerate into something that would make WW II or a comet impact look tame , things have always worked out for the government in question .
Sometimes by smart diplomacy , sometimes by smart battle strategy in small conflicts heading off large ones , sometimes by seemingly amazing coincidences and blind luck .
Starting as one country on Earth ( where the device is still sited ) the government has ( mostly peaceably ) unified/absorbed/explored/grown into a multi-solar-system empire.The kicker is that , from the viewpoint of the operators ( from which it is was written ) EVERY use is the FIRST use .
It ALWAYS appears that things have miraculously gone so well that they have n't needed it - until JUST NOW .
Maybe the thing really does n't work - in which case it will destroy the planet and life on most of the spiral arm .
Maybe it does work - but from the viewpoint of the current timeline it 's just the end of the universe .
Maybe the diplomats and generals , knowing this is a possibility , have gone to heroic efforts and pulled out heroic saves - until JUST NOW .
But now it 's finally hit the fan and the viewpoint characters have been ordered to set it off ...One of the others in that class was the guy who was the model for Aahz in Asprin 's books .
Ran into him a decade or two later .
He brought up the story and said it had haunted him ever since .
B- )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... (some time between fall '63 and spring '65) I wrote a short story with a similar premise:The government's physicists had identified a way to create such a "bounce" situation by a nuclear mumbo-jumbo that starts with putting together a dense enough energy packet.
This backs the universe up a bit and it takes another alternative timeline.
Humans have just enough psi to make different decisions.
The more energy you use to start the process, the farther back the "time bounce" to the fork.
Or at least that's the theory.The government has taken advantage of this by creating a secret project:  They are collecting and storing a LOT of energy using a solar power satellite.
(The downlink is a laser and the ground-based collector and energy storage tech, like the details of the bounce device, are unspecified.
)  Accumulation of energy is ongoing, so they continue to have enough to bounce back at least to the time when the project was initiated.
(Going farther risks taking a fork on which the device is not made.
)This is used by the diplomats as a way to correct mistakes:  If things got too bad diplomatically they could go back and try something different.
(Unlike a doomsday device you WANT to keep this one secret - and for there to be only one.
)Since the project went online, though there have been many conflicts and near-misses on situations with the potential to degenerate into something that would make WW II or a comet impact look tame, things have always worked out for the government in question.
Sometimes by smart diplomacy, sometimes by smart battle strategy in small conflicts heading off large ones, sometimes by seemingly amazing coincidences and blind luck.
Starting as one country on Earth (where the device is still sited) the government has (mostly peaceably) unified/absorbed/explored/grown into a multi-solar-system empire.The kicker is that, from the viewpoint of the operators (from which it is was written) EVERY use is the FIRST use.
It ALWAYS appears that things have miraculously gone so well that they haven't needed it - until JUST NOW.
Maybe the thing really doesn't work - in which case it will destroy the planet and life on most of the spiral arm.
Maybe it does work - but from the viewpoint of the current timeline it's just the end of the universe.
Maybe the diplomats and generals, knowing this is a possibility, have gone to heroic efforts and pulled out heroic saves - until JUST NOW.
But now it's finally hit the fan and the viewpoint characters have been ordered to set it off ...One of the others in that class was the guy who was the model for Aahz in Asprin's books.
Ran into him a decade or two later.
He brought up the story and said it had haunted him ever since.
B-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736537</id>
	<title>Re:Back in high school creative writing class ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255426260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reminds me of that show 7 Days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds me of that show 7 Days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds me of that show 7 Days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735869</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29752735</id>
	<title>Re:Science? Really?</title>
	<author>arminw</author>
	<datestamp>1255534080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>....high energy particles that can create Higgs bosons if they exist...</p><p>Since we have never seen one before, how would we know if he met one? Since we are still here, one has not yet been made or nothing much happened as a consequence of one appearing and decaying into whatever they decay into.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>....high energy particles that can create Higgs bosons if they exist...Since we have never seen one before , how would we know if he met one ?
Since we are still here , one has not yet been made or nothing much happened as a consequence of one appearing and decaying into whatever they decay into .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....high energy particles that can create Higgs bosons if they exist...Since we have never seen one before, how would we know if he met one?
Since we are still here, one has not yet been made or nothing much happened as a consequence of one appearing and decaying into whatever they decay into.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737017</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29751407</id>
	<title>Re:Higgs is everywhere.</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1255523460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"In short, the Higgs boson (<em>if theories are correct)"</em></htmltext>
<tokenext>" In short , the Higgs boson ( if theories are correct ) "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In short, the Higgs boson (if theories are correct)"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736407</id>
	<title>Re:Anti-scienctific sentiment (but it's okay)</title>
	<author>Duradin</author>
	<datestamp>1255425720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My money is on the accidental discovery of the Murphy particle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My money is on the accidental discovery of the Murphy particle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My money is on the accidental discovery of the Murphy particle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738337</id>
	<title>Re:Larry Niven took it one step further.</title>
	<author>IorDMUX</author>
	<datestamp>1255433100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ooh... I think I missed that one!  <br> <br>Has it been published in any of Larry Niven's short story compilations?  I don't think I've seen it before, but I would certainly like to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ooh... I think I missed that one !
Has it been published in any of Larry Niven 's short story compilations ?
I do n't think I 've seen it before , but I would certainly like to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ooh... I think I missed that one!
Has it been published in any of Larry Niven's short story compilations?
I don't think I've seen it before, but I would certainly like to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29746543</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect...</title>
	<author>Muckluck</author>
	<datestamp>1255542660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good point, but let's take this to the logical extreme.  Imagine what this could mean for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.   I make a post, get modded down by so many people that nature decides it is an abomination and sends a few electrons back in time to prevent the post from posting in the first place.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./ content should theoretically get better over time but only if the Trolls troll their hardest.<br> <br>I guess I am ready to do my part...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good point , but let 's take this to the logical extreme .
Imagine what this could mean for / .
I make a post , get modded down by so many people that nature decides it is an abomination and sends a few electrons back in time to prevent the post from posting in the first place .
./ content should theoretically get better over time but only if the Trolls troll their hardest .
I guess I am ready to do my part.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good point, but let's take this to the logical extreme.
Imagine what this could mean for /.
I make a post, get modded down by so many people that nature decides it is an abomination and sends a few electrons back in time to prevent the post from posting in the first place.
./ content should theoretically get better over time but only if the Trolls troll their hardest.
I guess I am ready to do my part...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739033</id>
	<title>Re:pull the other one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255437120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I personally believe that they are trying to do too much with the money that they have.</p><p>A good example is someone winning the lottery spending all of the winnings to buy a house.  Great house, but no money to heat, cool, or pay property taxes.</p><p>The LHC is trying to maximize the bang for their buck, but might've tried to go too far.  They probably could have built a smaller collider with more redundancy and margin of error, but wouldn't get the same results.</p><p>For the scope of the experiment that they have they really have a shoestring budget.  I wish them the best!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I personally believe that they are trying to do too much with the money that they have.A good example is someone winning the lottery spending all of the winnings to buy a house .
Great house , but no money to heat , cool , or pay property taxes.The LHC is trying to maximize the bang for their buck , but might 've tried to go too far .
They probably could have built a smaller collider with more redundancy and margin of error , but would n't get the same results.For the scope of the experiment that they have they really have a shoestring budget .
I wish them the best !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I personally believe that they are trying to do too much with the money that they have.A good example is someone winning the lottery spending all of the winnings to buy a house.
Great house, but no money to heat, cool, or pay property taxes.The LHC is trying to maximize the bang for their buck, but might've tried to go too far.
They probably could have built a smaller collider with more redundancy and margin of error, but wouldn't get the same results.For the scope of the experiment that they have they really have a shoestring budget.
I wish them the best!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29750745</id>
	<title>Re:Get a grip</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255519080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But no one did complain.  What's your point?  Sounds like a bit of backed up resentment is in your post.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But no one did complain .
What 's your point ?
Sounds like a bit of backed up resentment is in your post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But no one did complain.
What's your point?
Sounds like a bit of backed up resentment is in your post.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741059</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739969</id>
	<title>Re:To say...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1255444200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean theoretic metaphysics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean theoretic metaphysics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean theoretic metaphysics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735497</id>
	<title>Where's the party?</title>
	<author>chord.wav</author>
	<datestamp>1255465260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone knows how to get to the enchantment under the sea dance? I was told that a weird, translucent, guy will play the guitar there...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone knows how to get to the enchantment under the sea dance ?
I was told that a weird , translucent , guy will play the guitar there.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone knows how to get to the enchantment under the sea dance?
I was told that a weird, translucent, guy will play the guitar there...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735693</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255466040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why don't you just learn to cook, you pathetic fuck. Then again, it probably isn't worth it, because your wife is grotesquely ugly and morbidly obese.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't you just learn to cook , you pathetic fuck .
Then again , it probably is n't worth it , because your wife is grotesquely ugly and morbidly obese .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't you just learn to cook, you pathetic fuck.
Then again, it probably isn't worth it, because your wife is grotesquely ugly and morbidly obese.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739149</id>
	<title>Some physists are in fact morons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255438020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to:<br><a href="http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/en/LHC/Safety-en.html" title="web.cern.ch" rel="nofollow">http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/en/LHC/Safety-en.html</a> [web.cern.ch]</p><p>The LHC isn't even capable of reproducing energies involved when cosmic rays strike particles in our atmosphere - something that has been happening routinly now for oh I don't know billions of years.</p><p>To assert that God or some quantum many worlds nonsense is behind the engineering failures at Cern only makes sense on April first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to : http : //public.web.cern.ch/Public/en/LHC/Safety-en.html [ web.cern.ch ] The LHC is n't even capable of reproducing energies involved when cosmic rays strike particles in our atmosphere - something that has been happening routinly now for oh I do n't know billions of years.To assert that God or some quantum many worlds nonsense is behind the engineering failures at Cern only makes sense on April first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to:http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/en/LHC/Safety-en.html [web.cern.ch]The LHC isn't even capable of reproducing energies involved when cosmic rays strike particles in our atmosphere - something that has been happening routinly now for oh I don't know billions of years.To assert that God or some quantum many worlds nonsense is behind the engineering failures at Cern only makes sense on April first.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735535</id>
	<title>Timecube reveals itself in mysterious ways!</title>
	<author>Beelzebud</author>
	<datestamp>1255465380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Next they'll tell us that we live in an electrified universe!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Next they 'll tell us that we live in an electrified universe !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Next they'll tell us that we live in an electrified universe!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29832251</id>
	<title>Does this data exist in quantum space?</title>
	<author>freaker\_TuC</author>
	<datestamp>1256151900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look through a box with a pinhole and you will see only part of which you are able to see; for as big that box really is. Remove the box and you will perceive for which your eyes will be able to see and process. You have been limited by the box and maybe even your mind, because you shouldn't be looking trough a box in the first place.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) Same with thinking; try not to think in a vacuum which is created by/for you. Try to think outside the box, because that box is only just a protective vacuum of your limits.</p><p>The frequency of light will bounce against your eyeballs which gets translated in the brain to the physical object memorized by you. Mostly, you don't remember the full details of an event which has happened years ago. Try for yourself and remember which color shirt your best friend had on your birthday ten years ago; in most cases these small details get discolored in the brain by other details. It could be even you'd remember green while the shirt was red. Try this with five years ago and the result could still be tainted.</p><p>Sound is another frequency, recognized by the brain, through a process of vibration with the ears. We try to remember as much as we can in that grey goo but still, details will get lost in time. This is because we make new neural paths in our head by the minute. So, go call me crazy in advance, but what if<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... our brain is a cache connected to a much bigger database and we are just being nodes of such system? I'm not talking about SciFi stories ala Matrix; but rather thinking further than that box is!</p><p>I'm not talking about the beginning of all times here, but I'm talking about the past, the present and the future. Look around you, everything you see are the decisions of you and all others around you; everything exists out of a particle of an atom in our universe. Your body is like any physical matter, it's part of space, where reality is created by you; starting at your house. Your reality is your mind, your thoughts and the connections to any other atom on this universe.</p><p>That we are connected only with six degrees of separation should be of no surprise, since we all are connected on this world through another. Like said before "All matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves..."</p><p>Matter is part of a frequency. Objects are built out of atoms. Structure of matter will change when you amplify it's frequency. Our planet, sun and solar system works on a frequency. Light is part of the visible spectrum where the frequency variates. Maybe you have felt before, time is a growing constant; look to the world, technology, our environment like melting icecaps, environmental impacts and evolution; you will see time is running faster than ever.</p><p>Our planet, sun and solar system all work on a frequency. Light and sound are frequencies recognizable in different ways and anything which reflects such frequency gets read by all of us on this planet through our perceptions. Not only electronic devices are having oscillators, but we, humans, are natural oscillators defined to search those which frequency matches us most.</p><p>Doesn't that let you think about "what" we are in this universe? We are part of this universe, this planet, this little dot in the galaxy. We create reality as we live. Could it be possible, that all options possible with a decision do exist in an alternative universe as an atom? The universe could be a gigantic library of options possible where we merely selected those which we can really understand about. Our mind could be part of a gigantic library, where choices interact with eachother, just like a computer computes through algorithms.</p><p>What if some of us are possible to view such alternate realities or even possible to change the field where the atom is in it's quantum reality; then you are in the field of time travel. What if what we really fe</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look through a box with a pinhole and you will see only part of which you are able to see ; for as big that box really is .
Remove the box and you will perceive for which your eyes will be able to see and process .
You have been limited by the box and maybe even your mind , because you should n't be looking trough a box in the first place .
: ) Same with thinking ; try not to think in a vacuum which is created by/for you .
Try to think outside the box , because that box is only just a protective vacuum of your limits.The frequency of light will bounce against your eyeballs which gets translated in the brain to the physical object memorized by you .
Mostly , you do n't remember the full details of an event which has happened years ago .
Try for yourself and remember which color shirt your best friend had on your birthday ten years ago ; in most cases these small details get discolored in the brain by other details .
It could be even you 'd remember green while the shirt was red .
Try this with five years ago and the result could still be tainted.Sound is another frequency , recognized by the brain , through a process of vibration with the ears .
We try to remember as much as we can in that grey goo but still , details will get lost in time .
This is because we make new neural paths in our head by the minute .
So , go call me crazy in advance , but what if ... our brain is a cache connected to a much bigger database and we are just being nodes of such system ?
I 'm not talking about SciFi stories ala Matrix ; but rather thinking further than that box is ! I 'm not talking about the beginning of all times here , but I 'm talking about the past , the present and the future .
Look around you , everything you see are the decisions of you and all others around you ; everything exists out of a particle of an atom in our universe .
Your body is like any physical matter , it 's part of space , where reality is created by you ; starting at your house .
Your reality is your mind , your thoughts and the connections to any other atom on this universe.That we are connected only with six degrees of separation should be of no surprise , since we all are connected on this world through another .
Like said before " All matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration , that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively , there no such thing as death , life is only a dream , and we are the imagination of ourselves... " Matter is part of a frequency .
Objects are built out of atoms .
Structure of matter will change when you amplify it 's frequency .
Our planet , sun and solar system works on a frequency .
Light is part of the visible spectrum where the frequency variates .
Maybe you have felt before , time is a growing constant ; look to the world , technology , our environment like melting icecaps , environmental impacts and evolution ; you will see time is running faster than ever.Our planet , sun and solar system all work on a frequency .
Light and sound are frequencies recognizable in different ways and anything which reflects such frequency gets read by all of us on this planet through our perceptions .
Not only electronic devices are having oscillators , but we , humans , are natural oscillators defined to search those which frequency matches us most.Does n't that let you think about " what " we are in this universe ?
We are part of this universe , this planet , this little dot in the galaxy .
We create reality as we live .
Could it be possible , that all options possible with a decision do exist in an alternative universe as an atom ?
The universe could be a gigantic library of options possible where we merely selected those which we can really understand about .
Our mind could be part of a gigantic library , where choices interact with eachother , just like a computer computes through algorithms.What if some of us are possible to view such alternate realities or even possible to change the field where the atom is in it 's quantum reality ; then you are in the field of time travel .
What if what we really fe</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look through a box with a pinhole and you will see only part of which you are able to see; for as big that box really is.
Remove the box and you will perceive for which your eyes will be able to see and process.
You have been limited by the box and maybe even your mind, because you shouldn't be looking trough a box in the first place.
:) Same with thinking; try not to think in a vacuum which is created by/for you.
Try to think outside the box, because that box is only just a protective vacuum of your limits.The frequency of light will bounce against your eyeballs which gets translated in the brain to the physical object memorized by you.
Mostly, you don't remember the full details of an event which has happened years ago.
Try for yourself and remember which color shirt your best friend had on your birthday ten years ago; in most cases these small details get discolored in the brain by other details.
It could be even you'd remember green while the shirt was red.
Try this with five years ago and the result could still be tainted.Sound is another frequency, recognized by the brain, through a process of vibration with the ears.
We try to remember as much as we can in that grey goo but still, details will get lost in time.
This is because we make new neural paths in our head by the minute.
So, go call me crazy in advance, but what if ... our brain is a cache connected to a much bigger database and we are just being nodes of such system?
I'm not talking about SciFi stories ala Matrix; but rather thinking further than that box is!I'm not talking about the beginning of all times here, but I'm talking about the past, the present and the future.
Look around you, everything you see are the decisions of you and all others around you; everything exists out of a particle of an atom in our universe.
Your body is like any physical matter, it's part of space, where reality is created by you; starting at your house.
Your reality is your mind, your thoughts and the connections to any other atom on this universe.That we are connected only with six degrees of separation should be of no surprise, since we all are connected on this world through another.
Like said before "All matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves..."Matter is part of a frequency.
Objects are built out of atoms.
Structure of matter will change when you amplify it's frequency.
Our planet, sun and solar system works on a frequency.
Light is part of the visible spectrum where the frequency variates.
Maybe you have felt before, time is a growing constant; look to the world, technology, our environment like melting icecaps, environmental impacts and evolution; you will see time is running faster than ever.Our planet, sun and solar system all work on a frequency.
Light and sound are frequencies recognizable in different ways and anything which reflects such frequency gets read by all of us on this planet through our perceptions.
Not only electronic devices are having oscillators, but we, humans, are natural oscillators defined to search those which frequency matches us most.Doesn't that let you think about "what" we are in this universe?
We are part of this universe, this planet, this little dot in the galaxy.
We create reality as we live.
Could it be possible, that all options possible with a decision do exist in an alternative universe as an atom?
The universe could be a gigantic library of options possible where we merely selected those which we can really understand about.
Our mind could be part of a gigantic library, where choices interact with eachother, just like a computer computes through algorithms.What if some of us are possible to view such alternate realities or even possible to change the field where the atom is in it's quantum reality; then you are in the field of time travel.
What if what we really fe</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29740841</id>
	<title>Anthropic principle</title>
	<author>Velox\_SwiftFox</author>
	<datestamp>1255451880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If creating a Higgs Boson would destroy the universe, then to exist, this universe would have to be one of those few universes where random occurrences just happen to have, by chance, have sabotaged all attempts to create one so far.  Otherwise it would not be here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If creating a Higgs Boson would destroy the universe , then to exist , this universe would have to be one of those few universes where random occurrences just happen to have , by chance , have sabotaged all attempts to create one so far .
Otherwise it would not be here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If creating a Higgs Boson would destroy the universe, then to exist, this universe would have to be one of those few universes where random occurrences just happen to have, by chance, have sabotaged all attempts to create one so far.
Otherwise it would not be here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736529</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect...</title>
	<author>Zen\_Sorcere</author>
	<datestamp>1255426200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who marked this as "Funny"?  This is +5 "Informative".  He's being serious here, folks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who marked this as " Funny " ?
This is + 5 " Informative " .
He 's being serious here , folks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who marked this as "Funny"?
This is +5 "Informative".
He's being serious here, folks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736553</id>
	<title>Re:Back in high school creative writing class ...</title>
	<author>jamstar7</author>
	<datestamp>1255426320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There was a <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0167720/" title="imdb.com">tv show</a> [imdb.com] with something to that effect.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a tv show [ imdb.com ] with something to that effect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a tv show [imdb.com] with something to that effect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735869</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29740115</id>
	<title>The answer can be found in my sig</title>
	<author>paiute</author>
	<datestamp>1255445640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>God is not a particle, he's just a guy waiting until we figure it out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>God is not a particle , he 's just a guy waiting until we figure it out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God is not a particle, he's just a guy waiting until we figure it out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737471</id>
	<title>Re:Back in high school creative writing class ...</title>
	<author>sanosuke001</author>
	<datestamp>1255429620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you should totally finish that and write a novel (i'd buy it). hell, i wouldn't mind you PMing me a copy of what you have if it's available...</htmltext>
<tokenext>you should totally finish that and write a novel ( i 'd buy it ) .
hell , i would n't mind you PMing me a copy of what you have if it 's available.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you should totally finish that and write a novel (i'd buy it).
hell, i wouldn't mind you PMing me a copy of what you have if it's available...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735869</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739667</id>
	<title>Re:Quantum Suidice</title>
	<author>Adrian Lopez</author>
	<datestamp>1255442040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I dunno, the more I keep seeing the LHC fail and fail is that we may be experiencing quantum suicide. In each reality that the LHC properly starts up and smashs atoms, the world ends as we know it.</p></div></blockquote><p>Unless such destruction can work its way backwards as well as forwards, I fail to see how there being no observers tomorrow precludes the possibility of there being observers today, right before the kaboom.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I dunno , the more I keep seeing the LHC fail and fail is that we may be experiencing quantum suicide .
In each reality that the LHC properly starts up and smashs atoms , the world ends as we know it.Unless such destruction can work its way backwards as well as forwards , I fail to see how there being no observers tomorrow precludes the possibility of there being observers today , right before the kaboom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dunno, the more I keep seeing the LHC fail and fail is that we may be experiencing quantum suicide.
In each reality that the LHC properly starts up and smashs atoms, the world ends as we know it.Unless such destruction can work its way backwards as well as forwards, I fail to see how there being no observers tomorrow precludes the possibility of there being observers today, right before the kaboom.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29744955</id>
	<title>Split universes</title>
	<author>old\_unicorn</author>
	<datestamp>1255536060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe time travel isn't necessary. Maybe the production of a Higg's Boson causes the universe to end. If all choices causes the universe to brnach into universes with each of the possible outcomes, then maybe the only universe we can exist in is one where the collider doesn't work.

So although &gt;99.9\% of all branchings lead to a successful trial (and the end of the universe), the only ones around afterwards are the ones where it didn't work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe time travel is n't necessary .
Maybe the production of a Higg 's Boson causes the universe to end .
If all choices causes the universe to brnach into universes with each of the possible outcomes , then maybe the only universe we can exist in is one where the collider does n't work .
So although &gt; 99.9 \ % of all branchings lead to a successful trial ( and the end of the universe ) , the only ones around afterwards are the ones where it did n't work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe time travel isn't necessary.
Maybe the production of a Higg's Boson causes the universe to end.
If all choices causes the universe to brnach into universes with each of the possible outcomes, then maybe the only universe we can exist in is one where the collider doesn't work.
So although &gt;99.9\% of all branchings lead to a successful trial (and the end of the universe), the only ones around afterwards are the ones where it didn't work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29740433</id>
	<title>Re:To say...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255448340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Say, when are we going to make a machine to detect 'WHOOSH' particles?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Say , when are we going to make a machine to detect 'WHOOSH ' particles ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say, when are we going to make a machine to detect 'WHOOSH' particles?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735367</id>
	<title>Re:This is a stupid theory</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1255464480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah but without Delta brainwaves, wouldn't you end up being an idiot?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah but without Delta brainwaves , would n't you end up being an idiot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah but without Delta brainwaves, wouldn't you end up being an idiot?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735287</id>
	<title>I believe that would be Niven's Law...</title>
	<author>jeffb (2.718)</author>
	<datestamp>1255464240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niven's\_laws#Niven.27s\_Law\_.28re:\_Time\_travel.29" title="wikipedia.org">[citation provided]</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><p>I got a particular kick out of the phrase "<i>otherwise</i> distinguished physicists" in the summary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ citation provided ] [ wikipedia.org ] I got a particular kick out of the phrase " otherwise distinguished physicists " in the summary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> [citation provided] [wikipedia.org] I got a particular kick out of the phrase "otherwise distinguished physicists" in the summary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737857</id>
	<title>Time Travel Cheating</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255431060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you go back in time to before you first met your wife and  had a fling with her would that be cheating or would it just be the first time you met your wife.....</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you go back in time to before you first met your wife and had a fling with her would that be cheating or would it just be the first time you met your wife.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you go back in time to before you first met your wife and  had a fling with her would that be cheating or would it just be the first time you met your wife.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741475</id>
	<title>Re:Whenever Something Doesn't Work</title>
	<author>foniksonik</author>
	<datestamp>1255460220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know it's not too soon... but still I'd like to say "too soon, too soon" - unfortunately I just ended up snarfing milk out my nose while I laughed out loud... so it sounded more like "too hrmphpfffffffsssssssshhhhhh huhuhuh snkkkttttbleeeffffffsssss... shit that was funny!"</p><p>Thanks, now my rug has a new, soon to be unidentified, stain/smell in it. Thanks a lot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know it 's not too soon... but still I 'd like to say " too soon , too soon " - unfortunately I just ended up snarfing milk out my nose while I laughed out loud... so it sounded more like " too hrmphpfffffffsssssssshhhhhh huhuhuh snkkkttttbleeeffffffsssss... shit that was funny !
" Thanks , now my rug has a new , soon to be unidentified , stain/smell in it .
Thanks a lot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know it's not too soon... but still I'd like to say "too soon, too soon" - unfortunately I just ended up snarfing milk out my nose while I laughed out loud... so it sounded more like "too hrmphpfffffffsssssssshhhhhh huhuhuh snkkkttttbleeeffffffsssss... shit that was funny!
"Thanks, now my rug has a new, soon to be unidentified, stain/smell in it.
Thanks a lot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735577</id>
	<title>Re:This is a stupid theory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255465500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm my own grandpaw.</p><p>I'm My Own Grandpa<br>( Lonzo &amp; Oscar )</p><p>It sounds funny, I know,<br>But it really is so,<br>Oh, I'm my own grandpa.</p><p>I'm my own grandpa.<br>I'm my own grandpa.<br>It sounds funny, I know,<br>But it really is so,<br>Oh, I'm my own grandpa.</p><p>Now many, many years ago, when I was twenty-three,<br>I was married to a widow who was pretty as could be.<br>This widow had a grown-up daughter who had hair of red.<br>My father fell in love with her, and soon they, too, were wed.</p><p>This made my dad my son-in-law and changed my very life,<br>My daughter was my mother, cause she was my father's wife.<br>To complicate the matter, even though it brought me joy,<br>I soon became the father of a bouncing baby boy.</p><p>My little baby then became a brother-in-law to Dad,<br>And so became my uncle, though it made me very sad.<br>For if he was my uncle, then that also made him brother<br>Of the widow's grown-up daughter, who, of course, was my stepmother.</p><p>Father's wife then had a son who kept him on the run,<br>And he became my grandchild, for he was my daughter's son.<br>My wife is now my mother's mother, and it makes me blue,<br>Because, although she is my wife, she's my grandmother, too.</p><p>Now if my wife is my grandmother, then I'm her grandchild,<br>And everytime I think of it, it nearly drives me wild,<br>For now I have become the strangest case you ever saw<br>As husband of my grandmother, I am my own grandpa!</p><p>I'm my own grandpa.<br>I'm my own grandpa.<br>It sounds funny, I know, but it really is so,<br>Oh, I'm my own grandpa.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm my own grandpaw.I 'm My Own Grandpa ( Lonzo &amp; Oscar ) It sounds funny , I know,But it really is so,Oh , I 'm my own grandpa.I 'm my own grandpa.I 'm my own grandpa.It sounds funny , I know,But it really is so,Oh , I 'm my own grandpa.Now many , many years ago , when I was twenty-three,I was married to a widow who was pretty as could be.This widow had a grown-up daughter who had hair of red.My father fell in love with her , and soon they , too , were wed.This made my dad my son-in-law and changed my very life,My daughter was my mother , cause she was my father 's wife.To complicate the matter , even though it brought me joy,I soon became the father of a bouncing baby boy.My little baby then became a brother-in-law to Dad,And so became my uncle , though it made me very sad.For if he was my uncle , then that also made him brotherOf the widow 's grown-up daughter , who , of course , was my stepmother.Father 's wife then had a son who kept him on the run,And he became my grandchild , for he was my daughter 's son.My wife is now my mother 's mother , and it makes me blue,Because , although she is my wife , she 's my grandmother , too.Now if my wife is my grandmother , then I 'm her grandchild,And everytime I think of it , it nearly drives me wild,For now I have become the strangest case you ever sawAs husband of my grandmother , I am my own grandpa ! I 'm my own grandpa.I 'm my own grandpa.It sounds funny , I know , but it really is so,Oh , I 'm my own grandpa .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm my own grandpaw.I'm My Own Grandpa( Lonzo &amp; Oscar )It sounds funny, I know,But it really is so,Oh, I'm my own grandpa.I'm my own grandpa.I'm my own grandpa.It sounds funny, I know,But it really is so,Oh, I'm my own grandpa.Now many, many years ago, when I was twenty-three,I was married to a widow who was pretty as could be.This widow had a grown-up daughter who had hair of red.My father fell in love with her, and soon they, too, were wed.This made my dad my son-in-law and changed my very life,My daughter was my mother, cause she was my father's wife.To complicate the matter, even though it brought me joy,I soon became the father of a bouncing baby boy.My little baby then became a brother-in-law to Dad,And so became my uncle, though it made me very sad.For if he was my uncle, then that also made him brotherOf the widow's grown-up daughter, who, of course, was my stepmother.Father's wife then had a son who kept him on the run,And he became my grandchild, for he was my daughter's son.My wife is now my mother's mother, and it makes me blue,Because, although she is my wife, she's my grandmother, too.Now if my wife is my grandmother, then I'm her grandchild,And everytime I think of it, it nearly drives me wild,For now I have become the strangest case you ever sawAs husband of my grandmother, I am my own grandpa!I'm my own grandpa.I'm my own grandpa.It sounds funny, I know, but it really is so,Oh, I'm my own grandpa.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739411</id>
	<title>Re:Almost...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255440060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, it definitely sounds like their interpretation requires two things. 1) acceptance of the theory that nature abhors a higgs-boson and 2) acceptance of the MWI of reality.</p><p>I personally find the MWI rather elegant, logically, but I'm not familiar enough with the math of it to know if it works. The thought that a higgs-boson might be something that destructive... is there any thing in all the theories of its existence to support that thought?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , it definitely sounds like their interpretation requires two things .
1 ) acceptance of the theory that nature abhors a higgs-boson and 2 ) acceptance of the MWI of reality.I personally find the MWI rather elegant , logically , but I 'm not familiar enough with the math of it to know if it works .
The thought that a higgs-boson might be something that destructive... is there any thing in all the theories of its existence to support that thought ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, it definitely sounds like their interpretation requires two things.
1) acceptance of the theory that nature abhors a higgs-boson and 2) acceptance of the MWI of reality.I personally find the MWI rather elegant, logically, but I'm not familiar enough with the math of it to know if it works.
The thought that a higgs-boson might be something that destructive... is there any thing in all the theories of its existence to support that thought?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738979</id>
	<title>Re:This theory is not to be taken seriously</title>
	<author>Aristos Mazer</author>
	<datestamp>1255436760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the other hand, you could think of it like an earthquake. To let off pressure, the plates may slip very tiny amounts, generating small tremors. But if enough pressure builds up, you get a massive quake. Suppose the universe as a certain amount of "back pressure" of the universe to prevent a hadron collider from forming -- say, repressing the development of intelligent life in the first place at the micro or nano scopic levels. But improbably, something sticks and builds up. There are continuing problems in the development of a hadron collider, but one species keeps getting lucky (and they're stupidly ignoring the hints that something is wildly improbable about their existence in the first place that perhaps they've strayed into territory they shouldn't be in). And then someone decides to build a *large* hadron collider, and now the universal pressure hits a breaking point, resulting in direct macroscopic changes, like a screw popping loose and releasing gas into the chamber.</p><p>Just a theory...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , you could think of it like an earthquake .
To let off pressure , the plates may slip very tiny amounts , generating small tremors .
But if enough pressure builds up , you get a massive quake .
Suppose the universe as a certain amount of " back pressure " of the universe to prevent a hadron collider from forming -- say , repressing the development of intelligent life in the first place at the micro or nano scopic levels .
But improbably , something sticks and builds up .
There are continuing problems in the development of a hadron collider , but one species keeps getting lucky ( and they 're stupidly ignoring the hints that something is wildly improbable about their existence in the first place that perhaps they 've strayed into territory they should n't be in ) .
And then someone decides to build a * large * hadron collider , and now the universal pressure hits a breaking point , resulting in direct macroscopic changes , like a screw popping loose and releasing gas into the chamber.Just a theory.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, you could think of it like an earthquake.
To let off pressure, the plates may slip very tiny amounts, generating small tremors.
But if enough pressure builds up, you get a massive quake.
Suppose the universe as a certain amount of "back pressure" of the universe to prevent a hadron collider from forming -- say, repressing the development of intelligent life in the first place at the micro or nano scopic levels.
But improbably, something sticks and builds up.
There are continuing problems in the development of a hadron collider, but one species keeps getting lucky (and they're stupidly ignoring the hints that something is wildly improbable about their existence in the first place that perhaps they've strayed into territory they shouldn't be in).
And then someone decides to build a *large* hadron collider, and now the universal pressure hits a breaking point, resulting in direct macroscopic changes, like a screw popping loose and releasing gas into the chamber.Just a theory...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29820947</id>
	<title>Re:Original concept from "Doomsday Device"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256122320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It turns out that by connecting an accelerator capable of destroying the universe to a computation depending on random numbers, one could in principle solve problems that are otherwise intractable.</i></p><p>I think you mean that someone, somewhere in a branched off universe would obtain the solution. There is just as good a chance that you personally would not be around to see it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It turns out that by connecting an accelerator capable of destroying the universe to a computation depending on random numbers , one could in principle solve problems that are otherwise intractable.I think you mean that someone , somewhere in a branched off universe would obtain the solution .
There is just as good a chance that you personally would not be around to see it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It turns out that by connecting an accelerator capable of destroying the universe to a computation depending on random numbers, one could in principle solve problems that are otherwise intractable.I think you mean that someone, somewhere in a branched off universe would obtain the solution.
There is just as good a chance that you personally would not be around to see it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736995</id>
	<title>Except by going back</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1255428060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in time, it would create a paradox that would split off into it's own pocket dimension and as such, not be noticed by us.</p><p>BTW, nature doesn't 'know' anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in time , it would create a paradox that would split off into it 's own pocket dimension and as such , not be noticed by us.BTW , nature does n't 'know ' anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in time, it would create a paradox that would split off into it's own pocket dimension and as such, not be noticed by us.BTW, nature doesn't 'know' anything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737001</id>
	<title>They just need a 1D20 to prove it</title>
	<author>WillAffleckUW</author>
	<datestamp>1255428060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wire it up to an optical detector and have it start only if it lands on 13.</p><p>Then either the detector or the die will refuse to land on 13 if it's true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wire it up to an optical detector and have it start only if it lands on 13.Then either the detector or the die will refuse to land on 13 if it 's true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wire it up to an optical detector and have it start only if it lands on 13.Then either the detector or the die will refuse to land on 13 if it's true.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735211</id>
	<title>Larry Niven took it one step further.</title>
	<author>Dr. Manhattan</author>
	<datestamp>1255463880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>He found a practical application for the effect in "Rotating Cylinders and the Possibility of Global Causality Violation" (named in honor of Frank Tipler's paper). The universe hates time machines... so one side of a war works to convince the <i>other</i> side to try to make one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He found a practical application for the effect in " Rotating Cylinders and the Possibility of Global Causality Violation " ( named in honor of Frank Tipler 's paper ) .
The universe hates time machines... so one side of a war works to convince the other side to try to make one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He found a practical application for the effect in "Rotating Cylinders and the Possibility of Global Causality Violation" (named in honor of Frank Tipler's paper).
The universe hates time machines... so one side of a war works to convince the other side to try to make one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29740701</id>
	<title>micro black holes?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255450620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had always felt that these issues are not necessarily related to higgs boson generation but more related to high energy collissions.  Should a micro black hole be generated during a collision it could theoretically be generated across spacetime possible affecting LHC equipment in the vicinity (in terms of both space and time, ie. a few days, months, years away and a few kilometers away) of the generated high energy collisions?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had always felt that these issues are not necessarily related to higgs boson generation but more related to high energy collissions .
Should a micro black hole be generated during a collision it could theoretically be generated across spacetime possible affecting LHC equipment in the vicinity ( in terms of both space and time , ie .
a few days , months , years away and a few kilometers away ) of the generated high energy collisions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had always felt that these issues are not necessarily related to higgs boson generation but more related to high energy collissions.
Should a micro black hole be generated during a collision it could theoretically be generated across spacetime possible affecting LHC equipment in the vicinity (in terms of both space and time, ie.
a few days, months, years away and a few kilometers away) of the generated high energy collisions?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735261</id>
	<title>Almost...</title>
	<author>Facegarden</author>
	<datestamp>1255464120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This theory actually kind of makes sense to me... almost.</p><p>If the universe were indeed so much more complex than we imagined (which I fully believe is possible) that something like this could happen, I still don't think it would happen this way - that the future universe is coming back in time, just to break some magnets. Nature is rarely so subtle.</p><p>I do believe in the possibility of multiverse theory being correct, which also allows me to believe in some form of time travel, but a more natural extension of this all is that the particles created in the future tear a hole in time-space and destroy the collision center of the machine, not some magnets around the edge (unless an accidental collision occurred elsewhere, i suppose).</p><p>Plus, I've never figured out if time-space would follow the earth in its orbit, or if these things would just happen out in space somewhere, at the spot in orbit the earth was going to be at.</p><p>I really hope this is kind of correct, or the universe would be a much less interesting place. I fear that one day we'll figure everything about this stuff out, and that it won't be a magical world of multiverses and time travel.<br>-Taylor</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This theory actually kind of makes sense to me... almost.If the universe were indeed so much more complex than we imagined ( which I fully believe is possible ) that something like this could happen , I still do n't think it would happen this way - that the future universe is coming back in time , just to break some magnets .
Nature is rarely so subtle.I do believe in the possibility of multiverse theory being correct , which also allows me to believe in some form of time travel , but a more natural extension of this all is that the particles created in the future tear a hole in time-space and destroy the collision center of the machine , not some magnets around the edge ( unless an accidental collision occurred elsewhere , i suppose ) .Plus , I 've never figured out if time-space would follow the earth in its orbit , or if these things would just happen out in space somewhere , at the spot in orbit the earth was going to be at.I really hope this is kind of correct , or the universe would be a much less interesting place .
I fear that one day we 'll figure everything about this stuff out , and that it wo n't be a magical world of multiverses and time travel.-Taylor</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This theory actually kind of makes sense to me... almost.If the universe were indeed so much more complex than we imagined (which I fully believe is possible) that something like this could happen, I still don't think it would happen this way - that the future universe is coming back in time, just to break some magnets.
Nature is rarely so subtle.I do believe in the possibility of multiverse theory being correct, which also allows me to believe in some form of time travel, but a more natural extension of this all is that the particles created in the future tear a hole in time-space and destroy the collision center of the machine, not some magnets around the edge (unless an accidental collision occurred elsewhere, i suppose).Plus, I've never figured out if time-space would follow the earth in its orbit, or if these things would just happen out in space somewhere, at the spot in orbit the earth was going to be at.I really hope this is kind of correct, or the universe would be a much less interesting place.
I fear that one day we'll figure everything about this stuff out, and that it won't be a magical world of multiverses and time travel.-Taylor</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737939</id>
	<title>Oblig. Futurama</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255431360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe the technical term for this is "doing the nasty in the pasty"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe the technical term for this is " doing the nasty in the pasty "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe the technical term for this is "doing the nasty in the pasty"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735195</id>
	<title>vulcans already knew time travel.......</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255463820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but seriously, if it came back through time we should be able to detect it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but seriously , if it came back through time we should be able to detect it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but seriously, if it came back through time we should be able to detect it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735709</id>
	<title>But this particle gives us mass?</title>
	<author>i\_ate\_god</author>
	<datestamp>1255466100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this particle gives parent child particles mass, then why would nature be against it?</p><p>It exists, it seems to exist in anything that isn't a photon. Why on earth would nature complain about its existence if it exists in all matter?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this particle gives parent child particles mass , then why would nature be against it ? It exists , it seems to exist in anything that is n't a photon .
Why on earth would nature complain about its existence if it exists in all matter ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this particle gives parent child particles mass, then why would nature be against it?It exists, it seems to exist in anything that isn't a photon.
Why on earth would nature complain about its existence if it exists in all matter?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736317</id>
	<title>It's already happened...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255425300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, if there are ripples being sent back in time to sabotage the collider now, that must mean that they were successful in the future at causing something so terrible that it's sending ripples back to now.  It's unstoppable.  It's already happened.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , if there are ripples being sent back in time to sabotage the collider now , that must mean that they were successful in the future at causing something so terrible that it 's sending ripples back to now .
It 's unstoppable .
It 's already happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, if there are ripples being sent back in time to sabotage the collider now, that must mean that they were successful in the future at causing something so terrible that it's sending ripples back to now.
It's unstoppable.
It's already happened.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29742603</id>
	<title>Re:Schrodinger's Cookies</title>
	<author>vegiVamp</author>
	<datestamp>1255519440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You mean the higgs-boson is subscription only ? Someone get our universe to cough up, pronto.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean the higgs-boson is subscription only ?
Someone get our universe to cough up , pronto .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean the higgs-boson is subscription only ?
Someone get our universe to cough up, pronto.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735747</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738881</id>
	<title>So if that's true..</title>
	<author>Schraegstrichpunkt</author>
	<datestamp>1255435980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><ol>
<li>The Standard Model of physics depends upon the existence of the Higgs boson.</li><li>However, the Higgs boson---which has been dubbed, the "God particle"---does not exist.</li><li>Therefore, a successor theory to the Standard Model would need to be developed.</li><li>That theory would be called...</li></ol><p>

QUANTUM ATHEISM!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Standard Model of physics depends upon the existence of the Higgs boson.However , the Higgs boson---which has been dubbed , the " God particle " ---does not exist.Therefore , a successor theory to the Standard Model would need to be developed.That theory would be called.. . QUANTUM ATHEISM !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The Standard Model of physics depends upon the existence of the Higgs boson.However, the Higgs boson---which has been dubbed, the "God particle"---does not exist.Therefore, a successor theory to the Standard Model would need to be developed.That theory would be called...

QUANTUM ATHEISM!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737299</id>
	<title>Re:Anti-scienctific sentiment (but it's okay)</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1255428900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your war against Iders, while noble, is starting to infect everything you read.</p><p>It's not anti-scientific. It's a perfectly valid hypothesis based on observations. An event that happen and propagates it's results backwards in time isn't disallowed buy our current understandings. That's all he is talking about.</p><p>You bring up IDer's is inappropriate and can only serve to cause a rabid hate thread.</p><p>"It is unpatriotic to question a president during health care reform. Payback's a bitch, isn't it?"</p><p>Clearly you try to hard to find problems and stir up fake controversy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your war against Iders , while noble , is starting to infect everything you read.It 's not anti-scientific .
It 's a perfectly valid hypothesis based on observations .
An event that happen and propagates it 's results backwards in time is n't disallowed buy our current understandings .
That 's all he is talking about.You bring up IDer 's is inappropriate and can only serve to cause a rabid hate thread .
" It is unpatriotic to question a president during health care reform .
Payback 's a bitch , is n't it ?
" Clearly you try to hard to find problems and stir up fake controversy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your war against Iders, while noble, is starting to infect everything you read.It's not anti-scientific.
It's a perfectly valid hypothesis based on observations.
An event that happen and propagates it's results backwards in time isn't disallowed buy our current understandings.
That's all he is talking about.You bring up IDer's is inappropriate and can only serve to cause a rabid hate thread.
"It is unpatriotic to question a president during health care reform.
Payback's a bitch, isn't it?
"Clearly you try to hard to find problems and stir up fake controversy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735463</id>
	<title>Re:Could happen</title>
	<author>thepotoo</author>
	<datestamp>1255465080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A physicist will be able to explain better than I can why entanglement can't be used for information transfer (such as FTL or what you describe), but my simplistic understanding is that in order to observe the spin on the particle, you have to actually observe it, and by observing, you might alter its spin.  You have no way of knowing whether the spin you just observed is a legit signal, or a bunk one induced by your measurement.</p><p>Any signal transmitted becomes indistinguishable from a random number generator, and you're back to square one.</p><p>On the topic of the linked "paper", this seems like the sort of utterly ridiculous nonsense that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger\_Penrose#Physics\_and\_consciousness" title="wikipedia.org">Penrose</a> [wikipedia.org] or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novikov\_self-consistency\_principle" title="wikipedia.org">Novikov</a> [wikipedia.org] would cook up (especially the latter).  I'm not going to dignify it with a response other than to predict that Occam's Razor will slice it apart.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A physicist will be able to explain better than I can why entanglement ca n't be used for information transfer ( such as FTL or what you describe ) , but my simplistic understanding is that in order to observe the spin on the particle , you have to actually observe it , and by observing , you might alter its spin .
You have no way of knowing whether the spin you just observed is a legit signal , or a bunk one induced by your measurement.Any signal transmitted becomes indistinguishable from a random number generator , and you 're back to square one.On the topic of the linked " paper " , this seems like the sort of utterly ridiculous nonsense that Penrose [ wikipedia.org ] or Novikov [ wikipedia.org ] would cook up ( especially the latter ) .
I 'm not going to dignify it with a response other than to predict that Occam 's Razor will slice it apart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A physicist will be able to explain better than I can why entanglement can't be used for information transfer (such as FTL or what you describe), but my simplistic understanding is that in order to observe the spin on the particle, you have to actually observe it, and by observing, you might alter its spin.
You have no way of knowing whether the spin you just observed is a legit signal, or a bunk one induced by your measurement.Any signal transmitted becomes indistinguishable from a random number generator, and you're back to square one.On the topic of the linked "paper", this seems like the sort of utterly ridiculous nonsense that Penrose [wikipedia.org] or Novikov [wikipedia.org] would cook up (especially the latter).
I'm not going to dignify it with a response other than to predict that Occam's Razor will slice it apart.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739533</id>
	<title>Re:This theory is not to be taken seriously</title>
	<author>ChatHuant</author>
	<datestamp>1255441020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The universe could simply induce a sufficient e/m force to stop the proton beams colliding. It wouldn't take much, on a cosmic scale, and would be a far more likely outcome than an entire macroscopic object being foobared just to protect the continuity of the universe</i> </p><p>ObSF: Connie Willis, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To\_Say\_Nothing\_of\_the\_Dog" title="wikipedia.org">"To Say Nothing of the Dog"</a> [wikipedia.org], where the Universe arranges drowning cats, stolen Victorian ironmongery, jumble sales and croquet games to avoid paradox<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:). (very good book, BTW, especially if you like British humor and Jerome K. Jerome)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The universe could simply induce a sufficient e/m force to stop the proton beams colliding .
It would n't take much , on a cosmic scale , and would be a far more likely outcome than an entire macroscopic object being foobared just to protect the continuity of the universe ObSF : Connie Willis , " To Say Nothing of the Dog " [ wikipedia.org ] , where the Universe arranges drowning cats , stolen Victorian ironmongery , jumble sales and croquet games to avoid paradox : ) .
( very good book , BTW , especially if you like British humor and Jerome K. Jerome )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The universe could simply induce a sufficient e/m force to stop the proton beams colliding.
It wouldn't take much, on a cosmic scale, and would be a far more likely outcome than an entire macroscopic object being foobared just to protect the continuity of the universe ObSF: Connie Willis, "To Say Nothing of the Dog" [wikipedia.org], where the Universe arranges drowning cats, stolen Victorian ironmongery, jumble sales and croquet games to avoid paradox :).
(very good book, BTW, especially if you like British humor and Jerome K. Jerome)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736129</id>
	<title>Does God play dice with humor?</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1255424520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm hoping the universe protects itself by producing a <b>spelling mutation</b>: the Higgs B<b>i</b>son, which walks out the second they switch it on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm hoping the universe protects itself by producing a spelling mutation : the Higgs Bison , which walks out the second they switch it on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm hoping the universe protects itself by producing a spelling mutation: the Higgs Bison, which walks out the second they switch it on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735245</id>
	<title>Kdawson story</title>
	<author>rotide</author>
	<datestamp>1255464060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Kdawson's name is on this, why am I not surprised.  I don't mean to troll, but wow does that editor have some interesting stories to his/her name.  I mean honestly, a bonified, "time travel is killing the LHC", story?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kdawson 's name is on this , why am I not surprised .
I do n't mean to troll , but wow does that editor have some interesting stories to his/her name .
I mean honestly , a bonified , " time travel is killing the LHC " , story ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kdawson's name is on this, why am I not surprised.
I don't mean to troll, but wow does that editor have some interesting stories to his/her name.
I mean honestly, a bonified, "time travel is killing the LHC", story?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29744161</id>
	<title>Re:Original concept from "Doomsday Device"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255532760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And so, P=NP is solved abusing the laws of physics.</p><ol> <li>1. Build a machine which destroys the universe unless it finds the shortest path through some nodes in polynomial time.</li><li>2. ???</li><li>3. Profit!!</li></ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>And so , P = NP is solved abusing the laws of physics .
1. Build a machine which destroys the universe unless it finds the shortest path through some nodes in polynomial time.2 .
? ? ? 3. Profit !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And so, P=NP is solved abusing the laws of physics.
1. Build a machine which destroys the universe unless it finds the shortest path through some nodes in polynomial time.2.
???3. Profit!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741811</id>
	<title>Re:To say...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255551720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle\_Man" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Particle man</a> [wikipedia.org] agrees!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Particle man [ wikipedia.org ] agrees !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Particle man [wikipedia.org] agrees!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737197</id>
	<title>Re:Could happen</title>
	<author>Brian Gordon</author>
	<datestamp>1255428540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>in order to observe the spin on the particle, you have to actually observe it, and by observing, you might alter its spin. You have no way of knowing whether the spin you just observed is a legit signal, or a bunk one induced by your measurement.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer\_effect\_(physics)" title="wikipedia.org">observer effect</a> [wikipedia.org] which has nothing to do with anything in QM.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>in order to observe the spin on the particle , you have to actually observe it , and by observing , you might alter its spin .
You have no way of knowing whether the spin you just observed is a legit signal , or a bunk one induced by your measurement.That 's the observer effect [ wikipedia.org ] which has nothing to do with anything in QM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in order to observe the spin on the particle, you have to actually observe it, and by observing, you might alter its spin.
You have no way of knowing whether the spin you just observed is a legit signal, or a bunk one induced by your measurement.That's the observer effect [wikipedia.org] which has nothing to do with anything in QM.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29742713</id>
	<title>wrong tags</title>
	<author>BigBadBus</author>
	<datestamp>1255521540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shouldn't this be tagged "funny"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't this be tagged " funny " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't this be tagged "funny"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735203</id>
	<title>FSM did it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255463880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm thinking noodly appendages are involved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm thinking noodly appendages are involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm thinking noodly appendages are involved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738873</id>
	<title>Re:Imagination is a fine thing...</title>
	<author>Aristos Mazer</author>
	<datestamp>1255435980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Peer review is when you're actually putting forth hard numbers. These guys are actively speculating and trying to get enough peer feedback to flesh out their theory. But beyond that, the article does note at least one falsifiable experiment that they're proposing to run. They haven't run it yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Peer review is when you 're actually putting forth hard numbers .
These guys are actively speculating and trying to get enough peer feedback to flesh out their theory .
But beyond that , the article does note at least one falsifiable experiment that they 're proposing to run .
They have n't run it yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Peer review is when you're actually putting forth hard numbers.
These guys are actively speculating and trying to get enough peer feedback to flesh out their theory.
But beyond that, the article does note at least one falsifiable experiment that they're proposing to run.
They haven't run it yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29752967</id>
	<title>Re:Larry Niven took it one step further.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255536000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The original article is as follows:<br>
&nbsp; Reader Maximum Prophet sends a piece from the NY Times by the usually reliable Dennis Overbye reporting on a "crazy" theory being worked up by a pair of "otherwise distinguished physicists": that the Large Hadron Collider's difficulties may be due to the universe's reluctance to produce a Higgs boson. Maximum Prophet adds, "This happened to the Superconducting Super Collider in the science fiction story Einstein's Bridge. Now Holger Bech Nielsen, of the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, and Masao Ninomiya of the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics in Kyoto, Japan, are theorizing that it's happening in real life." "I'm talking about the notion that the troubled collider is being sabotaged by its own future. A pair of otherwise distinguished physicists have suggested that the hypothesized Higgs boson, which physicists hope to produce with the collider, might be so abhorrent to nature that its creation would ripple backward through time and stop the collider before it could make one, like a time traveler who goes back in time to kill his grandfather."<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The Grandfather paradox is unlikely if time is multidimensional, as seen in my narrative that follows the original post repeated above for context preservation:<br>Obviously this is a way to make a time machine.  So like boiling water in a pot we do not get it over its boiling point in existing atmospheric conditions except transitionally at the pot/water interface at the bottom where pressure will be incrementally higher for a time.  So as the Large Hadron Collider, the harder we try to make the Higgs, the further we will be thrown back in time;  inasmuch as this may take exponential gains in energy input for linear gains in temporal displacement, we can plan those displacements and maybe make use of them to send information/matter back in time.  Or do we?  Suppose there is a temporal Pauli exclusion principal that would prevent direct reversal of a given timeline;  and suppose time is also multidimensional as well as space?  This would mean that we could go back in time, but like Thomas Wolfe said:  "...you can't go home again!" !  Really!!.  However we could 'slide' into other time/space continuums to sample those 'other' realities, and probably with a little change of direction return to our initial present.  We may be able to go into the future with a little thought, and yet return to our present, but only our present and not before our present time/space continuum temporal present on our return temporal time/space displacement vector in six dimensional time/space.  All this would take immense power, akin to Jodie Foster's fantastic machine in her movie:  "First Contact";  and the power would have to be controlled and scalable.  Computers would of course be necessary to manage the ultrafast events that could/would occur.  But this whole theory could be turned on its head and used....copyright by lCastleton 2009 all rights to these ideas reserved</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The original article is as follows :   Reader Maximum Prophet sends a piece from the NY Times by the usually reliable Dennis Overbye reporting on a " crazy " theory being worked up by a pair of " otherwise distinguished physicists " : that the Large Hadron Collider 's difficulties may be due to the universe 's reluctance to produce a Higgs boson .
Maximum Prophet adds , " This happened to the Superconducting Super Collider in the science fiction story Einstein 's Bridge .
Now Holger Bech Nielsen , of the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen , and Masao Ninomiya of the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics in Kyoto , Japan , are theorizing that it 's happening in real life .
" " I 'm talking about the notion that the troubled collider is being sabotaged by its own future .
A pair of otherwise distinguished physicists have suggested that the hypothesized Higgs boson , which physicists hope to produce with the collider , might be so abhorrent to nature that its creation would ripple backward through time and stop the collider before it could make one , like a time traveler who goes back in time to kill his grandfather .
"       The Grandfather paradox is unlikely if time is multidimensional , as seen in my narrative that follows the original post repeated above for context preservation : Obviously this is a way to make a time machine .
So like boiling water in a pot we do not get it over its boiling point in existing atmospheric conditions except transitionally at the pot/water interface at the bottom where pressure will be incrementally higher for a time .
So as the Large Hadron Collider , the harder we try to make the Higgs , the further we will be thrown back in time ; inasmuch as this may take exponential gains in energy input for linear gains in temporal displacement , we can plan those displacements and maybe make use of them to send information/matter back in time .
Or do we ?
Suppose there is a temporal Pauli exclusion principal that would prevent direct reversal of a given timeline ; and suppose time is also multidimensional as well as space ?
This would mean that we could go back in time , but like Thomas Wolfe said : " ...you ca n't go home again !
" !
Really ! ! . However we could 'slide ' into other time/space continuums to sample those 'other ' realities , and probably with a little change of direction return to our initial present .
We may be able to go into the future with a little thought , and yet return to our present , but only our present and not before our present time/space continuum temporal present on our return temporal time/space displacement vector in six dimensional time/space .
All this would take immense power , akin to Jodie Foster 's fantastic machine in her movie : " First Contact " ; and the power would have to be controlled and scalable .
Computers would of course be necessary to manage the ultrafast events that could/would occur .
But this whole theory could be turned on its head and used....copyright by lCastleton 2009 all rights to these ideas reserved</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The original article is as follows:
  Reader Maximum Prophet sends a piece from the NY Times by the usually reliable Dennis Overbye reporting on a "crazy" theory being worked up by a pair of "otherwise distinguished physicists": that the Large Hadron Collider's difficulties may be due to the universe's reluctance to produce a Higgs boson.
Maximum Prophet adds, "This happened to the Superconducting Super Collider in the science fiction story Einstein's Bridge.
Now Holger Bech Nielsen, of the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, and Masao Ninomiya of the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics in Kyoto, Japan, are theorizing that it's happening in real life.
" "I'm talking about the notion that the troubled collider is being sabotaged by its own future.
A pair of otherwise distinguished physicists have suggested that the hypothesized Higgs boson, which physicists hope to produce with the collider, might be so abhorrent to nature that its creation would ripple backward through time and stop the collider before it could make one, like a time traveler who goes back in time to kill his grandfather.
"
      The Grandfather paradox is unlikely if time is multidimensional, as seen in my narrative that follows the original post repeated above for context preservation:Obviously this is a way to make a time machine.
So like boiling water in a pot we do not get it over its boiling point in existing atmospheric conditions except transitionally at the pot/water interface at the bottom where pressure will be incrementally higher for a time.
So as the Large Hadron Collider, the harder we try to make the Higgs, the further we will be thrown back in time;  inasmuch as this may take exponential gains in energy input for linear gains in temporal displacement, we can plan those displacements and maybe make use of them to send information/matter back in time.
Or do we?
Suppose there is a temporal Pauli exclusion principal that would prevent direct reversal of a given timeline;  and suppose time is also multidimensional as well as space?
This would mean that we could go back in time, but like Thomas Wolfe said:  "...you can't go home again!
" !
Really!!.  However we could 'slide' into other time/space continuums to sample those 'other' realities, and probably with a little change of direction return to our initial present.
We may be able to go into the future with a little thought, and yet return to our present, but only our present and not before our present time/space continuum temporal present on our return temporal time/space displacement vector in six dimensional time/space.
All this would take immense power, akin to Jodie Foster's fantastic machine in her movie:  "First Contact";  and the power would have to be controlled and scalable.
Computers would of course be necessary to manage the ultrafast events that could/would occur.
But this whole theory could be turned on its head and used....copyright by lCastleton 2009 all rights to these ideas reserved</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737321</id>
	<title>Occam's Razor</title>
	<author>Greyfox</author>
	<datestamp>1255428960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are a lot of simpler explanations to go through before we get to "the universe is screwing around with time to prevent a higgs boson to be created." For example, it could just be that it's freaking hard to build a superconducting supercollider and it's particularly hard to get one working correctly the first time you fire it up. As has been pointed out, interactions at the SSC's energy take place daily in our upper atmosphere and you don't see the universe bending over backwards to prevent <i>that.</i> Any sensible universe would just cause a massive explosion or a black hole or something if it <i>really</i> didn't like the particle you were creating. I honestly don't believe the universe particularly cares and is probably too busy keeping other things (Like the space-time continuum) sorted to worry about us smashing some atoms together.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a lot of simpler explanations to go through before we get to " the universe is screwing around with time to prevent a higgs boson to be created .
" For example , it could just be that it 's freaking hard to build a superconducting supercollider and it 's particularly hard to get one working correctly the first time you fire it up .
As has been pointed out , interactions at the SSC 's energy take place daily in our upper atmosphere and you do n't see the universe bending over backwards to prevent that .
Any sensible universe would just cause a massive explosion or a black hole or something if it really did n't like the particle you were creating .
I honestly do n't believe the universe particularly cares and is probably too busy keeping other things ( Like the space-time continuum ) sorted to worry about us smashing some atoms together .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a lot of simpler explanations to go through before we get to "the universe is screwing around with time to prevent a higgs boson to be created.
" For example, it could just be that it's freaking hard to build a superconducting supercollider and it's particularly hard to get one working correctly the first time you fire it up.
As has been pointed out, interactions at the SSC's energy take place daily in our upper atmosphere and you don't see the universe bending over backwards to prevent that.
Any sensible universe would just cause a massive explosion or a black hole or something if it really didn't like the particle you were creating.
I honestly don't believe the universe particularly cares and is probably too busy keeping other things (Like the space-time continuum) sorted to worry about us smashing some atoms together.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29752669</id>
	<title>Re:Back in high school creative writing class ...</title>
	<author>arminw</author>
	<datestamp>1255533360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here is an outcome just as likely:</p><p>step 1) The scientist is born.<br>step 2) The scientist goes through the time machine, and kills his grandfather.<br>step 3) the grandfather is raised from the dead as Lazarus was by Jesus Christ<br>step 4) the scientist is convicted of murdering his grandfather sent to hell<br>step 5) the grandfather dies, as Lazarus did again, and goes to heaven</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is an outcome just as likely : step 1 ) The scientist is born.step 2 ) The scientist goes through the time machine , and kills his grandfather.step 3 ) the grandfather is raised from the dead as Lazarus was by Jesus Christstep 4 ) the scientist is convicted of murdering his grandfather sent to hellstep 5 ) the grandfather dies , as Lazarus did again , and goes to heaven</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is an outcome just as likely:step 1) The scientist is born.step 2) The scientist goes through the time machine, and kills his grandfather.step 3) the grandfather is raised from the dead as Lazarus was by Jesus Christstep 4) the scientist is convicted of murdering his grandfather sent to hellstep 5) the grandfather dies, as Lazarus did again, and goes to heaven</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736153</id>
	<title>Re:This theory is not to be taken seriously</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255424640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's the other way around. The universe "does" nothing. It merely prevents certain scenario's from happening. You might think of the current situation as one of infinitely many parallel universes. That we're currently slashdotting in the one were those magnets happened to fail, does not mean that that is the only scenario happening, it merely means that we happen to be in that universe, in that timeline. In other timelines they're probably discussing why a meterorite happened fall exactly on the LHC;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the other way around .
The universe " does " nothing .
It merely prevents certain scenario 's from happening .
You might think of the current situation as one of infinitely many parallel universes .
That we 're currently slashdotting in the one were those magnets happened to fail , does not mean that that is the only scenario happening , it merely means that we happen to be in that universe , in that timeline .
In other timelines they 're probably discussing why a meterorite happened fall exactly on the LHC ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the other way around.
The universe "does" nothing.
It merely prevents certain scenario's from happening.
You might think of the current situation as one of infinitely many parallel universes.
That we're currently slashdotting in the one were those magnets happened to fail, does not mean that that is the only scenario happening, it merely means that we happen to be in that universe, in that timeline.
In other timelines they're probably discussing why a meterorite happened fall exactly on the LHC;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737109</id>
	<title>Re:Anti-scienctific sentiment (but it's okay)</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1255428300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So what you're saying is that you've missed the last century or so of physics.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div><p>I fell asleep during all my physics classes.  It was fate: I was not meant to learn physics!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what you 're saying is that you 've missed the last century or so of physics .
: ) I fell asleep during all my physics classes .
It was fate : I was not meant to learn physics !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what you're saying is that you've missed the last century or so of physics.
:)I fell asleep during all my physics classes.
It was fate: I was not meant to learn physics!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736071</id>
	<title>Not a ridiculous idea</title>
	<author>shadowofwind</author>
	<datestamp>1255467480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in my opinion.  Nature requires a self-consistent chain of causality from past to future, with no time travel miracles allowed.  It does not require the whole chain to remained nailed to a hypothesized immutable historic 'past'.  I don't mean that there are 'many worlds' or existent alternative realities, I mean that the one existent history is free to drift around as long as it does it in a physically consistent manner.</p><p>What I'm trying to say here, somewhat ineneptly, has so far been prohibitively difficult to prove through experiment, because the experiments are all conducted from within the causal chain on certain kinds of simple, isolated systems.  Very hard to measure in a repeatable lab experiment is not the same as unreal however.  And I think that something like this will be shown eventually.</p><p>Whether this applies to the situation with the Higgs particle I have no idea, but I think the broader principle is sound.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in my opinion .
Nature requires a self-consistent chain of causality from past to future , with no time travel miracles allowed .
It does not require the whole chain to remained nailed to a hypothesized immutable historic 'past' .
I do n't mean that there are 'many worlds ' or existent alternative realities , I mean that the one existent history is free to drift around as long as it does it in a physically consistent manner.What I 'm trying to say here , somewhat ineneptly , has so far been prohibitively difficult to prove through experiment , because the experiments are all conducted from within the causal chain on certain kinds of simple , isolated systems .
Very hard to measure in a repeatable lab experiment is not the same as unreal however .
And I think that something like this will be shown eventually.Whether this applies to the situation with the Higgs particle I have no idea , but I think the broader principle is sound .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in my opinion.
Nature requires a self-consistent chain of causality from past to future, with no time travel miracles allowed.
It does not require the whole chain to remained nailed to a hypothesized immutable historic 'past'.
I don't mean that there are 'many worlds' or existent alternative realities, I mean that the one existent history is free to drift around as long as it does it in a physically consistent manner.What I'm trying to say here, somewhat ineneptly, has so far been prohibitively difficult to prove through experiment, because the experiments are all conducted from within the causal chain on certain kinds of simple, isolated systems.
Very hard to measure in a repeatable lab experiment is not the same as unreal however.
And I think that something like this will be shown eventually.Whether this applies to the situation with the Higgs particle I have no idea, but I think the broader principle is sound.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735545</id>
	<title>Re:pull the other one</title>
	<author>Dizigel</author>
	<datestamp>1255465380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Also along the Occam's Razor line, wouldn't something like the particle beam failing to focus tightly enough be a more likely example of the universe failing to "let" the event occur?  ("Focusing the beam" might be the wrong mechanism but basically I mean something closer to the actual event rather than a superconducting failure perhaps 100's of meters away from the actual collision.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also along the Occam 's Razor line , would n't something like the particle beam failing to focus tightly enough be a more likely example of the universe failing to " let " the event occur ?
( " Focusing the beam " might be the wrong mechanism but basically I mean something closer to the actual event rather than a superconducting failure perhaps 100 's of meters away from the actual collision .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also along the Occam's Razor line, wouldn't something like the particle beam failing to focus tightly enough be a more likely example of the universe failing to "let" the event occur?
("Focusing the beam" might be the wrong mechanism but basically I mean something closer to the actual event rather than a superconducting failure perhaps 100's of meters away from the actual collision.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735639</id>
	<title>Multidimensions</title>
	<author>BarneyRubble</author>
	<datestamp>1255465740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At every point in time multidimensions  branch off.<br>The discovery of the higgs destroys the dimension in which it is discovered.<br>We are still here to observe the lack of a higgs so in our dimension discovery failed.</p><p>Therefore, Observers can only exist in dimensions where the ability/device to discover the higgs fails.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At every point in time multidimensions branch off.The discovery of the higgs destroys the dimension in which it is discovered.We are still here to observe the lack of a higgs so in our dimension discovery failed.Therefore , Observers can only exist in dimensions where the ability/device to discover the higgs fails .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At every point in time multidimensions  branch off.The discovery of the higgs destroys the dimension in which it is discovered.We are still here to observe the lack of a higgs so in our dimension discovery failed.Therefore, Observers can only exist in dimensions where the ability/device to discover the higgs fails.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736831</id>
	<title>Re:This is a stupid theory</title>
	<author>theillien</author>
	<datestamp>1255427400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Everyone knows the time traveler's objective in going back in time is not to kill his own grandfather, but rather to BECOME his own grandfather.</p></div><p>Indeed. The goal is to do the nasty in the pasty.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone knows the time traveler 's objective in going back in time is not to kill his own grandfather , but rather to BECOME his own grandfather.Indeed .
The goal is to do the nasty in the pasty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone knows the time traveler's objective in going back in time is not to kill his own grandfather, but rather to BECOME his own grandfather.Indeed.
The goal is to do the nasty in the pasty.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736483</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255426080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, that's eerie. Obviously you've been married, but usually one cannot escape marriage with this knowledge..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , that 's eerie .
Obviously you 've been married , but usually one can not escape marriage with this knowledge. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, that's eerie.
Obviously you've been married, but usually one cannot escape marriage with this knowledge..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737561</id>
	<title>Re:This theory is not to be taken seriously</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255429980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"just to protect the continuity of the universe".</p><p>I like that quote.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" just to protect the continuity of the universe " .I like that quote .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"just to protect the continuity of the universe".I like that quote.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737629</id>
	<title>WRONG</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1255430160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>information is ejected back out of a black hole.</p><p>"In July 2005, Stephen Hawking published a paper and announced a theory that quantum perturbations of the event horizon could allow information to escape from a black hole, which would resolve the information paradox."</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black\_hole\_information\_paradox" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black\_hole\_information\_paradox</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>information is ejected back out of a black hole .
" In July 2005 , Stephen Hawking published a paper and announced a theory that quantum perturbations of the event horizon could allow information to escape from a black hole , which would resolve the information paradox .
" http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black \ _hole \ _information \ _paradox [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>information is ejected back out of a black hole.
"In July 2005, Stephen Hawking published a paper and announced a theory that quantum perturbations of the event horizon could allow information to escape from a black hole, which would resolve the information paradox.
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black\_hole\_information\_paradox [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735297</id>
	<title>Re:This is a stupid theory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255464240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>why stop there?  Maybe he is tired of being a man and wants to BECOME his own grandmother!</htmltext>
<tokenext>why stop there ?
Maybe he is tired of being a man and wants to BECOME his own grandmother !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why stop there?
Maybe he is tired of being a man and wants to BECOME his own grandmother!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735837</id>
	<title>Re:This is a stupid theory</title>
	<author>Carnildo</author>
	<datestamp>1255466580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...All\_You\_Zombies..." title="wikipedia.org">Why not do both?</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not do both ?
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not do both?
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738799</id>
	<title>maybe one should listen?</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1255435440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they're so hard to produce and so "abhorrent to nature", maybe it would be good to stop trying?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they 're so hard to produce and so " abhorrent to nature " , maybe it would be good to stop trying ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they're so hard to produce and so "abhorrent to nature", maybe it would be good to stop trying?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736793</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255427280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tsk. Tsk. More Open Source sexism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tsk .
Tsk. More Open Source sexism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tsk.
Tsk. More Open Source sexism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737661</id>
	<title>Re:Back in high school creative writing class ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255430400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you still have it? If so, please share it with the class.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you still have it ?
If so , please share it with the class .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you still have it?
If so, please share it with the class.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735869</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29820423</id>
	<title>Re:Back in high school creative writing class ...</title>
	<author>Thanshin</author>
	<datestamp>1256158560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd read that book.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd read that book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd read that book.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735869</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735537</id>
	<title>It's a brilliant excuse for a late project...</title>
	<author>ratm999</author>
	<datestamp>1255465380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they're right, what's the point in further funding?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they 're right , what 's the point in further funding ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they're right, what's the point in further funding?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735385</id>
	<title>Re:To say...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255464600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... [To say] that the Higgs boson is abhorrent to Nature is ridiculous.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</p><p>Of course it is. Being ridiculous is the absolute minimum required of anything worthy of study by Physicists; when it is no longer ridiculous it ascends to theory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ... [ To say ] that the Higgs boson is abhorrent to Nature is ridiculous .
... " Of course it is .
Being ridiculous is the absolute minimum required of anything worthy of study by Physicists ; when it is no longer ridiculous it ascends to theory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" ... [To say] that the Higgs boson is abhorrent to Nature is ridiculous.
..."Of course it is.
Being ridiculous is the absolute minimum required of anything worthy of study by Physicists; when it is no longer ridiculous it ascends to theory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735255</id>
	<title>Re:Could happen</title>
	<author>DESADE</author>
	<datestamp>1255464120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think so. Entanglement. One particle goes through the event horizon. We stay on this side and observe what happens to the other. Some say the energy of the black hole breaks the entanglement. But how will we know till we try it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think so .
Entanglement. One particle goes through the event horizon .
We stay on this side and observe what happens to the other .
Some say the energy of the black hole breaks the entanglement .
But how will we know till we try it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think so.
Entanglement. One particle goes through the event horizon.
We stay on this side and observe what happens to the other.
Some say the energy of the black hole breaks the entanglement.
But how will we know till we try it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741737</id>
	<title>Re:Original concept from "Doomsday Device"</title>
	<author>Have Brain Will Rent</author>
	<datestamp>1255550880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>in my MIT Ph.D. thesis</i> <br> <br>
Did you also do a Ph.D. thesis at some other university?</htmltext>
<tokenext>in my MIT Ph.D. thesis Did you also do a Ph.D. thesis at some other university ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in my MIT Ph.D. thesis  
Did you also do a Ph.D. thesis at some other university?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736697</id>
	<title>Re:Could happen</title>
	<author>FiloEleven</author>
	<datestamp>1255426980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I try to keep an open mind, but not so wide open that the me-jelly leaks out.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I try to keep an open mind , but not so wide open that the me-jelly leaks out .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I try to keep an open mind, but not so wide open that the me-jelly leaks out.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738083</id>
	<title>Re:pull the other one</title>
	<author>Starlet Monroe</author>
	<datestamp>1255431900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about,</p><p>
&nbsp; (d) The model's wrong.</p><p>Just sayin'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about ,   ( d ) The model 's wrong.Just sayin' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about,
  (d) The model's wrong.Just sayin'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735289</id>
	<title>Imagination is a fine thing...</title>
	<author>ttimes</author>
	<datestamp>1255464240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>...but did you notice no one mentioned that it is simply hard to create the conditions necessary to detect the Higgs boson? We too quickly opt for the sci-fi answer and though the idea of time based sabotage is fun, it makes for a better movie than it does an answer. And how was such a conjecture published without data or peer review? Nothing to see here, next particle please...</htmltext>
<tokenext>...but did you notice no one mentioned that it is simply hard to create the conditions necessary to detect the Higgs boson ?
We too quickly opt for the sci-fi answer and though the idea of time based sabotage is fun , it makes for a better movie than it does an answer .
And how was such a conjecture published without data or peer review ?
Nothing to see here , next particle please.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but did you notice no one mentioned that it is simply hard to create the conditions necessary to detect the Higgs boson?
We too quickly opt for the sci-fi answer and though the idea of time based sabotage is fun, it makes for a better movie than it does an answer.
And how was such a conjecture published without data or peer review?
Nothing to see here, next particle please...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29740545</id>
	<title>Re:Quantum Suidice</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1255449300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's nice seeing the mass of physicists coming around to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds\_interpretation" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">simple concepts</a> [wikipedia.org] I learned at Uncle <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert\_A.\_Heinlein" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Bob</a> [wikipedia.org]'s knee oh so many decades ago.  With a little refinement they may yet advance to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-minds\_interpretation" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">pantheistic solipsism</a> [wikipedia.org] - I see it mentioned there, but not prominently.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's nice seeing the mass of physicists coming around to the simple concepts [ wikipedia.org ] I learned at Uncle Bob [ wikipedia.org ] 's knee oh so many decades ago .
With a little refinement they may yet advance to pantheistic solipsism [ wikipedia.org ] - I see it mentioned there , but not prominently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's nice seeing the mass of physicists coming around to the simple concepts [wikipedia.org] I learned at Uncle Bob [wikipedia.org]'s knee oh so many decades ago.
With a little refinement they may yet advance to pantheistic solipsism [wikipedia.org] - I see it mentioned there, but not prominently.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735713</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741477</id>
	<title>Re:pull the other one</title>
	<author>craagz</author>
	<datestamp>1255460280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>it is "blockquote" and "/blockquote" in "" [:p]</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it is " blockquote " and " /blockquote " in " " [ : p ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it is "blockquote" and "/blockquote" in "" [:p]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29743573</id>
	<title>Re:Could happen</title>
	<author>Osvaldo Doederlein</author>
	<datestamp>1255530000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It was once believed that the sun revolved around the earth. This is still a good approximation, for most purposes here on the ground. It is only when we begin to consider the motion of other planets that it becomes important which is which.</p></div><p>Actually, saying that the Sun orbits Earth is not really wrong even today. The universe doesn't have a fixed reference frame so no body has an absolute position, all 'positions' are just relative to other bodies (including time positions). We still tend to put the Sun in the "center", in coordinate (0,0,0) of the solar system, because that's very useful for local purposes, but it's just as arbitrary as having Earth in the center centuries ago. So, we could very well define as a convention that Earth is permanently fixed in the center of the entire Universe as a convention, and adjust all our calculations for that, and everything would be just fine... some equations could become more complex (a microscopic perturbation in Earth's orbit would translate, due to angular distance, in galaxies billions of years away being "shaked" in faster-than-light speed - still not violating any physics laws) but that would be just complex and ugly, not wrong.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was once believed that the sun revolved around the earth .
This is still a good approximation , for most purposes here on the ground .
It is only when we begin to consider the motion of other planets that it becomes important which is which.Actually , saying that the Sun orbits Earth is not really wrong even today .
The universe does n't have a fixed reference frame so no body has an absolute position , all 'positions ' are just relative to other bodies ( including time positions ) .
We still tend to put the Sun in the " center " , in coordinate ( 0,0,0 ) of the solar system , because that 's very useful for local purposes , but it 's just as arbitrary as having Earth in the center centuries ago .
So , we could very well define as a convention that Earth is permanently fixed in the center of the entire Universe as a convention , and adjust all our calculations for that , and everything would be just fine... some equations could become more complex ( a microscopic perturbation in Earth 's orbit would translate , due to angular distance , in galaxies billions of years away being " shaked " in faster-than-light speed - still not violating any physics laws ) but that would be just complex and ugly , not wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was once believed that the sun revolved around the earth.
This is still a good approximation, for most purposes here on the ground.
It is only when we begin to consider the motion of other planets that it becomes important which is which.Actually, saying that the Sun orbits Earth is not really wrong even today.
The universe doesn't have a fixed reference frame so no body has an absolute position, all 'positions' are just relative to other bodies (including time positions).
We still tend to put the Sun in the "center", in coordinate (0,0,0) of the solar system, because that's very useful for local purposes, but it's just as arbitrary as having Earth in the center centuries ago.
So, we could very well define as a convention that Earth is permanently fixed in the center of the entire Universe as a convention, and adjust all our calculations for that, and everything would be just fine... some equations could become more complex (a microscopic perturbation in Earth's orbit would translate, due to angular distance, in galaxies billions of years away being "shaked" in faster-than-light speed - still not violating any physics laws) but that would be just complex and ugly, not wrong.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736829</id>
	<title>TRY AND CHANGE THE PAST</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255427340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This makes me think of Fritz Leber's short story "TRY AND CHANGE THE PAST".  Where the main character is travels in time to prevent a death by gun shot, and is thwarted by the Universe using a meteorite (the size of a bullet) to kill the person anyway in the same place the bullet would have.  He came up with a law called the "Law of Conservation of Reality" to describe this effect by the Universe.  It was a very interesting story, one of those I remember from time to time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This makes me think of Fritz Leber 's short story " TRY AND CHANGE THE PAST " .
Where the main character is travels in time to prevent a death by gun shot , and is thwarted by the Universe using a meteorite ( the size of a bullet ) to kill the person anyway in the same place the bullet would have .
He came up with a law called the " Law of Conservation of Reality " to describe this effect by the Universe .
It was a very interesting story , one of those I remember from time to time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This makes me think of Fritz Leber's short story "TRY AND CHANGE THE PAST".
Where the main character is travels in time to prevent a death by gun shot, and is thwarted by the Universe using a meteorite (the size of a bullet) to kill the person anyway in the same place the bullet would have.
He came up with a law called the "Law of Conservation of Reality" to describe this effect by the Universe.
It was a very interesting story, one of those I remember from time to time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735647</id>
	<title>Re:Quantum Suidice</title>
	<author>twmcneil</author>
	<datestamp>1255465800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wasn't that the theory behind the coin flips in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead which preceded Tegmark by some 30 years?.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Was n't that the theory behind the coin flips in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead which preceded Tegmark by some 30 years ? .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasn't that the theory behind the coin flips in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead which preceded Tegmark by some 30 years?.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735327</id>
	<title>Learned it watching Lexx</title>
	<author>oldnotold</author>
	<datestamp>1255464360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Didn't everybody learn about Higgs by watching the last season of Lexx?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't everybody learn about Higgs by watching the last season of Lexx ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't everybody learn about Higgs by watching the last season of Lexx?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741729</id>
	<title>Re:Higgs is everywhere.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255550880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would the universe want us to add to its mass by creating more Higgs bosons then needed. Stupid universe...shut up and eat your cake!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would the universe want us to add to its mass by creating more Higgs bosons then needed .
Stupid universe...shut up and eat your cake !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would the universe want us to add to its mass by creating more Higgs bosons then needed.
Stupid universe...shut up and eat your cake!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735605</id>
	<title>Re:Einstein's Bridge</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255465620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>its creation would ripple backward through time and stop the collider before it could make one, like a time traveler who goes back in time to kill his grandfather.</p></div><p>Yeah, leave something like that to Hollywood.  In the movie version, the LHC would travel back in time to kill its grandfather, but would miss instead killing the Tevatron.  Hilarious shenanigans<br>or a car chase (probably both) would ensue. </p><p> Please just leave it as a book, if you like it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>its creation would ripple backward through time and stop the collider before it could make one , like a time traveler who goes back in time to kill his grandfather.Yeah , leave something like that to Hollywood .
In the movie version , the LHC would travel back in time to kill its grandfather , but would miss instead killing the Tevatron .
Hilarious shenanigansor a car chase ( probably both ) would ensue .
Please just leave it as a book , if you like it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>its creation would ripple backward through time and stop the collider before it could make one, like a time traveler who goes back in time to kill his grandfather.Yeah, leave something like that to Hollywood.
In the movie version, the LHC would travel back in time to kill its grandfather, but would miss instead killing the Tevatron.
Hilarious shenanigansor a car chase (probably both) would ensue.
Please just leave it as a book, if you like it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735163</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735561</id>
	<title>Oblig: Futurama Ref</title>
	<author>scorp1us</author>
	<datestamp>1255465440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fry: [discussing Fry being his own grandfather as a result of going back in time and getting with his grandmother] I did do the nasty in the past-y.<br>Nibbler: Verily. And that past nastification is what shields you from the brains!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fry : [ discussing Fry being his own grandfather as a result of going back in time and getting with his grandmother ] I did do the nasty in the past-y.Nibbler : Verily .
And that past nastification is what shields you from the brains !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fry: [discussing Fry being his own grandfather as a result of going back in time and getting with his grandmother] I did do the nasty in the past-y.Nibbler: Verily.
And that past nastification is what shields you from the brains!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735163</id>
	<title>Einstein's Bridge</title>
	<author>chill</author>
	<datestamp>1255463700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now THAT is a book I'd like to see made into a movie.  Put some of the "science" back in Science Fiction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now THAT is a book I 'd like to see made into a movie .
Put some of the " science " back in Science Fiction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now THAT is a book I'd like to see made into a movie.
Put some of the "science" back in Science Fiction.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736703</id>
	<title>Re:Could happen</title>
	<author>peragrin</author>
	<datestamp>1255426980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So gravity doesn't escape a black hole?  Then how does gravity pull you closer to it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So gravity does n't escape a black hole ?
Then how does gravity pull you closer to it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So gravity doesn't escape a black hole?
Then how does gravity pull you closer to it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735703</id>
	<title>Oh great...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255466100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a lesson in not changing the past from Mr. I'm My Own Grandpa...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a lesson in not changing the past from Mr. I 'm My Own Grandpa.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a lesson in not changing the past from Mr. I'm My Own Grandpa...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736009</id>
	<title>Re:Anti-scienctific sentiment (but it's okay)</title>
	<author>Xtifr</author>
	<datestamp>1255467300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Science is founded on the idea that our universe is predictable and that we can understand it.</p></div><p>So what you're saying is that you've missed the last century or so of physics.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Science is founded on the idea that our universe is predictable and that we can understand it.So what you 're saying is that you 've missed the last century or so of physics .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Science is founded on the idea that our universe is predictable and that we can understand it.So what you're saying is that you've missed the last century or so of physics.
:)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736505</id>
	<title>Re:Almost...</title>
	<author>harry666t</author>
	<datestamp>1255426140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; If the universe were indeed so much more complex than we<br>&gt; imagined (which I fully believe is possible)<br><br>No. The nature of the universe is simplicity. Simple solutions Just Work, while (too) complex solutions collapse under their own weight. Of course, there is always a certain treshold for what is simple and for whom.<br><br>&gt; I fear that [..] it won't be a magical world of multiverses and time travel.<br><br>Seriously. What would you need time travel for?</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; If the universe were indeed so much more complex than we &gt; imagined ( which I fully believe is possible ) No .
The nature of the universe is simplicity .
Simple solutions Just Work , while ( too ) complex solutions collapse under their own weight .
Of course , there is always a certain treshold for what is simple and for whom. &gt; I fear that [ .. ] it wo n't be a magical world of multiverses and time travel.Seriously .
What would you need time travel for ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; If the universe were indeed so much more complex than we&gt; imagined (which I fully believe is possible)No.
The nature of the universe is simplicity.
Simple solutions Just Work, while (too) complex solutions collapse under their own weight.
Of course, there is always a certain treshold for what is simple and for whom.&gt; I fear that [..] it won't be a magical world of multiverses and time travel.Seriously.
What would you need time travel for?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738405</id>
	<title>Re:Back in high school creative writing class ...</title>
	<author>roystgnr</author>
	<datestamp>1255433340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why I haven't tried writing science fiction since high school.  Every time I think I've got a brilliant idea I end up finding out someone else did a bang-up job of it before I was born.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why I have n't tried writing science fiction since high school .
Every time I think I 've got a brilliant idea I end up finding out someone else did a bang-up job of it before I was born .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why I haven't tried writing science fiction since high school.
Every time I think I've got a brilliant idea I end up finding out someone else did a bang-up job of it before I was born.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735869</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29752233</id>
	<title>Re:To say...</title>
	<author>Tybalt\_Capulet</author>
	<datestamp>1255529700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, anthropomorphizing the Higgs Boson would make it angry. And you wouldn't like it when it's angry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , anthropomorphizing the Higgs Boson would make it angry .
And you would n't like it when it 's angry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, anthropomorphizing the Higgs Boson would make it angry.
And you wouldn't like it when it's angry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735891</id>
	<title>Re:Quantum Suidice</title>
	<author>brian0918</author>
	<datestamp>1255466820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it <i>science</i> fiction if the science is incoherent and anticonceptual? A better category would be fantasy, or (*gasp*) religion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it science fiction if the science is incoherent and anticonceptual ?
A better category would be fantasy , or ( * gasp * ) religion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it science fiction if the science is incoherent and anticonceptual?
A better category would be fantasy, or (*gasp*) religion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736369</id>
	<title>Re:Wait .. I've played this game before</title>
	<author>sadler121</author>
	<datestamp>1255425540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chronoskimmer?</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee6eU\_148uI" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee6eU\_148uI</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chronoskimmer ? http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = ee6eU \ _148uI [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chronoskimmer?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee6eU\_148uI [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735197</id>
	<title>first!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255463820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>even the mighty slashdot is speechless!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>even the mighty slashdot is speechless !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>even the mighty slashdot is speechless!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735595</id>
	<title>Crackpot theory!</title>
	<author>Slur</author>
	<datestamp>1255465560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>By their own theory, every event in history delaying the creation and operation of the LHC would have to be included. Not least of which would be the destruction of the Great Library at Alexandria, which probably set back the experiment by a thousand years.

Very silly. Who funds these guys?</htmltext>
<tokenext>By their own theory , every event in history delaying the creation and operation of the LHC would have to be included .
Not least of which would be the destruction of the Great Library at Alexandria , which probably set back the experiment by a thousand years .
Very silly .
Who funds these guys ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By their own theory, every event in history delaying the creation and operation of the LHC would have to be included.
Not least of which would be the destruction of the Great Library at Alexandria, which probably set back the experiment by a thousand years.
Very silly.
Who funds these guys?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737963</id>
	<title>Re:Einstein's Bridge</title>
	<author>SputnikPanic</author>
	<datestamp>1255431480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed. I've just read Flashforward, the novel on which the new TV show is very loosely based, and I was pleasantly surprised by how integral the science was to the story-telling. Of course, nary a mention of hardly anything at all science-related on the show -- television and movie producers strip science away from an existing work like fat from a steak.</p><p>Anyway, I'd suggest checking out Flashforward, the novel. It's quite apparent from even the first few pages that the book and the show have nothing in common save the premise, and even that differs in the details.  The book really delves into issues of determinism, free will, and causation; the attempt to observe the Higgs boson; the role, in a quantum mechanical sense, of the observer; and even the very issue speculated upon in TFA: whether the universe "conspires" to protect itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
I 've just read Flashforward , the novel on which the new TV show is very loosely based , and I was pleasantly surprised by how integral the science was to the story-telling .
Of course , nary a mention of hardly anything at all science-related on the show -- television and movie producers strip science away from an existing work like fat from a steak.Anyway , I 'd suggest checking out Flashforward , the novel .
It 's quite apparent from even the first few pages that the book and the show have nothing in common save the premise , and even that differs in the details .
The book really delves into issues of determinism , free will , and causation ; the attempt to observe the Higgs boson ; the role , in a quantum mechanical sense , of the observer ; and even the very issue speculated upon in TFA : whether the universe " conspires " to protect itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
I've just read Flashforward, the novel on which the new TV show is very loosely based, and I was pleasantly surprised by how integral the science was to the story-telling.
Of course, nary a mention of hardly anything at all science-related on the show -- television and movie producers strip science away from an existing work like fat from a steak.Anyway, I'd suggest checking out Flashforward, the novel.
It's quite apparent from even the first few pages that the book and the show have nothing in common save the premise, and even that differs in the details.
The book really delves into issues of determinism, free will, and causation; the attempt to observe the Higgs boson; the role, in a quantum mechanical sense, of the observer; and even the very issue speculated upon in TFA: whether the universe "conspires" to protect itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735163</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735465</id>
	<title>Natural Occurrence?</title>
	<author>Dizigel</author>
	<datestamp>1255465080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't one of the defenses of the safety of colliders such as the Large Hadron that natural collisions at even higher energy levels happen all the time in the universe, just not in front of a sensor that can accurately measure it?  Therefore, scientists aren't doing anything that isn't "supposed" to happen.  Or maybe it's the \_observation\_ that isn't supposed to happen. (-;</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't one of the defenses of the safety of colliders such as the Large Hadron that natural collisions at even higher energy levels happen all the time in the universe , just not in front of a sensor that can accurately measure it ?
Therefore , scientists are n't doing anything that is n't " supposed " to happen .
Or maybe it 's the \ _observation \ _ that is n't supposed to happen .
( - ;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't one of the defenses of the safety of colliders such as the Large Hadron that natural collisions at even higher energy levels happen all the time in the universe, just not in front of a sensor that can accurately measure it?
Therefore, scientists aren't doing anything that isn't "supposed" to happen.
Or maybe it's the \_observation\_ that isn't supposed to happen.
(-;</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29752125</id>
	<title>Re:Could happen</title>
	<author>arminw</author>
	<datestamp>1255528920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>....The universe doesn't have a fixed reference frame....</p><p>If you had said the universe doesn't APPEAR to have a fixed reference frame, you would have been more correct. Since we have never seen or found the end of the universe, we cannot say for sure whether the earth is or isn't  a the center of the universe or any particular place in it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>....The universe does n't have a fixed reference frame....If you had said the universe does n't APPEAR to have a fixed reference frame , you would have been more correct .
Since we have never seen or found the end of the universe , we can not say for sure whether the earth is or is n't a the center of the universe or any particular place in it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....The universe doesn't have a fixed reference frame....If you had said the universe doesn't APPEAR to have a fixed reference frame, you would have been more correct.
Since we have never seen or found the end of the universe, we cannot say for sure whether the earth is or isn't  a the center of the universe or any particular place in it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29743573</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736433</id>
	<title>Pork? Yeah right</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1255425840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>TFA: 'This malign influence from the future, they argue, could explain why the United States Superconducting Supercollider, also designed to find the Higgs, was canceled in 1993 after billions of dollars had already been spent, an event <b>so unlikely</b> that Dr. Nielsen calls it an "anti-miracle."</p></div></blockquote><p>This is where the credibility of the article went south in my book. That kind of sh8t happens all the time. That's why there are big-ass Apollo rockets sitting outside space museums. (Unless Apollo almost found the Moon Obelisks.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA : 'This malign influence from the future , they argue , could explain why the United States Superconducting Supercollider , also designed to find the Higgs , was canceled in 1993 after billions of dollars had already been spent , an event so unlikely that Dr. Nielsen calls it an " anti-miracle .
" This is where the credibility of the article went south in my book .
That kind of sh8t happens all the time .
That 's why there are big-ass Apollo rockets sitting outside space museums .
( Unless Apollo almost found the Moon Obelisks .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA: 'This malign influence from the future, they argue, could explain why the United States Superconducting Supercollider, also designed to find the Higgs, was canceled in 1993 after billions of dollars had already been spent, an event so unlikely that Dr. Nielsen calls it an "anti-miracle.
"This is where the credibility of the article went south in my book.
That kind of sh8t happens all the time.
That's why there are big-ass Apollo rockets sitting outside space museums.
(Unless Apollo almost found the Moon Obelisks.
)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737511</id>
	<title>Hitch Hiker's Guide</title>
	<author>Alain Williams</author>
	<datestamp>1255429740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The New York times published the article on 12th October, the same day as the broadcast of the first episode of <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00n4z16" title="bbc.co.uk">Eoin Colfer's sequel to Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy</a> [bbc.co.uk]. Is that a coincidence? Is part of a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart\_of\_Gold\_(spaceship)#Heart\_of\_Gold" title="wikipedia.org">Heart of Gold</a> [wikipedia.org] improbability calculation? Is there something in that number 42 after all?<p>
Oh, well - it is fun to grin at the coincidence!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The New York times published the article on 12th October , the same day as the broadcast of the first episode of Eoin Colfer 's sequel to Douglas Adams ' Hitchhiker 's Guide to the Galaxy [ bbc.co.uk ] .
Is that a coincidence ?
Is part of a Heart of Gold [ wikipedia.org ] improbability calculation ?
Is there something in that number 42 after all ?
Oh , well - it is fun to grin at the coincidence !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The New York times published the article on 12th October, the same day as the broadcast of the first episode of Eoin Colfer's sequel to Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy [bbc.co.uk].
Is that a coincidence?
Is part of a Heart of Gold [wikipedia.org] improbability calculation?
Is there something in that number 42 after all?
Oh, well - it is fun to grin at the coincidence!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735877</id>
	<title>Re:That's Groovy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255466700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think casting Keanu Reeves as Neils Bohr was a stroke of unmatched brilliance.</p></div><p>Unfortunately, no matter how hard you try to get him the role, it would be so abhorrent to nature that his acting would ripple backward through time and stop the deal from ever taking place.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think casting Keanu Reeves as Neils Bohr was a stroke of unmatched brilliance.Unfortunately , no matter how hard you try to get him the role , it would be so abhorrent to nature that his acting would ripple backward through time and stop the deal from ever taking place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think casting Keanu Reeves as Neils Bohr was a stroke of unmatched brilliance.Unfortunately, no matter how hard you try to get him the role, it would be so abhorrent to nature that his acting would ripple backward through time and stop the deal from ever taking place.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736327</id>
	<title>verily</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255425360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And that past nastification requires some serious calculus to comprehend.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And that past nastification requires some serious calculus to comprehend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that past nastification requires some serious calculus to comprehend.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735301</id>
	<title>Re:This is a stupid theory</title>
	<author>oatworm</author>
	<datestamp>1255464300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I did do the nasty in the pasty!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did do the nasty in the pasty !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did do the nasty in the pasty!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736221</id>
	<title>Hubble Clue</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1255424880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We've already been given a warning:</p><p><a href="http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap030630.html" title="nasa.gov" rel="nofollow">http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap030630.html</a> [nasa.gov]</p><p>Any further attempts will result in the <b>Mother of All BSOD's</b>, and there's no F8.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've already been given a warning : http : //apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap030630.html [ nasa.gov ] Any further attempts will result in the Mother of All BSOD 's , and there 's no F8 .
     </tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've already been given a warning:http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap030630.html [nasa.gov]Any further attempts will result in the Mother of All BSOD's, and there's no F8.
     </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736521</id>
	<title>Re:Could happen</title>
	<author>mweather</author>
	<datestamp>1255426200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Information (except its mass, charge, and spin) can't escape a black hole, period.</p></div><p>Information cannot be destroyed, period. One of us is wrong.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Information ( except its mass , charge , and spin ) ca n't escape a black hole , period.Information can not be destroyed , period .
One of us is wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Information (except its mass, charge, and spin) can't escape a black hole, period.Information cannot be destroyed, period.
One of us is wrong.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737785</id>
	<title>Re:This is a stupid theory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255430820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I have done the nasty in the pasty." "And that past nastification is what shields you from the brains."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I have done the nasty in the pasty .
" " And that past nastification is what shields you from the brains .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I have done the nasty in the pasty.
" "And that past nastification is what shields you from the brains.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736113</id>
	<title>Re:Original concept from "Doomsday Device"</title>
	<author>0xABADC0DA</author>
	<datestamp>1255424400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's why you do these kinds of experiments away from your home world.  Then the observers on the home world see the observers on Mars Research Colony exploded/imploded/whatever and they don't do it again.  It's only the observers that may die that would experience it as the universe 'conspiring' against their research.</p><p>But it explains why no aliens... we would only meet the ones that didn't experiment on their home world and in universes where we didn't either.  That would be pretty slim odds.  If you subscribe to the universe forking at every decision nonsense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why you do these kinds of experiments away from your home world .
Then the observers on the home world see the observers on Mars Research Colony exploded/imploded/whatever and they do n't do it again .
It 's only the observers that may die that would experience it as the universe 'conspiring ' against their research.But it explains why no aliens... we would only meet the ones that did n't experiment on their home world and in universes where we did n't either .
That would be pretty slim odds .
If you subscribe to the universe forking at every decision nonsense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why you do these kinds of experiments away from your home world.
Then the observers on the home world see the observers on Mars Research Colony exploded/imploded/whatever and they don't do it again.
It's only the observers that may die that would experience it as the universe 'conspiring' against their research.But it explains why no aliens... we would only meet the ones that didn't experiment on their home world and in universes where we didn't either.
That would be pretty slim odds.
If you subscribe to the universe forking at every decision nonsense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736507</id>
	<title>Re:Could happen</title>
	<author>thirty-seven</author>
	<datestamp>1255426140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a black hole radiates away, the Hawking radiation contains the information (albeit scrambled) that had been sucked into the black hole.  Information is conserved.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a black hole radiates away , the Hawking radiation contains the information ( albeit scrambled ) that had been sucked into the black hole .
Information is conserved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a black hole radiates away, the Hawking radiation contains the information (albeit scrambled) that had been sucked into the black hole.
Information is conserved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735869</id>
	<title>Back in high school creative writing class ...</title>
	<author>Ungrounded Lightning</author>
	<datestamp>1255466700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... (some time between fall '63 and spring '65) I wrote a short story with a similar premise:</p><p>The government's physicists had identified a way to create such a "bounce" situation by a nuclear mumbo-jumbo that starts with putting together a dense enough energy packet.  This backs the universe up a bit and it takes another alternative timeline.  Humans have just enough psi to make different decisions.  The more energy you use to start the process, the farther back the "time bounce" to the fork.  Or at least that's the theory.</p><p>The government has taken advantage of this by creating a secret project:  They are collecting and storing a LOT of energy using a solar power satellite.  (The downlink is a laser and the ground-based collector and energy storage tech, like the details of the bounce device, are unspecified.)  Accumulation of energy is ongoing, so they continue to have enough to bounce back at least to the time when the project was initiated.  (Going farther risks taking a fork on which the device is not made.)</p><p>This is used by the diplomats as a way to correct mistakes:  If things got too bad diplomatically they could go back and try something different.  (Unlike a doomsday device you WANT to keep this one secret - and for there to be only one.)</p><p>Since the project went online, though there have been many conflicts and near-misses on situations with the potential to degenerate into something that would make WW II or a comet impact look tame, things have always worked out for the government in question.  Sometimes by smart diplomacy, sometimes by smart battle strategy in small conflicts heading off large ones, sometimes by seemingly amazing coincidences and blind luck.  Starting as one country on Earth (where the device is still sited) the government has (mostly peaceably) unified/absorbed/explored/grown into a multi-solar-system empire.</p><p>The kicker is that, from the viewpoint of the operators (from which it is was written) EVERY use is the FIRST use.  It ALWAYS appears that things have miraculously gone so well that they haven't needed it - until JUST NOW.  Maybe the thing really doesn't work - in which case it will destroy the planet and life on most of the spiral arm.  Maybe it does work - but from the viewpoint of the current timeline it's just the end of the universe.  Maybe the diplomats and generals, knowing this is a possibility, have gone to heroic efforts and pulled out heroic saves - until JUST NOW.  But now it's finally hit the fan and the viewpoint characters have been ordered to set it off<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>One of the others in that class was the guy who was the model for Aahz in Asprin's books.  Ran into him a decade or two later.  He brought up the story and said it had haunted him ever since.  B-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... ( some time between fall '63 and spring '65 ) I wrote a short story with a similar premise : The government 's physicists had identified a way to create such a " bounce " situation by a nuclear mumbo-jumbo that starts with putting together a dense enough energy packet .
This backs the universe up a bit and it takes another alternative timeline .
Humans have just enough psi to make different decisions .
The more energy you use to start the process , the farther back the " time bounce " to the fork .
Or at least that 's the theory.The government has taken advantage of this by creating a secret project : They are collecting and storing a LOT of energy using a solar power satellite .
( The downlink is a laser and the ground-based collector and energy storage tech , like the details of the bounce device , are unspecified .
) Accumulation of energy is ongoing , so they continue to have enough to bounce back at least to the time when the project was initiated .
( Going farther risks taking a fork on which the device is not made .
) This is used by the diplomats as a way to correct mistakes : If things got too bad diplomatically they could go back and try something different .
( Unlike a doomsday device you WANT to keep this one secret - and for there to be only one .
) Since the project went online , though there have been many conflicts and near-misses on situations with the potential to degenerate into something that would make WW II or a comet impact look tame , things have always worked out for the government in question .
Sometimes by smart diplomacy , sometimes by smart battle strategy in small conflicts heading off large ones , sometimes by seemingly amazing coincidences and blind luck .
Starting as one country on Earth ( where the device is still sited ) the government has ( mostly peaceably ) unified/absorbed/explored/grown into a multi-solar-system empire.The kicker is that , from the viewpoint of the operators ( from which it is was written ) EVERY use is the FIRST use .
It ALWAYS appears that things have miraculously gone so well that they have n't needed it - until JUST NOW .
Maybe the thing really does n't work - in which case it will destroy the planet and life on most of the spiral arm .
Maybe it does work - but from the viewpoint of the current timeline it 's just the end of the universe .
Maybe the diplomats and generals , knowing this is a possibility , have gone to heroic efforts and pulled out heroic saves - until JUST NOW .
But now it 's finally hit the fan and the viewpoint characters have been ordered to set it off ...One of the others in that class was the guy who was the model for Aahz in Asprin 's books .
Ran into him a decade or two later .
He brought up the story and said it had haunted him ever since .
B- )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... (some time between fall '63 and spring '65) I wrote a short story with a similar premise:The government's physicists had identified a way to create such a "bounce" situation by a nuclear mumbo-jumbo that starts with putting together a dense enough energy packet.
This backs the universe up a bit and it takes another alternative timeline.
Humans have just enough psi to make different decisions.
The more energy you use to start the process, the farther back the "time bounce" to the fork.
Or at least that's the theory.The government has taken advantage of this by creating a secret project:  They are collecting and storing a LOT of energy using a solar power satellite.
(The downlink is a laser and the ground-based collector and energy storage tech, like the details of the bounce device, are unspecified.
)  Accumulation of energy is ongoing, so they continue to have enough to bounce back at least to the time when the project was initiated.
(Going farther risks taking a fork on which the device is not made.
)This is used by the diplomats as a way to correct mistakes:  If things got too bad diplomatically they could go back and try something different.
(Unlike a doomsday device you WANT to keep this one secret - and for there to be only one.
)Since the project went online, though there have been many conflicts and near-misses on situations with the potential to degenerate into something that would make WW II or a comet impact look tame, things have always worked out for the government in question.
Sometimes by smart diplomacy, sometimes by smart battle strategy in small conflicts heading off large ones, sometimes by seemingly amazing coincidences and blind luck.
Starting as one country on Earth (where the device is still sited) the government has (mostly peaceably) unified/absorbed/explored/grown into a multi-solar-system empire.The kicker is that, from the viewpoint of the operators (from which it is was written) EVERY use is the FIRST use.
It ALWAYS appears that things have miraculously gone so well that they haven't needed it - until JUST NOW.
Maybe the thing really doesn't work - in which case it will destroy the planet and life on most of the spiral arm.
Maybe it does work - but from the viewpoint of the current timeline it's just the end of the universe.
Maybe the diplomats and generals, knowing this is a possibility, have gone to heroic efforts and pulled out heroic saves - until JUST NOW.
But now it's finally hit the fan and the viewpoint characters have been ordered to set it off ...One of the others in that class was the guy who was the model for Aahz in Asprin's books.
Ran into him a decade or two later.
He brought up the story and said it had haunted him ever since.
B-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735163</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736343</id>
	<title>Re:Back in high school creative writing class ...</title>
	<author>rAiNsT0rm</author>
	<datestamp>1255425420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Awesome! Great stuff, and don't worry I once wrote a followup to Morte d'Arthur perfectly in the style of the original on which I received a C- for parts where my grammar and structure matched the original work but apparently were "incorrect" to the teacher... and then I won a National English Merit award for the same work when the teacher's assistant submitted it because she dug it. Grade never got changed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Awesome !
Great stuff , and do n't worry I once wrote a followup to Morte d'Arthur perfectly in the style of the original on which I received a C- for parts where my grammar and structure matched the original work but apparently were " incorrect " to the teacher... and then I won a National English Merit award for the same work when the teacher 's assistant submitted it because she dug it .
Grade never got changed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Awesome!
Great stuff, and don't worry I once wrote a followup to Morte d'Arthur perfectly in the style of the original on which I received a C- for parts where my grammar and structure matched the original work but apparently were "incorrect" to the teacher... and then I won a National English Merit award for the same work when the teacher's assistant submitted it because she dug it.
Grade never got changed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735869</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735171</id>
	<title>So...</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1255463760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We created the universe that we are trying to figure out who made it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We created the universe that we are trying to figure out who made it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We created the universe that we are trying to figure out who made it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737323</id>
	<title>Re:Back in high school creative writing class ...</title>
	<author>whiplashx</author>
	<datestamp>1255428960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fantastic!</p><p>I tried to write a similar story in university:</p><p>step 1) The scientist is born.<br>step 2) The scientist goes through the time machine, and kills his grandfather.<br>step 3) The scientist is not born.<br>step 4) The grandfather is not killed.<br>step 5) The scientist is born<br>step 6) The scientist goes through the time machine, and kills his grandfather<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>(the timeline replays in countless variations, like Groundhog day)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>step 39,834,234) Eventually, (possibly quantum) variations in the loop will produce an unlikely event, ie, the scientist dies, the time machine fails, etc.</p><p>From the outside perspective, the scientist was never able to achieve time travel, and the proliferation of nasty accidents around time travel experimentors would seem like some sort of "Physicist's Curse".</p><p>Eventually, that was adapted for a Neverwinter Nights module, where dragons were wiped out thousands of years ago, and a young magician is trying to bring them back (thus creating a paradox in history) and a similar "time loop" where you must redo the same day over and over until you stop the magician from creating the time portal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fantastic ! I tried to write a similar story in university : step 1 ) The scientist is born.step 2 ) The scientist goes through the time machine , and kills his grandfather.step 3 ) The scientist is not born.step 4 ) The grandfather is not killed.step 5 ) The scientist is bornstep 6 ) The scientist goes through the time machine , and kills his grandfather ... ( the timeline replays in countless variations , like Groundhog day ) ...step 39,834,234 ) Eventually , ( possibly quantum ) variations in the loop will produce an unlikely event , ie , the scientist dies , the time machine fails , etc.From the outside perspective , the scientist was never able to achieve time travel , and the proliferation of nasty accidents around time travel experimentors would seem like some sort of " Physicist 's Curse " .Eventually , that was adapted for a Neverwinter Nights module , where dragons were wiped out thousands of years ago , and a young magician is trying to bring them back ( thus creating a paradox in history ) and a similar " time loop " where you must redo the same day over and over until you stop the magician from creating the time portal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fantastic!I tried to write a similar story in university:step 1) The scientist is born.step 2) The scientist goes through the time machine, and kills his grandfather.step 3) The scientist is not born.step 4) The grandfather is not killed.step 5) The scientist is bornstep 6) The scientist goes through the time machine, and kills his grandfather ...(the timeline replays in countless variations, like Groundhog day) ...step 39,834,234) Eventually, (possibly quantum) variations in the loop will produce an unlikely event, ie, the scientist dies, the time machine fails, etc.From the outside perspective, the scientist was never able to achieve time travel, and the proliferation of nasty accidents around time travel experimentors would seem like some sort of "Physicist's Curse".Eventually, that was adapted for a Neverwinter Nights module, where dragons were wiped out thousands of years ago, and a young magician is trying to bring them back (thus creating a paradox in history) and a similar "time loop" where you must redo the same day over and over until you stop the magician from creating the time portal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735869</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737181</id>
	<title>Re:Superstition</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1255428540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But what if the universe doesn't allow God to exist?</htmltext>
<tokenext>But what if the universe does n't allow God to exist ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But what if the universe doesn't allow God to exist?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738913</id>
	<title>Re:Back in high school creative writing class ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255436220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The flaw in that story is that unless they were aware of what the right/better choice was they would continue to relive the same crisis by making the same choice and go into a loop. It is a nice premise tho.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The flaw in that story is that unless they were aware of what the right/better choice was they would continue to relive the same crisis by making the same choice and go into a loop .
It is a nice premise tho .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The flaw in that story is that unless they were aware of what the right/better choice was they would continue to relive the same crisis by making the same choice and go into a loop.
It is a nice premise tho.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735869</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29742353</id>
	<title>Re:This theory is not to be taken seriously</title>
	<author>Walkingshark</author>
	<datestamp>1255516020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You realize, of course, that if this is the case then you will never die unless there is no possible universe in which you could continue existing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You realize , of course , that if this is the case then you will never die unless there is no possible universe in which you could continue existing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You realize, of course, that if this is the case then you will never die unless there is no possible universe in which you could continue existing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29742575</id>
	<title>Re:Almost...</title>
	<author>skolima</author>
	<datestamp>1255518840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I especially like how this is modded "+5 Insightful"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I especially like how this is modded " + 5 Insightful " : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I especially like how this is modded "+5 Insightful" :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29742303</id>
	<title>Re:Superstition</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255515240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except for the fact that Holger Bech Nielsen predicted this before the accident. Also the prediction is based on a model of physics, where an outcome is the described behaviour.<br>The model have probably been through occams razor, and maybe the model haven't been thoroughly tested it could still be very probable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except for the fact that Holger Bech Nielsen predicted this before the accident .
Also the prediction is based on a model of physics , where an outcome is the described behaviour.The model have probably been through occams razor , and maybe the model have n't been thoroughly tested it could still be very probable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except for the fact that Holger Bech Nielsen predicted this before the accident.
Also the prediction is based on a model of physics, where an outcome is the described behaviour.The model have probably been through occams razor, and maybe the model haven't been thoroughly tested it could still be very probable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736957</id>
	<title>hawking radiation ...</title>
	<author>Brigadier</author>
	<datestamp>1255427940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>my anti-matter self can escape<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... isn't that what Hawking Radiation is all about ? I go in one side and come out on the flip side as opposite  me ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>my anti-matter self can escape ... is n't that what Hawking Radiation is all about ?
I go in one side and come out on the flip side as opposite me ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>my anti-matter self can escape ... isn't that what Hawking Radiation is all about ?
I go in one side and come out on the flip side as opposite  me ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741879</id>
	<title>Re:Anti-scienctific sentiment (but it's okay)</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1255552920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He's getting into the realm where reality butts up against philosophy and logic.  You might be better to phrase this as "Here is a logical explanation of a physical event which cannot be tested".  There is, I suppose, a loose analogy to Godel's incompleteness theorems.  He might be right or wrong: the problem is that examining the physical event in question does not test his theory.  Ooh, scary<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's getting into the realm where reality butts up against philosophy and logic .
You might be better to phrase this as " Here is a logical explanation of a physical event which can not be tested " .
There is , I suppose , a loose analogy to Godel 's incompleteness theorems .
He might be right or wrong : the problem is that examining the physical event in question does not test his theory .
Ooh , scary : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's getting into the realm where reality butts up against philosophy and logic.
You might be better to phrase this as "Here is a logical explanation of a physical event which cannot be tested".
There is, I suppose, a loose analogy to Godel's incompleteness theorems.
He might be right or wrong: the problem is that examining the physical event in question does not test his theory.
Ooh, scary :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736649</id>
	<title>silly</title>
	<author>TheUz</author>
	<datestamp>1255426740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We are showered by particles with energies far above that which can be produced in the LHC.</p><p>I have a theory.  It's called the "Bureaucratic Inverse Competence" theory.  BIC states that the quality of work done in any organization is quantity whose direct inverse is the number of sycophantic bureaucrats.  As the ratio of actual working operators and engineers to parasites increases, so too does the production and quality increase.</p><p>tldr;  It ain't the universe, it's too many parasites, and too much money.  Heck no I don't have a solution.  I'd be a very rich man if I did.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We are showered by particles with energies far above that which can be produced in the LHC.I have a theory .
It 's called the " Bureaucratic Inverse Competence " theory .
BIC states that the quality of work done in any organization is quantity whose direct inverse is the number of sycophantic bureaucrats .
As the ratio of actual working operators and engineers to parasites increases , so too does the production and quality increase.tldr ; It ai n't the universe , it 's too many parasites , and too much money .
Heck no I do n't have a solution .
I 'd be a very rich man if I did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are showered by particles with energies far above that which can be produced in the LHC.I have a theory.
It's called the "Bureaucratic Inverse Competence" theory.
BIC states that the quality of work done in any organization is quantity whose direct inverse is the number of sycophantic bureaucrats.
As the ratio of actual working operators and engineers to parasites increases, so too does the production and quality increase.tldr;  It ain't the universe, it's too many parasites, and too much money.
Heck no I don't have a solution.
I'd be a very rich man if I did.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29752601</id>
	<title>Re:Back in high school creative writing class ...</title>
	<author>arminw</author>
	<datestamp>1255532640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...What if Jesus or other prophets were similar "outliers"?...</p><p>What if Jesus really is who he says he is, namely God come to earth in human form? What if he really did conquer our biggest enemy -- death? What if what he said about heaven and hell are true? What if the miracles that he did are a technology so advanced, that even our most imaginative science-fiction writers have not thought of it yet? Walking on water is not difficult at all for someone who understands all the fields and forces in what scientists so glibly call "matter". If it is really true that Jesus Christ is God and God made all life in the first place, then bringing somebody back from the dead is not a big deal at all. You can read a pretty awesome description of him, as he is today in the eternal dimension, in the first chapter of the book of Revelation, the last book of the Bible.</p><p>While he was here on the earth, he repeatedly promised to return and fix this world, because it is his not ours. Jesus once said that if he did not intervene, things on this planet will get so bad, that no human would survive. Personally, I am looking forward to that day, because this world is increasingly messed up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...What if Jesus or other prophets were similar " outliers " ? ...What if Jesus really is who he says he is , namely God come to earth in human form ?
What if he really did conquer our biggest enemy -- death ?
What if what he said about heaven and hell are true ?
What if the miracles that he did are a technology so advanced , that even our most imaginative science-fiction writers have not thought of it yet ?
Walking on water is not difficult at all for someone who understands all the fields and forces in what scientists so glibly call " matter " .
If it is really true that Jesus Christ is God and God made all life in the first place , then bringing somebody back from the dead is not a big deal at all .
You can read a pretty awesome description of him , as he is today in the eternal dimension , in the first chapter of the book of Revelation , the last book of the Bible.While he was here on the earth , he repeatedly promised to return and fix this world , because it is his not ours .
Jesus once said that if he did not intervene , things on this planet will get so bad , that no human would survive .
Personally , I am looking forward to that day , because this world is increasingly messed up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...What if Jesus or other prophets were similar "outliers"?...What if Jesus really is who he says he is, namely God come to earth in human form?
What if he really did conquer our biggest enemy -- death?
What if what he said about heaven and hell are true?
What if the miracles that he did are a technology so advanced, that even our most imaginative science-fiction writers have not thought of it yet?
Walking on water is not difficult at all for someone who understands all the fields and forces in what scientists so glibly call "matter".
If it is really true that Jesus Christ is God and God made all life in the first place, then bringing somebody back from the dead is not a big deal at all.
You can read a pretty awesome description of him, as he is today in the eternal dimension, in the first chapter of the book of Revelation, the last book of the Bible.While he was here on the earth, he repeatedly promised to return and fix this world, because it is his not ours.
Jesus once said that if he did not intervene, things on this planet will get so bad, that no human would survive.
Personally, I am looking forward to that day, because this world is increasingly messed up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736603</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739725</id>
	<title>Re:Imagination is a fine thing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255442460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"And how was such a conjecture published without data or peer review?"</p><p>It was not published, but merely uploaded to arXiv.org. It's more of a fileshare for emerging ideas than strict housing of publications.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" And how was such a conjecture published without data or peer review ?
" It was not published , but merely uploaded to arXiv.org .
It 's more of a fileshare for emerging ideas than strict housing of publications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"And how was such a conjecture published without data or peer review?
"It was not published, but merely uploaded to arXiv.org.
It's more of a fileshare for emerging ideas than strict housing of publications.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739387</id>
	<title>Re:Superstition</title>
	<author>dokebi</author>
	<datestamp>1255439880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except they propose an experiment to answer that very question. And if god can be proven *or* disproven by experiment, then is he really god?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except they propose an experiment to answer that very question .
And if god can be proven * or * disproven by experiment , then is he really god ?
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except they propose an experiment to answer that very question.
And if god can be proven *or* disproven by experiment, then is he really god?
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736155</id>
	<title>Re:vulcans already knew time travel.......</title>
	<author>Nedry57</author>
	<datestamp>1255424640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Vulcan Science Directorate has concluded that time travel is impossible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Vulcan Science Directorate has concluded that time travel is impossible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Vulcan Science Directorate has concluded that time travel is impossible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739079</id>
	<title>Re:To say...</title>
	<author>Livius</author>
	<datestamp>1255437420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean Nature doesn't actually abhore vaccums?</p><p>Next you'll be telling us that religious texts are all metaphorical.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean Nature does n't actually abhore vaccums ? Next you 'll be telling us that religious texts are all metaphorical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean Nature doesn't actually abhore vaccums?Next you'll be telling us that religious texts are all metaphorical.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737315</id>
	<title>I should try this with my boss...</title>
	<author>Matheus</author>
	<datestamp>1255428900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry boss.  I couldn't complete that project because the universe doesn't want the project to be completed and so a ripple in time undid the labors that I so diligently performed!</p><p>Do I get a promotion now for not pissing off the universe?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry boss .
I could n't complete that project because the universe does n't want the project to be completed and so a ripple in time undid the labors that I so diligently performed ! Do I get a promotion now for not pissing off the universe ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry boss.
I couldn't complete that project because the universe doesn't want the project to be completed and so a ripple in time undid the labors that I so diligently performed!Do I get a promotion now for not pissing off the universe?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737409</id>
	<title>Re:That's Groovy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255429320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I think casting Keanu Reeves as Neils Bohr was a stroke of unmatched brilliance.</i></p><p>Whoa!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think casting Keanu Reeves as Neils Bohr was a stroke of unmatched brilliance.Whoa !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think casting Keanu Reeves as Neils Bohr was a stroke of unmatched brilliance.Whoa!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741059</id>
	<title>Get a grip</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1255454280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was completely over the top for humour value. No one is taking this seriously. No one in their right mind anyway. So there's no secret agenda to oppress women here.</p><p>The same women that complain about these jokes as being sexist usually have no problem with jokes about men. Get a grip. I'm a fat guy but I still laugh at some fat jokes. It's called having a sense of humour.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was completely over the top for humour value .
No one is taking this seriously .
No one in their right mind anyway .
So there 's no secret agenda to oppress women here.The same women that complain about these jokes as being sexist usually have no problem with jokes about men .
Get a grip .
I 'm a fat guy but I still laugh at some fat jokes .
It 's called having a sense of humour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was completely over the top for humour value.
No one is taking this seriously.
No one in their right mind anyway.
So there's no secret agenda to oppress women here.The same women that complain about these jokes as being sexist usually have no problem with jokes about men.
Get a grip.
I'm a fat guy but I still laugh at some fat jokes.
It's called having a sense of humour.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741031</id>
	<title>Improbability Engine</title>
	<author>Zobeid</author>
	<datestamp>1255453980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this crazy idea did, in fact, turn out to be true. . .   It could be used to create an improbability engine.</p><p>A device to create a higgs bosun must fail.  The most robust the design of the machine, the less likely it is to fail.  Therefore, by creating ever more soundly engineered and constructed devices, one could summon forth ever more unlikely events to prevent them from working.</p><p>It's a dangerous exercise, though.  You can't be sure whether the unlikely event is going to be a simple failure of a (very solidly constructed) superconducting magnet, or something more like a fleet of alien constructor ships arriving to demolish the planet and make way for a hyperspace bypass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this crazy idea did , in fact , turn out to be true .
. .
It could be used to create an improbability engine.A device to create a higgs bosun must fail .
The most robust the design of the machine , the less likely it is to fail .
Therefore , by creating ever more soundly engineered and constructed devices , one could summon forth ever more unlikely events to prevent them from working.It 's a dangerous exercise , though .
You ca n't be sure whether the unlikely event is going to be a simple failure of a ( very solidly constructed ) superconducting magnet , or something more like a fleet of alien constructor ships arriving to demolish the planet and make way for a hyperspace bypass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this crazy idea did, in fact, turn out to be true.
. .
It could be used to create an improbability engine.A device to create a higgs bosun must fail.
The most robust the design of the machine, the less likely it is to fail.
Therefore, by creating ever more soundly engineered and constructed devices, one could summon forth ever more unlikely events to prevent them from working.It's a dangerous exercise, though.
You can't be sure whether the unlikely event is going to be a simple failure of a (very solidly constructed) superconducting magnet, or something more like a fleet of alien constructor ships arriving to demolish the planet and make way for a hyperspace bypass.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736059</id>
	<title>Re:FSM did it</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1255467480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm thinking noodly appendages are involved.</p></div></blockquote><p>We too have nicknames for them @#&amp;!* low-bid contractors.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm thinking noodly appendages are involved.We too have nicknames for them @ # &amp; !
* low-bid contractors .
     </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm thinking noodly appendages are involved.We too have nicknames for them @#&amp;!
* low-bid contractors.
     
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735203</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735941</id>
	<title>Re:Could happen</title>
	<author>Devout\_IPUite</author>
	<datestamp>1255467060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't escape a black hole, period, according to relativity. However, we still can't figure out if entanglement breaks relativity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't escape a black hole , period , according to relativity .
However , we still ca n't figure out if entanglement breaks relativity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't escape a black hole, period, according to relativity.
However, we still can't figure out if entanglement breaks relativity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736147</id>
	<title>Re:Almost...</title>
	<author>canajin56</author>
	<datestamp>1255424580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
You're thinking about a particle going back in time and exploding, causing damage.  That's not at all what they are talking about.  They are talking about avoiding a paradox.  It's not based on anything concrete, and they admit it sounds crazy.  It is, as you say, based around multiverse theory (I think).  If you have a graph, every possibility for every instant of time is a node.  Nodes are connected by edges, with weights corresponding to how likely it is to progress from one instant to the following instant.  So reality is just one particular path through these nodes as time progresses.  So, quantum physics and the like dictate what these probabilities are.  Of course, you can't ever know the initial state, but whatever.  Now, if there is an event that is impossible, because it creates a paradox, then that event cannot be reached.  This requires either additional laws/forces to prevent it from being a possibility, or it requires that the edges into that node have weight 0.  If they have weight zero, then the edges into THOSE nodes must be rebalanced so it sums to one still.  And so on back in time.  So if you have an instance where your gold atoms are about to impact, and this will cause a paradox, then however unlikely the quantum effects that cause them to miss are, those edges MUST be followed or you end up at a paradox.  If your machine is firing an awful lot of these atoms at each other, and some or many of them require highly unlikely events in order to miss, then for all of those probabilities to sum correctly, you'll have to lower the probability of reaching such an initial state.  And that means increasing the probability of any event that damages your machine.  That is, if firing your machine requires highly unlikely events to occur in order to prevent a paradox, then it must be equally unlikely to get to such a firing state in the first place.
</p><p>
It all sounds nuts to me<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)  But it's not so much the future influencing the past, as it is the fact that we have to be in a possible universe forcing us to rethink our transition probabilities to avoid an impossibility.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're thinking about a particle going back in time and exploding , causing damage .
That 's not at all what they are talking about .
They are talking about avoiding a paradox .
It 's not based on anything concrete , and they admit it sounds crazy .
It is , as you say , based around multiverse theory ( I think ) .
If you have a graph , every possibility for every instant of time is a node .
Nodes are connected by edges , with weights corresponding to how likely it is to progress from one instant to the following instant .
So reality is just one particular path through these nodes as time progresses .
So , quantum physics and the like dictate what these probabilities are .
Of course , you ca n't ever know the initial state , but whatever .
Now , if there is an event that is impossible , because it creates a paradox , then that event can not be reached .
This requires either additional laws/forces to prevent it from being a possibility , or it requires that the edges into that node have weight 0 .
If they have weight zero , then the edges into THOSE nodes must be rebalanced so it sums to one still .
And so on back in time .
So if you have an instance where your gold atoms are about to impact , and this will cause a paradox , then however unlikely the quantum effects that cause them to miss are , those edges MUST be followed or you end up at a paradox .
If your machine is firing an awful lot of these atoms at each other , and some or many of them require highly unlikely events in order to miss , then for all of those probabilities to sum correctly , you 'll have to lower the probability of reaching such an initial state .
And that means increasing the probability of any event that damages your machine .
That is , if firing your machine requires highly unlikely events to occur in order to prevent a paradox , then it must be equally unlikely to get to such a firing state in the first place .
It all sounds nuts to me ; ) But it 's not so much the future influencing the past , as it is the fact that we have to be in a possible universe forcing us to rethink our transition probabilities to avoid an impossibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
You're thinking about a particle going back in time and exploding, causing damage.
That's not at all what they are talking about.
They are talking about avoiding a paradox.
It's not based on anything concrete, and they admit it sounds crazy.
It is, as you say, based around multiverse theory (I think).
If you have a graph, every possibility for every instant of time is a node.
Nodes are connected by edges, with weights corresponding to how likely it is to progress from one instant to the following instant.
So reality is just one particular path through these nodes as time progresses.
So, quantum physics and the like dictate what these probabilities are.
Of course, you can't ever know the initial state, but whatever.
Now, if there is an event that is impossible, because it creates a paradox, then that event cannot be reached.
This requires either additional laws/forces to prevent it from being a possibility, or it requires that the edges into that node have weight 0.
If they have weight zero, then the edges into THOSE nodes must be rebalanced so it sums to one still.
And so on back in time.
So if you have an instance where your gold atoms are about to impact, and this will cause a paradox, then however unlikely the quantum effects that cause them to miss are, those edges MUST be followed or you end up at a paradox.
If your machine is firing an awful lot of these atoms at each other, and some or many of them require highly unlikely events in order to miss, then for all of those probabilities to sum correctly, you'll have to lower the probability of reaching such an initial state.
And that means increasing the probability of any event that damages your machine.
That is, if firing your machine requires highly unlikely events to occur in order to prevent a paradox, then it must be equally unlikely to get to such a firing state in the first place.
It all sounds nuts to me ;)  But it's not so much the future influencing the past, as it is the fact that we have to be in a possible universe forcing us to rethink our transition probabilities to avoid an impossibility.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29768147</id>
	<title>Re:Imagination is a fine thing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255705320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...but did you notice no one mentioned that it is simply hard to create the conditions necessary to detect the Higgs boson? We too quickly opt for the sci-fi answer and though the idea of time based sabotage is fun, it makes for a better movie than it does an answer. And how was such a conjecture published without data or peer review? Nothing to see here, next particle please...</p></div><p>Imagination allows quantum superposition (wherein the higgs boson exists and does not just as the cat is both alive and dead). Observation does not. Go finish your homework.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...but did you notice no one mentioned that it is simply hard to create the conditions necessary to detect the Higgs boson ?
We too quickly opt for the sci-fi answer and though the idea of time based sabotage is fun , it makes for a better movie than it does an answer .
And how was such a conjecture published without data or peer review ?
Nothing to see here , next particle please...Imagination allows quantum superposition ( wherein the higgs boson exists and does not just as the cat is both alive and dead ) .
Observation does not .
Go finish your homework .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...but did you notice no one mentioned that it is simply hard to create the conditions necessary to detect the Higgs boson?
We too quickly opt for the sci-fi answer and though the idea of time based sabotage is fun, it makes for a better movie than it does an answer.
And how was such a conjecture published without data or peer review?
Nothing to see here, next particle please...Imagination allows quantum superposition (wherein the higgs boson exists and does not just as the cat is both alive and dead).
Observation does not.
Go finish your homework.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29750885</id>
	<title>It was Carl Hagen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255519740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think Carl Hagen is to blame... his<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.\_R.\_Hagen" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia</a> [wikipedia.org] entry mentions he was awarded the Sakurai Prize in 2010.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Carl Hagen is to blame... hisWikipedia [ wikipedia.org ] entry mentions he was awarded the Sakurai Prize in 2010 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Carl Hagen is to blame... hisWikipedia [wikipedia.org] entry mentions he was awarded the Sakurai Prize in 2010.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735387</id>
	<title>Original concept from "Doomsday Device"</title>
	<author>Bob Hearn</author>
	<datestamp>1255464660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>by John Gribbin, (Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact, 105(2):120?125, Feb 1985). In that story a powerful particle accelerator seemingly fails to operate, for no good reason. Then a physicist realizes that if it were to work, it would effectively destroy the entire universe, by initiating a transition from a cosmological false vacuum state to a lower-energy vacuum state. In this story, the explanation of the failures assumes a many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. So instead of explicit backward causality, there is effective backward causality: only the branches of reality with equipment failures contain observers; therefore, observers can only experience histories with equipment failures. The effect is the same.</p><p>I also discussed this idea in the context of novel models of computation in my MIT Ph.D. thesis, <a href="http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/~bob/hearn-thesis-final.pdf" title="mit.edu">Games, Puzzles, and Computation</a> [mit.edu] (section 8.2; also published as a book by A.K. Peters). The idea was a bit similar to Nielsen and Ninomiya's proposed experiment. It turns out that by connecting an accelerator capable of destroying the universe to a computation depending on random numbers, one could in principle solve problems that are otherwise intractable. I termed this "doomsday computation", as a variation on the similar concept of "anthropic computation" proposed earlier by Scott Aaronson.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>by John Gribbin , ( Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact , 105 ( 2 ) : 120 ? 125 , Feb 1985 ) .
In that story a powerful particle accelerator seemingly fails to operate , for no good reason .
Then a physicist realizes that if it were to work , it would effectively destroy the entire universe , by initiating a transition from a cosmological false vacuum state to a lower-energy vacuum state .
In this story , the explanation of the failures assumes a many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics .
So instead of explicit backward causality , there is effective backward causality : only the branches of reality with equipment failures contain observers ; therefore , observers can only experience histories with equipment failures .
The effect is the same.I also discussed this idea in the context of novel models of computation in my MIT Ph.D. thesis , Games , Puzzles , and Computation [ mit.edu ] ( section 8.2 ; also published as a book by A.K .
Peters ) . The idea was a bit similar to Nielsen and Ninomiya 's proposed experiment .
It turns out that by connecting an accelerator capable of destroying the universe to a computation depending on random numbers , one could in principle solve problems that are otherwise intractable .
I termed this " doomsday computation " , as a variation on the similar concept of " anthropic computation " proposed earlier by Scott Aaronson .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>by John Gribbin, (Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact, 105(2):120?125, Feb 1985).
In that story a powerful particle accelerator seemingly fails to operate, for no good reason.
Then a physicist realizes that if it were to work, it would effectively destroy the entire universe, by initiating a transition from a cosmological false vacuum state to a lower-energy vacuum state.
In this story, the explanation of the failures assumes a many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.
So instead of explicit backward causality, there is effective backward causality: only the branches of reality with equipment failures contain observers; therefore, observers can only experience histories with equipment failures.
The effect is the same.I also discussed this idea in the context of novel models of computation in my MIT Ph.D. thesis, Games, Puzzles, and Computation [mit.edu] (section 8.2; also published as a book by A.K.
Peters). The idea was a bit similar to Nielsen and Ninomiya's proposed experiment.
It turns out that by connecting an accelerator capable of destroying the universe to a computation depending on random numbers, one could in principle solve problems that are otherwise intractable.
I termed this "doomsday computation", as a variation on the similar concept of "anthropic computation" proposed earlier by Scott Aaronson.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741739</id>
	<title>Re:That's Groovy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255550940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Interesting theory.  Not supported by his filmography, though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting theory .
Not supported by his filmography , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting theory.
Not supported by his filmography, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738921</id>
	<title>Re:To say...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255436400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You'll have to forgive him. He's a Chemist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'll have to forgive him .
He 's a Chemist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'll have to forgive him.
He's a Chemist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741609</id>
	<title>Definitely Maybe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255462500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitely\_Maybe\_\%28novel\%29</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitely \ _Maybe \ _ \ % 28novel \ % 29</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitely\_Maybe\_\%28novel\%29</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29748053</id>
	<title>Re:pull the other one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255549380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spot on.</p><p>Somehow faulty soldering seems a fad more likely than a mischievously shy universe</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spot on.Somehow faulty soldering seems a fad more likely than a mischievously shy universe</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spot on.Somehow faulty soldering seems a fad more likely than a mischievously shy universe</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29742023</id>
	<title>Re:FSM did it</title>
	<author>Rakshasa Taisab</author>
	<datestamp>1255511820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>These kinds of 'theories' makes me realize that no matter how much you reject gods, you still seek to fill in the empty space with 'something'. They are like mathematicians trying to find god in division by zero.</htmltext>
<tokenext>These kinds of 'theories ' makes me realize that no matter how much you reject gods , you still seek to fill in the empty space with 'something' .
They are like mathematicians trying to find god in division by zero .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These kinds of 'theories' makes me realize that no matter how much you reject gods, you still seek to fill in the empty space with 'something'.
They are like mathematicians trying to find god in division by zero.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735203</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736301</id>
	<title>Just a quick thought . . .</title>
	<author>mmell</author>
	<datestamp>1255425240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Quantum mechanics (and it's relatives, string theory and M theory) make predictions which are non-intuitive, based strictly on valid mathematics.  To date, some of these predictions have been verified and others neither verified nor disproven (and I suppose occasionally disproven, leading to revisions in the theories).<p>
This seems to be an equally non-intuitive sort of prediction.  I suppose they have the maths to back their theory up?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quantum mechanics ( and it 's relatives , string theory and M theory ) make predictions which are non-intuitive , based strictly on valid mathematics .
To date , some of these predictions have been verified and others neither verified nor disproven ( and I suppose occasionally disproven , leading to revisions in the theories ) .
This seems to be an equally non-intuitive sort of prediction .
I suppose they have the maths to back their theory up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quantum mechanics (and it's relatives, string theory and M theory) make predictions which are non-intuitive, based strictly on valid mathematics.
To date, some of these predictions have been verified and others neither verified nor disproven (and I suppose occasionally disproven, leading to revisions in the theories).
This seems to be an equally non-intuitive sort of prediction.
I suppose they have the maths to back their theory up?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737357</id>
	<title>A message from the future</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255429080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a message from the future. The Higgs Boson makes wireless networking stop working. We're all on acoustic couplers out here, and the connection is pretty shoddy, so for the love of god don'</p><p>CARRIER LOST</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a message from the future .
The Higgs Boson makes wireless networking stop working .
We 're all on acoustic couplers out here , and the connection is pretty shoddy , so for the love of god don'CARRIER LOST</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a message from the future.
The Higgs Boson makes wireless networking stop working.
We're all on acoustic couplers out here, and the connection is pretty shoddy, so for the love of god don'CARRIER LOST</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738361</id>
	<title>Re:This theory is not to be taken seriously</title>
	<author>mbkennel</author>
	<datestamp>1255433220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The theory really is that in every multiverse where the LHC works correctly, the multiverse is destroyed by the abominable bosons. We are all riding through a series of universes in which the LHC repeatedly fails to work."</p><p>But that semi-sophistry could apply to any conservation law or forbidden transition:</p><p>Put on your spooky voice and say "The creation of a particle in a configuration which violated conservation of momentum would cause such a Disturbance In the Force that it would wipe out the whole of the Universe, so we are sailing in a sea of universes selected from the Master Multiverse for which only momentum-conserving outcomes just happened to take place".</p><p>More reasonably, physicists say, "Some transitions are forbidden due to conservation laws" and there are observable consequences.  This is normal physics.</p><p>Would the present hypothetical Higgs case be any different?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The theory really is that in every multiverse where the LHC works correctly , the multiverse is destroyed by the abominable bosons .
We are all riding through a series of universes in which the LHC repeatedly fails to work .
" But that semi-sophistry could apply to any conservation law or forbidden transition : Put on your spooky voice and say " The creation of a particle in a configuration which violated conservation of momentum would cause such a Disturbance In the Force that it would wipe out the whole of the Universe , so we are sailing in a sea of universes selected from the Master Multiverse for which only momentum-conserving outcomes just happened to take place " .More reasonably , physicists say , " Some transitions are forbidden due to conservation laws " and there are observable consequences .
This is normal physics.Would the present hypothetical Higgs case be any different ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The theory really is that in every multiverse where the LHC works correctly, the multiverse is destroyed by the abominable bosons.
We are all riding through a series of universes in which the LHC repeatedly fails to work.
"But that semi-sophistry could apply to any conservation law or forbidden transition:Put on your spooky voice and say "The creation of a particle in a configuration which violated conservation of momentum would cause such a Disturbance In the Force that it would wipe out the whole of the Universe, so we are sailing in a sea of universes selected from the Master Multiverse for which only momentum-conserving outcomes just happened to take place".More reasonably, physicists say, "Some transitions are forbidden due to conservation laws" and there are observable consequences.
This is normal physics.Would the present hypothetical Higgs case be any different?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735793</id>
	<title>Re:Quantum Suidice</title>
	<author>orkysoft</author>
	<datestamp>1255466460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It reminds me of <a href="http://www.play.com/Books/Books/4-/8277009/Zima-Blue-And-Other-Stories/Product.html" title="play.com" rel="nofollow">Zima Blue</a> [play.com].</p><p>(I don't have my copy here, so I can't point you to the specific story, but most of the stories in the book are good.)</p><p>It also reminds me of <a href="http://www.play.com/Books/Books/4-/5500888/Anathem/Product.html" title="play.com" rel="nofollow">Anathem</a> [play.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It reminds me of Zima Blue [ play.com ] .
( I do n't have my copy here , so I ca n't point you to the specific story , but most of the stories in the book are good .
) It also reminds me of Anathem [ play.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It reminds me of Zima Blue [play.com].
(I don't have my copy here, so I can't point you to the specific story, but most of the stories in the book are good.
)It also reminds me of Anathem [play.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736657</id>
	<title>Re:Quantum Suidice</title>
	<author>physburn</author>
	<datestamp>1255426740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You quoted "The more I see LHC fail and fail", what are you (and the Dr Nielsen)
talking about, the LHC failed, just once, this time last year. The Tevatron which might well
produce Higgs particles, but not enough for a statistically good observation,
has run very well. The SSC was ridiclously expensive and ahead of its time,
politics happens, that isn't unlikely. In short we're no where near the sort of
back luck, that might start people looking for paranoid explanations.
<p>
---
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/blogs/LHC/feed.html" title="feeddistiller.com">LHC</a> [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ <a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/" title="feeddistiller.com">Feed Distiller</a> [feeddistiller.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You quoted " The more I see LHC fail and fail " , what are you ( and the Dr Nielsen ) talking about , the LHC failed , just once , this time last year .
The Tevatron which might well produce Higgs particles , but not enough for a statistically good observation , has run very well .
The SSC was ridiclously expensive and ahead of its time , politics happens , that is n't unlikely .
In short we 're no where near the sort of back luck , that might start people looking for paranoid explanations .
--- LHC [ feeddistiller.com ] Feed @ Feed Distiller [ feeddistiller.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You quoted "The more I see LHC fail and fail", what are you (and the Dr Nielsen)
talking about, the LHC failed, just once, this time last year.
The Tevatron which might well
produce Higgs particles, but not enough for a statistically good observation,
has run very well.
The SSC was ridiclously expensive and ahead of its time,
politics happens, that isn't unlikely.
In short we're no where near the sort of
back luck, that might start people looking for paranoid explanations.
---

LHC [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741349</id>
	<title>Wow - so nature is intelligent!?</title>
	<author>Jorgensen</author>
	<datestamp>1255458420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow: So the future success of the LHC in producing the Higgs Boson is so abhorrent to nature that it causes a bad solder connection it it's own past!? Huh?</p><p>This seems to assume that:</p><ul>
<li>backwards time travel is possible - on a scale sufficient to cause bad solder connections</li>
<li>we have some intelligence involved here - rather than physics just being particles, energy and space: it has very specific and subtle effects on the past (e.g. a bad solder connection), rather than e.g. random energy discharges</li></ul><p>and all t just to cause a LHC version of the grandfather paradox!?</p><p>Well... Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... Until then: move along, nothing (sensible) to see here...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow : So the future success of the LHC in producing the Higgs Boson is so abhorrent to nature that it causes a bad solder connection it it 's own past ! ?
Huh ? This seems to assume that : backwards time travel is possible - on a scale sufficient to cause bad solder connections we have some intelligence involved here - rather than physics just being particles , energy and space : it has very specific and subtle effects on the past ( e.g .
a bad solder connection ) , rather than e.g .
random energy dischargesand all t just to cause a LHC version of the grandfather paradox ! ? Well.. .
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... Until then : move along , nothing ( sensible ) to see here.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow: So the future success of the LHC in producing the Higgs Boson is so abhorrent to nature that it causes a bad solder connection it it's own past!?
Huh?This seems to assume that:
backwards time travel is possible - on a scale sufficient to cause bad solder connections
we have some intelligence involved here - rather than physics just being particles, energy and space: it has very specific and subtle effects on the past (e.g.
a bad solder connection), rather than e.g.
random energy dischargesand all t just to cause a LHC version of the grandfather paradox!?Well...
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... Until then: move along, nothing (sensible) to see here...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738907</id>
	<title>Re:Original concept from "Doomsday Device"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255436160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It turns out that by connecting an accelerator capable of destroying the universe to a computation depending on random numbers, one could in principle solve problems that are otherwise intractable. I termed this "doomsday computation"..."</p><p>Sheesh.  And I thought the power consumption of CPUs was already getting out of hand.  Now we're talking about consuming whole universes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It turns out that by connecting an accelerator capable of destroying the universe to a computation depending on random numbers , one could in principle solve problems that are otherwise intractable .
I termed this " doomsday computation " ... " Sheesh .
And I thought the power consumption of CPUs was already getting out of hand .
Now we 're talking about consuming whole universes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It turns out that by connecting an accelerator capable of destroying the universe to a computation depending on random numbers, one could in principle solve problems that are otherwise intractable.
I termed this "doomsday computation"..."Sheesh.
And I thought the power consumption of CPUs was already getting out of hand.
Now we're talking about consuming whole universes?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737119</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255428360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Proof that there ARE married<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.ers!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Proof that there ARE married /.ers !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Proof that there ARE married /.ers!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735507</id>
	<title>Re:To say...</title>
	<author>tylersoze</author>
	<datestamp>1255465260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Please don't anthropomorphize particles.  They don't like when you do that.</p></div><p>Hehe. I quite like anthropomorphized particles: <a href="http://www.particlezoo.net/" title="particlezoo.net">http://www.particlezoo.net/</a> [particlezoo.net]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please do n't anthropomorphize particles .
They do n't like when you do that.Hehe .
I quite like anthropomorphized particles : http : //www.particlezoo.net/ [ particlezoo.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please don't anthropomorphize particles.
They don't like when you do that.Hehe.
I quite like anthropomorphized particles: http://www.particlezoo.net/ [particlezoo.net]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738999</id>
	<title>Re:Could happen</title>
	<author>Miner Willy</author>
	<datestamp>1255436820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You are not even really "you" in any sense beyond the illusory narrative created by the mind, to order its disparate sensations.</p></div><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito\_ergo\_sum" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Cogito, ergo sum.</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are not even really " you " in any sense beyond the illusory narrative created by the mind , to order its disparate sensations .
Cogito , ergo sum .
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are not even really "you" in any sense beyond the illusory narrative created by the mind, to order its disparate sensations.
Cogito, ergo sum.
[wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735273</id>
	<title>Bad Theory, Good Fiction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255464180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This "theory" is horribly bad, inconsistent with modern concept of time and light-cones, but would make a kick-ass book or movie.

Hollywood, you know what to do!</htmltext>
<tokenext>This " theory " is horribly bad , inconsistent with modern concept of time and light-cones , but would make a kick-ass book or movie .
Hollywood , you know what to do !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This "theory" is horribly bad, inconsistent with modern concept of time and light-cones, but would make a kick-ass book or movie.
Hollywood, you know what to do!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29750571</id>
	<title>Re:Science? Really?</title>
	<author>emilper</author>
	<datestamp>1255517940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Universe is loath to hire QA engineers: it lets the LHC break as soon as it seems to be finished, so the doe would keep flowing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... a Universe with a bank account.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Universe is loath to hire QA engineers : it lets the LHC break as soon as it seems to be finished , so the doe would keep flowing ... a Universe with a bank account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Universe is loath to hire QA engineers: it lets the LHC break as soon as it seems to be finished, so the doe would keep flowing ... a Universe with a bank account.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737017</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738219</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect...</title>
	<author>bluie-</author>
	<datestamp>1255432620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe the agent will instead damage your oven via a liquid helium leak.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the agent will instead damage your oven via a liquid helium leak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the agent will instead damage your oven via a liquid helium leak.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735513</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255465320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So I can tell my wife that I cannot cook dinner tonight because the result would be so abhorrent that nature might send an agent back in time to destroy me before I can create it.  Ergo, any movement toward making dinner could very well result in my demise...so let that be on her conscience.</p></div><p>She picked a winner . . .</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I can tell my wife that I can not cook dinner tonight because the result would be so abhorrent that nature might send an agent back in time to destroy me before I can create it .
Ergo , any movement toward making dinner could very well result in my demise...so let that be on her conscience.She picked a winner .
. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I can tell my wife that I cannot cook dinner tonight because the result would be so abhorrent that nature might send an agent back in time to destroy me before I can create it.
Ergo, any movement toward making dinner could very well result in my demise...so let that be on her conscience.She picked a winner .
. .
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735165</id>
	<title>That's Groovy</title>
	<author>Philip K Dickhead</author>
	<datestamp>1255463700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think casting Keanu Reeves as Neils Bohr was a stroke of unmatched brilliance.</p><p>Lady GaGa is, of course, a surprise as "the loathsome particle".  She does a good Burlesconi imitation, all thing considered...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think casting Keanu Reeves as Neils Bohr was a stroke of unmatched brilliance.Lady GaGa is , of course , a surprise as " the loathsome particle " .
She does a good Burlesconi imitation , all thing considered.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think casting Keanu Reeves as Neils Bohr was a stroke of unmatched brilliance.Lady GaGa is, of course, a surprise as "the loathsome particle".
She does a good Burlesconi imitation, all thing considered...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735847</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Theory, Good Fiction</title>
	<author>d0rp</author>
	<datestamp>1255466580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This actually reminded me of the mini-series <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0452573/" title="imdb.com" rel="nofollow">The Triangle</a> [imdb.com] a few years back.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This actually reminded me of the mini-series The Triangle [ imdb.com ] a few years back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This actually reminded me of the mini-series The Triangle [imdb.com] a few years back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736925</id>
	<title>Of course...</title>
	<author>rgviza</author>
	<datestamp>1255427820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the only way to know for sure is to run other experiments before trying to create a Higgs boson.</p><p>If it runs reliably for lots of other experiments, then blows up when they try for the Higgs boson, this theory might be possible. They would only need to prove it's repeatable then, which could be very expensive.</p><p>If they go straight for the Higgs boson and it blows up, it could still be a design flaw in the collider, which would make it an inconclusive test.</p><p>My money is on design flaw or faulty parts. lex parsimoniae. It would be wise to try other experiments first so the result would be meaningful if the Higgs boson experiment takes it out again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the only way to know for sure is to run other experiments before trying to create a Higgs boson.If it runs reliably for lots of other experiments , then blows up when they try for the Higgs boson , this theory might be possible .
They would only need to prove it 's repeatable then , which could be very expensive.If they go straight for the Higgs boson and it blows up , it could still be a design flaw in the collider , which would make it an inconclusive test.My money is on design flaw or faulty parts .
lex parsimoniae .
It would be wise to try other experiments first so the result would be meaningful if the Higgs boson experiment takes it out again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the only way to know for sure is to run other experiments before trying to create a Higgs boson.If it runs reliably for lots of other experiments, then blows up when they try for the Higgs boson, this theory might be possible.
They would only need to prove it's repeatable then, which could be very expensive.If they go straight for the Higgs boson and it blows up, it could still be a design flaw in the collider, which would make it an inconclusive test.My money is on design flaw or faulty parts.
lex parsimoniae.
It would be wise to try other experiments first so the result would be meaningful if the Higgs boson experiment takes it out again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735433</id>
	<title>Re:Could happen</title>
	<author>Brian Gordon</author>
	<datestamp>1255464840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Information (except its mass, charge, and spin) can't escape a black hole, <i>period</i>. You don't even need to suspect that some difficult concept could plausibly be an exception, because you know there are no exceptions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Information ( except its mass , charge , and spin ) ca n't escape a black hole , period .
You do n't even need to suspect that some difficult concept could plausibly be an exception , because you know there are no exceptions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Information (except its mass, charge, and spin) can't escape a black hole, period.
You don't even need to suspect that some difficult concept could plausibly be an exception, because you know there are no exceptions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737877</id>
	<title>Re:pull the other one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255431180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One can apply a Bayesian analysis to this. Case A and B are two hypotheses, getting evidence from observations (successful and unsuccessful trials). A successful trial that finds the H rules out A, unsuccessful gives evidence in favor of both - but B starts with a high a priori probability. Plugging it all into Bayes formula produces a model of when you should shift from mainly believing in B and when you should switch to A: http://tinyurl.com/3rgjrl<br>It turns out that you need about 30 failures before A becomes more likely than B. (the C case is likely covered by the conspiracy model in the post)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One can apply a Bayesian analysis to this .
Case A and B are two hypotheses , getting evidence from observations ( successful and unsuccessful trials ) .
A successful trial that finds the H rules out A , unsuccessful gives evidence in favor of both - but B starts with a high a priori probability .
Plugging it all into Bayes formula produces a model of when you should shift from mainly believing in B and when you should switch to A : http : //tinyurl.com/3rgjrlIt turns out that you need about 30 failures before A becomes more likely than B .
( the C case is likely covered by the conspiracy model in the post )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One can apply a Bayesian analysis to this.
Case A and B are two hypotheses, getting evidence from observations (successful and unsuccessful trials).
A successful trial that finds the H rules out A, unsuccessful gives evidence in favor of both - but B starts with a high a priori probability.
Plugging it all into Bayes formula produces a model of when you should shift from mainly believing in B and when you should switch to A: http://tinyurl.com/3rgjrlIt turns out that you need about 30 failures before A becomes more likely than B.
(the C case is likely covered by the conspiracy model in the post)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29774363</id>
	<title>Re:This theory is not to be taken seriously</title>
	<author>OneAhead</author>
	<datestamp>1255697160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, you might be wrong about that. Quenching of a superconducting magnet starts when a small volume in the superconductor (let's say 1 cubic nanometer) becomes normally conducting (ie. has a resistance &gt;0). Because of the enormous current in the magnet, the part with resistance &gt; 0 will produce lots of heat, heating surrounding matter above superconducting temperature. Thus, the "resistant" domain will grow exponentially. In the end, the enormous amount of energy caught in the magnet is released as heat in less than a second. This makes all the coolant around the magnet boil off, resulting in a tremendous overpressure, which can do quite a lot of damage and could even cause nearby magnets to quench. This is how the LHC went down a year ago.</p><p>Now my point is, the amount of energy needed to heat 1 cubic nanometer of matter from 1.9K to 10K is very, very small. It's sufficiently large to not be triggered by common events such as alpha decay or the types of cosmic rays that might make it through the atmosphere, but it it may easily be smaller than the energy needed for what you're proposing.</p><p>Not that I want to defend this theory. Even if it would be true, there's nothing to worry about. If the Higgs boson really triggers events back in time that prevent it from forming, then these events will keep on occurring; it would be a very twisted universe to make one attempt to stop the LHC from coming online, then give up and watch itself get destroyed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , you might be wrong about that .
Quenching of a superconducting magnet starts when a small volume in the superconductor ( let 's say 1 cubic nanometer ) becomes normally conducting ( ie .
has a resistance &gt; 0 ) .
Because of the enormous current in the magnet , the part with resistance &gt; 0 will produce lots of heat , heating surrounding matter above superconducting temperature .
Thus , the " resistant " domain will grow exponentially .
In the end , the enormous amount of energy caught in the magnet is released as heat in less than a second .
This makes all the coolant around the magnet boil off , resulting in a tremendous overpressure , which can do quite a lot of damage and could even cause nearby magnets to quench .
This is how the LHC went down a year ago.Now my point is , the amount of energy needed to heat 1 cubic nanometer of matter from 1.9K to 10K is very , very small .
It 's sufficiently large to not be triggered by common events such as alpha decay or the types of cosmic rays that might make it through the atmosphere , but it it may easily be smaller than the energy needed for what you 're proposing.Not that I want to defend this theory .
Even if it would be true , there 's nothing to worry about .
If the Higgs boson really triggers events back in time that prevent it from forming , then these events will keep on occurring ; it would be a very twisted universe to make one attempt to stop the LHC from coming online , then give up and watch itself get destroyed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, you might be wrong about that.
Quenching of a superconducting magnet starts when a small volume in the superconductor (let's say 1 cubic nanometer) becomes normally conducting (ie.
has a resistance &gt;0).
Because of the enormous current in the magnet, the part with resistance &gt; 0 will produce lots of heat, heating surrounding matter above superconducting temperature.
Thus, the "resistant" domain will grow exponentially.
In the end, the enormous amount of energy caught in the magnet is released as heat in less than a second.
This makes all the coolant around the magnet boil off, resulting in a tremendous overpressure, which can do quite a lot of damage and could even cause nearby magnets to quench.
This is how the LHC went down a year ago.Now my point is, the amount of energy needed to heat 1 cubic nanometer of matter from 1.9K to 10K is very, very small.
It's sufficiently large to not be triggered by common events such as alpha decay or the types of cosmic rays that might make it through the atmosphere, but it it may easily be smaller than the energy needed for what you're proposing.Not that I want to defend this theory.
Even if it would be true, there's nothing to worry about.
If the Higgs boson really triggers events back in time that prevent it from forming, then these events will keep on occurring; it would be a very twisted universe to make one attempt to stop the LHC from coming online, then give up and watch itself get destroyed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735199</id>
	<title>Ah, 2024...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255463880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember when that happened to me, in 2024...</p><p>Life hasn't been the same until.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember when that happened to me , in 2024...Life has n't been the same until .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember when that happened to me, in 2024...Life hasn't been the same until.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739939</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1255443900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, yeah, yeah. Your problem is that you buy into HER reality of what's wrong and right. Which already means you're not that great of a man, and her "other" choice.<br>In a proper relationship, you'd define right and wrong, and she would think of you as a great man who knows what he wants and has his own reality.<br>So some of those things would not be things you did wrong. And others would be things where you failed your own expectations. No need to punish you or make you feel bad for those, as you'll already do that yourself.</p><p>Unluckily, most men got so weak that their wives completely dominate them, and they just hope no to fall into disgrace.</p><p>Normal balance, with both partners being worth the same, and being in the male role, are foreign things to them.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , yeah , yeah .
Your problem is that you buy into HER reality of what 's wrong and right .
Which already means you 're not that great of a man , and her " other " choice.In a proper relationship , you 'd define right and wrong , and she would think of you as a great man who knows what he wants and has his own reality.So some of those things would not be things you did wrong .
And others would be things where you failed your own expectations .
No need to punish you or make you feel bad for those , as you 'll already do that yourself.Unluckily , most men got so weak that their wives completely dominate them , and they just hope no to fall into disgrace.Normal balance , with both partners being worth the same , and being in the male role , are foreign things to them .
: (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Your problem is that you buy into HER reality of what's wrong and right.
Which already means you're not that great of a man, and her "other" choice.In a proper relationship, you'd define right and wrong, and she would think of you as a great man who knows what he wants and has his own reality.So some of those things would not be things you did wrong.
And others would be things where you failed your own expectations.
No need to punish you or make you feel bad for those, as you'll already do that yourself.Unluckily, most men got so weak that their wives completely dominate them, and they just hope no to fall into disgrace.Normal balance, with both partners being worth the same, and being in the male role, are foreign things to them.
:(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29742483</id>
	<title>Re:That's Groovy</title>
	<author>vegiVamp</author>
	<datestamp>1255517760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't help wonder wether "Burlesconi" is sharp wit or random stupidity<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't help wonder wether " Burlesconi " is sharp wit or random stupidity : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't help wonder wether "Burlesconi" is sharp wit or random stupidity :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736435</id>
	<title>Oh come on.</title>
	<author>revxul</author>
	<datestamp>1255425900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, when someone says something isn't found because it goes back in time to prevent you from being able to see it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , when someone says something is n't found because it goes back in time to prevent you from being able to see it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, when someone says something isn't found because it goes back in time to prevent you from being able to see it...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735157</id>
	<title>Could happen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255463700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>information theory is weird.  for example, it's impossible to create a machine that looks inside a black hole.</htmltext>
<tokenext>information theory is weird .
for example , it 's impossible to create a machine that looks inside a black hole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>information theory is weird.
for example, it's impossible to create a machine that looks inside a black hole.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736353</id>
	<title>Re:To say...</title>
	<author>dasunt</author>
	<datestamp>1255425480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Hehe. I quite like anthropomorphized particles: <a href="http://www.particlezoo.net/" title="particlezoo.net">http://www.particlezoo.net/</a> [particlezoo.net]</p></div> </blockquote><p>I like microbes better:  <a href="http://www.giantmicrobes.com/" title="giantmicrobes.com">http://www.giantmicrobes.com/</a> [giantmicrobes.com] </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hehe .
I quite like anthropomorphized particles : http : //www.particlezoo.net/ [ particlezoo.net ] I like microbes better : http : //www.giantmicrobes.com/ [ giantmicrobes.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hehe.
I quite like anthropomorphized particles: http://www.particlezoo.net/ [particlezoo.net] I like microbes better:  http://www.giantmicrobes.com/ [giantmicrobes.com] 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735619</id>
	<title>Re:Could happen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255465680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You are not even really "you" in any sense beyond the illusory narrative created by the mind, to order its disparate sensations.</p></div><p>That depends very much by what you mean by "illusion", and what you mean by "you". If I identify myself as this particular chunk of matter in the state it is at the moment, then yes, I am me.</p><p>It's like describing a program as an illusion. In the sense that it abstract, perhaps. But it does have real, physical consequences -- at the very least, the color of the pixels on your screen (or which ones are lit by how much, if you want to be pedantic).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Black hole? Maths say they exist - but you will never really know... Reality is so totally comprehensive that all of imagination is an infinitesimal subset.</p></div><p>Perhaps. What is your evidence for this?</p><p>It seems to me that we are refining our understanding of reality, but the subset which we do understand, we understand fairly well. It has been a very long time since we've been truly and profoundly wrong -- and even then, we weren't.</p><p>For example: It was once believed that the earth is flat. But even this is not particularly wrong. On the scales most of us deal with in day-to-day life, a flat earth is a good approximation.</p><p>It was once believed that the sun revolved around the earth. This is still a good approximation, for most purposes here on the ground. It is only when we begin to consider the motion of other planets that it becomes important which is which.</p><p>People often point to Newton being "disproved" by Einstein, as a way to show how "unreliable" modern science is -- usually in an effort to promote some non-science, such as religion or "Intelligent Design". What they miss is that Einstein was, for all practical purposes, a refinement of Newton -- the Newtonian equations are at the core of the relativistic ones, and most of the time, we still use Newtonian physics, because it's still a good approximation and is easier to calculate.</p><p>So while I agree that there is always more to understand, we shouldn't pretend we know nothing simply because we don't know everything.</p><p>So, going back to what you've said here:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Black hole? Maths say they exist - but you will never really know,</p></div><p>In the sense that I can "really know" anything beyond the internal consistency of mathematical and logical systems, I can know that black holes exist, until a better explanation comes along. And as I've shown, that "better explanation" probably won't look <i>that</i> different than the one we have now.</p><p>For example, it is possible that we are wrong about what the singularity of a black hole looks like. But it seems unlikely that anything would ever make its way back out -- and if it did, it probably would not come back the way it went in. Even if black holes were shown to be an entirely different phenomenon, it seems unlikely we'd show that it isn't somehow swallowing up matter, energy, even light.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are not even really " you " in any sense beyond the illusory narrative created by the mind , to order its disparate sensations.That depends very much by what you mean by " illusion " , and what you mean by " you " .
If I identify myself as this particular chunk of matter in the state it is at the moment , then yes , I am me.It 's like describing a program as an illusion .
In the sense that it abstract , perhaps .
But it does have real , physical consequences -- at the very least , the color of the pixels on your screen ( or which ones are lit by how much , if you want to be pedantic ) .Black hole ?
Maths say they exist - but you will never really know... Reality is so totally comprehensive that all of imagination is an infinitesimal subset.Perhaps .
What is your evidence for this ? It seems to me that we are refining our understanding of reality , but the subset which we do understand , we understand fairly well .
It has been a very long time since we 've been truly and profoundly wrong -- and even then , we were n't.For example : It was once believed that the earth is flat .
But even this is not particularly wrong .
On the scales most of us deal with in day-to-day life , a flat earth is a good approximation.It was once believed that the sun revolved around the earth .
This is still a good approximation , for most purposes here on the ground .
It is only when we begin to consider the motion of other planets that it becomes important which is which.People often point to Newton being " disproved " by Einstein , as a way to show how " unreliable " modern science is -- usually in an effort to promote some non-science , such as religion or " Intelligent Design " .
What they miss is that Einstein was , for all practical purposes , a refinement of Newton -- the Newtonian equations are at the core of the relativistic ones , and most of the time , we still use Newtonian physics , because it 's still a good approximation and is easier to calculate.So while I agree that there is always more to understand , we should n't pretend we know nothing simply because we do n't know everything.So , going back to what you 've said here : Black hole ?
Maths say they exist - but you will never really know,In the sense that I can " really know " anything beyond the internal consistency of mathematical and logical systems , I can know that black holes exist , until a better explanation comes along .
And as I 've shown , that " better explanation " probably wo n't look that different than the one we have now.For example , it is possible that we are wrong about what the singularity of a black hole looks like .
But it seems unlikely that anything would ever make its way back out -- and if it did , it probably would not come back the way it went in .
Even if black holes were shown to be an entirely different phenomenon , it seems unlikely we 'd show that it is n't somehow swallowing up matter , energy , even light .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are not even really "you" in any sense beyond the illusory narrative created by the mind, to order its disparate sensations.That depends very much by what you mean by "illusion", and what you mean by "you".
If I identify myself as this particular chunk of matter in the state it is at the moment, then yes, I am me.It's like describing a program as an illusion.
In the sense that it abstract, perhaps.
But it does have real, physical consequences -- at the very least, the color of the pixels on your screen (or which ones are lit by how much, if you want to be pedantic).Black hole?
Maths say they exist - but you will never really know... Reality is so totally comprehensive that all of imagination is an infinitesimal subset.Perhaps.
What is your evidence for this?It seems to me that we are refining our understanding of reality, but the subset which we do understand, we understand fairly well.
It has been a very long time since we've been truly and profoundly wrong -- and even then, we weren't.For example: It was once believed that the earth is flat.
But even this is not particularly wrong.
On the scales most of us deal with in day-to-day life, a flat earth is a good approximation.It was once believed that the sun revolved around the earth.
This is still a good approximation, for most purposes here on the ground.
It is only when we begin to consider the motion of other planets that it becomes important which is which.People often point to Newton being "disproved" by Einstein, as a way to show how "unreliable" modern science is -- usually in an effort to promote some non-science, such as religion or "Intelligent Design".
What they miss is that Einstein was, for all practical purposes, a refinement of Newton -- the Newtonian equations are at the core of the relativistic ones, and most of the time, we still use Newtonian physics, because it's still a good approximation and is easier to calculate.So while I agree that there is always more to understand, we shouldn't pretend we know nothing simply because we don't know everything.So, going back to what you've said here:Black hole?
Maths say they exist - but you will never really know,In the sense that I can "really know" anything beyond the internal consistency of mathematical and logical systems, I can know that black holes exist, until a better explanation comes along.
And as I've shown, that "better explanation" probably won't look that different than the one we have now.For example, it is possible that we are wrong about what the singularity of a black hole looks like.
But it seems unlikely that anything would ever make its way back out -- and if it did, it probably would not come back the way it went in.
Even if black holes were shown to be an entirely different phenomenon, it seems unlikely we'd show that it isn't somehow swallowing up matter, energy, even light.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735337</id>
	<title>Or How Quantum Physics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255464360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>became <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal\_affair" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">literary theory</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>Get back to work you lazy sods.</p><p>Yours In Elektrogorsk,<br>Kilgore Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>became literary theory [ wikipedia.org ] .Get back to work you lazy sods.Yours In Elektrogorsk,Kilgore Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>became literary theory [wikipedia.org].Get back to work you lazy sods.Yours In Elektrogorsk,Kilgore Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735207</id>
	<title>What a load of</title>
	<author>shadders</author>
	<datestamp>1255463880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Utter utter bollocks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Utter utter bollocks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Utter utter bollocks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735483</id>
	<title>Disturbing</title>
	<author>TiggertheMad</author>
	<datestamp>1255465140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ewwwwwwww....I think you just described your own grandmother as a GILF.....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ewwwwwwww....I think you just described your own grandmother as a GILF.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ewwwwwwww....I think you just described your own grandmother as a GILF.....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29752921</id>
	<title>Re:So...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255535700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I find it pleasingly apt that the signature beneath this unparsable phrase is a description of a syntax...</p></div><p>With a typo.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it pleasingly apt that the signature beneath this unparsable phrase is a description of a syntax...With a typo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it pleasingly apt that the signature beneath this unparsable phrase is a description of a syntax...With a typo.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735637</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29740093</id>
	<title>Re:Back in high school creative writing class ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255445400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>get your story optioned as tv show dude.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>get your story optioned as tv show dude .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>get your story optioned as tv show dude.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735869</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735713</id>
	<title>Re:Quantum Suidice</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1255466100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Beat me to it.</p><p>The description of the process is a mite sloppy:</p><p><i>Each time he pulls the trigger, the universe is split in two. </i></p><p>You could say that the universe is forever splitting into infinitely many versions every instant, or that the wave function of the universe is getting infinitely more complex every instant... these are just different ways of saying the same thing. The different macroscopic events (you pull the trigger on cartridge or an empty chamber) are the result of these quantum level events, not the cause.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Beat me to it.The description of the process is a mite sloppy : Each time he pulls the trigger , the universe is split in two .
You could say that the universe is forever splitting into infinitely many versions every instant , or that the wave function of the universe is getting infinitely more complex every instant... these are just different ways of saying the same thing .
The different macroscopic events ( you pull the trigger on cartridge or an empty chamber ) are the result of these quantum level events , not the cause .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Beat me to it.The description of the process is a mite sloppy:Each time he pulls the trigger, the universe is split in two.
You could say that the universe is forever splitting into infinitely many versions every instant, or that the wave function of the universe is getting infinitely more complex every instant... these are just different ways of saying the same thing.
The different macroscopic events (you pull the trigger on cartridge or an empty chamber) are the result of these quantum level events, not the cause.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735571</id>
	<title>Ah, says Man</title>
	<author>niks42</author>
	<datestamp>1255465440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>God says "I refuse to prove that I exist, since prove denies faith, and without faith I am nothing" <p>

Ah, says Man "But the Higgs boson is a dead giveaway, isn't it? We found it with our new-fangled LHC and It proves you exist, and therefore you don't. QED!" (waits for puff of smoke, quickly attempts to knock up proof that black is white, identifies location of nearest pedestrian crosswalk) </p><p>

"What Higgs boson? What LHC?" says God, winking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>God says " I refuse to prove that I exist , since prove denies faith , and without faith I am nothing " Ah , says Man " But the Higgs boson is a dead giveaway , is n't it ?
We found it with our new-fangled LHC and It proves you exist , and therefore you do n't .
QED ! " ( waits for puff of smoke , quickly attempts to knock up proof that black is white , identifies location of nearest pedestrian crosswalk ) " What Higgs boson ?
What LHC ?
" says God , winking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God says "I refuse to prove that I exist, since prove denies faith, and without faith I am nothing" 

Ah, says Man "But the Higgs boson is a dead giveaway, isn't it?
We found it with our new-fangled LHC and It proves you exist, and therefore you don't.
QED!" (waits for puff of smoke, quickly attempts to knock up proof that black is white, identifies location of nearest pedestrian crosswalk) 

"What Higgs boson?
What LHC?
" says God, winking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741879
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_148</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29745593
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735699
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_180</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_156</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29740093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741475
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29740863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735891
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_166</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_124</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735693
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_174</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_185</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739387
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_132</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29744485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29752247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_143</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741477
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_145</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29740005
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_153</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735647
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739969
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29749929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_169</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29752233
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_161</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_155</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741811
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_179</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737567
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_171</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737385
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29745211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736077
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739357
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737609
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736339
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_184</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_142</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741611
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739533
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29740433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741565
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_150</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_128</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741817
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_126</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735203
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_160</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736331
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_134</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29768147
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29752735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741993
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29742483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29740235
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29774363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735203
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29742353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29756037
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_163</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29753377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737253
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_121</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735989
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29740019
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_173</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_139</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29747425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_131</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_123</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736553
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_182</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29742603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_158</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736537
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_133</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735513
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_144</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29822177
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739499
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29820947
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_168</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737215
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29746005
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738361
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_152</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738711
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741739
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_176</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29743177
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_162</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739667
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_147</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29751407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_157</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29740815
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29750571
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741273
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29740545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29750641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736957
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741833
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29742873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735203
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29742023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29748053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29742303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736147
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_178</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736369
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737181
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29743235
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_136</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_122</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739725
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736991
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_149</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737661
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_130</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29750745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_141</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737147
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_165</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29742575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_159</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737153
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735837
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_151</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29742999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29752967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29752601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_175</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_167</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29752669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_125</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737287
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736805
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735941
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737561
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_177</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738979
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29746543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_135</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_146</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29742141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738405
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_154</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29742891
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_140</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736579
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29743573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29752125
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29819911
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_164</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741729
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_138</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_172</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736343
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_183</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29752025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_170</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735367
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_181</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736151
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29820423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736489
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29752921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29744161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_129</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29745031
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735203
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_127</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29747559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_1826206_137</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1826206.40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735175
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29746543
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29745593
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735513
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29740005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735693
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735601
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736489
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739939
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736803
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29743235
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741833
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29743177
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737585
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741059
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29750745
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739841
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736529
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737119
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736483
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736991
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736793
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735437
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737609
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736173
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29742141
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1826206.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736831
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735367
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736151
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735483
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735297
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735837
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737939
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29747425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735577
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737785
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735301
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736327
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1826206.37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735591
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29751407
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29742999
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738497
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741729
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1826206.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735203
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736059
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29742023
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735763
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1826206.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736995
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1826206.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735305
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1826206.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735163
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737017
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29750571
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29752735
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735869
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737195
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29820423
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737471
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29750641
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741273
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737661
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736553
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738913
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739907
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736537
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736603
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29752601
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739357
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736343
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29740093
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737323
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29752669
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736789
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738405
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737253
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736331
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735753
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737963
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735605
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1826206.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735195
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736155
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1826206.45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735347
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1826206.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735399
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736369
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1826206.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735561
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1826206.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737001
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1826206.42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735171
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735637
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29752921
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735927
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737287
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1826206.38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738639
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1826206.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735381
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741879
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736407
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737299
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735921
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736009
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737109
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1826206.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735261
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735625
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736505
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735441
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29742575
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737525
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735557
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736147
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739411
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1826206.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735747
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29742603
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1826206.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735487
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29774363
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738979
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736153
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29747559
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739533
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736003
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738361
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29742353
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738925
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29742873
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735989
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737523
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736809
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737561
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1826206.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735477
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29756037
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741993
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1826206.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737857
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1826206.39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736101
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1826206.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735403
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741475
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1826206.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735595
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1826206.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735465
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1826206.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735197
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1826206.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735241
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735385
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738921
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739969
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29740433
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735397
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29746005
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29740019
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29752233
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735651
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736579
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738711
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735507
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736353
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741811
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739079
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1826206.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735267
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29740863
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737147
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735793
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735891
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735713
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29740545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737341
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736657
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736543
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735647
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739667
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736413
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1826206.44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735963
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1826206.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735289
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739725
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738873
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29745031
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29768147
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1826206.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736685
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1826206.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735273
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735847
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1826206.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735211
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29752967
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738375
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736339
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1826206.41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735673
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1826206.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29745735
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1826206.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735307
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29748053
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735519
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737877
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737153
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739033
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738083
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29749929
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737385
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735887
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741477
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1826206.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735525
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739387
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29742303
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741519
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737215
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739025
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737181
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1826206.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735245
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1826206.36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29742815
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1826206.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735287
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29819911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741611
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1826206.43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736847
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1826206.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735387
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736113
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29744161
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737567
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29745211
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736805
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735699
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736077
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29820947
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738907
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741737
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1826206.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735157
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735275
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29739059
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736659
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741565
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29744485
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29752247
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736697
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735619
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29753377
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29742891
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29740815
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29743573
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29752125
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29752025
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738999
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29740235
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29738187
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741817
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735255
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735433
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735941
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737629
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736507
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736521
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736703
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736957
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735463
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736461
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737197
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1826206.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735389
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1826206.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735165
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29737409
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29742483
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29822177
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29735877
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29741739
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1826206.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29740841
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_1826206.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_1826206.29736525
</commentlist>
</conversation>
